With the election tomorrow, this is most likely my last Mitt thread

[Upgrade Dave]

Assuming he loses, which is my wish, this is my last chance to get Romney supporters on the board to explain in some meaningful way why they support Mitt Romney.
He's been a proven liar. He's lied on Obama, he's lied on the economy, he lied on Jeep and Chrysler moving jobs to China, he even lied on Russia. Russia!! The fool even lies on himself.
He won't give any details on any of his plans and the few he's spouted out over the last year, most he's taken back or just said the opposite like he never had the original position (ending FEMA for example).
He gave a spirited but clearly dissembling performance at the first debate and the wheels came off and he looked like an amateur at the second and third.
He seemed to campaign on a part time basis at times when other campaigns would be gearing up and going hard, giving off the air that he just "deserves" to be President.
It looks pretty simple to me that there are only three reasons to vote for him, especially with the economy on a steady uptick:

a) You just want to vote Republican, policy and common sense be damned.

b) You want to vote for the rich guy (the really rich guy not the nuevo-riche guy). This is America and the one thing we seem more than willing to put before family, any particular God or faith, or even our health and safety is money and Mitt has a lot of money. Not much on morals but a shitload of money.

c) You just have to vote for the White guy. This Black President thing is just driving you crazy and you feel more comfortable in the world you knew growing up with a White man in the White House.

With this candidate, there are no other sound, honest reasons.

Help a brother out.

 

[Lamarr]

UD, I'm certainly not voting for RMoney! (if it means anything)

On monetary policy, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do not see any urgent need to change the status quo and any reform of the Federal Reserve system is not a public policy priority for either candidate.

Mitt Romney agrees with President Obama that the president can act unilaterally to take the country to war without Congress.

Mitt Romney supports the Obama Administration’s policy of unmanned aerial warfare via predator drone in Pakistan.

Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney support indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial as a valid and legal tool in the national security state’s war on terrorism.

Mitt Romney says that like Barack Obama did, he would sign the controversial NDAA, including its provisions for the arrest and indefinite detainment of US citizens on US soil.

Mitt Romney emphatically supported Barack Obama’s decision in 2011 to use “targeted killing” to execute US citizen Anwar al Awlaki by drone strike without charges or trial.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both supporters of strict gun control measures.

I could go on, and on, and on.....trust me

 

[thoughtone]

UD, I'm certainly not voting for RMoney! (if it means anything)

On monetary policy, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do not see any urgent need to change the status quo and any reform of the Federal Reserve system is not a public policy priority for either candidate.

Mitt Romney agrees with President Obama that the president can act unilaterally to take the country to war without Congress.

Mitt Romney supports the Obama Administration’s policy of unmanned aerial warfare via predator drone in Pakistan.

Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney support indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial as a valid and legal tool in the national security state’s war on terrorism.

Mitt Romney says that like Barack Obama did, he would sign the controversial NDAA, including its provisions for the arrest and indefinite detainment of US citizens on US soil.

Mitt Romney emphatically supported Barack Obama’s decision in 2011 to use “targeted killing” to execute US citizen Anwar al Awlaki by drone strike without charges or trial.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both supporters of strict gun control measures.

I could go on, and on, and on.....trust me

You don't vote so as far as I'm concerned, this is my last lamarr response.

 

[Lamarr]

You don't vote so as far as I'm concerned, this is my last lamarr response.

you're probably too ashamed to to respond in support of such nonsense.

 

[Greed]

You don't vote so as far as I'm concerned, this is my last lamarr response.

This is the part of your trolling that makes me want to vomit. On most state ballots there will be at least four candidates and more in some states.

Maybe some people have some integrity and will vote for someone they want to win rather than one of the two candidates who they think will likely win.

And if the only candidates are just bank employees like Romney/Obama, then have the decency to not vote at all unless those are your values.

If most people weren't whores, the Republicans and Democrats would rank 8th on November 6.

 

[Lamarr]

If Obama was white, with an 'R' next to his name, Would support from black folk be so resolute?

Only asking this because I could see George Bush signing everything I was ranting about in post 2

 

[muckraker10021]

Some of you peeps are imbued with such incendiary hatred of Obama — that you’ve become pathological morons.

Are you really a simpleton once the ‘hatred of Obama disease’ is cured from your mind & body ?

No!

Once the disease is cured, suddenly you become lucid and rational and your IQ level returns to its above average level.

It’s like a childhood friend of mine, PhD in physics from MIT, speaks 8 languages fluently…….but in the 1980’s he became a crack cocaine addict. Brilliant man, but as long as he was addicted to crack, all his brilliance was irrelevant; he became a pathological moron; his body became a host for a debilitating drug that he almost did not recover from. He got help, he made a full recovery, and he’s now a scientist working at (HHMI) Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the “crack episode” a distant memory.

Those of us in the “reality based” world who understand U.S. political history always understood that Obama wasn’t a “liberal” or a true “progressive”. The last “liberal” or a true “progressive” that ran for the presidency was Howard Dean; and we all saw how the “military industrial media complex” quickly shut down his campaign, over his so-called disqualifying “Dean Scream”…..and went with “Skull & Bones” Senator John Kerry as the Democratic candidate.

Those of us who don’t rely on the corporate television media as our sole or primary source for information always knew Barack Obama was no “liberal” or a true “progressive”. That was confirmed when the corporate Democrats (DLC) Democratic Leadership Council founded in 1985 by Clinton, Gore, Lieberman etc., closed their doors and shut down, because their organization was superfluous due to the ascension of Obama who was and is a “Corporate Democrat”. We saw that his biggest campaign donor in 2008 was a place I worked at for 12 years Goldman Sachs; so those of us paying attention knew he was no “liberal” or a true “progressive”.

All of this being true:

There are those who tonight (Nov. 5th 2012) postulate the absurd notion that there is NO difference between Obama or RMoney or the defunct BuShit camarilla. Those who actually believe this are pathological morons, who have willfully, — because of their hatred for Obama, and their unwillingness to actually get off of the 'Obama hatred drug', — not allowed their smart brains to function normally.

I will let a true “liberal” and true “progressive” named Daniel Ellsberg help cure you peeps who have the hate Obama disease, and think somehow that RMoney or BuShit is the same as Obama.

If you don’t know who Daniel Ellsberg is, shame on you, — it means you don’t even know the last 40 years of U.S. political history.

Read true liberal & progressive Daniel Ellsberg's critique of Obama and why despite his critique, voting for Obama is the only rational choice given the choices that are available and the true fascism & evil that RMoney-Ryan represent.

Read the whole thing, I don't have time to bold & highlight in yellow the critical passages.

Ellsberg is responding to those, in this case, on the left who are thinking about NOT voting for Obama and voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all. Some smart people on the left also suffer from an incendiary hatred of Obama — and have become pathological morons.




Progressives: Defeat Romney/ Ryan in Swing States

by Daniel Ellsberg | October 30, 2012

ellsberg.net

<br>I agree with nearly everything Jill Stein of the Greens and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party say: except when they say &ldquo;vote for me&rdquo; in swing states.
<br>Here&rsquo;s why:
<br>It is critical to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.
<br>The election is just a week away, and I want to urge those whose values are generally like mine—progressives, especially activists—to make this a high priority.
<br>An activist colleague recently said to me: &ldquo;I hear you&rsquo;re supporting Obama.&rdquo; I was startled, and took offense.
<br>&ldquo;I lose no opportunity,&rdquo; I told him angrily, &ldquo;to identify Obama publicly as a servant of Wall Street: a man who&rsquo;s decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who&rsquo;s launched an unconstitutional war, who claims authority to detain American citizens and others indefinitely without charges or even to execute them without due process, and who has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. Would you call that support?&rdquo;
<br>My friend said, &ldquo;But on <em>Democracy Now</em> you urged people in swing states to vote for him! How could you say that? I don&rsquo;t live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances.&rdquo;
<br>I said to him: &ldquo;Like it or not, we have a two-party system in America. The only real alternative for the next four years is Mitt Romney, who has endorsed every one of those criminal and unconstitutional offenses. And those are promises I believe he will keep. That&rsquo;s a terrible situation, but it won&rsquo;t be improved by replacing Obama with Romney.
<br>&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t &lsquo;support Obama&rsquo;. I oppose the current Republican party. Obama&rsquo;s policies, as I see them, range from criminal to—at their best—improvements on the recent past, partial and inadequate. But current Republican policies range from criminal to disastrous. That&rsquo;s not really a hard choice.&rdquo;
<br>This not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive—primary challenger or major candidate—or even a Republican who&rsquo;s good on foreign policy and civil liberties like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. What voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine on November 6 is whether or not Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years.
<br>A Romney/Ryan administration would be no better on any of the constitutional violations I mentioned, or on anything else. But it would be catastrophically worse on many other important issues: The likelihood of attacking Iran, Supreme and Federal Court appointments, the economy and jobs, women&rsquo;s reproductive rights, health coverage, the safety net, green energy and the environment.
<br>As Noam Chomsky said recently,&ldquo;The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It&rsquo;s worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives.&rdquo;
<br>He also told an interviewer: &ldquo;Between the two choices that are presented, there are I think some significant differences. If I were a person in a swing state, I&rsquo;d vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice. I happen to be in a non-swing state, so I can either not vote or—as I probably will—vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein.&rdquo;
<br>I see it the same way. Chomsky lives in Massachusetts, a &ldquo;safe&rdquo; blue state. I too live in a non-swing state, blue California, so I too intend to vote for a progressive candidate, either Jill Stein or (as a write-in) my friend Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.
<br>Along with Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Frances Fox Piven, Cornel West and others, I have encouraged others in non-swing states (including red states like Texas and Mississippi) to consider doing the same, in contrast to what we urge progressives in swing states to do, which is to vote against Romney/Ryan by voting for Obama/Biden.
<br>We see long-term merit for our movement in registering a large protest vote against both major candidates and in favor of a truly progressive platform. In the almost 40 non-swing states—red or blue—that can be done without significant risk of affecting the electoral votes of those states or the final outcome in favor of the Republicans.
<br>But that isn&rsquo;t true in the dozen or less battleground states—Ohio, Virginia Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, along with Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania—where decisions by relatively small numbers of progressives to vote for a third party or not to vote at all would risk and might well result in a Republican triumph. That risk, as we see it, outweighs any benefits there might be in pursuing votes for a progressive third party in those states.
<br>I personally agree with almost everything Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson have to say—except when they say &ldquo;Vote for me&rdquo; in a swing state.
<br>This election is a toss-up. That means this is one of the uncommon occasions when we progressives—a small minority of the electorate—could actually determine the outcome of a national election. We might swing it one way or the other by how we vote and what we say about voting to fellow progressives in the battleground states.
<br>Given that third party candidates with genuinely progressive platforms are on the ballots of most of these swing states, their supporters—who might successfully encourage those with the same values to vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson instead of Obama—could well provide the margin for Romney that would send him to the White House.
<br>If, to the contrary, such voters in those states could be convinced to overcome their disinclination to vote for Obama, they could crucially block the far more regressive agenda of the Republican Party.
<br>Our task is clear. The only way to block Romney/Ryan from office is to persuade enough people in swing states to vote for Obama—not stay home or vote for someone else. And that has to include progressives and disillusioned liberals who are inclined not to vote at all or vote for a third-party candidate (because like me, they&rsquo;re not just disappointed but disgusted and even enraged by much of what Obama has done in the last four years and will probably keep doing).
<br>This is not easy. But it&rsquo;s precisely the effort that is worth expending right now to prevent the Republicans&rsquo; rise to power. And it will take progressives—some of you reading this, I hope—to make that effort effectively.
<br>It&rsquo;s true the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. In many aspects, especially in the areas of foreign and military policy and civil liberties that are the focus of my own activism, their policies closely converge (though small differences remain significant, all favoring Obama/Biden over Romney/Ryan).
<br>It&rsquo;s even fair to use Gore Vidal&rsquo;s metaphor that they form two wings (&ldquo;two right wings&rdquo of a single party, the Money or Plutocracy Party, or as Justin Raimondo calls it, the War Party.
<br>Still, the reality is there are two distinguishable wings, and one is even worse than the other. To deny that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet still avoidable, victory of the worse.
<br>The traditional third-party mantra, &ldquo;There&rsquo;s no significant difference between the major parties&rdquo; amounts to saying: &ldquo;The Republicans are no worse, overall.&rdquo; And that&rsquo;s absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It&rsquo;s crazily divorced from the present reality. (I say that although I agree with virtually every passionate criticism of Obama&rsquo;s policies I&rsquo;ve ever heard from the left. What I don&rsquo;t hear from third-party partisans is comparable realism about the Republicans.)
<br>Some progressives who do acknowledge that the Romney/Ryan party is &ldquo;marginally&rdquo; worse in some respects nevertheless believe that &ldquo;worse is better&rdquo; for progress in the longer run, by evoking more effective protest and resistance—especially from Democrats in Congress and the media—and a popular turn to leftist leadership and policies. But, historically, they&rsquo;re profoundly wrong. That hoary theory would seem to have been well tested and demolished by eight years under George W. Bush.
<br>And it&rsquo;s very harmful to be propagating either of those false perspectives. They encourage progressives in battleground states either to refrain from voting or to vote for someone other than Obama, and more importantly, to influence others to do the same. That serves no one but the Republicans and the 1%, and not only in the short run.
<br>It is true that Obama has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or &ldquo;disappointingly.&rdquo; If impeachment on constitutional grounds were politically imaginable, he&rsquo;s earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors.) It is entirely understandable to not want to reward him with another term or a vote that might be taken to mean trust, hope or approval.
<br>But to punish Obama by depriving him of progressives&rsquo; votes in battleground states and hence of office, in favor of Romney and Ryan, would serve to punish most of the poor and marginal in society, along with women, workers and the middle class. It would mean the end of Roe v. Wade, via Supreme Court appointments.
<br>And the damaging impact would be not only in the U.S. but worldwide. In terms of the economy, I believe the Republicans would not only deepen the recession, but could convert it to a Great Depression. They would attack women&rsquo;s reproductive rights globally, and further worsen the environment and the prospects of climate change. Disastrously, it could lead to war with Iran (a possibility even with Obama, but far more likely under Romney).
<br>The re-election of Obama, in itself, is not going to bring serious progressive change, end militarism and empire, or restore the Constitution and the rule of law. That&rsquo;s for us and the rest of the public to bring about after this election and for the rest of our lives—through organizing, building movements and agitating.
<br>But to urge people in swing states to &ldquo;vote their conscience&rdquo; by voting for a third-party candidate is dangerously misleading advice. I would say to a progressive in a battleground state that if your conscience is telling you to vote for someone other than Obama, you need a second opinion. Your conscience seems to be ignoring the realistic impact of your actions or inactions. You need to reexamine your estimates of likely consequences and moral reasoning.
<br>Our demonstrations, petitions, movement building and civil disobedience—including protest and resistance to the wrongful practices of the incumbent administration—are needed every month, every year, including campaign seasons like this one. (I faced trial two weeks ago, with fourteen others, for civil disobedience protesting Obama&rsquo;s continued tests of the Minuteman III ICBM&rsquo;s, my fifth arrest protesting policies of President Obama, including the treatment of Bradley Manning and the continuation of war in Afghanistan).
<br>But it has been clear for months that this is a moment when effective resistance to an even worse alternative administration that is within sight of power is also urgently needed, leading up to and on Election Day.
<br>In this last week of this campaign, there is no more effective or pressing political effort which progressives can undertake than to make their voices heard—through e-mails, blogs, social media and public appearances—to encourage citizens in swing states to vote against a Romney victory by voting for the only real alternative, Barack Obama.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

 

[dasmybikepunk]

Go to bed get some sleep..vote early and don't even worry about these clucks
that e-support Mitt on the board ain't gone respond because there is no
response he's a clown and his supporters know it but are too afraid to say it.

Obama/Biden 2012

 

[Greed]

Some of you peeps are imbued with such incendiary hatred of Obama — that you’ve become pathological morons.

Are you really a simpleton once the ‘hatred of Obama disease’ is cured from your mind & body ?

No!

Once the disease is cured, suddenly you become lucid and rational and your IQ level returns to its above average level.

It’s like a childhood friend of mine, PhD in physics from MIT, speaks 8 languages fluently…….but in the 1980’s he became a crack cocaine addict. Brilliant man, but as long as he was addicted to crack, all his brilliance was irrelevant; he became a pathological moron; his body became a host for a debilitating drug that he almost did not recover from. He got help, he made a full recovery, and he’s now a scientist working at (HHMI) Howard Hughes Medical Institute; the “crack episode” a distant memory.

Those of us in the “reality based” world who understand U.S. political history always understood that Obama wasn’t a “liberal” or a true “progressive”. The last “liberal” or a true “progressive” that ran for the presidency was Howard Dean; and we all saw how the “military industrial media complex” quickly shut down his campaign, over his so-called disqualifying “Dean Scream”…..and went with “Skull & Bones” Senator John Kerry as the Democratic candidate.

Those of us who don’t rely on the corporate television media as our sole or primary source for information always knew Barack Obama was no “liberal” or a true “progressive”. That was confirmed when the corporate Democrats (DLC) Democratic Leadership Council founded in 1985 by Clinton, Gore, Lieberman etc., closed their doors and shut down, because their organization was superfluous due to the ascension of Obama who was and is a “Corporate Democrat”. We saw that his biggest campaign donor in 2008 was a place I worked at for 12 years Goldman Sachs; so those of us paying attention knew he was no “liberal” or a true “progressive”.

All of this being true:

There are those who tonight (Nov. 5th 2012) postulate the absurd notion that there is NO difference between Obama or RMoney or the defunct BuShit camarilla. Those who actually believe this are pathological morons, who have willfully, — because of their hatred for Obama, and their unwillingness to actually get off of the 'Obama hatred drug', — not allowed their smart brains to function normally.

I will let a true “liberal” and true “progressive” named Daniel Ellsberg help cure you peeps who have the hate Obama disease, and think somehow that RMoney or BuShit is the same as Obama.

If you don’t know who Daniel Ellsberg is, shame on you, — it means you don’t even know the last 40 years of U.S. political history.

Read true liberal & progressive Daniel Ellsberg's critique of Obama and why despite his critique, voting for Obama is the only rational choice given the choices that are available and the true fascism & evil that RMoney-Ryan represent.

Read the whole thing, I don't have time to bold & highlight in yellow the critical passages.

Ellsberg is responding to those, in this case, on the left who are thinking about NOT voting for Obama and voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all. Some smart people on the left also suffer from an incendiary hatred of Obama — and have become pathological morons.

This is why you've always been a stupid hypocritical fuck. You have the nerve to call me a pathological moron while you're posting articles confirming Obama's corporatism, then pathetically telling everyone that the one hope for America is the corporate-owned asshole.

Fuck you and your lesser of two evils bullshit.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

UD, I'm certainly not voting for RMoney! (if it means anything)

I didn't think you would be.

.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both supporters of strict gun control measures.

I could go on, and on, and on.....trust me

On this one, I have to disagree (I knew about the others, a couple less egregious than others). Romney isn't a supporter of strict gun control measures. He might have been when he was Governor but he's changed his mind on that.
If he was, this would be one area where I could agree with him.

If Obama was white, with an 'R' next to his name, Would support from black folk be so resolute?

Only asking this because I could see George Bush signing everything I was ranting about in post 2

White or Black, if he was a Republican, Black folks wouldn't vote for him en masse, not quite why you even asked that.

 

[Lamarr]

Good morning good people!

BREAKING NEWS: The banks won the election. You don't have to watch the news tonight.

 

[Lamarr]

On this one, I have to disagree (I knew about the others, a couple less egregious than others). Romney isn't a supporter of strict gun control measures. He might have been when he was Governor but he's changed his mind on that.
If he was, this would be one area where I could agree with him.

he's changed his mind on a lot of issues.......2 or 3 times.

If he holds the position, he will do what he can to further restrict the 2A. He will betray "the right"

 

[thoughtone]

If Obama was white, with an 'R' next to his name, Would support from black folk be so resolute?

Only asking this because I could see George Bush signing everything I was ranting about in post 2

If Obama was white, with an 'R' next to his name, he would win in a landslide.

You, AAA and other republicans/conservatives/libertarians have posted not a scintilla of evidence of why the majority of whites will cast a vote for Romney. Hie has no character, he's a liar and most likely a corporate crook. Could it be racial?

You have shown what you are about over the last four years. I don't even think you are of African descent. I have seen no posts of you in any positive thread celebrating Black culture. Your singular talking point is the right wing, libertarian corporate line. At least Greed and AAA have shown that they want Black folk to be better in there own way.

I hope you disappear from this thread as easily as you appeared after President Obama won the first time, when you coincidently posted right after Rick Santelli feigned outrage over government speeding.

Ron Paul is a looser!

 

[Lamarr]

If Obama was white, with an 'R' next to his name, he would win in a landslide.

Did you say that right? Cause that's a validation of George Bush policies.

You, AAA and other republicans/conservatives/libertarians have posted not a scintilla of evidence of why the majority of whites will cast a vote for Romney. Hie has no character, he's a liar and most likely a corporate crook. Could it be racial?

You have shown what you are about over the last four years. I don't even think you are of African descent. I have seen no posts of you in any positive thread celebrating Black culture.

How bout this?

So you question my "blackness"? Dawg, I can't stop laughin.

Ok, I'll question your education level, did you get past the 2nd grade? Can you tell us how a job is created yet?

I hope you disappear from this thread as easily as you appeared after President Obama won the first time, when you coincidently posted right after Rick Santelli feigned outrage over government speeding.

Deficit spending contributes to the destruction of the "middle class", as I have illustrated on several occasions, (which you have never, successfully, been able to defend.) Matter of fact, you can rebut my argument in the "disappearing black middle class" thread, can't wait!

Besides, most of my rants are towards Mr. Bernanke, Why do you take these things so personal?

Ron Paul is a looser!

I cant script this stuff any better!

5. Looser

Looser - (n.) 1. Internet troll that calls others a loser on a public message board, but can't spell it. 2. (adj.) More loose.
Ex : "yeah you stoupid ain not scienteist even but you think you are. You are a looser."

 

[thoughtone]

So you question my education level? Dawg, I can't stop laughin.

Ok, I'll question your intelligence level, did you get past the 2nd grade? Can you tell us how you posted this shit for 4 years? I cant script this stuff any better!

Thought1 is all over the map with his arguments, from tax cuts to the gun lobby!

The thread is simply about what EH di or didn't provide!

source: NBC News

Investigation finds no evidence Holder knew of 'Fast and Furious' gun-running sting

This long proved you lack any kind of credibility.

 

[QueEx]

Assuming he loses, which is my wish,

When you wish upon a star . . .

 

[Upgrade Dave]

When you wish upon a star . . .