Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Forum Index » Discussion » Votes & Polls » A Question for U.S. Comrades [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4 ][ Next ]
 11 Jun 2012, 16:39
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two were identical, but the differences between the two are superficial at best. Obama's record on healthcare reform and Romney's record on reproductive rights hardly differentiate the two.
khlib wrote: You're exaggerating the difference between Republicans and Democrats way too much, and just dignifying the two-party system in the process. I'm not going to vote for one of the two wings of the Property Party just because one looks better than the other from a distance. Or are you suggesting that subsisting entirely on urinal cakes is preferable to starving to death? khlib wrote: Common sense. What exactly do you think Bush would've differently? They had the same Defense secretary even. khlib wrote: That's because, as I said before, that's a superficial difference between the two. And it certainly isn't a reason to prefer one over the other by itself. khlib wrote: Tomato to-mah-to. That's just a differentiation of liberals from other liberals. EDIT: 'Nother omission Quote: That was an element of his escalation in the war in Afghanistan. I think the actual plank was "Take the war to Al-Qaeda" or "Refocus on Al-Qaeda"; something like that.  Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 11 Jun 2012, 17:20
I don't understand you people It is not like your vote actually mattered or gained some worth just because you have voted on the winning candidate ?
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came! 11 Jun 2012, 18:09
Indigo wrote: I agree completely. Quote: No, I am just not buying into the idea that change can come from within the system. A socialist will not be elected, and even if one is, it won't actually change the system. I am not a reformist. Quote: EDIT: no (Just learned what urinal cakes are) Quote: Maybe it's a superficial difference to you because your health isn't on the line. On his first day in office, Romney has vowed to eliminate Title X family planning programs, which provide federal funding for birth control and cancer screenings. Already "Obamacare" has benefited me extremely. If it didn't exist, I'd be without health insurance, but it has allowed me to stay on my parents' plan longer. 11 Jun 2012, 18:35
khlib wrote: Neither am I, but putting actual leftists in office will go a long way to legitimizing socialism in the future. People need to know that there's an alternative to what the Democrats and Republicans have to offer. khlib wrote: It's not like I haven't benefited from Obamacare, but in the grand scheme of things it has changed very little. Plus, Obama never promised anything remotely close to "universal healthcare". That was just something people made up to convince us he was a socialist. Romney's stance on birth control doesn't change anything because: a. I'm not a single issue voter. One difference between Obama and Romney doesn't make them different candidates. b. Chances are he won't even do it, given his record as governor. What he says he'll do to appeal to paleoconservatives and what he'll actually do are two different things. Even if he does try, there's no way he'll follow through with it. Romney was chosen for the same reason that every other candidate of the two major parties is chosen: he's a moderate who won't do anything extreme out of fear. Also, you never did answer this question Indigo wrote: In regards to his actions in the Middle East. Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 11 Jun 2012, 18:43
Quote: In what way and how exactly? I mean i know that this has never happened in America but in Europe (and so on) it's still very common. Though it doesn't seem it did much to legitimize socialism, on the contrary. :/ 12 Jun 2012, 02:27
Maybe it's not true for American politics, but one thing which bothers me is that often when the more conservative candidate wins the election it has a tendency to pull the leftish candidate in that direction as well as they try to make up the supposed ground they have lost and presumably appeal to the swinging voters who actually decide these things (when it comes down to it).
I haven't really noticed it working in the opposite direction though, so I'm not sure what the significance of this is. 12 Jun 2012, 17:59
I'd call it the Overton Window: the politics of the victor of any given election will define the acceptable politics of the following election cycle. Conservative victories means more moderate Democrats in the next election to win back those votes and liberal victories mean more moderate Republicans in the next election. I'm not sure what it's like in Australia, but it works both ways over here.
The rise of the Tea Party and such can be seen as a reaction by other Republicans to the moderation of other Republicans when the Democrats took over the executive and legislature. The Occupy movement in America can be seen as a reaction of Democrats to the moderation of other Democrats when the Republicans took over Congress. Of the two of them, the Tea Party seems to be the one who has been most successful at moving the window back to their direction. Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 13 Jun 2012, 02:14
Oh Yeah... I forgot about that term "Overton window".
Unfortunately the "defeat" of Communism has seriously undermined any sort of symmetry that used to exist in that dynamic between the ideas of the left and the right. Both sides are basically pushing in the same direction now. 14 Jun 2012, 09:53
Quote: Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Moving troops from one country to another, not closing GITMO, passing laws expanding powers to the wrong people, drone attacks, supporting war efforts in Libya, working with terrorists in Syria, pledging to protect Israel, threatening Iran, Posturing with China, ignoring the borders of Pakistan, the list goes on. You have the audacity to say im going 'all fox news' yet you think this guy is leaps ahead of Bush in *ANYTHING*? Some leftie you are. Quote: Yeah, I mean it's not like Obama kept a good percentage of advisers Bush had, who kept a fair percentage of advisers Clinton had, etc. Quote: Good old social issues, I see the same things right now in my election! When you start struggling to find the differences from your opponent you talk social and draw the line in the sand Social conservatives and ignorant liberals are both stupid enough to buy it unfortunately. Quote: >Supporting Obama >Not a reformist Pick one. 14 Jun 2012, 15:55
First of all, take a deep breath. I am worried you're going to have a heart attack.
Quote: Yes, it's a social issue, but it's one that has a real impact on my life. I am not pretending that Obama is fundamentally different than Romney; I am just saying that surface differences do exist, and I might as well take a half an hour out of my day to maintain some of the rights I currently have. Quote: Voting for Obama is much different than supporting Obama. I don't think that voting for Obama is going to change the system or replace a socialist revolution. I am actually failing to see your point here, I'm sorry. 14 Jun 2012, 16:20
Quote: When there's more than one choice, no it isnt. Have some convictions and vote for a reasonable political party that doesnt stomp all your rights in the ground just as much as the 'right wing one.' "What am I going to do today? Well I think im going to vote for a party that doesnt support my point of view on economics, social issues, and international policy, so when they win they can enact the same things as the other guys on some things, and still screw me on other issues" Yeah sounds like a logical voting position to me. At least have the conviction to say "im not voting for either of these twats and will either consider another party or not vote at all." 14 Jun 2012, 17:03
That's not really a fair equivocation when you consider that there are only two parties here that have any reasonable chance of winning the election. A vote for the Democrats isn't necessarily supportive of the Democrats, it's just oppositional to the Republicans. A fortress mentality just makes everything worse.
Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 14 Jun 2012, 20:49
Just thought I would mention that I saw on CNN that the "Military planning for Syria: contingency plan is ready"
Gotta love how people think Obama is more peaceful. 15 Jun 2012, 01:32
Indigo wrote: I will respond to this claim by asking this question. When was the last time you ever heard of a Whig politician, in the U.S.? Before the Republican Party took it's place, the other party were the Whigs. So why do people think that the Democratic Party could never be likewise replaced, if enough progressives were to leave them for the Greens? I sincerely feel that saying that a third party candidate can never win is a self fulfilled prophecy. Also, I will cite this quote. Quote: 15 Jun 2012, 16:48
Not that I don't agree with you, in fact I agree wholeheartedly, but how does that justify equivocating a vote for Democrats as support for the Democratic Party?
Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 24 Jun 2012, 17:09
Indigo wrote: Because the Democratic Party, like all political parties in multi-partisan elected governments, exists to get candidates elected. They really do not care all that much what disagreements people might have with them, just as long as they still dutifully vote for their candidates, against the Republicans. Look, I support those of the Progressive Democrats of America. However, this does not translate to me unconditionally voting for all Democratic candidates. So voting for, and supporting my one senator, Sherrod Brown, yes, casting my vote for the establishment centrist Democrat, Barack Obama, no. I support progressive candidates, both within, and when necessary, outside the Democratic Party. 27 Jun 2012, 22:32
Yes, but what she was referring to is nothing that resembles voting unconditionally for democratic candidates. There are particular issues for which she is voting for Obama in particular for this particular election. That's not support for the Democratic party.
Forum Rules Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism. "Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV 28 Jun 2012, 02:22
You're right, it isn't support for democrats but support for the concept that Obama is somehow different from Romney. I have noticed a decidedly more aggressive rhetoric coming from Obama lately though. But that's how it was in 2008 as well and look what that got us: expanded imperialism and more attacks on working class people. Or as it's known in America, Business as Usual.
 28 Jun 2012, 03:01
Obama IS different than Romney, albeit in small, superficial ways.
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
Forum Index » Discussion » Votes & Polls » A Question for U.S. Comrades [ Go to page ][ Previous ][ 1, 2, 3, 4 ][ Next ]