I just don’t understand how anyone could vote for any of the current Republican candidates. I just don’t. Not to go all Pauline Kael, but I just am unable to put myself into the mindset that would make me vote for any of them. Each one is uniquely horrid in their own way. I had held out hope for Huntsman to be somewhat sane, but he’s proven he’ll say anything.
It’s just amazing to me how bad these guys are, yet half the country will vote for them anyway. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, as we are coming up on the 10 year anniversary of this website and I’ve been reading some of the truly stupid and horrible and embarrassing things I wrote in the past. But I’ve changed as I learned things, and maybe I’ve become more compassionate as I age. Regardless, even when I look at the kool-aid swilling right-wing mess I was a decade ago, I still can’t understand why anyone would vote for any of these clowns.
And for the record, I think the ABL post about Ron Paul is spot on. He may be a touch better than the rest of the Republicans on some issues, but in Ron Paul’s world, as long as state and local authorities were the ones shackling slaves, he’d be ok with it. Not to mention the sheer insanity of his economic world view. Oh, and the fact that he is a homophobic bigot.
MikeJ
Don’t leave out his hatred of women. Or hispanic people.
Omnes Omnibus
@MikeJ: We could also blame the father for the sins of his son. I mean, anyone who could spawn Aqua-Buddha has issues, man.
Irving
I think it’s the logical endgame of Fox News. When politics becomes a reality show, reality show contestants become politicians.
cmorenc
@john cole:
Oh, come on, nobody’s perfect. At least he doesn’t port his dog around on the roof of his car.
:=0)
Yes, I too never thought the entire GOP presidential field would be comprised entirely of such radioactively toxic clowns, but there it is. There was a time when I would have been a “moderate Republican” in my political views, but that time is in a long ago, far away, and utterly lost place and time.
Triassic Sands
Well, imagine you were married to Newt Gingrich and voting for him would mean that he’d be spending a lot less time at home. Wouldn’t you vote him then?
OK, that’s one vote.
LT
The ABL post on Ron Paul is not about any of that. It’s a link to some else’s post, someone who used his misread of one tweet by GGrenwald to make an attack on TEH EMOPROG. It’s wrongheaded idiot’s nonsense. The fact that Hilton even admitted paul’s positions “coincide” with positions to the Left of Obama – just hilarious. Kills his entire post.
Old Dan and Little Ann
I’ve had way too much fun over the holidays hazing my asshole conservative friends and in-laws regarding their “candidates.”
Satanicpanic
Just for kicks, Cole should post lowlights from his early years for those of us who weren’t here back then. Or not.
ABL
So I reckon I’m not fired from the blog?
Nyuk nyuk.
Karen
One of Ron Paul’s endorsers, Pastor Philip G Kayser a pastor of the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska
Brachiator
But how do know what’s really in his heart?
I have been interested in seeing the degree to which a fuzzy libertarian view exists among tech people, although I don’t know whether many of these people vote Republican or simply do not vote at all. But there is a lot of bristling about how the government does not understand geek stuff, and if free markets and competition were allowed to flourish, the tech world would be wonderful and everyone would be able to play Star Wars: The Old Republic nonstop on 3D devices for $1 a year.
Triassic Sands
Huntsman is a Republican, the party of lunatics. Once you accept membership you’re committed to behaving in kind.
There’s no way to be a Republican politician today and not be nuts. Look at the Maine Senators, they’re supposed to be the moderates in the party, but whenever their party loyalty is they vote exactly the same way that the rest of lunatics vote.
cay
All of my male autistic/Aspergers students are libertarians. Coincidence? I think not!
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
i can’t imagine being an iowa repblican either, though i have to say, i have known more iowa women who were smokehouse hot than one would expect.
the worst part about iowa, you don’t get to just make a bad choice and go inhale or imbibe, you have to make a whole night of making your bad choice, and sticking to it.
i wish people would stop crediting ron pall for flecks of redemption policy wise, he can say any shit he wants, being unelectable has its perks. pall is crazy, bad and crazy bad, and remember him being a racist was well known back in 1988.
wilfred
“I just am unable to put myself into the mindset that would make me vote for any of them.”
Thus lack of empathy, qed. I’m not voting for any candidate, including Obama, although I can understand how someone can make a case for him or Romney or any fuckingbody else. LBJ was the most socially progressive President we ever had, but people hated him for Vietnam. Is that so difficult to understand? Everyone has their own ox that gets gored. Personally, the most important thing to me is to end war-piggery and imperialist aggression – is it so hard to understand that someone might feel that way over, say, health care?
As for the ‘sheer insanity’ Paul’s economic ideas, what the fuck could be crazier than our own political economy? 14 trillion dollars in debt, more US currency reserves in foreign hands than our own, and the entire apparatus and decision-making power in the hands of less than 1% of the population. That’s sane?
Allan
@wilfred: That’s cool. Those of us who do vote will pick your leaders for you.
Waynski
There’s hope JC. Spoke to my R BIL, an intelligent R, over Christmas and he’s so disgusted with the menu on their side that he said he may not even vote. But that’s no reason for complacency. We need to dig in and fight. That’s the only way to get it done. It’s Gettysburg this time.
Brachiator
@wilfred:
Sounds like the progressive equivalent of “I got mine, screw you,” since you are apparently so well insulated from the problems that afflict everyone else that voting is an irrelevant trifle for you.
Mike Goetz
Actually, the old Paul newsletters give me a ray of hope. They remind us that conservatives used to be truly deranged, paranoid and dangerous – the coming race war and all that. They actually believed that all the way up to the mid-90’s.
Now they just content themselves with a few lame watermelon jokes and hide behind middle-management weasels like Cantor and Ryan. Whatever else those two pencil necks are, they are not scary.
Satanicpanic
@wilfred:
Err, Ron Paul’s ideas?
PeakVT
But I’ve changed as I learned things
No wonder you didn’t last as a Republican.
lacp
@wilfred: So we go back to the gold standard, dump all regulation of business, spend all federal tax revenue paying down the debt….sounds like a plan!
wilfred
@Allan:
Leaders? Troops of baboons have leaders, people don’t. Not me, anyway.
@20:
I certainly agree with Paul about the Federal Reserve. Is that really a crazy thing?
WereBear (itouch)
I’ve voted Democratic my entire life, but it’s a policy thing for me. If the Dems decided they would run candidates who wanted everyone to wear their underwear on the outside, so they could check for cleanliness (Woody Allen movie joke) and the Repubs were runnng candidates who wanted universal health care, I’d vote R.
Do Republicans really want to crash the wrorkd economy and enact the born again version of sharia law? Really?!?!?!?
wilfred
I see the emergence of the usual monolith thought pattern. If someone agrees to one aspect of what someone says, then by God he must believe in all of it.
That’s just beyond stupid, really. You win, I have to get back to work anyway.
JGabriel
John Cole:
I can’t see any of them winning the primary. One of them must, of course, but none of them seem like they’re even GOP Nomination material much less presidential.
I know everyone thinks Romney is going to get the nomination, but, really? 3/4ths of the party seems to hate his guts.
Guess I’ll wait to see what happens in SC, but right now a brokered convention still looks very possible.
.
motampa
What did you guys expect? The fact is that our congress is simply a reflection of the stupidity of the American people. If dumb shit Americans continue to vote these crazy ass Repubs, well that’s what this country deserves. Only problem: I fucking live here too. So, though I have many disappointments with Obama, there is no freaking way I will NOT vote for him. Donation like I did last time around? no. Vote: yes. So depressing:(
Triassic Sands
You’ve got things all backwards, John. You’re supposed to become more conservative as you age, until, when you’re eligible for Medicare and Social Security all you care about are your own most narrow interests. Somehow, as you make the journey through life, the unemployed become lazy bums, the poor are nothing but parasites, and everything you have you got through hard work and by surmounting challenges that would defeat Superman. Nobody ever did anything for you; all the help went to the undeserving.
I commend you for bucking the tide and moving in the direction opposite of that which is often expected. Anyone who pays attention realizes that life is not fair. Government can be used to smooth things out somewhat, unless you’re a Republican, and then it’s for making sure that the lucky can pretend they’re just virtuous.
JGabriel
WereBear (itouch):
How soon we forget the Bush administration!
.
Ken
The post is fine, it’s just every time you mention that subject you risk an invasion by those people. Hard as it may sometimes be to believe, it is possible for the quality of the comments to go down.
Soonergrunt
@wilfred:
Yes, and it confirms that, like Ron Paul, you are dumber than a bag of wet mice.
James E. Powell
Since I am back in Cleveland with my right-wing family members for the holidays, I have been trying to gauge their feelings on the Republican presidential clown parade without generating any arguments. After all, it’s the holidays.
I’m getting the usual incoherent streams of hatred for Obama. Apparently, everything bad is Obama’s fault. Prior to his election, everything was going well. Or something. But I’m not getting anything about the current contenders to replace him. I take that as a powerful statement.
Raythe
EDIT – I’m referring to people in this thread (and many others) who say they’ll vote for Obama, but with less enthusiasm and won’t help his campaign as much or at all this time at all.
I know I should be glad that people are saying they are going to vote for Obama again, but why, when faced with a Republican field like this one, is anyone saying: I’ll vote for him, but I won’t give as much money this time as 2008, or I won’t go and help the campaign as much as I did before?
LOOK at the Republican field and think to yourself: one of these guys could be the next president if we don’t get Obama re-elected! That scares the crap out of me and I can’t understand why it doesn’t underscore for every Democrat, Independent, or even Republican who has a shred of sense to work our hardest to keep Obama in.
Okay, so you don’t agree with everything he’s done. Okay, so you feel he let you down on thing. Okay, so he’s not the reincarnation of whoever it is you thought he would be. But in comparison to the Republican field, my god, you’d have to be suicidal to want any of these guys near the levers of power.
I’m going to give MORE money this time to Obama. I’m going to work HARDER to get him re-elected than I did the first time. Because I honestly think George W. Bush looks like a moderate, thoughtful president in comparison to the current Republican crop. He nearly destroyed our country, what do you think this group is going to do?
MikeInSewickley
John,
Completely agree with you and ABL on Paul.
I just finished listening to Chris Moore on KDKA Radio tonight. I consider him a thoughtful liberal and pretty knowledgeable.
Yet he almost seemed to give Ron Paul a pass tonight on his stand against foreign military involvements. He said Paul is the only one talking about the waste of blood and money on Iraq and other “empire building”. He then mentioned that he does not agree with some of his social issue views and considered Libertarians as using that as an excuse to do whatever they want.
Maybe I got it wrong but I sure got the feeling that if he was left to vote for Paul versus Obama, he would pause a while before hitting the button for Obama.
What the devil are these folks thinking? Is the fact that he is saying things no other Repub would swaying otherwise sane folks?
This makes no sense to me. The whole field is a bunch of pandering, rich, God-twisting maniacs.
I really fear for this country’s future.
WereBear (itouch)
@JGabriel: Good point, though I don’t think people thought so at the time.
They’re going to deny they are voting for massive unemployment, 30% interest rates, and lying us into war; though that’s what they will get.
ShadeTail
@wilfred:
Yes it is, and if you had more knowledge of the economy than Paul, you’d understand that. The Fed literally underpins everything. Take it away and the economy implodes more or less immediately. Getting rid of it, without at least replacing it with something equivalent, *is* a crazy thing. If you really share that view with Paul, then either you are as bug-fuck as he is or you choose not to understand.
amk
This will cheer you, john.
Or not.
ShadeTail
By the way, just for the record:
(link)
Compare this to what President McCain and VP Palin would have done. Compare this to what the current crop of GOP nutballs would do.
SiubhanDuinne
@Raythe:
You just saved me the trouble of writing essentially what you wrote, so I shall simply say:
This.
wilfred
@36:
I give up. Paul is currently fighting for congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve. You must be against that sort of oversight, correct?
Now we can have a discussion about whether the elected representatives of the people, not leaders, should have such oversight.
Corner Stone
Obviously you haven’t changed a bit and are still just as stupid. That post has nothing to do with what you just said in the piece above.
Corner Stone
@ShadeTail:
But what would have Godzilla done? No, the actual Godzilla. After he destroyed NYC and then became president.
Lojasmo
Clearly paulcruious.
Nyuk, Nyuk, nyuk.
/fuckwitderf
rikyrah
those who vote GOP are soulless sociopaths just like their candidates.
I’m tired of coddling and trying to understand these folks.
they want to destroy this country, and should be treated that way.
magurakurin
@wilfred: you posted a comment which could fairly be summed up as “voting is useless” in a forum where almost everyone else who posts here thinks that voting is very important. And then you are miffed that people think you’re wrong headed. But we’re all just baboons or prisoners of our minds or something. Got it.
OGLiberal
As much as the right may hate Romney, they will come out in record numbers and vote for him to make sure the negro usurper is denied another four years. They are not going to be motivated by their enthusiasm for Mitt, he’s pretty much inconsequential. They need to get that boy outta there by any means necessary.
And the media will ignore all of the crazy things Mitt has said (much of which he likely does not believe – in his heart he’s a George Romney Republican, ie somebody to the left of Ben Nelson..but that won’t win the nomination) and portray him as a reasonable moderate, not a craven opportunist. And because they know Mitt is the only guy who can convince the ignorant/lazy undecideds to vote for him, they’ll fluff Mitt to make sure he’s the GOP nominee – see Halperin recently. When it didn’t matter, Halperin was Snowball Snookie 24/7. But now that he needs a horse race, the previously ignored Mitt is presented as unbeatable and inevitable in the GOP primary.
As others have noted, 47 percent of Americans will vote for the GOP candidate because of party, tribal, religious, race loyalty. Ditto 47 percent who call themselves Democrats. It’s all about the 6 percent who fancy themselves independents but who are, in fact, idiots, folks who treat these elections as a reality TV contest, folks who make up their minds in the voting booth (????), folks who follow the, “these guys didn’t fix shit quickly enough for e…let me vote for the guys who originally fucked it up” rule. The media will do their best to forget all the crazy, opportunist, flip-floppy shit Mitt said because an Obama blowout would suck for their ratings. They actually achieved this for a few weeks in 2008 when by their words alone teoy made it appear that Palin was a game changer who would woo millions of disgruntled Hillary supporters who disagreed with everything she (Hillary) stood for simply because Palin has a vagina.
Gian
am I the only one who sees the paul donation advertising and thinks, “I could order replica confederate money and send it to him, but that would be a waste of my own real money”?
Waynski
@Soonergrunt: This.
rikyrah
I’m late, but of course, I agree with ABL about Ron Paul.
like I said…as a Black person, Ron Paul is easy.
he’s a pure-D racist, and no, I don’t have to ‘ get beyond’ that.
Raythe
@SiubhanDuinne: I’m normally a lurker who reads all your clever comments and feels too inadequate to join in, but I just couldn’t sit back and say nothing this time.
I understand that people like Glenn Greenwald and others aren’t thrilled with parts of Obama’s presidency. There are other bloggers, commenters, etc. with valid complaints undoubtedly, too. But there is NOTHING redeemable in the Republican candidates here. NOTHING.
They are frightening. They seriously could do untold amounts of harm to everyone. Yes, there are many who will vote for them because of the R after their name. But those that don’t vote by party or vote Democrat are the ones that must step up and do the right thing.
They need to recognize that there will never be a president who they agree with totally or who doesn’t fail to meet some of his campaign promises or even disappoints us based on what we believe we know of his character. But the Republican candidates are saying horrible things on the campaign trail that if they even put into place a fraction of them would set us back years.
After W. I will never sit back and be complacent. This country is ours to lose or to win. Regardless of the people out there that will vote against their best interests, WE should know better. WE need to save them from themselves and help ourselves as well.
LT
@Corner Stone:
First sentence – bad. Second sentence – yes.
magurakurin
@Raythe: this.
wilfred
@ magurakurin:
Well, you inferred that. My belief is that the two party system has failed, viewed in light of what it produces. I’m looking for a viable third party – my hope is that OWS eventually coalesces into an independent political party.
Waynski
@Raythe: A thousand times.. THIS.
rikyrah
thanks Raythe
ShadeTail
@wilfred @40:
You are very bad at debating people who are smarter than you. Putting words in our mouths and asking obviously loaded questions only earns you our contempt.
Beyond that, either you are being purposefully disingenuous, or you don’t know Paul’s ideas about the Fed that you claim to agree with. He doesn’t want merely oversight, he wants it gone. He says so openly and repeatedly. And if you agree with that, as you claimed you do, then you are either as bug-fuck as Paul or have no idea what you’re talking about.
LT
@Raythe:
In other words: SHUT UP! NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR CRITICISM! or ever…
magurakurin
@wilfred: and in the meantime you’re happy to see Romney or Paul be president and McConnell run the Senate and Cantor or Boehner run the House?
got it.
gogol's wife
@Raythe:
Yes, yes, yes. I totally agree.
Some guy in Austin
well, i’m not going to give as much money to the Obama campaign this time around for the simple reason that I don’t have as much this time.
Raythe
@magurakurin: @Waynski: I hoped I wasn’t alone in thinking this. One of the things that I admire about John, the other FPers and a lot of commenters is that the majority seem to understand what is at stake while others are ignoring the hard, cold reality in favor of some utopia that will never exist.
I’m not saying don’t fight for what you believe in. I’m not saying don’t try to get the politicians to advance better goals. But when you look at the current Republicans, any thinking person who isn’t brainwashed into voting (R) MUST acknowledge that we cannot allow them near the presidency. If you can’t muster enthusiasm for this president, muster your fear for the thought of the other guys running things.
Because there’s only going to be two choices on our ballots and there’s only one man that will be listed that should be president. We need votes and that means the Democrats need money and bodies to organize.
wilfred
Our?
Who’s ‘we’? A collection of gasbag prats who have managed to coalesce into a herd of lemmings?
You can have it.
Brachiator
@Raythe: Great comments. Thank you very much for this.
LT
@Raythe:
Yes you are. it’s exactly what you’re saying. And that’s just ugly.
But high fives all around!
EDIT: Please explain how you see this done. Give us a picture of how this would work for you.
SiubhanDuinne
@Raythe:
Glad you delurked. I thought your comment was very well expressed, and I hope you will join in the conversation as often as you can.
It always surprises me that people expect their elected officials (or spouses or friends or anyone) to be in total 100% agreement with them about everything (triple redundancy deliberate). Even if you could have it, it would be boring as hell.
As for Obama specifically, I’m upping both my financial support and my volunteer time. Partly it’s because, as you say, the prospect of any one of the current crop of GOP candidates getting close to the Oval Office just scares the bejibbers out of me, but equally importantly, it’s because overall I really do think Obama is doing a very good job of governing the entire country, and doing it with intelligence and humor and integrity and elegance, in the face of unprecedented Congressional intractability.
WereBear (itouch)
@wilfred: You are welcome to leave for some other planet which meets your so-exacting standards. In fact, I encourage you!
Ken
@wilfred:
Considering the amount of damage it’s done to the Postal Service, yes.
JGabriel
@wilfred:
I object! I am a gasbag prat who has never coalesced into anything!
.
Raythe
@rikyrah: @gogol’s wife: Thanks. I’m sure there are others here who could say it better than me (including yourselves) so I’m honored.
Raythe
@Some guy in Austin: I hear you and completely understand. But those that can, but don’t are the ones I’m speaking to.
Waynski
@Raythe: I just gave Obama $25. I encourage you all to do the same. Buck up people. Of course you’re allowed to criticize, but right now we need everyone in the field defending the fort from the barbarians. We’ll hang together or we’ll surely hang separately. Supporting doesn’t negate your criticism, but giving up power most certainly will. Listen to the wisdom of Raythe. So sayeth Waynski.
JGabriel
@wilfred:
Paul has stated frequently that he wants to “End the Fed”. It’s part of his presidential platform.
Pretending that Paul just wants congressional oversight of the Fed is disingenuous.
.
LT
Good Christ. Good fucking christ.
SiubhanDuinne
@Some guy in Austin:
I’m sorry to hear that, and that is a perfectly legitimate reason for not giving as much to the Obama campaign.
I hope you’re able to volunteer some time to the campaign or find some other, non-financial, ways to show your support. And I hope things turn around for you soon.
Raythe
@SiubhanDuinne: I feel the same way as you. I am actually pleased with Obama and feel that I got what I thought I would with him. I live in Illinois and knew of him when he was serving here.
I wrote the first post mainly trying to reach people who aren’t pleased, whether legitimately or not, with him. I think ABL’s post, where she debated what meant more to her earlier in the day, is something that we all do and maybe for some those things that Obama hasn’t done or has (like drone attacks) are too close to their hearts to ignore. But the alternative then has to be examined: one of the Republican candidates in the White House. And that alternative is just unthinkable and should be untenable for most here no matter what they feel about Obama.
Thank you for the encouragement to post. I feel like I’ve done way too much of it tonight (how many times can Raythe post in an hour?!). Lol! But I wanted to respond if I could to people.
amk
@Raythe: Joining the chorus.
Americans of all stripes and castes need to wake the fuck up or get ratfucked for ever, post 2012.
Raythe
@Waynski: Now I’m blushing AND smiling! Awesome. I’m off to donate more myself.
gnomedad
@OGLiberal:
Meet:
@amk:
I’m going with “not”. Time to start drinking.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@LT:
Watch out folks. You’re taking away LT’s right to criticize Obama by criticizing him.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Pat Buchanan opposed the Afghan invasion, so clearly Buchanan is to the left of Obama, yes? After all, it doesn’t matter if someone came to their conclusion by following their right-wing racist isolationist beliefs — if their racist, isolationist right-wing beliefs happen to coincide with what you think, they’re on the left.
Sloegin
Ridiculous ain’t it? This set of grifters, goons and ghouls are a perfect personification and representation of their party; their corrupt ideals and policies made flesh.
One could wish some significant number of GOP voters following this political flea circus might have a sudden insight that it isn’t the candidates that are rabid and loathsome, it’s their entire political tribe.
LT
@Raythe:
I will never get how good smart people can go here. What would have to be happening for that formulation to not be okay to you? What would have to be happening in place of “drone attacks” for you to finally et sick to your stomach saying “Well we’ve got to examine the alternative”? Because a secret war run by basically one person that is killing who knows how many civilians is pretty fucking ugly stuff.
burnspbesq
@wilfred:
Actually, it is. What gives you the right to put all of us at risk of a Republican administration just so you can get your sanctimony on?
Satanicpanic
Christ let’s not go through this again. We have two choices- Obama or not Obama. Saying that is not the same as saying he’s the best thing since sliced bread.
Brian S
@Mnemosyne: Thanks for pointing that out, not that it will matter to either LT or Cornerstone.
burnspbesq
@wilfred:
I certainly agree with Paul about the Federal Reserve. Is that really a crazy thing?
Yes, it is. Explain how you would propose to run a modern economy without a central bank. I’m sure this is going to crack me up.
LT
But think of the alternative!
No – think of if Bush did this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secrecy-defines-obamas-drone-war/2011/10/28/gIQAPKNR5O_story.html
amk
@gnomedad: B(u)y the crates.
Raythe
@LT: I debated responding to you as I’ve read your comments in other threads and you seem to just want to be contrarian or rude but …
What do I think people should do? I think they should donate and organize for the democratic party and Obama, because he and the democratic party are the only mildly sensible ones in the room. The Republicans are being ruled by their basest, crudest instincts and cannot be trusted with power at this time. A Republican president would be a disaster.
As to getting your voice heard regarding specific policy changes you want implemented, again you should volunteer, write your congresscritter and senator, or even run yourself for local office. Support the causes you believe in with money or manpower.
If you support the Republicans, go support them. But I’m not speaking to those who want Republicans to win this time around. I’m talking to those who will vote for Obama but will do so holding their noses and with tepid support. I’m trying to reach those that have forgotten for the moment what we’re fighting for because of their disappointment.
I’m not belittling their disappointment. I understand that for them the things that Obama hasn’t done are large. But I want people to look at the big picture again and remember what we’re up against.
So that’s what I meant.
LT
Yay!
Brian S
@LT: If Obama went the full Santorum on abortion rights, I’d look for someone else to vote for. That’s right–a woman’s right to choose is more important to me than drone strikes. Mind you, I’d rather we weren’t shooting missiles at anyone, from drones or from planes or from ships, but I haven’t met a pacifist yet who could get elected to the Presidency, and so that’s not a deal breaker for me. But a woman’s right to choose is.
eemom
On the topic of “How Can This Be?”, I am so seriously appalled by what Greenwald said in his Guardian piece that Mnem linked to on the other thread that I am going to repost it here:
And I am going to repeat what I said:
Yes, the motherfucker is BLAMING OBAMA for the craziness of the republican field.
That’s it. I’m done. FUCK that despicable little pig, and anybody who defends him. FUCK. THEM.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@Raythe:
This. I’m signed up for the local OFA meeting January 8th. I hate phonebanking, I can barely tolerate knocking on doors, but I’ll be hittin’ the pavement again this year.
Waynski
@LT: But what?
wilfred
“But the alternative then has to be examined: one of the Republican candidates in the White House. And that alternative is just unthinkable and should be untenable for most here no matter what they feel about Obama.”
Yeah, of course it comes down to that. But if that’s the best we can come up after 240 years American democracy then something is wrong.
“Pretending that Paul just wants congressional oversight of the Fed is disingenuous.”
And where, precisely, am I pretending that? He couldn’t abolish it even if he wanted to. What he can do is exercise congressional oversight – which I think is a good idea. If you don’t, fine.
He could possibly end the War on Drugs. Nobody else is even considering that, even though the social consequences of that have been disastrous.
LT
@Raythe:
The arrogance is just remarkable. You seem like a truly nice person. But what in the fuck’s name made you think you were the one to make the rule book for what’s okay for Dems to do about issues regarding a Dem president? I just find that astonishingly arrogant.
And please remember that this is in direct regard to Greenwald, who you were directly speaking about in your first comment here. This is you saying, essentially, that “Greenwald should stop writing critcisms of Obama and do what I said was okay in my list of okay things for Dems to do above.” That the pure Orwellianishness of that doesn’t crawl on your skin as you write it…
Again, you seem like a nice person – but that is just broken.
Allan
@wilfred: Well, whether or not you acknowledge the people in political office as your leaders, they have the ability to write and enforce laws that may criminalize something you do, then use the power of the state to imprison you for said crimes.
So don’t vote, and those of us who do will select those people on your behalf.
Raythe
@LT: One question for you:
Do you believe that anyone in the current Republican field will be any “better”, however you want to define that, then Obama has been on the drone issue? (who could possibly win – Ron Paul is, therefore, not in this equation, for many reasons such as his racism, sexism, homophobia, gold-bug-ism, etc.)
The only legitimate answer is: no. They’ll be worse. I don’t see any pacifists in the Republican party. I’m sorry, but you have two choices: Obama or someone much worse on that one issue you care so much about.
That’s it. You can hate that fact, but it is a fact.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@Raythe: Nice to see you come in from Lurkerville. Comment more. Sanity and reasoned discourse is usually welcomed on this blog. Or flamed by trolls, you never know.
Satanicpanic
@Raythe: Why does anyone think Ron Paul would be better? Obama, the candidate was better, what is so special about Ron Paul that he’ll be the guy who keeps his campaign promises when others don’t?
Steve J.
I had held out hope for Huntsman to be somewhat sane, but he’s proven he’ll say anything.
I did too but he caved in to the baggers.
Corner Stone
@Brian S:
This doesn’t rhyme at all. How about this?
There once was a poster named LT
No…no…that’s not going to work.
Tom Hilton
Thank you. Exactly what I was trying to say.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@LT:
FOAD. That’s not at all what he said.
(Hey, Raythe, welcome to Flameville!)
Mnemosyne
@LT:
So is repealing the Civil Rights Act and allowing legal discrimination again.
So is banning abortion.
So is dissolving the Fed and throwing the entire world economy into chaos.
So is dissolving the entire federal government except for defending against treason, piracy and counterfeiting and turning everything over to the states.
So is revoking birthright citizenship and deciding that not everyone born in the US should be allowed to be a citizen.
So is hiring a guy to run your state campaign who thinks that individual states should be allowed to execute gays and lesbians.
Basically, Ron Paul thinks the federal government should not exist and everything should be left to the states. He essentially wants to go back to the Articles of Confederation.
But, hey, he won’t do any drone strikes in Pakistan, so it’s all good, amirite?
Steve J.
It’s just amazing to me how bad these guys are,
Rich Lowry (NRO) –
Hill Dweller
@Raythe: My father, who still has family in Illinois, was the first person to make me aware of Obama. He is a lifelong Republican, but liked what he saw during Obama’s Senate campaign.
Fast forward several years, and his hatred for the President could power a small city. He won’t abide facts nor reason. It is visceral.
Sadly, there were more than a few of my family members who felt the same way. As I was saying the other night, they are all, paradoxically, both educated and ignorant. All successful, with at least bachelor degrees(most graduate/advanced degrees), but couldn’t explain factually what was so bad about the President. They would mutter what were obviously chain e-mail facts; I’d refute them, one by one, backing it up with evidence on my laptop. It didn’t change a damn thing.
That is what really scares me. I know way too many people, who are otherwise intelligent, that become really stupid when talking politics. Their entire self-identity is dependent on being Republican, and no amount of facts will change their minds.
Before anyone gets pissed, I’m not suggesting all people voting against Obama/for Republicans are ignorant.
Tom Hilton
@LT: I offered you the chance to make an argument that positions based on premises inimical liberalism could actually be liberal. You still haven’t made that argument. All you’re doing is talking trash about shit you don’t understand.
So how about it? Want to give it a try?
AxelFoley
Just curious, since I wasn’t posting on this blog back then, but what made you change from the way you were back in those days to the lovable curmudgeon you are today, Cole? Someone posted a snipet of what you posted here during the run up to Iraq, and I must say, I was surprised at how gung-ho you were about it, based off of how I perceive you now.
LT
@Brian S:
I can disagree with you, but I can’t say you’re wrongheaded in that. It’s an honest and honestly founded opinion. (And the fact that ABL tacked it on on the end of this wrongheaded pile of crap is completely unrelated.)
But that’s not the issue right here – it’s that by the standards of a very big crowd here, including at least a couple front pagers, Greenwald doesn’t get the same right to make that choice. And worse – the issues – like the drone wars – see my links above – aren’t actually that bad. That is 100% ugliness.
Admiral_Komack
I bet she didn’t see THIS coming…
Bachmann’s state chairman shocks by endorsing Ron Paul
Michele Bachmann’s Iowa state chairman, after appearing with her just four hours earlier, defected her campaign in a very public way.
Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson walked on stage at a Ron Paul tonight at a veteran’s event in Des Moines and said it was his duty to make the switch.
He spoke for less than a minute but said he was endorsing Paul. “It’s difficult, but it’s the right thing to do,” Sorenson said. “We’re going to take Ron Paul all the way to the White House.”
Paul, who took the stage shortly thereafter and spoke for 45 minutes, didn’t mention the Sorenson endorsement, but clearly his 600 supporters — who cheered when they saw Sorenson — recognized the boost to the Paul campaign.
Paul is leading in some polls, with he and Newt Gingrich vying for the top rung.
Bachmann is wrapping up a 99-county bus tour and wasn’t immediately available for comment. Her campaign has been struggling to break through to the top tier of candidates. Polls show that she, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry have divided the Christian conservative voting bloc that all their campaigns are counting on.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/12/bachmanns-state-chairman-shock.html
NR
@burnspbesq:
Fail. He already said he wasn’t going to be voting Republican.
LT
@Tom Hilton: Oh fuck off. You did not respond to my second comment on that. I waited and waited.
rb
White men who own land, white men who own a boat.
Ron Paul thinks they BOTH should get to vote!
Civil liberties!
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: Now, now: don’t lay your inability to comprehend the post on John Cole. He understood; there’s no reason* why you shouldn’t as well.
*Apart from you being dumber than a box of rocks and meaner than a herpetarium full of pythons.
AxelFoley
@Karen:
Should we send this to Greenwald? The enemy of my enemy and all that. ;)
Mnemosyne
@wilfred:
I’m really not getting the distinction you’re trying to draw between “leaders” like Obama and “elected representatives of the people” like … Obama. Did you forget about that whole “presidential election” thingy we had a few years ago?
Tom Hilton
@LT: Your “second comment” had no content. Now I understand you’re just about the dumbest motherfucker on the face of the planet, but surely you can understand this well enough to respond: can you actually argue (with a straight face) that positions based on premises inimical to liberalism can actually be liberal?
Brian S
@LT: The fact that you’re unwilling or unable to see and respond to what ABL and the others are saying about Greenwald’s intellectual dishonesty says more about you than anything else. Grenwald has that choice–no one is suggesting otherwise–but when he makes provably false statements, then he deserves to get called out on them, even if it hurts your precious fee-fees.
Corner Stone
@Tom Hilton: Oh Lil Tommy Hilton. Your post is shit and is a hit piece and has nothing to do with anything except trying to tag your mortal enemy GG with some shit off one fucking tweet.
You’re a fucking jihadist, just like ABL who front paged that piece of shit post.
You should stick to taking pretty pictures.
Tom Hilton
@wilfred:
Die in a motherfucking fire. Die painfully. Get burns over 80% of your fucking body and hang on for weeks in a state where they can’t even give you enough morphine to even begin to help with the pain.
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: If you ever want to offer a substantive disagreement, I’ll be happy to argue it with you. Until then, fuck the fuck off.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@eemom: I read so DAMN many posts and comments on Greenwald and Sully and Brooks and Matthews and Gregory and the Times and WaPo and TV pundits et al. You know, if I mentioned their names at work not 1 in 10 would know what the fuck I’m talking about.
I don’t read ’em. The only way I hear about the bullshit they’re talking about is this and a couple of other blogs. They’re inconsequential. Stop reading them yourself and lower your blood pressure. Fuck ’em all.
Raythe
@LT: I’m not sure where you are getting your beliefs about me as you are making things up that I haven’t said and even a not-so-careful reading would set you straight on my other responses, but here it is again:
I can clearly see that you are concerned about the drone strikes. I can clearly see that you are passionate in your belief that, for you, they are vile and evil and, therefore, you cannot countenance a vote for Obama. But what I can’t understand is why you don’t see that the Republican candidate (Mitt Romney, most likely) is going to be even worse than Obama has been on this issue.
As to Greenwald, he can write whatever he wants. So can you. So can everyone. So can I. That’s the beauty of the net.
My point is not to squelch dissent, but to say: when it comes down to it, if you’re going to vote for Obama, get out there and help bring others in who might sit it out or put in money or something good, because that enthusiasm gap is what’ll kill our chances here. Don’t be tepid or timid in your support if you look at the Republican field and see it as a frightening group of sociopaths.
Even if all you can say good about Obama is: he’s better than the alternative.
But maybe that’s not pure enough for you. Too Orwellian or practical. I don’t know. What I do know is that this is the way things work and when we ignore that fact we got President George W. Bush and we could get President Willard “Mitt” Romney.
Admiral_Komack
@ABL:
Fire ’em up!
Oh…and FUCK Ron Paul.
Corner Stone
@Tom Hilton: Ooooo…Burn!!
Please take it down a notch. You’re about to burn the ass off the Lil Christmas Baby FlipYrNick. And that’s just not kosher.
How about you put something together that isn’t shit? You keep moving the fucking goalposts. Inimical to “the left”? Or inimical to “liberalism”?
C’mon wordsmith! They aren’t the same. You’re a shifty one, Lil Tommy Hilton.
NR
@Tom Hilton: I guess violent, eliminationist rhetoric isn’t just for right-wingers anymore.
AxelFoley
@ShadeTail:
This bears repeating, for the dumbfucks around here who still have doubts about what President Obama has achieved, DESPITE historic obstruction from Republicans in Congress and pussy ass Democrats who don’t have his back.
Admiral_Komack
@Raythe:
“…and we could get President Willard “Mitt” Romney.”
…and dogs on car roofs would become commonplace…
Raythe
@Satanicpanic: I was thinking of his position as an isolationist and so even drone strikes might not be in his bag. I don’t honestly know what Ron Paul would do if put in the position of president and I hope we never find out. But that is a good point.
Waynski
@Satanicpanic: Presidents invariably try to implement their campaign promises. Did Bill Clinton run on ending welfare as we know it? Yes. Did he? Yes. Did George W. Bush promise massive tax cuts? Yes. Did he? Yes. Did Barack Obama run on reforming health care and ending the war in Iraq? Did he? Yes. That they don’t accomplish everything they set out to do doesn’t make them liars, it’s called democracy. The other side pushes back and doesn’t let them get everything they promised. Thinking that Paul wouldn’t be able to do great damage to this country, “because they’re all the same” is dangerous, dangerous, dangerous thinking.
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: Again: if you have a substantive disagreement, try articulating it.
Allan
@Corner Stone: And yet little Tommy Hilton was featured on the front page of Balloon-Juice while you continue to toil away, unappreciated, down here in the comments like any dickwad with an internet connection.
Brian S
@Tom Hilton: He won’t. He never has before, and there’s no reason to believe he’ll start now. There’s a serious question as to whether he’s able to at all.
LT
@Tom Hilton: Oh, okay, comment 170. Fine.
Oh fucking brother. What I want to argue is that Greenwald was making a comment about the current president, the one who actually makes the choices on the issues he has covered for years now. He has been consistent on these issues, and in saying that Obama is much farther to the Right on them than a lot of people would alike to admit.
GG remade that same point in a one-off tweet, referring to positions taken by Ron Paul that could be seen as being to the Left of Obama.
You took that one tweet, about Obama, and – never mind GG’s years of work on these exact same issues regarding Obama – and tried to make it GG talking about Ron Paul.
In other words: You’re a jackass who made a reaching jackass move in the first place.
And then you even said, right here, as you pointed out, that what GG said was true, because the positions “coincided” with positions to the Left of Obama.
Again: You’re a jackass.
And to pick just one issue, what exactly about paul’s position on drone attacks is “inimical to liberalism”?
Corner Stone
@Brian S: @Brian S: See, now that doesn’t rhyme either.
You’re starting to seriously disappoint me Spearsy.
LT
@Brian S: Uh huh.
Raythe
@Hill Dweller: My father who was also a reasonably intelligent man with a masters and worked in finance also hated Obama. He thought ridiculous things about him that I couldn’t reason with him on. Like you, I would show him that his beliefs were mistaken, were based on lies and misinformation, but it did no good.
I don’t know what’s going on with Republicans these days. I really don’t. The only thing I can think of is that they are afraid. It’s a free-floating fear that things are changing and that it will be a change for the worse for them down the line. Obama may not have done anything that they can point to that makes them feel this way, but they feel it. It’s unreasoning.
Corner Stone
@Allan: You’re so right Hall Monitor.
If only I could baselessly slag someone ABL hates with every little fiber of her tiny little being. Maybe, just maybe, she’d front page me at a blog that has more than 6 comments per post.
I’m toiling though. One day. One day, John Cole will front page one of my emails to him.
I can feel it.
Ken
@Sloegin:
Personification… Wait a minute. How many are/were there? Romney, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, Bachmann, Paul – dang, one too many. I was hoping they would match the Seven Deadly Sins. Maybe if I ignore Huntsman, everyone else does…
Raythe
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason:
It’s so warm here … I had no idea. Lol! Thank you!
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: I still have no idea where you got this thing you attribute to me about curse words. I never said anything like that. Fuckity fuck fuck püssy-ass punk bitch pússy fucking fucksaw. I _do_ think it’s kind of funny how predictably you put on the guise of the Baddest-ass Bad-ass at Closing Time right around post 300. By and large you instigate and sulk and do a lot of silverback macho posturing when, I dunno, it kinda seems like the point of shooting the shit on a blog is to have some sort of dialogue that leads somewhere or gets you to confront what you really think when challenged. Do you ever do that? A lot of equally aggressive, equally opinionated people around here actually do. Do yourself a favor and give it a try.
LT
@Raythe:
Oh fuck you. Jesus fucking christ. This fucking shit.
hey, asshole. I’m voting for Obama. And I don’t want him to be primaried.
Jesus.
wilfred
@ Tom Hilton:
Was I just flamed? Or is that just plain old hate speech?
How old are you, 14?
Waynski
@AxelFoley: I won’t speak for JC, but I will for myself having supported the Iraq War to my shame. I was scared and was easily manipulated into a let’s get them before they get us posture. No excuses follow. I was wrong.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: It’s one of your failsafes.
LT
@Raythe:
I’m arguing with an eight-year-old, obviously.
Auguste
Allow me to paraphrase (actually, expand) myself from Twitter, last week:
Some people are pacifists because they love others.
Some people are pacifists because they hate others.
The word “pacifist” is, therefore, not as important as “love/hate” in determining whether two sets of beliefs coincide. And if I wasn’t already sure that Ron Paul fits in the latter category, a week of following the “Ron Paul newsletter” on Twitter has removed all doubt.
Waynski
@LT: Is this the Festivus thread?
LT
@Raythe: You really need to look at your luggage. You invented – from nothing but that I’m criticizing him – that I’m not voting for Obama.
Honestly – instead of lecturing people, you should just sit and look at yourself for while.
Tom Hilton
@LT: Sorry, but your obsessive misreading of the post is no sound basis for a substantive critique. Try again, having read it without your delusional preconceptions.
Mike in NC
No shit. We also recently observed the 150th anniversary of the start of a terrible civil war that half the country still wishes the other side won.
Anonne
ABL’s post was more about hating Greenwald than Ron Paul.
And truthfully, the hive mind idea that there cannot be any kind of policy overlap between parties despite different reasoning disturbs me. The parties do not have to be mirror opposites of each other. They certainly aren’t when it comes to getting paid by Wall Street.
I agree with the principle that on some issues, Ron Paul’s policy choice is ostensibly to the “left” of Obama, even if it is attained for different reasons.
Example: The President said he’s against “dumb wars” but has indicated a certain willingness to start another dumb war with Iran over nukes. Ron Paul wouldn’t start a war with Iran, for reasons that are different – financial reasons, strategic reasons (the concept of “blowback”). His comments also seem to respect the sovereignty of other countries.
Just because he isn’t a pacifist against all wars doesn’t mean that his position isn’t ostensibly a “left” position when everyone else in his party is beating the drums to go to war. I’d say that it is fair to characterize his position as being “to the left of Obama.” And that isn’t the only one.
I thought GG’s statement was basically true, but it won’t stop certain people from reading their biases into it.
Brian S
@Tom Hilton: I’m not misreading! You’re misthinking! /LT
Did I get it right?
LT
@Tom Hilton:
The Formula, by Tom Hilton, esq:
Raythe
@LT: So in every thread you post in where you go on and on and on about the drone strikes and how awful Obama is in regards to them (WORSE THAN BUSH), you’re still voting for Obama … In a thread about who would vote for any of the Republicans, you go on and on about how bad Obama in regards to these drone strikes as if the Republican candidates would somehow offer an alternative … BUT IN ALL REALITY YOU’RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!
Forgive me if I misunderstood your position that EXACTLY like me you are going to act in an — oh, how did you describe it? an “Orwellian manner” and actually vote for Obama whom you claim is acting so very terribly …
I just couldn’t see through the cloud of rabid disgust you have for our current president to realize you actually aren’t foolish enough to believe the Republicans will do better on this issue.
Point taken! Good for you.
Good lord.
Brian S
@Anonne:
In what alternate universe has this happened?
LT
@Tom Hilton: One more time, with blockquotes correctly made:
The Formula, by Tom Hilton, esq:
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He’s an isolationist. That means he thinks the US should not have any foreign entanglements, so that means no more international trade, either.
Brian S
@Mnemosyne: Which is exactly what would happen if he got his wish and we reverted to the gold standard.
FlipYrWhig
@Auguste: Or, to put a different spin on a point I tried to raise on the last go-round, David Koresh, G. Gordon Liddy, Fred Hampton, and Glenn Greenwald are or were all concerned about jackbooted feds. That doesn’t tell you very much about ¿quién es más liberal? either.
LT
@Raythe:
I criticize Obama, fwtw, on issues like the drone attacks, I praise him on others, and can not vote for a Republican, or help on get elected.
This is vewy vewy hard for you to comprehend, I get it. But that’s your disease.
Satanicpanic
@Waynski: That’s not what I’m saying though. People are ascribing Paul a special power to end civil liberty abuses. This is just nonsense. Obama had greater support and more allies in Washington, and he either couldn’t, or didn’t want to, do what he said he would. Paul has NO support in Washington, nor do I think he’s especially honest (witness his lying about his racist newsletters). So when people say – well, Ron Paul may have views you find disagreeable, you should support him because he’s good on civil liberties- I say, based on what? Prove to me that this racist man is going to be better. I am highly skeptical. And without his vaunted civil liberty stance, he’s just another asshole Republican.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
Well, clearly David Koresh and G. Gordon Liddy are “to the left” of Obama. QED.
Brian S
@LT: If all Raythe has to go on are your comments in the two Greenwald threads, it’s a pretty sound conclusion to come to. You’ve been an Obama basher and complete jackass and given no indication that you supported him. That you may have expressed support elsewhere is kind of irrelevant.
FlipYrWhig
@Anonne:
How about the bias that it was “more about” Greenwald than about the actual subject both Tom Hilton and ABL addressed, that is, whether it’s right to call Greenwald’s critiques of Obama and/or interpretations of Paul’s views “left”? Honestly, who gives a flying fuck about who doesn’t like whom? Why does that matter?
LT
@Brian S:
No, it’s absolutely not. it’s a big flaw in yours and a lot of others reasoning – that strong criticism means we’d help hand it over to the fucking Republicans. It really is, Brian.
Allan
@LT: You do realize that this makes you, in Glenn Greenwald’s view, a cultist? He would find you especially disgusting because you “get” how evil Obama is and plan to vote for him anyway. Clearly you are history’s greatest monster.
Raythe
@Brian S: Thank you. That says it far better than I could. It seems all that comes out of LT is discussions on the drones (no matter what the thread is about and it’s off topic 99% of the time) or name calling when people challenge him. His rabid feelings on the subject of the drones, especially in this thread, where John’s point is that the Republicans are batshit crazy so how can anyone vote for them, led me to believe that he wasn’t voting for Obama.
How wrong I was …
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: On the law enforcement powers of the federal government they’re so skeptical they practically define the “leftmost” position. It’d be fascinating for the Branch Davidian Party to nominate someone so markedly to the left of Obama on this crucial question of civil liberties. :P
LT
@Allan: I’ve seen him say “cultist” and “Obot” before, but not in regards to voting for him. To hypocritically defending him, yes. He may have – but I haven’t seen it, and I read him regularly.
(And I personally don’t use any “Obot” language like that. Like you and ABL do from the other direction, Allan.)
Anonne
@Brian S: Obama recently stated that he wouldn’t rule out a military strike on Iran. How ’bout you google that.
@Mnemosyne:
He is not an isolationist, he’s a military non-interventionist. There is a difference.
@FlipYrWhig:
Personally, I don’t give a flying fuck about who doesn’t like whom, and I wish we would see less of it. But I relent, I admit my bias against seeing the GG hating BS and leading with it skewed my view of it.
Waynski
@Satanicpanic:
I believe we can all agree on that.
FlipYrWhig
BTW, to get back to the subject of the post, I don’t think it’s that hard to understand why someone would vote for one of these dunderheads. They think Obama is worse. If I was a voter in South Carolina and I had in front of me two options, Jim DeMint and Alvin Greene, I would vote for Greene, not because he knows what he’s doing or even seems to be right in the head at all, but to stop DeMint. Same thing here. Romney, Bachmann, sack full of used sanitary socks from a thrift store sneaker bin, if the mission is to stop Obama you pull the R lever and hope for the best.
Brian S
@Anonne: There’s a fucking universe of difference between what you just wrote and how you characterized what Obama said in your earlier post. Jeebus.
Allan
@LT: You sound so very reasonable in this one comment, even taking the moral high ground in some kind of comparison with others. Yet on this thread you have shown nothing but withering, sneering contempt for a person who articulated his own reasons for voting for Obama.
It’s ironic, because Tom Hilton has tried all evening to help you see that even if two people arrive at the same conclusion, they don’t get there for the same reasons and can’t be presumed to be like-minded. Yet here you are, insulting and demeaning someone who will cast the same vote as you in November, 2012.
It’s as if you can’t see yourself. I ask that you do as you have directed Raythe and reflect on what you’ve contributed to this conversation.
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
Look at his actual stances, not just the ones you like. He’s an old-school isolationist who thinks the US was wrong to fight in World War 2.
Anonne
To answer the actual question, I have learned not to underestimate the greed and stupidity of your neighbors.
Our media outlets function as an echo chamber, and Fox News is a propaganda machine masquerading as news. A lot of people do not take the time to read and be more broadly informed. With Fox continually broadcasting apocalyptic stuff and blatant lies, and the other media so desperate for ratings that they will do the same thing, half of the country are woefully ill-informed or willfully blind.
In a word? Money.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Anonne:
You’re making the claim, you provide the evidence.
Anonne
@Brian S: That’s your opinion. You’d have to be a complete moron to think that any kind of military strike against Iran wouldn’t have enormous consequences, intended or otherwise, and not ruling out a war with Iran over nukes is a BAD IDEA on multiple levels. It is the essence of a dumb war.
Waynski
@LT: You’re asking everyone to bring a knife to a gun fight. That you’ll stand in the background and cheer on the People’s Front of Judea or the People’s Judean Front is a nice and superior sentiment I guess, but not particularly helpful. Good luck under Roman Law if we loose.
wilfred
“I believe we can all agree on that”
I don’t. Amongst other things, Paul is the only candidate to question American policy towards Israel, his fellow candidates’ anti-Muslim/Arab bigotry, and the ridiculous war on drugs – all of which are catastrophically wrong and/or dangerous.
I would like to see all three issues discussed at a national level – which will certainly not happen in a contest between Obama and any other republican candidate
Allan
The brave, principled stalwart fighter for the Constitution who never backs down or compromises his principles just threw the kill-the-gays pastor under the bus. Squish!
I guess Ron Paul’s just another politician. Sigh.
wilfred
Here:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre7b71pg-us-obama-iran/
Brian S
@Anonne: Sweet Jeebus on a Pogo Stick, do you read your own words? The gulf between this, what you originally wrote
and this
is fucking enormous. I agree (I think) with you that a military strike would be a bad call, but the two things you compared there are insanely different.
Anonne
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-20/obama-says-no-options-off-table-to-stop-iran-nuclear-arms.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/28/u-s-israel-discuss-triggers-for-bombing-iran-s-nuclear-infrastructure.html
bourbaki
@Anonne:
Moreover, today we get more news of sabre-rattling. As well as this* reassuring commitment from the US blow shit up if the need arises.
*Admittedly this is both anonymously sourced and from a known neocon propagandist so should be taken with a grain of salt…
Anonne
@Brian S:
Asshole. What do you think a military strike on Iran is tantamount to?
Waynski
@wilfred: Well, I still think we can agree on all three issues you mentioned, and I don’t discount your passion for any of them, but sometimes you have to fight on the terrain you’re presented with, so we need to get our heads in the fight we’re in, not the one(s) we wish we could be in.
Mnemosyne
@wilfred:
He questions it because he thinks international Jewish bankers are running the Fed.
If you want to have a public debate with Ron Paul telling the world that the international Jewish conspiracy is running the country, be my guest.
amk
@FlipYrWhig: yup. stop the fucking bleeding should first and only motto for the voters in 2012.
freelancer (iPhone)
Ugh, fuck this thread. Less tiresome purists pleeze.
Brian S
@Anonne: A military strike is tantamount to a military strike. It could be a prelude to war, but it isn’t always. Sometimes a military strike results in the death of Osama bin Laden, which hasn’t resulted in a war at all. See the difference?
dead existentialist
And in the race to be the bigger asshole on a BJ thread . . .it’s Corner Stone in the lead by a head . . . but here comes LT with a late run on the inside . . . ladies and gentlemen, this a donnybrook . . . these two viral stallions are charging down the homestretch in furious contention . . . now they’re neck and neck as they approach the finish line . . and the winner is . . . .
Anonne
@Mnemosyne: Listen. I am not going to agree with Ron Paul on the issue of WWII, but there is also a difference between military non-intervention and isolationism. Basically letting other people fight their own wars is not necessarily being isolationist, in my opinion. I think people use that term too loosely, to bring down anyone who questions the use of military force for purposes other than defense of the homeland.
Waynski
Let’s all sleep on it. Pretty late here in the east. Catch you all tomorrow.
Anonne
@Brian S:
An unprovoked military strike is, by definition, an act of war. 9/11 was an act of war. A strike on Iran would be an act of war. Do you really think that there would be no retaliation for such a strike, that the Iranians would just quail up and take it? Do it, and you plunge the whole region into war.
As for Bin Laden, we have been working somewhat with the Pakistani government, as part of an ongoing WAR. Your point is a fail.
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
Yes, there is a difference between military non-intervention and isolationism. Ron Paul is and always has been an isolationist, not a non-interventionist. He’s a classic John Birch Society-loving, right-wing isolationist. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself about his long-held and often-stated views.
Hill Dweller
@bourbaki: This most recent Strait of Hormuz mess is the direct result of the assholes on the right and cowards on the left in congress voting to go after Iran’s Central Bank against Obama’s wishes.
As for a military strike on Iran, Obama is the only thing stopping Israel from bombing them, and likely the only thing stopping us from hitting them(or at least letting Israel do it).
Romney’s f’n clueless on foreign policy, and constant declaration of fealty to Israel doesn’t portend a diplomatic solution with Iran.
wilfred
A military strike is an act of pre-emptive war. When it’s done against Gaza nothing happens, but only because Gaza has nothing to retaliate with – Iran does.
I repeat – a pre-emptive strike is an act of war, whatever euphemisms you may want to couch it in. An attack against Iran will be considered the final step in a war against Islam.
It doesn’t matter what we think.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: No, I think you’ve got that wrong, the John Birch Society was clearly and “fascinatingly” “to the left” of Roosevelt and Truman on foreign wars.
bourbaki
@Brian S:
I’m loving this quote its so…Rumsfeld-esque.
Yutsano
@freelancer (iPhone): Fuck the mangoes dude. Stay in the deck chair on the boat and get some sun.
Allan
Yes, clearly because Obama said all options are on the table, that proves he is on the verge of authorizing military action against Iran.
It couldn’t possibly be a statement meant to reassure allies and send a message to Iran. Oh no, stupid warmonger Obama is about to plunge us into another endless war just like he did in Libya.
ruemara
@Soonergrunt: Wet mice have the sense to be angry. Ron Paul supporters don’t even conceive that there’s water and it’s not their friend.
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
I dunno. That Daily Beast story sounds like the US is trying to soothe the paranoid fears of the Israelis without actually committing to anything.
If the Iranians freak out and lob a missile at Tel Aviv, all bets are off, but I honestly don’t think that anything short of that would convince the US to bomb Iran.
bourbaki
@Hill Dweller: Well Obama doesn’t seem to want to veto this bill now does he.
P.S. And please don’t go on about veto proof majorities, if Obama can’t whip enough of his caucus to prevent a veto override then he is the most ineffective American politician since Andrew Johnson.
Anonne
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t believe that to be entirely accurate. I don’t think it’s as simple as that. We like to make things very simple, easy to label, and that is part of why our political situation is as f’d as it is.
Anonne
@Allan: The only one imputing immediacy to Obama’s position is you.
The simple point is that attacking Iran will result in “a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences,” as has been eloquently stated by someone we thought we knew before.
Hill Dweller
@bourbaki: Obama couldn’t stop them from passing legislation preventing any funding for transferring prisoners from Gitmo into the US, despite having way more Dems in congress, higher approval ratings, and the support of Gates and Petraeus.
We are a party of cowards when it comes to National Security. The Iraq War authorization should have told you that. The Republicans know it, which is why they stuffed all that nonsense into the defense appropriations bill less than a year from an election.
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
But that’s the problem with Ron Paul — he really does think it’s that simple, and reality is not allowed to intrude. It’s the infection all libertarians have to some degree, and Paul seems to have a whole lot of it. As others have pointed out, another example is that his desire to dissolve the Fed is absolutely batshit insane, but in his mind, it’s a simple solution to the problem and no impediments must be raised.
Paul believes in a simple world with binary solutions. That’s why he’s an isolationist, not a non-interventionist.
Allan
@bourbaki: You don’t need to reach back that far. If Obama can’t whip enough of his caucus to prevent a veto override then he is the most ineffective American politician since George W. Bush.
NR
@dead existentialist:
The guy who wrote this:
Hands down, the winner.
Anonne
@Mnemosyne: I think Paul’s desire to end the Fed is ridiculous, and a lot of the problem with Libertarianism is with the simplistic mindset. But on foreign policy, I don’t quite see it the same way. Maybe it’s my non-interventionist biases showing, but not everything Ron Paul says about foreign policy is nonsense. He’s a certifiable crank, to be sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And I’m off to bed. Peace!
ruemara
@LT: She’s the asshole? She’s (or he) is trying to have a reasonable dialogue with the person who has heroically been saying that Obama really is to the right of Ron Paul and drone strikes are evil and it’s not fair to cut off your right to critize Obama by reading GG, and s/he is the asshole? You need a mirror to look in when you call anyone an asshole, but definitely when you call Raythe that.
Allan
@Anonne: Sorry, I thought you were just stupid, but now I see you’re concern-trolling. My bad.
Mnemosyne
@Anonne:
I didn’t say it was. I’m pointing out that you are arriving at a similar position from very different starting points, and you should not mistake that one final position for agreement in other areas of foreign policy.
As a non-interventionist, do you think we should send non-military assistance if a major earthquake hits someplace like Haiti or Iran, or should we stay out of it? Ron Paul’s foreign policy says we should stay out of it completely and let them clean it up themselves because it’s nothing to do with us. Do you agree with him, or do you think we should send assistance if it’s requested?
LT
@Allan:
Remind me where I did this.
Brian S
@Anonne: The only simple point here is apparently the one atop your head. Seriously, if you think a military strike automatically turns into an occupation then you have some reading of military history to do.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@LT:
Do you actually have a life or is it DOWN WITH OBAMA!! 24/7 with you? If you are out to change minds and win converts to your cause (whatever it is), you aren’t.
Really, a scratched record that is skipping offers more variety than you do.
Allan
@LT:
dead existentialist
@dead existentialist: And we have a dead heat.*
@NR:
@Allan:
*Apparently Corner Stone threw a shoe and had to be put down by its owners.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@dead existentialist: “Apparently Corner Stone threw a shoe and had to be put down by its owners.”
CS rents his shoes? If so, it’s probably by the hour. Now if you are talking about a horse throwing a shoe, CS is only a horses ass.
No shoes involved unless someone is kicking his ass.
LT
@Allan:
Allan, that’s not me showing “nothing but withering, sneering contempt for a person who articulated his own reasons for voting for Obama.” It’s me showing sneering contempt for someone with the arrogance to tell others how to act.
Is that really that hard for you to grasp?
CarolDuhart2
@LT: I almost have to say it in a teacher-like voice: American politics is binary. It’s either Obama or his Republican counterpart. You may be unhappy about Obama and the drone strikes, but his Republican counterpart isn’t going to end them, indeed given the need to “stand tough” those strikes will definitely increase in number as we start fighting Iran (pay attention here). Obama wants to wind down Afghanistan: the Republicans want to double down.
Yes, a couple of Independents have won a Governorship, and Bernie Sanders is a Senator, but no third party has even come close to the Presidency, and none will do so this year.
Allan
@LT: Well, you certainly told him!
Seriously, I think it’s adorable that you’re going to vote for Obama, but promise me you won’t tell anyone else, or volunteer for his campaign in any capacity that brings you into contact with potential voters.
dead existentialist
@LT: Is that really that hard for you to grasp?
Allan
@dead existentialist: Good one, but I think this one captures the flavor of LT best of all.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Allan:
Excellent suggestions. Supporters like LT only depress turnout for their candidate, then they wonder why they lose most of the time.
Funny how that happens.
dead existentialist
@Allan: Works for me if I get to be the guy at the end of that clip delivering the backhand “compliment.”
Allan
Meanwhile, on the topic of Ron Paul, James Kirchick weighs in with the observation that Paul never met a deranged CT he couldn’t embrace and propagate.
Kirchick wrote a takedown of Paul back in 2008 that has led those classy Ronulans to do things like affix his name and likeness without his knowledge to a shitty website that incites people to assassinate elected officials.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@wilfred:
Fucking mortals and their inside-the-box limitations. SMITE THEM, I say.
@Corner Stone:
Well lookee here: Internet bully is bullying on the internet. The schtick has become far too predictable to be effective any longer- unless you want people laughing at you, that is. I am ROFLMFAO right now. Bravo!
debbie
These are the kind of candidates negative campaigning produces and these are the kind of delusional voters they attract. Now, how long until the party leadership realizes this?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@wilfred:
Yes, because those Hamas guys running Gaza are so beyond reproach.
Sly
Obama isn’t liberal enough for me, so my clearest alternative is a bigoted Austrian Schooler who thinks that U.N. Black Helicopters, working in concert with the unconstitutional Department of Energy, are devaluing the dollar to force us to adopt the “Amero” and form a transcontinental totalitarian state with Canada and Mexico.
BECAUSE DRONES
Carl Nyberg
I’m uncomfortable painting Ron Paul as unacceptable because of his bigotry without an explicit statement that U.S. foreign policy is at its core based on bigotry against Arabs and Muslims married to simple war profiteering.
Ron Paul is not going to get to enact the policies that are used as extreme examples of his odious attitudes.
However, the bigoted policies Ron Paul opposes are killing real people every day.
It’s too easy for Democrats and Obama supporters to dismiss Ron Paul’s goofiness and avoid scrutinizing how fucked-up our foreign policy has become.
Samara Morgan
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Now Hamas is adopting non-violence and civil disobedeiance like the MB did years ago.
What do you think the outcome will be?
Tahir in Tel-Aviv?
Samara Morgan
@LT: plz forgive Hall Monitor Allan. he gets all frothy about blogmanners sometimes.
Paging ABL, paging ABL!
Best rein in your dog, Imani.
He’s outa control.
Barry
@wilfred: “As for the ‘sheer insanity’ Paul’s economic ideas, what the fuck could be crazier than our own political economy? 14 trillion dollars in debt, more US currency reserves in foreign hands than our own, and the entire apparatus and decision-making power in the hands of less than 1% of the population. That’s sane?”
The first is not insane, the second is probably a sign of strength (people want to hold our bonds), and the third, unfortunately, is closer to normal than most better situations.
wilfred
“However, the bigoted policies Ron Paul opposes are killing real people every day.It’s too easy for Democrats and Obama supporters to dismiss Ron Paul’s goofiness and avoid scrutinizing how fucked-up our foreign policy has become”
Dismiss? They just ignore it. Great comment, btw.
Samara Morgan
ORLY?
haha, you aint seen nothing yet.
In the run-up to November 2012 you will see libertarians and conservatives speak in tongues and bark like dogs as the specific gravity of wingnuttiness warps their spacetime reality out of true.
Paul fanboi-hood is nuthin’.
the Wingularity is near.
Barry
@wilfred: “I give up. Paul is currently fighting for congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve. You must be against that sort of oversight, correct?”
The sort of oversight which Ron Paul and the GOP would give, yes.
Barry
@JGabriel: “Pretending that Paul just wants congressional oversight of the Fed is disingenuous.”
This is something that I should have mentioned.
When somebody wants oversight over something which they wish to destroy, they don’t want oversight – they want destruction.
wilfred
@ Barry:
Fine. What are some alternative proposals for oversight? Anybody else making them? Somewhere between no oversight and Paul’s versions there must be some middle ground.
Samara Morgan
@wilfred: lol, there is no middle ground.
fundamentalists (whether they be christians or libertarians), burn the middle ground to force moderates into their camp.
Pascal Boyer, Evolutionary Theory of Religion.
polyorchnid octopunch
@LT: easy answer to that. How many folks are going to get killed by the alternative? I mean, last time they were in charge, they started a war of choice that ended up slaying somewhere around a million (and don’t think you can cite iraq body count to avoid that number… I’ll take the lancet over a place that explicitly says they only count the bodies that are reported on by US media thanks).
Yep, a million people. You’ve got to weigh your options. The fact that you’re looking at only least bad has a lot more to do with your national character than anything else… sorry ’bout that, but there’s not a lot that can be done about that without a major generational change and I just don’t see that in the cards for you guys.
Seriously, when I hear you folks going on about that crap, I think you’re all fucking children. Wake up and smell the coffee. If you don’t help get the least worst option you’ve got in, then you’re helping the most worst option win. Vote for the least worst option, and then go work in the party between elections to IMPROVE THE FUCKING OPTIONS YOU’VE GOT.
I seriously don’t understand why you people haven’t figured out you need to #occupy your political parties.
Davis X. Machina
Shit. 245 posts. I had 250 on the over-under. Ron Paul, you let me down.
Admiral_Komack
What Does Ron Paul Stand For?
Posted on 12/29/2011 at 7:47 am by Bob Cesca
You’ve probably overheard or observed various progressives and anti-war idealists praising Ron Paul for his foreign policy record while virtually ignoring his awful record on an array of other issues.
Last year, Glenn Greenwald wrote a virtual love letter to Ron Paul and, towards the end, he off-handedly mentioned Paul’s “odious” positions on other issues. He wrote a sentence or two covering his ass following a lengthy dissertation about Paul’s greatness.
But what exactly are those other positions?
First, Ron Paul has consistently been the most conservative member of Congress, based on his voting record. And that’s not just this year or last year alone. He has the most conservative voting record in Congress since 1937. Think of the most conservative wingnut you can come up with. Ron Paul is to that guy’s right. Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert — Ron Paul has them beat by a gazillion miles. Again, the most conservative since 1937. There have been more than 3,000 members of Congress in that time.
As everyone knows, he’s a disciple of fiction writer Ayn Rand. Among other things, Paul’s libertarianism is manifested in his desire to eliminate many cabinet level departments including the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Yeah, it’s okay to risk a significant loss of government services, and the millions of American lives effected, in order to stop drone attacks.
http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/12/what-does-ron-paul-stand-for.html
FUCK RON PAUL.
different-church-lady
The dreams of at least three trolls I won’t name just died.
Admiral_Komack
@polyorchnid octopunch:
“I seriously don’t understand why you people haven’t figured out you need to #occupy your political parties.”
Not flaming you, but maybe this is their reason:
“But…but…but…shut up that’s why!”
Admiral_Komack
@Davis X. Machina:
You win.
different-church-lady
@Raythe:
It’s not real for them yet. Same reason we can’t process what global warming/climate change means: the consequences are too distant, and too abstract right now.
Wait until the summer when there’s a real candidate and it’s one-on-one with Obama. The tune will change right fast.
FlipYrWhig
@Carl Nyberg: I don’t see why any of those points can’t be made without smirky contrarian framing about how far “left” Ron Paul is. He’s clearly, obviously, a creature of the right wing on every possible level — look up the John Birch Society and count the parallels — who happens to share _some_ positions with _some_ self-identified members of the left.
Rafer Janders
@Hill Dweller:
Before anyone gets pissed, I’m not suggesting all people voting against Obama/for Republicans are ignorant.
No, that’s true. Ignorance is not the only motivating force. There’s also malice, greed, racism, narrow self-interest, etc. You can’t blame ignorance alone.
Mnemosyne
@polyorchnid octopunch:
The Tea Partiers figured it out in 2009 and 2010 — they infiltrated the Republicans from the ground up and got their candidates into office (or at a minimum won the primary like Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell). That’s the same way the Christianists got the levers of power leading up to Reagan’s election.
On the left, people are wedded to the fantasy of a third party rising from nowhere to sweep the system clean, so they won’t do the hard work the Tea Partiers did to take over the Democratic Party. They want a nice, shiny new political party to play with right out of the box, not that old, used-up Democratic Party that needs to be repaired. What fun is that?
Davis X. Machina
@Admiral_Komack: Ron Paul is as safe a bet as there is…
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Anyone who wants to make a bold political statement for liberals or the left end of the Democratic party could start by getting a progressive candidate for the Nebraska race.
To my mind, one of the most head-shaking moments in recent liberal/Democratic politics was the way the liberal blogosphere didn’t try particularly hard to defeat Charles Grassley in Iowa in 2010, after he did so much to warp the health care bill, including by repeating the death panel lie. I’m just not sure about the willingness of our big talkers to actually try hard to win.
Ordovician Bighorn Dolomite (formerly rarely seen poster Fe E)
@LT: You know, if you’d have left that last sentence out of reply, maybe this discussion would’ve moved forward, but you just couldn’t resist throwing in a dick move on your way out the door.
grandpa john
@Raythe</
Which should be an indication to you that it is a fucking waste of time to interact with obvious trolls
Anonne
@Brian S: I’m sorry you’re such a dumbass to think that it wouldn’t escalate into a full-scale war. You must be pals with Rumsfeld, thinking that we’ll be in and out in no time because of our military superiority. Maybe you believed Bush when he declared “Mission Accomplished.”
@Allan: Fuck yourself and try a little more advanced reading. No one is saying that Obama is beating the drum to go to war now. No one except you, that is. But the fact that he won’t rule it out, and because he knows what a morass Iraq was, he’s just as dumb/cynical as the neocon hawks on the right if he wants to go to war with Iran over nukes they don’t have and won’t have for probably a decade, if ever.
Anonne
@Mnemosyne:
I have no problem with humanitarian aid. What I generally don’t agree with is interfering in civil wars. Genocide, however, is a different subject.
moderateindy
@LT:
I think most people have looked at the only viable alternative and vomited a little in their mouth.
If your so called alternative is some nebulous third party candidate then let me say, grow up. We don’t get to live in fantasy land where everyone will vote for some third party candidate based on his or her merits. All a third party candidate is good for is sucking off enough support from one of the party’s candidates so that the other side wins. That’s the reality, regardless of what your fevered little mind thinks could happen. Why do the most moronic arguments always seem to begin with, “Well if everybody would just”….We are in a two party system federally and statewide, and must work within those confines to achieve our goals.
You are so upset with the drone program that you won’t vote for Obama. Tell me please, how will having a Republican, other than Paul, change the current policy? It won’t but you’ll get extra crappy policies on a whole range of issues. It would be like saying that you want your boss fired because he only gives you 30 minutes for lunch, and you see this as so egregious that you would rather have him fired and replaced with someone else that also only gives you 30 minutes for lunch, and expects you to work weekends and gets rid of free coffee in the breakroom.
moderateindy
Oh, to get back to the actual post before I was derailed by LT’s supreme silliness, A vote for Romney in certain circumstances would not be horribly objectionable in my mind. Yes, Mitt is a craven soulless say anything politician, but that’s just being redundant. He probably is, in a vacuum, a fairly moderate republican. OK, currently that’s an oxymoron. But if Mitt were to be President with a Democrat majority in both the house and Senate, then he wouldn’t scare me, and I could consider voting for him. Not in this reality, but say in 2000. But a Mitt with a Republican majority in Congress scares the shit out of me, as he would gladly rubber stamp every horrible policy that came down the pipe. Likewise with Huntsman. Also, if my strategy was to ruin the Republican party for years to come, I would vote for any of the rest of them, but considering having W around for 8 years didn’t accomplish this goal, I’m not sure such a thing is possible.
Tim in SF
Cole, I don’t understand how you can make such a point about an ABL post and then not link to it. I am only willing to go back three pages to look for it before giving up.
Bad blogger! BAD! No biscuit for you, John!