Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Shygirl]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

lol @ referencing gas prices. As if the president has any influence on that whatsoever.

They can. Such as through their energy development plans, tax polices, polices towards certain large energy producing nations, ect.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Because OPEC really gives 2 shits about what the U.S. or the rest of us wants.

[Shygirl]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Because OPEC really gives 2 shits about what the U.S. or the rest of us wants.

It has to care, to a degree. You can't completely ignore your biggest markets, it's not in their interests or your own. The more you develop all of your energy sectors, the more influence you will gain. Of course failed sanctions are not going to help with the price.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

News and current events affect what OPEC does.

I mean, you can't have missed the twenty cent rise in prices the last two weeks. I think there's a strong positive correlation between that and the refinery in Venezuela getting sploded pretty good a couple weeks ago. When the refineries in Texas were shut down briefly in 2008, we had four dollar a gallon gas, shortages and massive lines and whatever station had it.

Events affect it, I'd also say the flip flopping on the Keystone pipeline this year has been a factor. That's something Obama has been a pain about.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

OPEC is perhaps one of the only things I actually find myself agreeing with Donald Trump about.

They are nothing but a piece of shit purposely hampering the U.S. growth doing (almost) whatever they see fit, except in cases where it might cause global backlash.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

What I don't understand is why we're still backing parties that do patently evil shit.

I've been following election fraud since the 2000 election. The media likes to play it up as a race issue, but its far, far bigger than that. There are votes from presents that aren't even acknowledged and scrubbed from the system, meaning voters aren't turned away so much as their votes just aren't counted at all. The electoral college is outdated, it serves no purpose other than exploitation and misrepresentation of the vote - we know this and its still there.

Finally, there's the press and the MYTH that voting third party is throwing a vote away. The media teaches people to believe that politics is a binary rather than a spectrum because the elite like an easy categorization- that how If your views differ from mine you are magically on the other side and therefore wrong, stiupid, evil, racist or whatever you want to make about the other side.

However, if we do go from Left to Right:

Radical Left > Liberal Democrat > Progressive Democrat > Conservative Democrat > Moderate Democrat > Independent < Moderate Republican < Libertarian < Liberal Republican < Conservative Republican < Radical/Religious Right

That's not just two points of view - and there's more.

Obviously to have this wild range represented in a vote would make things rather confusing and lead to presidencies and senates that never got anything done, but I refuse to accept that "Rich, Corrupt Democrat" or "Rich, Corrupt Republican" are my only options every election. The bianary is only forced because it makes for good TV, radio and web hits. Display too much choice and people might start finding new views to identify with and heaven forbid we have that.

Would it be so crazy to have four or six options for a president? Why are we so hung up on this binary or the idea we can't find a better guy from the same party as the incumbent and have him add some competition to the mix? The only reason that we justify no one running against an incumbent is pride and bullshit show of solidarity. Solid stupidity is what it is.

The RNC shows you can wipe voters out and reject their ideas.
The DNC shows you can keep on backing the same stupid policies of the last four years.
And vice versa, of course.

They're leaving our generations to clean up their mess, honestly. All the more reason to abandon the stupid political binary and drop the old media while we still have a chance to save the new media.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

When was the last time a third party candidate came within spitting distance of the presidency? I don't buy the notion that voting third party isn't throwing your vote away at this stage of the game. The system seems to be stacked against them.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Pretty sure Ross Perot was the only one to ever come even remotely close (he was also right about a lot of his warnings).

[Icemage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Pretty sure Ross Perot was the only one to ever come even remotely close (he was also right about a lot of his warnings).

I wouldn't even say Perot came that close. Teddy Roosevelt came closer when he ran for a third term in 1912, getting 27% of the popular vote. But that was a century ago.


Icemage

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

OK in recent years then?

Having a parliament isn't all sunshine and roses either. If you think the fighting and stonewalling in Congress is bad now, you should watch the daily pissing matches that take place in our House of Commons. I can't speak for the European countries, though I have seen shots of the U.K.'s and it looks pretty much the same as ours lol.

I agree that wider representation is a good thing, but it also makes things much more complicated and difficult to get done (at least in our systems).

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

The whole thing is complicated by two parties, I don't see the damage a few more options could do. You can't have battle of "Good" versus "Evil" if you deviate from the binary. If you have two factions, their allegiances can easily be bought and sold.

The only groups to say anything genuine about liberalism and conservatism are probably the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. Why was that successful? Why were they intimidated?

Because these groups have no unified leader, they're faceless. So long as you have a face, you can be smeared and beaten down by the media. The Tea Party was never going to get the presidential candidate they wanted -that was rigged from the start by the Republican establishment - but they made such a tremendous impact on the senate and house from the federal to the state level in 2010. Who do you wage the attack ads on? What's the strategy?

You can't. Sure, you could point to Sarah Palin as a face, but not a leader, there really isn't one.

This is why a multi-party system could work.

And when you get so much noise from bills like ACTA or SOPA - which they're now trying to sneak past as the Trans-Pacific Partnership - all out once, it strikes fear in these bastards. Its not a planned part of the game for them. It intimidates them. When they try to sneak that shit by and the hammer falls on them, they have to change plans.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership - which is essentially NAFTA + ACTA/SOPA/PIPA- is being touted as job-creating legislation. Given how all its previous incarnations of these things were riddled with problems and both Obama and Romney would likely sign them, can we really trust a choice between two rich men anymore? If you want Ross Perot proven right again, let it happen.

[Yygdrasil]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Save for a select few of you... this thread is desperately ill-informed on politics and the state of our nation both past and present.

Cardinal Internet Rule #1: Do not bring up Politics, Religion or Sexuality... ever.

I'll be somewhere else doing something that isn't a complete waste of time.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

It's funny you bring that up.

People act like it's so shocking how mean spirited the campaigns are getting. It's been like that since day freaking one, going all the way back to when Jefferson ran. I forget the exact quote but I believe his opponent said something to the effect that beastiality and bigomy would run rampant were he to win. It's *always* been ugly, lol. Doesn't mean we have to like it or not bother trying to clean things up a bit (I'm looking at you, teabaggers)


EDIT: Well, the DNC's off to a pretty good start with Cory Booker's speech.

[Yygdrasil]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

One last note: