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

[Yellow Mage]

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

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Bush went "screw politics, I'm going home" January 2009. That's probably one of the few things he shouldn't be blamed for.

[Murphie]

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

I think it says a lot that Clinton is doing commercials for Obama, but you don't see Bush doing commercials for Romney. Because one, the GOP doesn't want to remind people of Bush. Right now they're busy trying to blame Obama for Bush's failings. And two, I don't know that they could get Bush or any past Republican president still living to back him.

[Malacite]

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

That's why Jon Stewart's bit last night about Clint was so damned brilliant.

Clint inadvertently laid bare the bullshit truth that the Republicans have been hiding all along. He broke the cardinal rule, lol, which is to NEVER tell the public what they're really planning or why. Their whole strategy has been Nazi propaganda for years now; and no I'm not saying they're Nazi's they're just using the same tactic - repeat the lie enough and it becomes the truth. Rather than face reality, and try to make any real changes, it's far more convenient to try and change the debate to suit yourself. Again, Jon Stewart & Jon Oliver had a terrific bit on this.

I'd put Obama in the top 5 for sure. Has he fucked up? Certainly, he's made a few decisions I seriously question and IMO, totally picked the wrong fight - he should have sided with Larry Summers and not Geitner but it's too late now. But the guy's consistently put out a well-thought out and compelling platform - just hasn't always done a great job of explaining it to everyone. Not everyone checks for unbiased sources or live streams of your events, Mr. President (which again, CNN is a real piece of shit for that. They cover his amazing live Q&A's, but only online - they almost never air more than a few minutes of it because, well, that would be sensible.)

Anyways, yeah Clinton did some good but he's just as complicit in this mess as Bush Reagan or Nixon and it's the fucking pot calling the kettle. Need I remind you it was Clinton who signed the repeal of Glass Stegal, undoing the last of the lessons learned after the 1920's. Clinton still has that way of connecting with people though, and that's something you just can't learn I don't think - you either got or you don't. I don't think he's all bad either, he does do a lot really good charity work - it's just hard to watch him go on about what the Right's doing when he's just as guilty as they are.

With Obama, it's just that he picked the wrong fight (health care) over the bigger issue (Wallstreet) when they were basically at his mercy. Now they're solvent and can pretty much tell him (and Congress) to go fly a kite.

tl;dr no one is perfect, but it's not a hard decision when one guy genuinely at least means well and the other guy ​is fucking nuts.

[Murphie]

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

Now that I think about it, isn't the entire Democratic party platform just "We're not Republicans!" at this point?

Well, the republicans aren't exactly making it difficult, but no, that's not the platform.

- - - Updated - - -

One could argue that the US has "gone stupid" quite some time ago, in regards to who it elects. Obama's years in office shows he truly was unfit to be nominated. I have absolutely no faith left in Obama, especially on the economy. The excuse that you where giving a bad economic situation, doesn't excuse your own awful economic polices. Not to mention other countries leaders were given situations far worse than yourself, yet managed to greatly improve their nations. He has shown me little to nothing that would lead me seeing why he earned a noble peace prize, let alone being elected/re-elected to the President to a power such as the United States.

The main problem with I have with Mitt Romney is his foreign policy ideas. I wouldn't consider Obama's foreign policy in any sense of the word, but have even less faith in Romany's foreign policy. Throwing the idea that you are going to start a trade war with PRC is rather stupid. Than even at times talking like you wish to create a new cold war with the Russia Federation and the PRC, is even more stupid and even scary. Something tells me, given the current economic position of most US western Europe allies, they're not going to be too keen on supporting you on that. Especially given their trade with the two countries in this era and even going to them for economic help. None of this is going to help the US economy.

It's sad when have to wonder who is not going to be the least damaging. If the situation does not change in very big ways, the US decline is not going to be reversible. Which spells disaster for the rest of the word, now that our nations are so linked together. Not only the leadership of the nation, but the everyday people will have to make sacrifices. The US has been living above its means for some time.

Your opinions are wrong. And bad.

How can you say anything about Romney's platform or position or promises or intentions when the man flat out hasn't stated any? Sure, the GOP has a platform, which mostly is anti-women, anti-gay, anti-minority in general, hugely theocratic, and worst of all, mostly built around imagined failings of Obama. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have failings, but the GOP sure as hell isn't highlighting any of them. We Built It? Way to take a comment out of context, build an entire day of your laughingstock of a convention around it and prove to everyone who has a brain that you guys have no fucking chance of winning this election.

Obama is not the best president we've ever had. He's not even the best of the last five. That was Clinton. But he's far better than Bush was, and the country is better off with him in office than we were prior to 2008. The fact of the matter was, he was dealt an incredibly shitty hand, and he's made the best he can of it. He ended one war, plans to end the other, has spent as little money as possible, has ended DADT, has removed Bin Laden, has outright said as the first President ever that he's ok with gays marrying, and has really tried his best to do what he can with what he's been given. I can't say the man is perfect, but I can say he most assuredly deserves four more years. ESPECIALLY when you consider the alternatives.

[Shygirl]

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

One could argue that the US has "gone stupid" quite some time ago, in regards to who it elects. Obama's years in office shows he truly was unfit to be nominated. I have absolutely no faith left in Obama, especially on the economy. The excuse that you where giving a bad economic situation, doesn't excuse your own awful economic polices. Not to mention other countries leaders were given situations far worse than yourself, yet managed to greatly improve their nations. He has shown me little to nothing that would lead me seeing why he earned a noble peace prize, let alone being elected/re-elected to the President to a power such as the United States.

The main problem with I have with Mitt Romney is his foreign policy ideas. I wouldn't consider Obama's foreign policy in any sense of the word, but have even less faith in Romany's foreign policy. Throwing the idea that you are going to start a trade war with PRC is rather stupid. Than even at times talking like you wish to create a new cold war with the Russia Federation and the PRC, is even more stupid and even scary. Something tells me, given the current economic position of most US western Europe allies, they're not going to be too keen on supporting you on that. Especially given their trade with the two countries in this era and even going to them for economic help. None of this is going to help the US economy.

It's sad when have to wonder who is not going to be the least damaging. If the situation does not change in very big ways, the US decline is not going to be reversible. Which spells disaster for the rest of the word, now that our nations are so linked together. Not only the leadership of the nation, but the everyday people will have to make sacrifices. The US has been living above its means for some time.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

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

Obama lives on lobbiests, same as any politician. Saying you'd ban them isn't far removed from saying you'd accept stronger congressional term limits and no special interest groups funding campaigns.

These are things to say, they never get fixed.

Though for two of those issues, they're irreversibly tied to freedom of expression. I may not like lobbiests or political attack ads, but there is some good to be done even with sleazy lobbiests (if the price is right for them) and the problem with attack ads and campaign finance is no on is held accountable.

I think there was a stat somewhere that showed Obama and Romney have spent more campaigning than they'll likely ever budget for education when in office. Imagine all the good that could be done if those that claimed to have out best interests at heart actually did something with thier money to show it.

[Raydeus]

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

Lobbying will probably never die until they start putting politicians and lobbysit in prison for fraud, corruption and all the nice things that come from it.

Also, Corporations are NOT people. Because if they were someone would've murdered them already.

[Malacite]

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

Dunno if I agree on the Libertarian part, if being Libertarian were a true tenant, they'd maintain marriage wasn't a state institution to start with and its no one's damn business who you marry. Libertarians also tend to believe in a strong national defense, not that we're the world's police.

For once I think we actually agree. I think it's more that Libertarians just have more in common with the Right, and so they gravitate towards them - it's out of necessity and not so much really identifying with the group as whole. Otherwise you wouldn't see people like Ron Paul standing up to some of the most revered doctrine of the party.

I don't agree with all the assessments of the wheeling & dealing either; If that were true then so many of America's greatest accomplishments would never have happened, including the nation's founding. It's only really in more recent years (the later half of the 20th century) and I would imagine around the time of the civil war obviously, that things have broken down so badly. There's been pockets of it here & there but generally there's been a sense of country first & fighting for what you genuinely believe in, not so much selfish gain.

For a long time there weren't many people who wanted to even run for office because there wasn't the material gain to be had like there is now. So I for one, fucking Applaud Obama for going on Reddit the other day, fielding questions, and coming out and saying he wants to finally ban lobbying. It's about goddamn time someone in a position of real authority said it. He also wants to overturn citizens united via constitutional amendment, or failing that change the laws to require the listing of every single donor. The money will still be unlimited, but the people giving it won't be able to hide anymore.

[Yellow Mage]

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

Now that I think about it, isn't the entire Democratic party platform just "We're not Republicans!" at this point?

[Raydeus]

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

Politics are like the free market. No competition, no progress and only corruption awaits. The moment the corporations put their 2 puppet parties in place voting became irrelevant. All they need to do is convince you that you only have 2 choices and they win.

Or: Welcome to 3rd world politics, amigos!

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

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

In that sense, Democrats and Republicans really rely on each other to stay in power. In other senses, they may as well be the same super-party: the party of money in politics.

When people say "Voting third party is throwing your vote away" they practically concede this point. Its not like there's a greater good within a binary, its always the lesser of two evils but still evil.

Yet part of the problem is Democrats and Republicans do EVERYTHING they can to get third party candidates denied. To me, they've been the same party for a long, long time. Now most of them seem content to flush us down the toilet while they can still have a comfortable retirement.

[Yellow Mage]

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

I'm not saying the Democrats are blameless, because they certainly do shit that make me facepalm, but I would like to see what they could actually accomplish if they weren't constantly cockblocked by the GOP.

Didn't they have a congressional supermajority at one point relatively recently?

Lewis Black said it best when he said that Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.



Concerning the OP specifically, Romney was, is, and will always be little more than a footnote. The important thing to take note here is that the Republican party as a whole is on a violent path of self-destruction on a grander scale than the likes of Sony could even dream. When blatant lies, fascist appeals to bigotry, and false religious appeals (arguably little more than trolling) are the only things that get you attention; when large sums of corporate money are the only engine keeping you rolling (though, not that Democrats are any more innocent of this, or at least the ones who wish to stay competitive in what's quickly becoming a plutocracy); it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that you're desperate. When everyone realizes this, there will be a power vacuum, once people take notice of the implication that the Democratic party will become the only "reliable" party to vote for, and how blatantly un-Democratic it is to have only one "real" choice offered up by some wanton organization.

In that sense, Democrats and Republicans really rely on each other to stay in power. In other senses, they may as well be the same super-party: the party of money in politics.

Of course, now the Republican part of this false dichotomy is falling apart at the seams. One could see from several miles away that Romney would inevitably be the guy that they fell for, but he really is "more of the same" stuff that's destroying his very party . . . and all that, while even being more moderate than his peers! The party's obvious "shifting the window" ploy is going to backfire, and hard. If the Republican party still wanted to exist for the foreseeable future; if they wanted to keep up this two-party charade . . . they honestly really should have nominated Ron Paul--not for Paul himself, but to give the party a new image, even if it is Libertarianism. It would be a huge improvement for them, even, to have a guy who is only certifiable half of the time; the "sticking to your guns" aspect of Paul would have been a nice bonus, too. (Especially when contrasted with Romney . . .)

Of course, the GOP absolutely couldn't stand the prospect of keeping Government out of your bedroom. That would've been too much.

So instead, that actually adopted one of the insane-half of Ron Paul's ideas to their party platform at a blatant and failed attempt at concession/assimilation: a considered return to a gold standard.

So Obama, in spite of a markedly mediocre first term (though far from the worst President EVAR), is all but certain to win in 2012. The media (which is, of course, bought out by the same kind of people who bought the two-party system, and as a result tends to ignore the likes of Paul who could possibly change anything about it, even for the better) will undoubtedly imply Romney's position in second place, though he will get maybe 30-ish% and Obama maybe 60-ish%, but there is going to be that subplot of a third candidate getting a relatively large double-digit% of the popular vote (the electoral college is, of course, rigged against third parties). It won't be long before the Republican party as we know it collapses completely. We just need someone who isn't a Democrat (and thus relies on Republicans to be non-competitive) to deal them a decisive finishing blow. I've little doubt that we'll see no less change in the US political system than that in our lifetimes.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

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

1. The Evangelical + Methodist Christians
2. Business
3. Libertarian
4. Military.

Dunno if I agree on the Libertarian part, if being Libertarian were a true tenant, they'd maintain marriage wasn't a state institution to start with and its no one's damn business who you marry. Libertarians also tend to believe in a strong national defense, not that we're the world's police.

[Malacite]

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

Republicans have one goal, to keep everyone stupid, scared poor and sick for their own perpetual self gains

FTFY. It wasn't always that way, and not all republicans are bad - just the good ones (Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks etc) are rarely heard.

[Aeni]

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

Republicans have one goal, to protect their money and their ability to make it. They care for nothing else and will make any and every back room deal no matter how small the pay-off.

There are 4 major components in the "Republican Tent".

1. The Evangelical + Methodist Christians
2. Business
3. Libertarian
4. Military

Right now, the way they operate is just a sequence of compromises built upon overlapping common interests. I would say that their common interests are more secure than those of the democrats, as seen by the incoherency and in-house bickering on the left.

The issue of the LGBT is not just a matter of "Right vs Left", because there are those that condemn the LGBT community on the left, primarily those of minorities (African American and Latino communities among the strongest opposition - because of their strong spiritual/religious inclinations, e.g., Catholic, Methodist, Islam, etc) The only reason that the left seems to "wholly" embrace the LGBT community is the "let's not talk about it out here" kind of policy. In other words, the friction exists, just not out in plain view (or in other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend - for now)

Politics is all about special interest and compromises. There's nothing grand or honorable about what goes on in the back-room where deals are cut for votes. If you're new to the political process, then there's probably a lot of popular media that will explain in candor (much of it is probably true and not as embellished as one would like to believe) In short, your friend today will be your enemy tomorrow, and vice versa. That's the oil that greases politics and governance, especially in an open one like a democracy. Maybe not so much in some dictatorship, as there's less leeway, but corruption exists no matter what the circumstances are, as long as money and power is involved.

But I think with that Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, the political process has been increasing the rate of its downward spiral. There's going to be some breaking point, but I have no idea what that will be. Short of a world war, unless the people in this country can come to terms with how they are voting, there's not going to be any good for the next decade to come.