Elections 2012 [third-party candidate option added]

[Phytotron]

Did you watch the daily show segment with Netanyahu at the UN assembly?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-s ... bore-games

I liked how Jon's Andrew Dice Clay impression sounded like his Jerry Lewis impression.

Yeah, Netanyahoo is indeed a lunatic. So is Ahmadinejad, of course. So, wee? ...and we all fall down!


EDIT: Damnit, page break, heh. I have a whole other big post preceding this one. Go back.

[sinewav]

Yeah, Netanyahoo is indeed a lunatic. So is Ahmadinejad, of course. So, wee? ...and we all fall down!

Yes, and they both make me extremely nervous. Everything going on right now between Israel and Iran, the buildup in the Persian Gulf, the elections, are making me very anxious about October. I even exaggerated to a friend that this is almost like my generation's Cuban Missile Crisis. Seems like the more rational people are keeping things at bay, but wow, not liking the state of affairs right now. Pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing.

[Phytotron]

I even exaggerated to a friend that this is almost like my generation's Cuban Missile Crisis.

Well, fortunately, I would say that is quite an exaggeration. Things aren't nearly as volatile or tenuous as they were then; I mean, they were right there on the brink during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Netanyayhoo was exaggerating, too, with respect to how close Iran is to being nuclear. 'Course, I think a lot of people in our generation and older still have a Cold War hangover. Any mention of nukes and "oh, shit!" Went to the no-nukes rally....

One significant comfort we can take is that Ahmadinejad, crazy and boisterous as he is, doesn't actually have much power in Iran, particular over military or foreign and nuclear policy. It's all about the Supreme Leader there. And strange as it is to say these days, given the past with Khomeini, Khamenei and his clerics are actually the more moderating force when it comes to nukes, having even issued a fatwa against them (for whatever that's worth).

Also, I would like to see more support for the secular reform/liberation movement in Iran, which is fairly sizable. Although, too overt and you get the whole "stop meddling in other countries' affairs!" thing. Can't win for losing. People bash ya for not jumping in somewhere, then for when you so much as dip your toe in.

[Lucifer]

I think if Israel and Iran start firing at each other we'll see a line of Russian and Chinese tanks run down the middle with anti-aircraft and bombers and fighters and shit, with half pointing at Iran and the other half pointing at Israel, and Putin will walk down the line dragging his testicles in the sand and saying "Cut it out or I'll make each of you lick the sand off my nuts!"

You know, right before the UN forces arrive and take over the mission.

Conversely, if we preemptively invade Iran like we did in Iraq, I would expect to see Russian bombers in our skies within a year and the very real threat of a nuclear war.

[sinewav]

Went to the no-nukes rally....

Yeah I know it's not that bad, but sometimes I get lost in the headlines. With the United States' past history of unjust wars I don't have a lot of confidence things will be Ok, even though it is completely obvious what a bad idea attacking Iran is. Still, we have dopes like Mitt Romney saying "yeah let's bomb 'em!" and a majority of Americans who are completely ignorant on foreign affairs, who don't know the difference between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Taliban, the difference between Shi'a and Sunni, the difference between Arabs and Persians, or even what a "Kurd" is. Makes me sad and worrisome. Ignorance is dangerous.

[Phytotron]

With the "debate" set to begin in an hour, there's one other major campaign reform I neglected to mention that needs to occur. We need to dissolve the farce that is the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the stupid rules that come with it. We need to go back to organizations like the League of Women Voters running the debates. C-SPAN would be a good one, too. Brian Lamb might make a good moderator.

I think this is the site I had in my old bookmarks: Open Debates.

[Word]

Well, Turkey started to attack Syria yesterday, and nobody of Assad's buddies reacted.

@Phytotron: I'm not sure if this makes sense, but how about legalizing communist parties in the US again? Just to remind Republicans what real communism is...

[compguygene]

The Communist Party of America http://www.cpusa.org/ is still around. It has been harassed, but never shut down.

Yes. The right to belong to the Communist Party is protected by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

But vigilance to protect these fundamental democratic rights of the American people has been needed throughout our nation's history as corporate interests have repeatedly attempted to outlaw the Communist Party (along with other progressive groups such as trade unions, civil rights groups, etc.)

From the Palmer raids of the 1920s through the McCarthy witchhunts of the 40s and 50s, to today's rabid radio talk show hosts, right wing politicians and corporate interests have never stopped trying to intimidate workers by making it seem that being a communist or favoring socialism and workers rights is illegal. Nevertheless, in recent years many states, counties, unions and other organizations continue to replace outdated anti-Communist clauses with more democratic and inclusive policies.

[Phytotron]

@Phytotron: I'm not sure if this makes sense, but how about legalizing communist parties in the US again? Just to remind Republicans what real communism is...

Where did you get the idea that communist parties were ever made illegal here? No political party ever has (to my knowledge), or could be, made illegal here. Are you confusing the Hollywood blacklist or something?

There are actually several different communist and socialist parties in the US, beyond just the CPUSA. Indeed, we have a US Senator who, while not formally belonging to any party, is an avowed democratic socialist (that is, not communist—don't want to conflate the two). Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Good man, one of my few favorites. They're not all corrupt bums.

[Word]

I don't remember where I read that...I used to think communists weren't allowed to immigrate to the US and never really doubted that because here you don't really read anything about today's communists (or their parties) in the US, except if you search for it, which I did now.
I've read about workers unions, but now in the election year there seems to be no coverage of the communists - probably because they're so unpopular and aren't seen as typically American/patriotic by default, I assume. Have I ever mentioned that I went to the same school as Marx (and Klaus Barbie, the butcher of Lyon)? We got regularly visits from Chinese tourists...*(and knowing a little about communism was obligatory due to this)

[Phytotron]

I've read about workers unions, but now in the election year there seems to be no coverage of the communists....

Most media, especially the mainstream media, don't cover anyone besides the duopoly, especially on the national level, unless they make some real noise, as Perot and Nader did. It is true that the communist party in the US is rather insignificant—I'm not sure whether there are any holding office, even at the local level somewhere—but they do exist.

I went to the same high school as Mitch McConnell and Nicole Scherzinger.
(Despite that, it's nevertheless an excellent school, honestly.)


Also:

[Word]

Just wondering, do the TV debates matter to anyone here?

(as in: Did they change your opinion about any candidate?)

[sinewav]

Just wondering, do the TV debates matter to anyone here?

(as in: Did they change your opinion about any candidate?)

Yes, they have changed my opinion on the candidates, just not enough to change my vote. I like the debates. It is interesting to see the talking points side-by-side. Although, there are usually a few key issues that are unchanging per party platform and that is why my vote doesn't change.

[Phytotron]

Yes, they have changed my opinion on the candidates....

How?

The first one especially only reinforced what I thought about each of them. The Democratic party is still controlled by the DLC New Democrats, of which Obama is a member. Ineffectual, centrist, spineless, saying a lot of nothing; no vision, just management. As far as Rmoney, it was the best display yet of the audacity of his mendacity. He's spent the past year-plus running as a "severe conservative," pandering to the Tea Party, never saying "no" to anything the Republican base told him. Then, all of a sudden, he pivoted to moderate, bipartisan healer. Not even really a Republican, but a pragmatic manager. All of a sudden, if something was popular, he was for it; if it was unpopular, he was against it. I think this partially explains Obama's performance. He prepared for the Mitt Rmoney of the last 6 years. Some other dude stepped on stage and Obama didn't know what to make of it. Even Rmoney's own campaign staff came out following the debate and clarified that he didn't really mean all of what he said. But this has been their strategy all along; it's taking the baton of Rovian politics and running further with it: State outright falsehoods when the biggest audience is on you, then come out later and say, "lol not rly nvrmind." They know that most people don't follow up the corrections, clarifications, and fact-checking. People look at the headline on the front page; they don't pay attention to the little corrections box surrounded by ads on page 8 the next day. So just put anything out there, see if it'll stick, try anything once, because that's all people pay attention to.

As for the VP debate, Biden was Biden, so nothing changed there. And Ryan continued to exhibit the cognitive dissonance he's wrestling with between his desire and conviction to be a hard right-winger and be honest about it on the one hand, and tow the line of lies of the Rmoney campaign on the other. At least Biden stood up to it—the "lot of stuff," as he called it—where Obama didn't. We'll see what happens tonight.

Now, the real question is, does the following change your opinion of Paul Ryan:

[sinewav]

Yes, they have changed my opinion on the candidates....

How?

For Romney, I was just surprised at how on top of the game he was. To me, he's always been the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. When I compare his performance to John McCain, I think "oh, he's got a lot of spirit!" But seeing "moderate Mitt" step out from behind the shadows was both refreshing and appalling. He seemed a little less crazy than when he was trying to secure the nomination (good), but at the same time, seems like the biggest liar sleazeball ever (very, very bad).

For Obama I was off put by his lackadaisical performance. I mean, this is the guy running the country? Bleh. However, at the same time I was able to connect with him on a human level I guess. I know it sounds absurd, but I can imagine what his life has been like for the past 4 years and all the crap he has had to deal with. In my short lifetime I can't think if another time when a sitting president has had to deal with so much resistance, so much nonsense (birthers, calling him a Muslim socialist -- which doesn't make any sense whatsoever). Obama seemed more vulnerable and more "real" for lack of a better word. It made me even more conflicted, which is how I feel about his presidency, both loving it and hating it simultaneously. There were a lot of policies put forth in the past 4 years. Some of which I say "hell yeah, 'bout time" and others I'm like "grrr wtf! what is the matter with you!!!!!"