Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

And absolutely everybody involved will learn the wrong lessons from that.

[Thad]

Best-case is Obama wins decisively and that's seen as a mandate for gay marriage.

Not that that means anything will actually get passed, but it'll bring it closer.

If the election's close, on the other hand, I see this as being one more mirror of the 2004 election: Obama, like Bush, will use gay marriage as an issue to whip up his base, and then abandon it once he's got his second term.

[Royal☭]

While I think Obama is a pretty awful president who sold those of us making less than $250,000 a year up the river, Mitt Romney is the worst human being on the goddamn planet.

All the little thing he does, the biting insults, the casual remarks about not caring about the poor, working for a company that specialized in firing people, if they were all isolated incidents could easily be waved away as gaffes that came out wrong. But as these things begin to snowball and more comes to light about who he was in the past, it's obvious that Romney is just a bitter, spiteful person. He was literally the guy who beats the shit out of people he considers weak in high school, and he never grew out of it. The fact that he was born wealthy and then was able to become even more fabulously wealthy in spite of being a psychopath is a testament to just how fucked we are under the capitalist system.

And you know what's even more terrifying? If thing turn south come September or October, this man could be the president, with the de facto powers to bomb the shit out of any American he wants without judicial review.

[Thad]

I think Evanier makes a pretty good point: the story itself is less galling than Romney's obvious prevarication in the "I don't recall" defense.

I would never not vote for someone because they were an asshole in eighth grade. Most of us were back then. It was just a matter of how big an asshole you were.

All I was trying to say was that I don't buy the "I don't remember" defense here...and that is somewhat relevant in who the person is today. I'm only five years younger than Romney and I don't think the following will change soon: I remember everything I did in those days that I wish I hadn't done or am ashamed I did...and if you came to me and said, "Hey, someone says you and a couple of your friends held a guy down and cut his hair," I would certainly know that hadn't happened.

And I'll bet if you went to Romney and said, "It's being claimed that you paid for a girl's abortion," he would remember that absolutely, positively hadn't happened.

It's less troubling that Romney did bad things in his past than that he won't own them today.  That's kinda what gets me about the dog-on-the-roof story, too: that he defends it.  Why the hell can't he just say "Yeah, that was terrible, I don't know what I was thinking"?

The "I don't recall but I apologize for HIJINKS" thing...man, what a cop-out.

[Ted Belmont]

But Obama shoved a girl when he was a little kid, and that's totally worse than assaulting a gay classmate with scissors.

[Thad]

ABC: Former Romney Classmate Describes ‘Bullying Supreme’ – A ‘Pack of Dogs’ Who Targeted ‘Different’ Boy

“It’s a haunting memory.  I think it was for everybody that spoke up about it …  because when you see somebody who is simply different taken down that way and is terrified and you see that look in their eye you never forget it.  And that was what we all walked away with,” said Phillip Maxwell, who is now an attorney and still considers Romney an old friend.

Now see, that's what I'm talking about.  He's owning it.  He acknowledges that he did it, that it was a fucked-up thing to do, and that he feels terrible about it.

We all did some pretty rotten shit when we were teenagers, shit we regret and wish we hadn't done.  Maybe not THAT nasty, but still, I think most of us can relate to stupid and mean adolescent behavior we wish we could take back.

I've got the utmost respect for Maxwell for his honesty, and I think that says a lot more about him than anything he did as a teenager.

And I think Romney's dishonesty and apparent inability to acknowledge he's ever done anything wrong says a lot more about HIM than anything he did as a teenager.

But, you know, there's another point to be made here, too, as the victim's sister says:

“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said.

“If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she added with tears in her eyes. ”It’s two 16-year-old kids at school. And it was 40 years ago!”

There IS something pretty unseemly about digging up decades-old dirt on a political candidate, especially in connection with a guy who's not here to speak for himself and whose family doesn't want to talk about it.

[Brentai]

The problem is that if we don't want Romney to sweep into the White House on a sea of goddam lies about how th economy is doing, we're going to have to put up with this washed-up wannabe rockstar turning the next few months into the biggest, most distracting circus he possibly can.  It took all of a day for the world to realize that the gay marriage thing isn't a proposal for social change but a fucking gimmick.  I find it almost as disgusting as the naked hate it's supposedly standing against.

I'm at the point where I can't blame anybody, at all, for how they're acting.  Not Obama, not Romney, not the Church, not even Beck or Limbaugh or even fucking Karl Rove.  They're all behaving as the seas of chaos make them behave.  I just want to... disassemble this entire system, nut by single misplaced nut, and try again with a whole new Constitution.

[Royal☭]

The problem is that if we don't want Romney to sweep into the White House on a sea of goddam lies about how th economy is doing, we're going to have to put up with this washed-up wannabe rockstar turning the next few months into the biggest, most distracting circus he possibly can.  It took all of a day for the world to realize that the gay marriage thing isn't a proposal for social change but a fucking gimmick.  I find it almost as disgusting as the naked hate it's supposedly standing against.

No, I don't think that's a good interpretation. Those who are pre-disposed to not liking Obama aren't going to be moved by this, mostly because they don't like gay marriage anyway. People as left as me are demanding that Obama put his money where his mouth is. But partisan Democrats and liberals are flocking to this, mostly because they don't give a damn about what "states rights" means.

At this point, unless the economy tanks or someone uncovers Obama's Secret-Door-For-Cocaine-and-Whores, Obama's got a lock. Romney isn't a good enough person or campaigner to be able to beat him. Romney is slowly motivating the Republican base, but honestly Obama just out-maneuvered him.

I'm at the point where I can't blame anybody, at all, for how they're acting.  Not Obama, not Romney, not the Church, not even Beck or Limbaugh or even fucking Karl Rove.  They're all behaving as the seas of chaos make them behave.  I just want to... disassemble this entire system, nut by single misplaced nut, and try again with a whole new Constitution.

Goddamn, this is what I've been trying to get across for years.

The difference being that I still blame them. Even without the campaign machine, Mitt Romney is still a despicable human being, and Obama always has the choice to not call out massive drone strikes. And the Catholic Church will never stop being the Catholic Church.

[Brentai]

Well, and a lot of people are totally okay with being swayed by gimmicks, as a bunch of mojito-sipping shitheads proved all over George Clooney's patio last night.

Fuck this.

suck it losers.avi

[Ted Belmont]

Brentai is gonna have his own elections! With blackjack! And hookers!

[Shinra]

Brent, I feel like you're not going to be satisfied unless you can find a candidate that is going to stick to his guns, those guns being the guns that you agree with specifically with no variation from that point.

Yes, Obama is running on a gimmick, because 50% of the goddamn country doesn't support gay marriage, no matter how backwards and stupid that is. California is the most liberal state in the country and they voted against gay marriage when the vote was put to them. If Obama stood on a platform and started talking about how it was going to be his legislative goal to force gay marriage in every state, he would be a champion of civil rights, but he would also be throwing himself into the fringe. His moderate appeal is the only thing that's going to help him get elected in November.

None of us like the deals with the devil he's made and the doublecrossing of his base he's done, but do you really think we'd be better off with Romney? And please, spare me the 'They're all the same' horseshit. Clinton fucked us plenty, but not even many republicans will argue we were better off with Bush. (edit: in fact, they'd argue we were much worse, which is a pretty observable fact) He's going to keep falling back on political gimmicks, bandstanding and horseshit celebrity fundraisers because that's what it takes to win an election in a country where the majority of voters need their news condensed into eight second soundbytes. The political awareness of the average person in the united states is pretty close to nil, and it's gimmicks like this that stand out.

Think of the alternative: A tea party mandate to institute flat tax, ban abortion and gay marriage. Can't happen? Eight years ago, that's what republicans were saying about national health care. The version we got may be dumbed down, but so would an abortion ban that makes an exception for cases of rape and incest.

[Classic]

try again with a whole new Constitution.

I honestly like a lot of the rights in there. You know, once they were amended into there.
It's been a while, but the story I heard was that the constitution was only signed because of how much power it devolved to the constituent states. And basically everything in it was designed to make sure that people who hang out in Washington all the time dictate as little domestic policy as possible.
This is why the house is a circus and the senate is a conservative legislative mechanism. They were basically designed that way.

Though it is likely that I believe this because I like stories where humans fail because they succeed too completely.

[Brentai]

I'm completely done with laying down with my hands on my head and accepting this "think of the alternative" horseshit.  That's a deal you give to people you're trying to extort, not people who are supposed to have a say in the way things are run.

Yes, you're right, I won't be 100% satisfied until I'm 100% satisfied.  No fucking shit.  But right now I'm, like, 51% satisfied, and that deciding 1% is entirely contingent on believing that things going south now while the hegemony is coalescing is still an altogether bad thing.

[Thad]

Well, and a lot of people are totally okay with being swayed by gimmicks, as a bunch of mojito-sipping shitheads proved all over George Clooney's patio last night.

Well, another way of looking at it is that they see this as a step in the right direction and something to be encouraged regardless of the motivation behind it.

And it's a signal to other Democrats that there's more where that came from.

Realistically, I don't think we'll see gay marriage pass at a federal level in the next four and a half years.  But drawing a straight line between expressing support for it and getting lots of money in campaign contributions does bring some pressure to bear.

I also legitimately believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was motivated by cynical politicking and not genuine idealism.  It was still the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Brent, I feel like you're not going to be satisfied unless you can find a candidate that is going to stick to his guns, those guns being the guns that you agree with specifically with no variation from that point.

I'm a bit tired of the moderate-Democrat whingeing that you have to accept compromise and stop being such an idealist and can't you see Obama HAS to constantly cave on every single issue ever, he has no choice?

If he had a history of striking hard bargains, that would be one thing.  But he doesn't.

His signature achievement is pushing the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan through a Senate with 59 Democrats and Joe Lieberman in it, with not one single Republican vote.  And there's a pretty good chance it'll be overturned by this time next month.

He's taken a calculated, mealy-mouthed stand here (which, if he is indeed playing the states' rights card, makes his position IDENTICAL TO DICK CHENEY'S) -- and he only did that because his VP spoke frankly in what people are now describing as a "gaffe".

Oh, that wacky Biden, always saying crazy things like how minorities deserve civil rights.  Open mouth, insert foot, amirite?

I'll praise him when he stops making excuses and signs a bill.

Yes, Obama is running on a gimmick, because 50% of the goddamn country doesn't support gay marriage, no matter how backwards and stupid that is.

You know what's funny about 50% of the public opposing a thing?

If Obama stood on a platform and started talking about how it was going to be his legislative goal to force gay marriage in every state, he would be a champion of civil rights, but he would also be throwing himself into the fringe.

This is my other fucking problem with the modern Democratic Party: they consider something that's polling at 50% to be "fringe".

If supporting gay marriage is the fringe, then opposing it is also the fringe.  Because THEY ARE BOTH POLLING THE SAME.

Actually, the "against" side is polling slightly lower at this point.  And the numbers are only going to move in one direction.

The numbers get even higher on the "for" side if you take the word "marriage" out of it and frame them as "civil unions".  Now, the "civil unions" distinction is bullshit and not an acceptable solution; however, I think it's okay as a temporary Band-Aid until we can pass true marriage equality.  If Obama submitted a civil union bill, it would make me a little less cynical about his actual support here.

His moderate appeal is the only thing that's going to help him get elected in November.

Well, no, the shitloads of money he's getting from Hollywood liberals is gonna kinda help too I think.

But even aside from that, here's the thing about his moderate appeal:

Independent voters favor gay marriage 57 percent to 40 percent, the same as college graduates. Moderates favor it by 20 percentage points — 58 percent to 38 percent.

In other words, the swing voters are already there.  He's not going to alienate them any more by ACTUALLY supporting gay marriage than he has by paying lip service to it.

None of us like the deals with the devil he's made and the doublecrossing of his base he's done, but do you really think we'd be better off with Romney?

And please, spare me the 'They're all the same' horseshit.

Clinton fucked us plenty, but not even many republicans will argue we were better off with Bush. (edit: in fact, they'd argue we were much worse, which is a pretty observable fact)

Think of the alternative: A tea party mandate to institute flat tax, ban abortion and gay marriage. Can't happen? Eight years ago, that's what republicans were saying about national health care. The version we got may be dumbed down, but so would an abortion ban that makes an exception for cases of rape and incest.

Yeah, THAT'S gonna pass the Senate.

I'll acknowledge that Romney's a worse pick than Obama.  (With the caveat that if HE had pushed a healthcare bill with an individual mandate, it would have passed with a nonzero number of Republican votes, and would not have been appealed to the Supreme Court.)  But if you really think a Romney election implies three CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS passing a Congress that can't even pass a budget, then YOU'RE the one being unrealistic.

[Shinra]

I think I'm mostly just tired of hearing "all politicians are the same" from the Ron Paul conspiracy theorist idiot that sits next to me. I now froth at the mouth whenever I hear the implication. Sorry guys. :(

[Thad]

No, I mean, it's reasonable to call bullshit on that one; it's just that, you know, in this case nobody was saying that.  (Not even Constantine!)  I don't regret my 2000 Nader vote but it was certainly hyperbolic to say Gore would not have been significantly better than Bush.  (In my defense, 9/11 was an unforeseeable variable and that's the thing that allowed Bush to get away with most of his worst excesses.)

I see Romney as bad, but not as bad as McCain would have been and not nearly as bad as Bush was.  (I like to think Bush was a once-in-a-lifetime, maybe even once-in-a-century or once-in-American-history level of badness.  But I don't want to push our luck.)  He's every bit the plutocrat Bush is, but he doesn't seem to be the hawk or the fundamentalist Bush is.  And I'm serious when I say he would have passed the exact same healthcare bill Obama did without nearly as much controversy.

He's not GOOD by any stretch, and he's as likely as any other Republican to gut the social safety net to reward the rich.  But it's not like Obama's been a shining beacon of hope on that score either.

Obama's definitely lesser-evil; there's no doubt of that in my mind.  And as symbolic gestures go, being the first sitting President to come out in favor of gay marriage is a pretty goddamn good one.

But that's my problem with the dude: he's great at the symbolic gestures and not so good at actually doing positive things.  In practice, he's deepened Bush's culture of secrecy and war on whistleblowers, passed Romney's version of healthcare, extended and even enhanced Bush's tax cuts, and...well, he DID end DADT.  A Republican wouldn't have done that.  So, you know, I'll give him props for that one.

I don't legitimately think his talk about gay marriage will change anything.  But at least he's talking about it, and it may be enough to signal a sea change in the debate.  I'm legitimately asking myself if that symbolic gesture is worth my symbolic vote.  I don't know that it is, but...well, I'm not voting for Romney, that's for goddamn sure.

tl;dr: You're right that "All politicians are the same" is reductionist and self-evidently false.
However, "Most politicians share certain undeniable similarities" is a pretty fair assessment.

[Royal☭]

Mitt Romney on gun rights

As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families...

If you're going to hunt and shoot them, are you providing your family with protection to make it more interesting?

[Shinra]

it's only the most dangerous game if they're dangerous, sir.

[Thad]

Quick, somebody shop that onto the cover of Eats, Shoots and Leaves.

[Doom]

Get ready for whining about The Man because Ron Paul has suspended active campaigning.

Still looking forward to the Manchurian Golden Delegates at the RNC, though. Or Ron Paul being swatted with a newspaper and told to sit down, maybe getting a novelty speech one night.