Between Barack and a Hard Place: Ultimate US Elections 2012 Thread

[the4thpip]

I'm not even sure what the political threads are here for. Seems like a circle jerk session for the most part and anytime someone comes in with a differing opinion they get mocked.

Usually only when the opinion is well worth mocking.

One of the greatest lies FoxNews and the like have been able to spread is that any opposing viewpoint and opinion is of equal value. Some things are just plain foolish and deserve to be called out.

And what's with the heavily homo-erotic imagery in your language?

[PiratesPensSteelers]

Usually only when the opinion is well worth mocking.

One of the greatest lies FoxNews and the like have been able to spread is that any opposing viewpoint and opinion is of equal value. Some things are just plain foolish and deserve to be called out.

I don't follow these 100% of the time, but I must always stop in when it's mocking time.

Not every viewpoint or opinion is of equal value. Call it out, but calling some a fool and what not? How do you expect someone to see the value in your viewpoint taking that tactic?

[the4thpip]

I don't follow these 100% of the time, but I must always stop in when it's mocking time.

Not every viewpoint or opinion is of equal value. Call it out, but calling some a fool and what not? How do you expect someone to see the value in your viewpoint taking that tactic?

Um... when somebody is that clearly a fool, I would be wasting my time. It's frankly stunning he survived in traffic this long.

In other news, the "Sarah Palin seduced Glen Rice" story finally is trending on twitter. Just wait till we find out that Michele Bachmann kept hitting on John Amaechi!

[PiratesPensSteelers]

Um... when somebody is that clearly a fool, I would be wasting my time. It's frankly stunning he survived in traffic this long.

But you did "waste your time" making a valid point...and still called him a fool right after. You even insulted him again here for no reason.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

In other news, the "Sarah Palin seduced Glen Rice" story finally is trending on twitter.

Hey, it was well known that Glen Rice was great at nailing three's!

[thespianphryne]

Easy with the name calling. Rhetorical device is one thing, the other is different.

[The Surrealist]

Why was my post deleted? What's going on?

[the4thpip]

Hey, it was well known that Glen Rice was great at nailing three's!

And he also rarely kept other people from scoring, so he let Sarah.

[Lancerman]

This is the reason there have to be multiple political threads in this forum. It's no secret or anything that there is a strong leftwing group think bias in the comm section. Usually this just leads to threads becoming a giant circle jerk about being congratulatory about democrat successes or mire usually lamenting republican success at the expense of democrats.

On the odd occasion that an opposing viewpoint walks into the discussion, that poster is almost immediately attacked or ridiculed (sometimes being called a fool). These attacks are usually based on an unwritten predisposition that democrat policies are always correct and republicans always false. Usually said poster is attacked by multiple people for every post they make. The poster acts out, eventually in the heat of the moment they'll say something out of anger or leave the discussion. And the board majority usually takes this as some sort of victory and validation of their opinions.

This on turn leads to all the politics threads being very one sided and not being open to discussion because every opposing opinion is immediately dismissed.

Hence why I usually refrain from discussion in the politics threads unless it's to vent about this grievance I have.

[the4thpip]

This is the reason there have to be multiple political threads in this forum. It's no secret or anything that there is a strong leftwing group think bias in the comm section. Usually this just leads to threads becoming a giant circle jerk about being congratulatory about democrat successes or mire usually lamenting republican success at the expense of democrats.

On the odd occasion that an opposing viewpoint walks into the discussion, that poster is almost immediately attacked or ridiculed (sometimes being called a fool). These attacks are usually based on an unwritten predisposition that democrat policies are always correct and republicans always false. Usually said poster is attacked by multiple people for every post they make. The poster acts out, eventually in the heat of the moment they'll say something out of anger or leave the discussion. And the board majority usually takes this as some sort of victory and validation of their opinions.

This on turn leads to all the politics threads being very one sided and not being open to discussion because every opposing opinion is immediately dismissed.

Hence why I usually refrain from discussion in the politics threads unless it's to vent about this grievance I have.

Then how do you explain the conservative posters whose viewpoints get treated with respect?

My theory is that their viewpoints actually have a leg to stand on. Those that get ridicule don't.

And again, I am deeply troubled by the homo-pornographic imagery of the "circle jerk". There are kids reading these forums, for fuck's sake!

[7thangel]

goddamnit. won't someone think about the fucking kids and the fucked up shit you're putting in their little minds.

[PiratesPensSteelers]

Then how do you explain the conservative posters whose viewpoints get treated with respect?

My theory is that their viewpoints actually have a leg to stand on. Those that get ridicule don't.

And again, I am deeply troubled by the homo-pornographic imagery of the "circle jerk". There are kids reading these forums, for fuck's sake!

My guess is they have some sort of established relationship with the majority of posters in the thread and are therefore received with less hostility.

It's not hard to see people get ganged up on in these threads.

I recall being called one name or the other by you for suggesting the US should consider ending aide to Pakistan if it was determined they were hiding Bin Laden. At that point in time I had never had any interaction with you so it was kind of curious reception.

[the4thpip]

goddamnit. won't someone think about the fucking kids and the fucked up shit you're putting in their little minds.

It makes me want to fucking kick a goddamn bunny!

[Mister Mets]

Given the kind of support Warren gave for the Consumer Protection Agency, the support she had among liberals to head it and the loop the Obama administration jumped through in order to have her set it up when they couldn't get her appointment to head it through congress, I can only imagine good things if she wins it.

Scott Brown is a very good campaigner though. Hope she's a better campaigner than his last opponent (which, admittedly, wouldn't be hard to do).

I'd say that Brown has the edge. We know he's a skilled politician, and his approval ratings are pretty high.

I'm not sure an academic with a liberal reputation will be able to successfully compete with him for middle-class voters. Those most excited about her run were going to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway.

Fundraising will also be an issue. While Warren is already known and probably loved by Democratic donors, Scott Brown starts with $8,300,000 in his war-chest. Democrats will also be defending 23 seats, in addition to the presidency, so they will probably be ruthless about how they spend their money.

I know a lot can happen in a year but I'm beginning to think that the latest economic mess may mean Obama is not going to win re-election.

Which means that America is comprehensively fucked.

Bush inherited a balanced budget, an economy that was fundamentally sound despite a relatively mild recession and a largely peaceful world where America's popularity and prestige was probably as had as they'd been at any point since the immediate post-WWII era.

He destroyed all that.

Any of the current Republican candidates, starting from a far worse position, will pretty much wreck America as a world leader and as a developed country.

The Republican candidates aren't interchangeable with each other, or with President Bush. Many of Bush's shortcomings (such as tendency to place unqualified supporters in key positions) were non-partisan.

[the4thpip]

My guess is they have some sort of established relationship with the majority of posters in the thread and are therefore received with less hostility.

It's not hard to see people get ganged up on in these threads.

I recall being called one name or the other by you for suggesting the US should consider ending aide to Pakistan if it was determined they were hiding Bin Laden. At that point in time I had never had any interaction with you so it was kind of curious reception.

I wasn't calling you a name, I told you to go fuck yourself. That's not calling a name, that's making a suggestion.

And in my defense, you were talking about developmental aid in general and you were acting like a selfish, spoiled child.

I spend a large part of my free time volunteering and raising donations for social causes. I take that kind of stuff personal.

And if somebody I'd chatted with for years here had said the same thing, they would have gotten the same suggestion from me.