Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

There is no wasted vote when you turn out to vote, ever, period.

Not turning out to vote is a wasted vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a wasted vote. Vote for who you believe in. If you don't believe in the the two options, vote for someone else and write them in if you have to.

If you're telling me I have to choose murderer or prospective murderer, I'm going to vote for not-a-murderer. If that's "Throwing away my vote," so fucking be it. I will not vote for more blood on my hands. We've already had too much of washing Bush and Obama's away.

[Armando]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Most Americans dont turn out to vote at all. What does that tell you?

That's not the point. The solution has to work under all circumstances, not just the present set of circumstances. If not enough people vote for NOTA, they threw their vote away just like any other third option under single vote system. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a NOTA option, but you need to change the way the winner is chosen too because it obviously fails under some circumstances.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

That would depend on a majority hating all options though. If that doesn't happen, you haven't solved anything and it's the same any other third candidate.

Most Americans dont turn out to vote at all. What does that tell you?

Its disapproval, disenfranchisment. They don't feel included in the process, so they've stopped participating in it. Its not that they don't care, they just see the shit for the shit and know they don't really have a choice or a voice.

If all options were on the table - Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Libertarian, NOTA - who's throwing their vote away at that point? It all means something.

[Armando]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

That would depend on a majority hating all options though. If that doesn't happen, you haven't solved anything and it's the same any other third candidate.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

At the risk of making an ass out of myself (didn't follow US politics much when I lived in PR), isn't it? You hate A, and B is OK but you still don't like that option either. Then C appears with a similar platform to B, but better. Some of B's voters vote for C, now A wins by a landslide. Isn't the solution to move away from a single vote system? I don't see what voting third party is going to achieve other than help one of the two mainstream candidates win.

It wouldn't really be an issue if there was a fourth option:

None of the above - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is, essentially, that a third party fucks with the "You must choose one of these two guys" thing. If the majority were to vote for McGuffin, they have to start all over or move someone up temporarily from another office lest the position remain vacant. Imagine the damage that would do to the corrupt aspects of the process, particularly campaign financing - a double loss means both sides have to pay their interests back or persuade them for another round. You can't just keep having fundraisers forever, though. Vladimir Putin saw how effective it was prior to his election, so he abolished it, but if we could get that option in and it couldn't be removed elections would go into overtime until someone people actually liked won.

At least it wouldn't be about hanging chads, voter fraud, keeping third parties out of debates. The binary approach is fiscally attractive. The forced either/or approach give us no real options.

Until then a vote for Obamney is a vote for Obamney. Nothing changes if you vote for these two except maybe-possibly-but-not-probable-at-all Roe v Wade at worst. Everything else will still suck.

Also, one of the biggest reasons we have people that don't vote is disenfranchisement. Neither option is desirable. For example, my sister refuses to vote. She's not interested and does not like either guy so she just won't vote at all. I am, however, voting so how can it be argued I'm throwing my vote away? Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are about as close to "None of the above" as it gets.

If people had the choice to pick NOTA, however, voter turnout would probably increase. If they can just say all these options suck and it meant something, they'd feel like they actually did have a say in things.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

At the risk of making an ass out of myself (didn't follow US politics much when I lived in PR), isn't it? You hate A, and B is OK but you still don't like that option either. Then C appears with a similar platform to B, but better. Some of B's voters vote for C, now A wins by a landslide. Isn't the solution to move away from a single vote system? I don't see what voting third party is going to achieve other than help one of the two mainstream candidates win.

That's the problem, that's all it realistically accomplishes at the moment.

[Armando]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Had one of those fun "voting third party is throwing a vote away" talks with family today.

At the risk of making an ass out of myself (didn't follow US politics much when I lived in PR), isn't it? You hate A, and B is OK but you still don't like that option either. Then C appears with a similar platform to B, but better. Some of B's voters vote for C, now A wins by a landslide. Isn't the solution to move away from a single vote system? I don't see what voting third party is going to achieve other than help one of the two mainstream candidates win.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Ouch

Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney; Here's Some Atrocious Decisions He Should Explain - Hit & Run : Reason.com

He should also be asked to answer for at least a few of the following:

Why does Obama's Justice Department continue to raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and to ignore the will of voters in states where medical marijuana is legal?
Why has he condemned police brutality during the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, but failed to condemn a single act of police brutatlity in the United States, particularly the murder of Kelly Thomas and the murder-by-torture of Nick Christie?
Why does he allow the Department of Defense to distribute military grade weapons and equipment to local police departments?
Why has he done nothing to reunite the roughly 5,100 children ripped from their deported parents and placed in American foster care?
Why has he done nothing to curtail the frequent humiliations and abuses Americans are subjected to by the Transportation Security Administration?
Why has he allowed his Justice Department to defend the right of DEA agents to shackle young children at gunpoint?
Why did he give himself--and by extension, future presidents--the leeway necessary to indefinitely detain Americans?
When he reduced the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack, why did he reduce it from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, and not just 1-to-1?
Why has he commuted only one federal drug sentence in nearly four years?
Why has he permitted his FDA to conduct armed raids on Amish farms that sell raw milk?
Why did his party eliminate nearly all mentions of civil liberties from its 2012 platform, and in the process, soften the party's long-stated opposition to torture?
Why has privileged the regulatory powers of the EPA over the due process rights of American citizens?

Obama really just wants to drag out the abortion issue to raise tensions among voters, possibly also gay marriage, the latter of which is a difficult position for both to address given all the flip-flops they've made. To his credit, Romney did find loopholes in the state judical and legislative side of things to make gay marriages happen when he was governor. Obama has done what there exactly, aside from change his mind on an election year?

In fact, I find the whole pro-gay Democrat trend to be a be anemic. Obama got a rousing applause from his base when he stated marriage was between a man and a woman, the Prop 8 vote wasn't exactly won by Republicans alone and its still banned in 42 states and my state was an Democrat stronghold state until 2010, so I don't buy for a second that this was just voted on by conservative Tea party types.

And we supposedly dumped Osama's body in the ocean. No photo evidence that's who it was as to "not offend Muslims" because as we all know he was a real stand-up "religion of peace" kind of guy. I suppose no more videos means we did get him, but proof would have been nice. Obama was respectful enough to not provide proof, but at the same time more than happy to spike the football and do an endzone dance.

Also Fast and Furious. Whoops.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

One signed away due process and the other will maintain that new status quo - there is no lesser evil here, only equal evil.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

I still maintain that Bill Maher is right in a few of his assertions, that while Obama has been a disappointment with regards to some things on his own merit (like the increased crackdowns on medical marijuana, which is just mind-boggling given his personal history with the stuff) a lot of it has been because of Congress, and specifically with regards to health care, even his own party.

However, on that point, there have been past presidents (FDR, and most famously LBJ) who fought tooth & nail and did everything in their power to reach out to them and get them to see their way with things. At the same time, while FDR also faced extreme opposition, it wasn't anything quite like the shit Obama's had to deal with - I mean you literally have people on the other side who have pledged never to compromise on anything no matter what. That would be your so-called "Tea Party" candidates like Rand Paul (who's every bit as crazy as his father but with far less experience due to his youth and quite frankly, the old man seems to be a bit more charismatic - I actually like the guy, while his son just gets on my nerves).

You also have to come to grips with just how much these assholes control the country. It more or less is a plutocracy now, the super wealthy are pretty much in control and there are very few people willing to stand up to them. Obama's not an idiot, he's not going to jeopordize himself or his family. He cares, but he's also got plenty to lose. Romney on the other hand is an empty-suit - he'll do whatever they tell him and that doesn't seem to bother him one bit. It's why Jesse Ventura is only going to run if has enough support. He who has the gold makes the rules.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Third party candidates need stronger campaigns and some air time if they are to have any hope of getting elected. That hasn't really happened with this election.

What value is there to be had in voting for a third party candidate this year?

I'd love to do so, but from a pragmatic standpoint the best course of action is to use my vote to keep the greater of the two evils from getting elected.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

If we accept the system is corrupt, our options inadequate and tell every third party person to go home and not try nothing will get better or ever change. Some to get elected at the city, state and federal level.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Had one of those fun "voting third party is throwing a vote away" talks with family today. What it really comes down to is "Boo hoo you're not voting for my guy, so you're really voting for the other guy by voting for that guy."

This is something I've been struggling with.

The Romney/Ryan ticket is something I absolutely do not want getting near the white house. On the other hand, I don't feel like Obama has done an adequate job of protecting my interests.

When the race is between two candidates voting third party is roughly equivalent to not even showing up to the polls on election day. The third party candidates aren't going to win. We know they aren't going to win. They haven't had enough media presence for most voters to even be aware of their existence much less their positions on any issues.

I'd love to vote third party this election, but I don't know if I can do it in good conscience knowing that it could help Romney get elected. Especially since I'm in a swing state.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Had one of those fun "voting third party is throwing a vote away" talks with family today. What it really comes down to is "Boo hoo you're not voting for my guy, so you're really voting for the other guy by voting for that guy."

Or butthurt. I almost used that word.

I think if you can concede that Obama and Romney are not the best for your the two parties parties that then you must concede third party candidates are also viable options as well. I can understand if it were people that broke from party ranks as sore losers to run third party, but that's not really who Nadar, Stein or Johnson are. It wasn't even what Ross Perot was, he didn't have a party and got 10% of the vote.

In fact, its kind of funny, since Perot was totally right about NAFTA and what it would do, but pride prevented people from admitting it even fifteen years later in the 2007 democrat primary debates.

I don't have vague memories about that whole "giant sucking sound" thing.

----------------------------

Of interest today was actress/model (of Clueless, among other things) Stacy Dash recently tweeting her intent to vote for Mitt Romney, and drawing a slew of misogynistic comments for stating this. Of course, the press hasn't given her nearly as much focus as they did Sandra Fluke for being called a "slut." Dash has been called that and worse.

She's even been called "Aunt Jemima" for it...

If that's Aunt Jemima, mother of God, can I be pancakes?

She's 46, btw.

[DakAttack]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

I would also like to add that in the U.K., doctors are actually paid according to how well their patients are doing correct? There's incentive pay to actively enforce preventative health care.

That's another massive problem with the system in the U.S. - it's like 90% reactionary. It costs far more to fix a problem once it's occurred than to prevent it from happening in the first place. And yes Ray, you really do make a hell of a lot more money in the private sector vs a system like ours. Hell, it's gotten to the point where you have doctors trying to maximize their profits by minimizing the time spent with their patients.

Also, as far as going anywhere for fast, efficient care, more and more people are going to India - not the U.S., for things like major operations.

Preventative care is difficult. Most jobs discourage employees from taking time off unless they're sick. Some will fire you if you're "too sick". Most doctors are completely booked by people who are already sick, so even if you did find the time for a preventative care visit you'd find it difficult making an appointment on short notice. The most we get for prevention is the yearly physical, if you even bother with it.

Also, there are a lot of schemes doctors use to maximize their profits, one of which abuses the fact that certain doctors receive pay from insurance companies by simply booking an appointment. They'll stack these patients all on the same day, cancel all the appointments, reschedule, and finally see them (maybe) for a minimum of three pay-outs. I can't blame them; they get blasted in the ass by fees or insurance associated with malpractice, even if they haven't done anything wrong.