8 ms·

So, remember a few months ago, when people like me were saying that the third parties are the only hope in America's democracy? Then a bunch of people said tha

So, remember a few months ago, when people like me were saying that the third parties are the only hope in America's democracy? Then a bunch of people said that Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy. I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.

Evbn 14y ago
F is better than F-
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Is it really? The result is the same, either way you fail, the only difference is how you feel about yourself afterwards.
mhurron 14y ago
If D and R are interchangeable what makes you think a third party would be any different?
- martinced 14y ago
  I'm not american but Ron Paul had his own libertarian party back in the days and he was "R" only because he had to chose a camp. Ron Paul made it pretty clear during nearly its entire life that he was for less state and more individual liberties. That makes me think that things would have been way different should he have been elected president.
- wnight 14y ago
  Neither are interchangeable, they're just equally bad for global citizens who want to make a better world. The problem with two parties is that they collect votes based on ideology not actions. Technically three isn't enough to avoid this but in general use it implies many third parties, such that governing is no longer one painful voice pushed on everyone, but a consensus of the governed.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
>Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in scary ways. It makes me sick and it's why I voted third party in the re-election. That having been said, it's terribly reductionist to say that "Romney and Obama are the same" and anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me. >I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. We're pissed off and still terrified at how much worse it would be with Romney. Or, we, like you, wish that third party candidates were viable, that people would be educated enough that it would MATTER that people like Gary Johnson exist, etc.
- pmorici 14y ago
  "anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of the two) But yes, Romney signed the NOM pledge, funded NOM heavily, said that same-sex hospital visitation rights was a "privilege" and needed no guarantee or legal backing, and was against ENDA; additionally, Paul Ryan voted against the DADT repeal and against the Matthew Shepard act and said something along the lines of "LGBT issues don't matter". edit, for what it's worth, I think you're right in many ways and I'm sorry to see you downvoted. Romney's record was vastly different before he became a GOP puppet, particularly in MA and him having expressed interest years ago in progressing gay rights. Unfortunately, I also liked McCain before he (was) turned in a GOP prick as well.
donretag 14y ago
Is anyone really surprised on Obama's stance on civil liberties? His track record as a Senator was atrocious, why would he be any different as President? FISA flip-flop anyone?
jasonjei 14y ago
Obama is the same as Bush, just with better marketing.
- donretag 14y ago
  They both had great marketing. Both got elected with slogans. Bush: "you are for us, or against us". Obama: "Yes, we can". There was nothing behind this marketing, but these simple empty phrases got them elected. Reality TV has reduced elections into catchphrases. The ones that did not have good marketing where those that lost to them in the election.
  - pekk 14y ago
    Study the Reagan campaign, before reality TV. And he wasn't really the first.
pekk 14y ago
One thing can be worlds different from another, even while you hate both. Hating two things does not make them the same or even similar.
Terretta 14y ago
The executive's party or position on civil rights has very little to do with the stance of a bureaucracy the size of DHS. Such entities likely cannot change course even in the length of a full presidential term. They configure and operate themselves for self preservation and growth of scope and power, with deep defense mechanisms against political whims. They are often incompetent at their charter, while obscenely effective at self aggrandizement.
flogic 14y ago
There weren't any good third party candidates.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Not even Gary Johnson?
  - flogic 14y ago
    I'm pretty much a stereotypical progressive these days. I'm not very excited by libertarian's plans to cut entitlements. More importantly, I'm rather dismayed that they seem to focus on that before civil rights.
steveklabnik 14y ago
> I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general. Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Maybe what you're uncovering here has less to do with the mentality of Obama supports and more to do with the superficiality of terms like "liberal" and "conservative". There are vegan liberals who want to outlaw the consumption of meat. To them, most of us are posers too.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Agreed. The 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy is incredibly unhelpful. Honestly, I don't even find left/right to be that great, as I personally consider liberals to be right of center. When I say 'liberal,' I personally generally mean 'neoliberal,' which has a pretty large overlap with the Democratic party and the popular conception of 'liberal.'
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Strangely, I feel the same way about the far left. Just because they hold an extreme position doesn't make their opinions any more valid; frankly I find far-left and far-right thinkers to be alarmingly similar, and am appalled by by their inflexible and unreasoning ideological approaches.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    I can certainly see how you'd think that, and in the interest of keeping this civil, will just let it be.
readme 14y ago
Sure, Obama just signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial, and then said "Don't worry, I won't use it" Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it! I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.
- tptacek 14y ago
  That's an extreme oversimplification of what the 2012 NDAA said. In fact, the 2012 NDAA limited executive authority over US detainees; it did not expand it.
  - readme 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, this lawsuit wouldn't have been filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Legal_challenges_to_indefinite_detention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_... >A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[62] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for __detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S.__ on “suspicion of providing substantial support to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[62]
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I'm probably not wrong. The 2002-2003 AUMF resolutions provided more or less open-ended detention capabilities to the executive. The NDAA limited those to settings in which Al Qaeda was directly implicated. It's not my claim that the Obama administration lacks indefinite detention capability (every "wartime" administration has that); it's my claim that the NDAA is a bad example of overreach on the part of the executive. Put differently: the opposition party in Congress at the time the 2012 NDAA was proposed was lobbying for a much broader capability. The administration had to spend political capital to limit the degrees of freedom they had.
tptacek 14y ago
An article like what? I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform. I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP. The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can all quickly agree that electronic strip searches of all American citizens are an affront to the word "reasonable". And yet it never crossed my mind not to vote for Obama because his DHS supported the TSA. Why? Because something like 70% of Americans support the TSA, and, simultaneously, game theory more or less demands that any administration support all counterterrorism measures. There was no possibility that any winning candidate was going to eliminate the TSA. The problem wasn't Obama or Romney; it's the American people.
- sneak 14y ago
  Sometimes, when faced with a terrible set of game theory circumstances, the only winning move is not to play.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I guess I don't think this was one of those situations, given that eliminating the TSA was not the only issue at stake.
  - angersock 14y ago
    A wonderful quip, but what is its explanatory power here? What is it here "not to play"? I'm as much Fuck the Man as the next person, but let's try to dig a bit deeper.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Obviously, you're supposed to not vote for anyone, then go online and tell everybody about how you're fighting the system.
      - 14y ago
anigbrowl 14y ago
Nothing in my case, because I was already aware of the fact that customs inspections are not subject to the 4th amendment and never have been. Random border inspections are a fact of life because borders create incentives for smuggling. Changing this is close to the bottom of my priority list.

Evbn 14y ago

F is better than F-

jlgreco 14y ago
Is it really? The result is the same, either way you fail, the only difference is how you feel about yourself afterwards.

mhurron 14y ago

If D and R are interchangeable what makes you think a third party would be any different?

martinced 14y ago
I'm not american but Ron Paul had his own libertarian party back in the days and he was "R" only because he had to chose a camp. Ron Paul made it pretty clear during nearly its entire life that he was for less state and more individual liberties. That makes me think that things would have been way different should he have been elected president.
wnight 14y ago
Neither are interchangeable, they're just equally bad for global citizens who want to make a better world. The problem with two parties is that they collect votes based on ideology not actions. Technically three isn't enough to avoid this but in general use it implies many third parties, such that governing is no longer one painful voice pushed on everyone, but a consensus of the governed.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

>Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in scary ways. It makes me sick and it's why I voted third party in the re-election. That having been said, it's terribly reductionist to say that "Romney and Obama are the same" and anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me. >I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. We're pissed off and still terrified at how much worse it would be with Romney. Or, we, like you, wish that third party candidates were viable, that people would be educated enough that it would MATTER that people like Gary Johnson exist, etc.

pmorici 14y ago
"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of the two) But yes, Romney signed the NOM pledge, funded NOM heavily, said that same-sex hospital visitation rights was a "privilege" and needed no guarantee or legal backing, and was against ENDA; additionally, Paul Ryan voted against the DADT repeal and against the Matthew Shepard act and said something along the lines of "LGBT issues don't matter". edit, for what it's worth, I think you're right in many ways and I'm sorry to see you downvoted. Romney's record was vastly different before he became a GOP puppet, particularly in MA and him having expressed interest years ago in progressing gay rights. Unfortunately, I also liked McCain before he (was) turned in a GOP prick as well.

donretag 14y ago

Is anyone really surprised on Obama's stance on civil liberties? His track record as a Senator was atrocious, why would he be any different as President? FISA flip-flop anyone?

jasonjei 14y ago

Obama is the same as Bush, just with better marketing.

donretag 14y ago
They both had great marketing. Both got elected with slogans. Bush: "you are for us, or against us". Obama: "Yes, we can". There was nothing behind this marketing, but these simple empty phrases got them elected. Reality TV has reduced elections into catchphrases. The ones that did not have good marketing where those that lost to them in the election.
- pekk 14y ago
  Study the Reagan campaign, before reality TV. And he wasn't really the first.

pekk 14y ago

One thing can be worlds different from another, even while you hate both. Hating two things does not make them the same or even similar.

Terretta 14y ago

The executive's party or position on civil rights has very little to do with the stance of a bureaucracy the size of DHS. Such entities likely cannot change course even in the length of a full presidential term. They configure and operate themselves for self preservation and growth of scope and power, with deep defense mechanisms against political whims. They are often incompetent at their charter, while obscenely effective at self aggrandizement.

flogic 14y ago

There weren't any good third party candidates.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Not even Gary Johnson?
- flogic 14y ago
  I'm pretty much a stereotypical progressive these days. I'm not very excited by libertarian's plans to cut entitlements. More importantly, I'm rather dismayed that they seem to focus on that before civil rights.

steveklabnik 14y ago

> I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general. Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.

tptacek 14y ago
Maybe what you're uncovering here has less to do with the mentality of Obama supports and more to do with the superficiality of terms like "liberal" and "conservative". There are vegan liberals who want to outlaw the consumption of meat. To them, most of us are posers too.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Agreed. The 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy is incredibly unhelpful. Honestly, I don't even find left/right to be that great, as I personally consider liberals to be right of center. When I say 'liberal,' I personally generally mean 'neoliberal,' which has a pretty large overlap with the Democratic party and the popular conception of 'liberal.'
anigbrowl 14y ago
Strangely, I feel the same way about the far left. Just because they hold an extreme position doesn't make their opinions any more valid; frankly I find far-left and far-right thinkers to be alarmingly similar, and am appalled by by their inflexible and unreasoning ideological approaches.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  I can certainly see how you'd think that, and in the interest of keeping this civil, will just let it be.

readme 14y ago

Sure, Obama just signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial, and then said "Don't worry, I won't use it" Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it! I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.

tptacek 14y ago
That's an extreme oversimplification of what the 2012 NDAA said. In fact, the 2012 NDAA limited executive authority over US detainees; it did not expand it.
- readme 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, this lawsuit wouldn't have been filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Legal_challenges_to_indefinite_detention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_... >A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[62] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for __detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S.__ on “suspicion of providing substantial support to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[62]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I'm probably not wrong. The 2002-2003 AUMF resolutions provided more or less open-ended detention capabilities to the executive. The NDAA limited those to settings in which Al Qaeda was directly implicated. It's not my claim that the Obama administration lacks indefinite detention capability (every "wartime" administration has that); it's my claim that the NDAA is a bad example of overreach on the part of the executive. Put differently: the opposition party in Congress at the time the 2012 NDAA was proposed was lobbying for a much broader capability. The administration had to spend political capital to limit the degrees of freedom they had.

tptacek 14y ago

An article like what? I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform. I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP. The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can all quickly agree that electronic strip searches of all American citizens are an affront to the word "reasonable". And yet it never crossed my mind not to vote for Obama because his DHS supported the TSA. Why? Because something like 70% of Americans support the TSA, and, simultaneously, game theory more or less demands that any administration support all counterterrorism measures. There was no possibility that any winning candidate was going to eliminate the TSA. The problem wasn't Obama or Romney; it's the American people.

sneak 14y ago
Sometimes, when faced with a terrible set of game theory circumstances, the only winning move is not to play.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I guess I don't think this was one of those situations, given that eliminating the TSA was not the only issue at stake.
- angersock 14y ago
  A wonderful quip, but what is its explanatory power here? What is it here "not to play"? I'm as much Fuck the Man as the next person, but let's try to dig a bit deeper.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Obviously, you're supposed to not vote for anyone, then go online and tell everybody about how you're fighting the system.
    - 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

Nothing in my case, because I was already aware of the fact that customs inspections are not subject to the 4th amendment and never have been. Random border inspections are a fact of life because borders create incentives for smuggling. Changing this is close to the bottom of my priority list.