General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan we ban "Romney would be worse" from our discussions on DU?
Of course he would, we all know that and close to 100% of us here are voting for Obama.
But when we are criticizing the Pres. on a legitimate topic like Med. Marijuana or Gay Rights, "Romney would be worse" is irrelevant.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Given the position third parties hold in our current system, we have a choice of exactly two people in the upcoming presidential election. So "Romney would be worse" is quite relevant.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Exactly. Politics boils down to a zero-sum equation: either they win, or we win. There's no other way around that, really.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Such an easy weapon to use, too, he doesn't even try to hide it.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And I don't think it is an irrelevant point at all. Obama isn't perfect, and I have criticized his decisions on certain topics. That doesn't mean I don't support him, because I do. The number one reason I support him is because I think at heart, he's a good man. The number two reason I support him is because I think Romney would be worse.
Those are both valid points, imho.
villager
(26,001 posts)Puzzlingly continuing terrible GOP policies, sometimes making the worse, etc...
cali
(114,904 posts)doesn't count.
It's not even a little irrelevant. Why? Because we have a choice between Rmoney and President Obama.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Example:
Poster 1: "I am so pissed off that the WH is retracting statements that seemed as if they were going to finally support gay marriage. So much for being a fierce advocate"
Poster 2: "I hope you enjoy President Rmoney then"
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, more concisely, both wings of the Establishment Party.
bigtree
(86,016 posts). . . at some point you either choose between the two candidates, or you make a functionally irrelevant choice (at least in the contest in which you're voting). The ultimate consequences of that choice are markedly different for each of the two candidates chosen. Folks pretending they aren't demonstrate a remarkably weak understanding of our political system of government.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I have voted in 22 federal elections. In each and every one, my vote was "functionally irrelevant" in that the outcome of each of those elections would have turned out the same no matter how I voted.
Perhaps you've had a different experience?
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
bigtree
(86,016 posts)I just don't see any significant effect of such a vote (for good or bad, as you say).
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've long since given up any delusions that the way I vote is going to be "significant' to anyone other than myself. We have a government that is devoted to maintaining itself in power and considers that to be it's most important function.
I'm no longer convinced that my vote is going decide the make-up of the Supreme Court, stop wars, decide whether women have the right to choose, or anything else. Time has proven that either political party will accommodate virtually any position in order to win an election.
I view elections on the federal level as a charade to convince us that we actually have a voice in what the powerful do.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)There may well be undue influence on our national legislature from interests removed from what voters actually want. but, the process and agenda isn't an automatic one. The ultimate decisions Congress makes isn't a compactly insulated process. Their actions are guided in many ways by the support or advocacy that Americans provide with their votes and their activism. We can certainly argue that there isn't enough of an influence from that voting public, but there is no way that a Congress left to its own design and will is going to produce the same result as it does as a result of our input from the outside.
Now, I can understand that folks in reliably blue states can sometimes afford to make other choices on their ballots and not risk that there will be a majority of votes making things worse than they would be by allowing the advancement of a republican candidate. But that's different from the suggestion that there's no influence at all in the votes of folks in the vast majority of the nation where these races are competitive.
Of course, those votes don't automatically solve anything. We still need to be active to ensure that our voices are heard at appropriations time. That's the nature of our democracy that there's a deliberative process after we vote which isn't assured or guaranteed. We can't just ignore the fact that there are myriads of disparate and diverse interests from around the nation which need to be reconciled if there is to be any advancement of initiatives or ideals into action or law. That's not going to be an easy or assured process, no matter what the level of integrity is among legislators.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If I were living in Mississippi or Idaho, rather than in Washington, and voted Democratic or Republican, or neither, the result would be the same. And, I could argue that in a purple state, my vote wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.
I agree about the "activism" and contend that it is likely to accomplish more than voting. But, even that is rigged by the fact that the "activism" of corporations and their minions (which frequently include politicians of both parties) is even much more likely to have an effect.
The problem the two-party system is that it has the power to keep itself in power by making electoral laws that are designed to do so. I use the singular for the "two parties" on purpose. Both of the establishment parties are able maintain their supremacy by colluding together to guarantee it.
You spoke of the political "reality" of the current system. So am I. It is what it is. However, I don't think any resemblance that it has to democracy is, at best, tenuous. Nor do I feel compelled to support it by participating in an obviously fixed game.
Will my possible vote for a third party change it. No. Will your sure vote for an establishment party change it? No.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)best regards . . .
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I like civility even when in disagreement.
frylock
(34,825 posts)trumps the real cool feeling one may experience in belonging to a winning team.
bigtree
(86,016 posts). . . everyone else is just trying to be 'cool?'
Where is this one-dimensional world you're referring to?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Now this thread is all about people who still want to carp during the election season! As if that will help anyone! It's bound to be a damper on things. Perfectionists always are.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but Romney's would be worse.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Its probably meant to imply you must be for Romney then if you are not pleased with whatever the issue being discussed happens to be. Pretty lame.
randome
(34,845 posts)I hear you but I still think it's a valid point.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)The fact is, no matter what the topic, Romney would be worse.
He would be worse that a dead mouse in the White House.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)that Romney had that idea first.
spanone
(135,924 posts)wandy
(3,539 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Interesting.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
bigtree
(86,016 posts)the nature of our democracy
edhopper
(33,658 posts)would have read my entire post. It would be obvious that I was talking about specific subjects where the Pres. has made what one might consider a bed decision. NOT about the election in general. Defending the Pres. by simply saying "Romney would be worse", seems to beg the issue and avoid the crux.
Also for those literalists here. I use the term "ban" metaphorically. As in retire it as a useless point. a self censorship if you will.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)In our political system, our president doesn't often get to act unilaterally. Even unilateral moves can draw a corrective response from the legislature. Ignoring or dismissing the degree that each party leader would affect that political process is profoundly misleading. There is certainly merit in pointing out how tenuous the support in our legislature can be for issues and initiatives and how different the outcome would be if there was a republican in the White House directing and influencing that political process.
edhopper
(33,658 posts)Medical Marijuana at a more fervent pace than his GOP predecessor, "Romney would be worse" is a poor response.
His lack of support for Gay Marriage is another. It's not what he can do, it is where he stands. And when he is wrong, "RWBW" is a non-rebuttle.
You seem to not understand that.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)Romney would be worse. It really doesn't matter, though, if you personally get that. what is, is. And, what will be, will be.
edhopper
(33,658 posts)for his actions?
Of course Romney would be worse, that isn't the point.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)lack of coherence on policy or social stands you are pointing out how undemocratic his positions are.
This calls into question the direction of the Democratic "leadership" and might imperil their quest for corporate donations.
We all know that every politicians' primary function is to get "contributions" to facilitate their reelection.
When you (or I) point out the inconsistencies and demand that the elected politician be responsible to the voters' concerns
you (and I) are interfering with the consolidation of the economic Royals control over political process.
The quickest way to short cut this obstruction by democratic principles is to say "He is better than RMoney".
That is why we are not allowed to discuss the real issues facing us.
If we did we would be forced to consider and implement real radical changes that threaten the established power base.
That is why Liberal (AKA forward looking) positions are to be shut down PDQ in favor of Conservative (established power sustaining)
Positions and discussions.
I hope this helps you understand the opposition to your request.
Cheers
frylock
(34,825 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I thought thats what the Politics 2012 forum was supposed to be for, people who want to talk about and look at all things using the upcoming election as a backdrop and focus. And general discussion would be for discussions more in-depth and generalized, and not always seen with "election fever" on the brain.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)...to ban people saying that we should ban people from saying something that some people think is irrelevant.
Or maybe we should just not ban people from saying anything?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sorry.
Sid
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I put people who use that line or lines like it on ignore. They think they are helping the president but in reality they just alienate people.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese stressed that President Obama and Mitt Romney are far apart on gay rights on MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell Reports Monday. Though Solmonese would like to see Obama be more forceful on gay rights, he stressed Obamas accomplishments to expand rights, and how far ahead of Romney those actions are.
The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Obamas re-election bid last year.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/hrc-president-obama-way-better-than-romney
Focus!
rug
(82,333 posts)K&R.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)since demanding that words be "banned" is cool by you, would you support a ban on people who demand that words be "banned"?
It would make everyone happier. Just think, never again having to deal with those words being posted here. Bliss!
rug
(82,333 posts)I support letting lame arguments stand until they fall of their own weight.
"What words do I demand be banned?"
...I thought this was agreeing with the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=655406
rug
(82,333 posts)The fact that I think it's a lame argument does not equate with agreement on banning the phrase.
Black and white thinking destroys depth perception.
"The fact that I think it's a lame argument does not equate with agreement on banning the phrase."
...title specifically asked that the words be "banned."
I mean, if every "lame argument" were banned, thousands of comments would disappear.
"Black and white thinking destroys depth perception."
Irony!
rug
(82,333 posts)BTW, I doubt the OP was being literal.
"BTW, I doubt the OP was being literal."
...that's the justification: this is just grandstanding?
Which brings me back to my original point: Reminds me of whining!
rug
(82,333 posts)It's fair comment on a tiresome talking point that tends to stultify any semblance of thoughtful discussion.
You wouldn't be whining about this would you?
"It's fair comment on a tiresome talking point that tends to stultify any semblance of thoughtful discussion."
...a new definition for whining.
Speaking of t"thoughtful discussion," where does a thread whining that words should be "banned" fit in?
rug
(82,333 posts)This is your what, sixth, comment complaining that someone had the temerity to call out a stale talking point?
Well, at least you haven't woven "better than Romney" into this subthread.
But it's early.
edhopper
(33,658 posts)as I soon posted in response #18
edhopper
(33,658 posts)I used it metaphorically.
So pretend I said "We should voluntarily stop using"
Then maybe we can discuss the real point and not semantics.
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)At least for folks who have no better response.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)and it really ins't...we should have the choice of voting for someone who si actually "good" not simply "not as bad." Should, but we really don't have that option this time around.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let's face it ... Obama will be the Dem candidate, and he's running against Romney. Those are the only REALISTIC choices for 2012.
And so ... those who are unhappy with Obama might decide to start drafting, and debating, the progresive candidate for 2016.
I'm not sure why those who are unhappy with Obama have yet to create this group as it would create a place to (a) be critical of Obama, and (b) start to decide who to put forward next.
jp11
(2,104 posts)so often instead of admitting that yes he (Obama) hasn't acted as well as we or some might want. Yet it seems to be a fall back 'suck it' kind of response to criticism of the President far TOO often. In other situations it could be an outright exaggeration when the previous republican president hadn't done as much 'bad' as the current democratic one.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)It's a message board after all.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)Take all the guesswork out of it that way.
Don
FSogol
(45,582 posts)I can't think of a single issue where Romney would be better.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)MineralMan
(146,350 posts)It's never irrelevant that Romney would be worse. It's simply a true statement. Should we ban true statements from being made on DU? I don't think so.