Jump to content

To Quote A Friend Of Mine, I Think America Is Being Trolled....


JDaveG
 Share

Recommended Posts

this will mean nothing to the posters in here who watch the polls like they are the MLB pennant race

The sad thing is, some Democrats would consider Romney an authoritarian right winger, but the vast, vast majority of the people in this country would consider both men "moderates."

And yet we are about to elect an authoritarian right winger. Which I'd wager NO ONE would want if they thought about it for half a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is, some Democrats would consider Romney an authoritarian right winger, but the vast, vast majority of the people in this country would consider both men "moderates."

And yet we are about to elect an authoritarian right winger. Which I'd wager NO ONE would want if they thought about it for half a second.

there is your problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It affirms what I have been saying all along that there is actually very little difference in Obama's policies and those of Bush.

Both those who voted for him because they wanted "hope" or "change" as well as those that are terrified that he's a marxist have been bamboozled. But it is a good method to keep everyone neatly organized in their cheering sections and blissfully unaware of who's really azz-raping them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uscandidates2008.png

I'd like to know how both this chart and your chart was made. Of course, many here would have you believe he's on the upper left corner of that chart so...

My guess is yours was made based on his election year rhetoric and mine was made based on how he's actually governed. But that's just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chart looks about right. Basically the biggest thing separating Obama from Romney is the perception that he's some kind of mutant fusion of Marx and Lenin. As a couple in this thread have already alluded to one could easily deduce that all the partisan bickering between the parties is by design to keep the majority of American voters thinking that their vote changes a system that's already built to sustain itself.

Edited by Serge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

uscandidates2008.png

I'd like to know how both this chart and your chart was made. Of course, many here would have you believe he's on the upper left corner of that chart so...

That looks more accurate to me, at least for Obama. As I've said numerous times he is a right leaning centrist.

On a somewhat related note, I lost all respect for Johnson when his response to the killing of the ambassador was to close all embassies and consulates and then went around boasting about how much more presidential his response was. I should have known it was just a matter of time before some typical libertarian crazy proposal came from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks more accurate to me, at least for Obama. As I've said numerous times he is a right leaning centrist.

On a somewhat related note, I lost all respect for Johnson when his response to the killing of the ambassador was to close all embassies and consulates and then went around boasting about how much more presidential his response was. I should have known it was just a matter of time before some typical libertarian crazy proposal came from him.

yes because that is so much worse than ignoring warnings and then blaming youtube videos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want my Obamaphone! 250 free minutes, and bonus minutes if I find other victims to sign up.

Any of you guys wanna sign up for a free Obamaphone?

From what I hear, it will automatically wire in your vote, so you don't even have to show up in November! Good deal!

More like wires in a vote every time you make a call. Is the Obama channel still on Dish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because pointing out that the government doesn't endorse the video but won't censor it is equivalent to blaming and wanting to close all embassies and consulates is a highly rational response.

and of course that response was far better than 'we were warned and didn't do a thing about it and now someone is dead'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chart looks about right. Basically the biggest thing separating Obama from Romney is the perception that he's some kind of mutant fusion of Marx and Lenin.

And the alternate suggestion that Romney is a radical right winger.

As a couple in this thread have already alluded to one could easily deduce that all the partisan bickering between the parties is by design to keep the majority of American voters thinking that their vote changes a system that's already built to sustain itself.

Exactly. The simple fact is, most people have an emotional investment in their chosen party, and voting against that party in any shape or form is unacceptable. Especially if it's "throwing your vote away" on someone who "can't win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and of course that response was far better than 'we were warned and didn't do a thing about it and now someone is dead'

The warnings were something to the effect of 'your embassies and consulates may be attacked throughout north Africa and the Middle East within 48 hours.' That gave the administration two days to decide which areas were the most at risked and send men and materials to areas deemed most at risk across an extremely broad amount of geography. It also does not help that embassy and consulate security funds were severely reduced in 2011 in part of that budget suicide pact in Congress which meant already existing security was weakened.

It's terrible that it happened, but that is an extremely difficult situation to deal with and it is incredibly unfortunate that four of our statesmen died due to all of those circumstances combining.

Edited by Psychic Gibbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Romney is a radical right winger, mostly because I have no idea what he is. One day he's a moderate and the next he's hard right. To me, he's more of an empty suit than anything else.

His election strategy has always seemed incredibly cynical to me; just say exactly what a hard-right Republican should say in response to whatever is happening at present. I don't buy that he's actually a "radical" anything because I think it's much more likely that he wants to be President, was groomed to run for President, and plans to spend his time in office saying whatever he needs to say while giving his friends whatever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The warnings were something to the effect of 'your embassies and consulates may be attacked throughout north Africa and the Middle East within 48 hours.' That gave the administration two days to decide which areas were the most at risked and send men and materials to areas deemed most at risk across an extremely broad amount of geography. It also does not help that embassy and consulate security funds were severely reduced in 2011 in part of that budget suicide pact in Congress which meant already existing security was weakened.

It's terrible that it happened, but that is an extremely difficult situation to deal with and it is incredibly unfortunate that four of our statesmen died due to all of those circumstances combining.

tell me...if it were that criminally underfunded then why was no action taken to fix it? obviously, the current administration felt that the security level was acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that if the GOP got someone who was remotely charismatic and would give specific details to his policy proposals then they would likely win this election in a landslide. Simply putting out an unlikeable alternative gets you the current situation.

whats even worse is that the average American will still play their game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that if the GOP got someone who was remotely charismatic and would give specific details to his policy proposals then they would likely win this election in a landslide. Simply putting out an unlikeable alternative gets you the current situation.

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the last couple challengers to the incumbent have been incredibly bland, uncharismatic candidates when one of the most basic facts of how American elects its President is that we go for looks and charisma. I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but I literally cannot believe that a system that has this process down to a science hasn't figured out rule #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tell me...if it were that criminally underfunded then why was no action taken to fix it? obviously, the current administration felt that the security level was acceptable.

As I pointed out, it was part of the budget suicide pact between Congressional Republicans and Congressional Democrats. If they didn't come up with a balanced budget then military funding, which embassy and consulate security is part of, would be decreased and it was. The President has no control over that and simply had adapt to the situation, but then they were faced with a vague attack allegedly across the whole of North Africa and the Middle East and they had to deal with it within two days with reduced existing security. You're basically complaining that he didn't send marines to hundreds of locations across two broad regions within two days. Stephens and his staff were sent to a safe house in Benghazi with a marine detachment and Libyan soldiers for protection but that area was overwhelmed and they were killed because of it. It is highly unfortunate that it happened, but it was an extremely difficult situation to deal with overall and sadly these men and women died because of it.

Edited by Psychic Gibbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is simply 'the alternative'. nothing more, nothing less

And not a very good one at that. Every current economic indicator has historically spelled doom for an incumbent president, but Obama is going to win because Romney is so unlikeable.

Not that it matters, because the policies of both would be very similar. But it makes makes the pom pom wavers feel better with the illusion that their "team" won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that the last couple challengers to the incumbent have been incredibly bland, uncharismatic candidates when one of the most basic facts of how American elects its President is that we go for looks and charisma. I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist but I literally cannot believe that a system that has this process down to a science hasn't figured out rule #1.

The common theme was that both primaries were filled with crazies who kept garnering support until they went off the deep end or were sunk by scandals (eg. Howard Dean, Herman Cain). Eventually people gravitated to the dullards since, I assume, people just didn't want someone who would have a catastrophic outburst during the actual election campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...