sleeper;1296736 wrote:Remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama!

Crap. You've convinced me. I'm voting for Romney in 2012!

justincredible;1296738 wrote:Crap. You've convinced me. I'm voting for Romney in 2012!

But Romney is from Mass. You know what else is from Mass.? The New England Patriots, that's who! Do you want to vote for the Patriots? DO YOU?

O-Trap;1296709 wrote:I'll take a serviceable alternative, but I'm not going to support sinking the ship or blowing the ship up just because most people are supporting one of those two. Presumably, when such an executive is sacked, he isn't replaced by someone who openly supports ideals that only perpetuate the continued downward direction of the company.

It's your opinion that Romney will blow things up. But that aside, that's why we have primaries. But now you are withdrawing from the consensus process because things didn't go your way, and you're neglecting your responsibility to fire the proven failure.

We operate in a world of uncertainty. You try to hire someone who can do the job, but if they fail then you don't hesitate to fire them to. You can't become paralyzed from action by either uncertainty or overconfidence. You make the best decision presented to you based on what you know. It's rarely a slam dunk - the people that can't make the best choices get fired themselves.

Heretic;1296739 wrote:But Romney is from Mass. You know what else is from Mass.? The New England Patriots, that's who! Do you want to vote for the Patriots? DO YOU?

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!?!?!?

se-alum;1296517 wrote:Because, if you put dung, vomit, and Ribeye in front of 101 people, those 101 people take the Ribeye, because they know definitively that those are the choices. No matter how many people try to tell me how delicious the dung and vomit are, I'm still taking the Ribeye because it's more appetizing to the eye. In a political race, people's opinions shape what they believe are dung, vomit, and Ribeye. What I believe to be dung or vomit, you may believe to be Ribeye.

This should end the silly debate once and for all.

justincredible;1296549 wrote: I have no ****ing clue, but I'm certainly not going to compromise my beliefs just because it might not.

My vote for Romney is not a compromise of my beliefs, it is a compromise of strategy.

O-Trap;1296560 wrote:Republican options and nominees in recent history have been proven failures, I'd suggest. They've increased spending over their predecessors. They've failed to do anything about military conflict (even though Bush II's first platform was run on anti-interventionism).

Silly argument. "All Republicans from this point forward will forever be the same as (or worse than) their predecessors".

How does one go about doing "anything about military conflict" when thousands of civilians are brutally murdered on our own soil?

gut;1296744 wrote:It's your opinion that Romney will blow things up.

It's rooted in the behavior of the Republican Party during my lifetime, which makes it more of a projection. Opinion isn't just something that has yet to be substantiated.

gut;1296744 wrote:But that aside, that's why we have primaries.

We have primaries so that like-minded people unify behind one candidate. I am not like-minded with those who support Romney.

gut;1296744 wrote:But now you are withdrawing from the consensus process because things didn't go your way ...

I'm not withdrawing. I was doing nothing different before than I am now. My game plan as a voter is no different now than it was in March: vote for the person who I think will right the ship and, by definition, not vote for the person who has continued to tip it.

gut;1296744 wrote:... and your neglecting your responsibility to fire the proven failure.

Sorry, but this is a blatant false dichotomy ... that if I don't vote for a specific one of several candidates who is not the incumbent I am endorsing the incumbent. I want him out, but given that I think Romney will only continue the tipping of the ship at about the same pace, I'd be a fool to fire one just to hire the other.

If I see a round hole, and the square peg from the last four years hasn't fit, I'm not going to try to replace the square peg with a pentagonal one. That'd be equally as fruitless.

This element of a "proven" failure reflects just as much on the Republican Party as it does on the Democrat Party. Given what the Republicans have stood for in my lifetime ... the actions they HAVE taken ... it would be silly of me to think that the same party with the same ideals suddenly picked a different kind of candidate.

Republican candidates and Democrat candidates aren't chocolates in a candy box ... little surprises every time. They're pretty much from the same mold with different personal lives.

Anyone who intentionally neglects to see that is the one neglecting his responsibility to quit supporting the proven failures.

jhay78;1296752 wrote:My vote for Romney is not a compromise of my beliefs, it is a compromise of strategy.

If I were to vote for Romney or Obama I'd be compromising my beliefs. I'm not willing to do that, even if it does mean I get shit on by everyone else.

I said nothing about anyone else.

jhay78;1296752 wrote:Silly argument. "All Republicans from this point forward will forever be the same as (or worse than) their predecessors".

That's silly, not to mention a straw man.

The current party has not undergone dynamic changes since the Bush administration. The same talking points are being used. The same brand of candidate is being put forward.

There is a difference between saying nothing HAS changed and nothing EVER WILL change.

jhay78;1296752 wrote:How does one go about doing "anything about military conflict" when thousands of civilians are brutally murdered on our own soil?

What has most of our presence in military conflict overseas done to (a) make us safer here, or (b) bring justice to those who committed the murderous acts (assuming you're trying to tie our role in the war to 9/11, but if I'm wrong please clarify)? Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan or Libya attacked the United States. An organization did. Occupying all those countries has do zero to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Heretic;1296739 wrote:But Romney is from Mass. You know what else is from Mass.? The New England Patriots, that's who! Do you want to vote for the Patriots? DO YOU?

lol'd

O-Trap;1296753 wrote: We have primaries so that like-minded people unify behind one candidate. I am not like-minded with those who support Romney.

No, we have primaries to build consensus, so that we elect the consensus best candidate (because clearly everyone has very different opinions). That is why we have primaries, as opposed to a free-for-all general election. You choose to withdraw from that process. That is your right, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're making a difference and then come-up with absurd hypotheticals to try to justify the position. You are disenfranchising yourself - the protest vote isn't anything new, it's never amounted to anything, and no politician has ever bothered to really care.

jhay78;1296752 wrote:This should end the silly debate once and for all.

Oh, I never disagreed with this. I simply stated that it would be odd to expect someone to vote to oust vomit in lieu of what he sees as dung.

If I don't want Romney in there any more than I want Obama in there, and my vote reflects that, why would someone get mad and accuse me of being the reason Obama is still in office? I would hate that Obama was still in office, but I would hate if Romney was in office, so I have no incentive to feel worse about Obama still being there. He's a cookie cutter candidate that represents a proven failure of his party as it currently exists. So is Romney. I don't care which one of them leads the country further into failure. I care about doing what little I can to stop it, altogether. That means wanting to keep both parties' candidates out of office.

If there is fault that any person is in office, it's the people who vote for him/her. Period. Their votes got him into office. Not the votes of anybody else, whether voting for the other half of the current political monstrosity or not.

O-Trap;1296774 wrote:Oh, I never disagreed with this. I simply stated that it would be odd to expect someone to vote to oust vomit in lieu of what he sees as dung.

That's how a consensus process often works, where you don't get your first or even second or whatever choice. At that point, you can either choose the best of the two, even if that's a potential failure over a proven failure, or you can take your ball and go home.

It really strikes me as child-like, and not in a good way. Like your family says pick something to do, and you narrow it down to two choices to vote again, and the one stubborn child sulks and throws a tantrum insisting to vote for their choice that no one else wants.

gut;1296769 wrote:No, we have primaries to build consensus, so that we elect the consensus best candidate (because clearly everyone has very different opinions).

Elect? Election doesn't happen in the primary. Nomination does. The primary allows like-minded individuals (Republicans) end up with a single candidate to unify behind in PREPARATION for the election.

However, if the primary fails its intended purpose, why is it one's obligation to stick with "the party choice" through hell or high water? I'd contend that you're not ever going to ensure you get the best candidate that way, PARTICULARLY with only two parties being given consideration.

gut;1296769 wrote:You choose to withdraw from that process.

Not at all. The candidate for whom I will vote will be no more the incumbent than that for whom you will vote. Doesn't mean we all have to exist in some perceived false dichotomy.

gut;1296769 wrote:That is your right, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're making a difference and then come-up with absurd hypotheticals to try to justify the position.

In this election, I won't make a difference. You're right from that standpoint. However, these two parties are not necessarily on par with Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" quote, suggesting that they are all that is or ever will be. In order for more than two parties to be given any consideration, consistent growth with minimal hemorrhaging is required.

As for the "absurd hypothetical," if you're referring to the analogy of this thread, it's pretty in line with most people who, through observing the parties for several decades, don't currently have faith in either of them, and view them as equally damaging.

gut;1296769 wrote:You are disenfranchising yourself - the protest vote isn't anything new, it's never amounted to anything, and no politician has ever bothered to really care.

I'm not voting third party to protest. If I wanted to protest, I'd vote something nonsensical like Mickey Mouse (who, as an aside, receives an average of a quarter million votes per election ... the more you know ...). I'm voting for a specific candidate who I believe would actually help the situation instead of making it worse. I'm not voting against the two favorites. I'm voting for someone else. Just because his party doesn't have enough established clout doesn't mean I'm disenfranchised at all, and it's narrow-minded to think so.

Not voting FOR Romney or Obama is not voting against them. I think they're harmful, and I don't want them in office any more than I would want Bernie Madoff, but not wanting them doesn't at all mean I no longer care who is.

How is it this difficult? Do I sound disenfranchised from the process? I'm disenfranchised from the two main parties, sure. I can't deny that at all. I readily admit it, but I fully believe in the process's ability to, over time, permit change. However, "over time," is an element, and a key one. Longevity has to happen for any party to reach a legitimate size, which is why I'm going to vote in accordance with someone who I think is best for the country, at least among the candidates running. He's not ideal. I don't love him as a candidate, but I think he's the best.

O-Trap;1296784 wrote: However, if the primary fails its intended purpose, why is it one's obligation to stick with "the party choice" through hell or high water?

It failed it's intended purpose? How so? According to whom - you? Romney IS the consensus candidate from the Repub side. Obama is the consensus candidate from the Dems. You are choosing not to participate in the consensus process, there's no spinning it.

Who are you voting for? Paul? Johnson? Both tried and failed in the Republican primaries. You are being the stubborn child.

You can't advocate your method as supporting or affecting change, over any time frame, when you enable failed incumbents to continue to be re-elected. I don't get what is so complicated to understand about that.

gut;1296780 wrote:That's how a consensus process often works, where you don't get your first or even second or whatever choice. At that point, you can either choose the best of the two, even if that's a potential failure over a proven failure, or you can take your ball and go home.

I'm not taking my ball and going home ... well, maybe I am this election, but that's because I can't justify picking either of the two options. Not that I don't want to. There's no point. I could pull out the "eenie meenie miney mo" game, and it would make as much of a difference.

The Republican Party, in my lifetime, has not gone through dynamic change in a good way. They have been a failure ... a proven failure.

Think of the two parties like shifty street dealers of jewelry. The watches they sell are the nominees. If the dealer's last three watches were broken, then the dealer is a proven failure at delivering quality merchandise. If both have been that way, then why would I really care which one's broken watch I'm wearing currently? Naturally, I wouldn't.

gut;1296780 wrote: It really strikes me as child-like, and not in a good way. Like your family says pick something to do, and you narrow it down to two choices to vote again, and the one stubborn child sulks and throws a tantrum insisting to vote for their choice that no one else wants.

I'm not upset or fired up about the fact that others vote differently, so I'm not sure why I'd throw a tantrum. I believe strongly that the options are dung, vomit, or something somewhat preferable ... at the very least, somewhat healthy for the country.

If the options the family gives are hit my head against a brick wall, hit my head against the asphalt ground, or sit in a corner, I don't care if the rest of the kids vote for hitting their heads in various places. I'm not going to vote that way.

If not opting to support something because I perceive it to be a stupid decision makes me a child, then I question what it makes those making the stupid decisions.

I always vote for the ribeye.

gut;1296788 wrote:It failed it's intended purpose? How so? According to whom - you? Romney IS the consensus candidate from the Repub side. Obama is the consensus candidate from the Dems. You are choosing not to participate in the consensus process, there's no spinning it.

Elect a candidate who is noticeably different from the others. I would hope that's a goal. If not, then perhaps, again, it doesn't matter who gets elected.

gut;1296788 wrote:Who are you voting for? Paul? Johnson? Both tried and failed in the Republican primaries. You are being the stubborn child.

So again, the only way not to be a stubborn child is to support a party's candidate who I think is damaging to the country?

Again, I'll use the asphalt and brick wall analogy. If being a stubborn child is choosing to pick a different activity than something I think is damaging, then feel free to call me a stubborn child.

gut;1296788 wrote: You can't advocate your method as supporting or affecting change, over any time frame, when you enable failed incumbents to continue to be re-elected.

The "incumbents" of the last two decades have all been "failed." And the parties that spit them out as candidates have not changed. On what grounds does one look at the last couple/few failed candidates from a failure of a party (in its current form, at least) and say, "Oh, maybe this time, it'll be better?"

gut;1296788 wrote:I don't get what is so complicated to understand about that.

You don't get why, if the rest of a party voted to jump off a bridge, I wouldn't?

O-Trap;1296800 wrote:Elect a candidate who is noticeably different from the others. I would hope that's a goal. If not, then perhaps, again, it doesn't matter who gets elected.

???

The point of a primary isn't to elect a candidate noticeably different from others, but the candidate the majority feels is best suited to run the country. I think Romney is very different from Obama - there seems to be some false attribution going on with you in regard to Romney just as with Paul/Johnson where you believe they are somehow remarkably different. Well, Paul is different - he's a fucking looney which is why he's tried every way to get some traction and keeps failing.

O-Trap;1296800 wrote: You don't get why, if the rest of a party voted to jump off a bridge, I wouldn't?

A bit rich on the hyperbole, don't ya think? Although that's how I generally feel about people that refuse to fire Obama, which is what you are doing. If the country goes over the cliff, it's still taking you with it. You can either vote, by omission or otherwise, to stay the course or support trying something different.

O-Trap;1296341 wrote:a) It's a ribeye. They don't talk, let alone run campaigns.
b) Nobody said you had the option of hot sauce.
c) Did you actually say you hoped eating animal vomit wouldn't suck too badly?
d) Just because you vote that way doesn't necessarily mean you'd win.

a) Fair enough. The ribeye needs to do a better job presenting itself. It looks tasty in the case, but if I have the butcher flip it over, it has some unpleasant looking spots on it.
b) Nobody said I didn't.
c) Yes. Mine has Frank's on it. Franks is very tasty, and may make the experience tolerable. Neither of us have tried it, so we don't know. Perhaps I'm just braver than you.
d) Agreed. That said, the ribeye isn't going to win for sure. I'll take my chances with the Frank's covered vomit.

I would choose not to eat the meal unless the mid-rare ribeye was place in front of me (with melted blue cheese and sauteed mushrooms) ... and then on the way home, I would stop by the voting booth, albeit starving, and cast my vote for Mr. Romney

I hope AdSense doesn't shut this place down so in 4 years when Romney is a failure we can have the same debate.

pmoney25;1296818 wrote:I hope AdSense doesn't shut this place down so in 4 years when Romney is a failure we can have the same debate.

Indeed.

gut;1296810 wrote:???

The point of a primary isn't to elect a candidate noticeably different from others, but the candidate the majority feels is best suited to run the country.

The candidate that the majority of the PARTY feels is best suited. I don't refuse to support the guy because I think there's a better candidate. I refuse to support him because I think he's harmful. I support others because I think that they are not.

gut;1296810 wrote:I think Romney is very different from Obama - there seems to be some false attribution going on with you in regard to Romney just as with Paul/Johnson where you believe they are somehow remarkably different.

You think he's very different in what ways? And are these ways in what they say they support or what they have a history of acting on? I'm not meaning to be belligerent. I'm genuinely curious.

gut;1296810 wrote:Well, Paul is different - he's a fucking looney which is why he's tried every way to get some traction and keeps failing.

Ah yes. Paul is nuts. Fiscal responsibility is whacko. Personal freedoms are bonkers. The ability to exercise one's own responsibility ... it's an insane idea. Can't believe they let such a quack practice medicine ...

He's tried every which way to get traction, sure. But he fails because he doesn't fit conveniences of the two major parties. Nobody who doesn't fold to them gets any traction. If one of them turned into a mirror of the Nazi Party, the cookie cutter candidate from that party would have clout in our environment now. The candidates, in our current time, don't matter. The party affiliation does. Paul was not bashful about the many disagreements he had with other Republican candidates. THAT is why he doesn't get traction in the Republican Party.

gut;1296810 wrote:A bit rich on the hyperbole, don't ya think?

More immediate, maybe. A mirror of detrimental choice, nonetheless.

Protecting the lamb we call the USA from one wolf by giving it to another is not something I'm willing to support, regardless of whether that is the "consensus" or not.

gut;1296810 wrote:Although that's how I generally feel about people that refuse to fire Obama, which is what you are doing.

It's not about "Obama." He's not the boogie man. It's about the problems he has perpetuated for our country, and I'm casting no more a vote for him than you are.

I'm just not voting for someone who's party of support tends to do the same thing lately.

gut;1296810 wrote:If the country goes over the cliff, it's still taking you with it.

Which is why I refuse to pick from a pretend dichotomy, both choices of whom I think are steering us right at said cliff.

gut;1296810 wrote:You can either vote, by omission or otherwise, to stay the course or support trying something different.

I am supporting something different. I'm just looking at more than the last 1-degree turn of the wheel. You can get behind the candidate that is going to head us off the same cliff two feet to the right of the current course if you'd like. Maybe you think he'll have a story-book change of heart once he takes office.

I, however, would prefer to vote the only direction I think could possibly keep us from going over the edge. Unfortunately, we've built too much speed with the support of the two parties that have headed us in this direction already, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pick a spot on the cliff that is two feet to the right just because two feet to the left is also equally damning.

fish82;1296812 wrote:a) Fair enough. The ribeye needs to do a better job presenting itself. It looks tasty in the case, but if I have the butcher flip it over, it has some unpleasant looking spots on it.

LOL You never know. It could be vomit or dung hiding under a ribeye shell.

fish82;1296812 wrote:b) Nobody said I didn't.

What was mentioned is what is on the menu, unless you think one of the candidates would be a better president with A1 steak sauce on him.

fish82;1296812 wrote: c) Yes. Mine has Frank's on it. Franks is very tasty, and may make the experience tolerable. Neither of us have tried it, so we don't know. Perhaps I'm just braver than you.

Perhaps, indeed.

fish82;1296812 wrote:d) Agreed. That said, the ribeye isn't going to win for sure. I'll take my chances with the Frank's covered vomit.

I may end up having it eat one or the other, but I'll be damned if I support the eating of either.

pmoney25;1296818 wrote:I hope AdSense doesn't shut this place down so in 4 years when Romney is a failure we can have the same debate.

Yes, the whole "proven failure" debate will be fun, then, won't it? We can go back to Option A, the 2016 version.

O-Trap;1296305 wrote:Suppose you were a part of a group of 101 people. These 101 people were given a choice on what to eat for dinner, but they all have to eat the same thing, and it would be determined by a casting of votes. The choices were as follows:

1. Cow dung
2. Cow vomit
3. Ribeye

Now, through discussion with many of those in your group of 101, you have come to learn that, through the promotion of the farmer(s), the only two options that have a realistic chance of winning are the dung and the vomit.

You don't know for sure which between those two is the front-runner, but it is certain that it is not the ribeye.

Given your one vote to cast, how do you vote?

You never mentioned the side dishes here. Do you have warmongering red beets and Keynesian cauliflour stinking up the dinner table too?