Thinking about sitting out the next Presidential election?

[ehrnst]

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[HughBeaumont]

2. How do I get over the fact that, economically, there IS no option?

When is America going to finally renounce Reaganomics?

When are we going to start putting progressives in Washington instead of Republicans disguised as Democrats and Fascists not-so-disguised as Republicans?

When are Americans going to stop believing in Horatio Alger?

When is Washington and corporate America (but I repeat myself :eyes: ) going to stop enhancing themselves and start caring about the American PEOPLE?

When is corporate America going to get out of their fantasyland scenario of constant revenue and profit without additional business? HOW does that work exactly?

Our problems are beyond presidents at this point. This whole system is corrupt from head to toe.

But what are you going to do?

Putting a "Democrat" in office apparently now means never-ending Reaganomics and never-ending military occupations.

Putting a fascist in office means all of the above, plus the US turns into ChurchMerica and our kids get taught creationism and get dumber.

Black, white, brown, woman, man, alien, senior . . . BLLLLLAAARRRGHHH!!!!

When is America going to put progressives in the White House and Congress?

We cannot afford to continue on this path. We can't. And no amount of apologia or fearmongering is going to change that fact.

[Donnachaidh]

3. [phone] n/t

[Sherman A1]

6. +1, Agreed & Well Said!

:thumbsup: Hit the nail on the head.

[woo me with science]

9. Yup. This lesser of two evils crap is getting very stale.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[COLGATE4]

31. +1. Hit the nail right on the head.

[Inuca]

34. OK, let's then go for

the not so stale "bigger of two evils".

[emilyg]

36. I have never voted for

the lesser of two evils. Bad way to go. Perpetuates evil.

[treestar]

53. It's also very real

If you are that cynical, what's to think progressives aren't evil, too?

Geez. If you choose to see everything negatively, there will be no progress anyway.

[Lorien]

80. I'll write in Sanders/ Warren if I must, but I won't sit out an election. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Thanks for that

It needs to be said.

[Dragonfli]

15. +1000 - You could not be more correct in your assessment! /nt

[MADem]

17. When America starts ELECTING them, that's when.

If you don't demand a progressive representative, you aren't going to get one.

The time to start is a year or so before the PRIMARY.

It takes hard work and commitment and, of course, a good candidate. Unfortunately, for one Wellstone there are a thousand Santorums.

The fault is not just with the corporations who bribe and control the Congress, it's also with OURSELVES. We can't blame Obama--we have to look at our Senators and Representatives, and if they are rightwing crazies or guys who started out "average" but are now millionaires, it's pretty clear that they're in the wrong line of work. They need to be replaced. We The People, at the local level, need to get off our collective asses and do just that.

And anyone who thinks the Supremes don't matter? They'll really have something to cry about if we don't keep the WH a "D" zone.

[zalinda]

33. The Democratic Party will not support progressives

All you have to do is look to the Lieberman and Lamont debacle and see that. Progressives get no money and no help from the DNC, they are totally on their own. Now what?

zalinda

[MADem]

52. Progressives shouldn't be looking for money from the top, they should be raising it from the bottom.

You go with your hand out to a bunch of guys who are wired into the corporate structure, you have to play ball.

Progressives need to get off the damn discussion boards and start working/raising money for the candidates of their choice. Stop looking up to the Massas at the DNC begging for a handout, do it yourselves. Grassroots groundswell.

All politics is local. Start at the local/state level, find yourself a candidate, back him or her, work for him/her, get him/her elected, and bring others to the cause. Then back 'em at every juncture as they move up the ladder.

That's how you do it. You home-grow 'em. You don't look up and whine--that never works. Paul Wellstone is the model. Check out his campaigns, with his big old bus--he didn't get anointed with scented oils from the powers on high--he did it himself, on a shoestring.

It TAKES TIME, though. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Lieberman and Lamont? Two millionaires griping at each other for a seat where they can have further corporate influence and an opportunity to accrue even more wealth--what do they have to do with regular people, really? Be honest with yourself as you contemplate that simple concept.

[Sheepshank]

37. Supreme Court Justices ensnared the nation with Citizens United

The fall out from that is a corruption by everything mega rich. Take that crap out of the equation and any POTUS is less tied to what the Mega Rich manipulate.....maybe even a reversal to listening to what the MAJORITY wants and not what the 1% RICH have to say.

For you to fail to extrapolate and look down the road, look to the long term in this case is scary as shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. The US of A was morphing into a plutocracy long before the citizens united decision.

The "mega rich" and other wall street folks have been buying our government for years. They own the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government....from the state levels to the federal level.

[Sheepshank]

49. morphing doesn't justify this legal decision.

You appear to be stating that anything, any legislation, any ground swell, any political movement, that appears to be morphing should be given free reign to it's ultimate conclusion?

What a bunch of crap reasoning.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. I'm not justifying the citizen's united decision. It's a stupid decision

I'm merely saying that the US has been a plutocracy long before the citizens united decision. Money from the wealthy class was flowing through our government well before citizens united.

Citizens United will increase the flow.

[libinnyandia]

48. doing nothing

All that is necessary for evil to triumph...... does that sound familiar? I wish the we could easily reverse the downhill trajectory began with Reagan. It is going to tkke hard work and will take a long time. Obama does not equal Romney, etc. Obama does not believe that corporations are people, that everybody should pay the same tax rate, that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, that government regulatios are bad, that global climate change is not occuring, I could go onand on. He certainly is not perfect, but we can make progress, ebven if it is too slow for most of us. I don't 7 or 8 Scalia on the Supreme Court.

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Better question? When are the "true progressives" gonna find someone that America can swallow.

And please, not Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich this time. Liberals make up about 20% of the electorate, so you've got to grow the number of "true progressives", and elect them to the Congress. I don't know why third party people on the left aim straight for the top job, and you don't hear a peep from them between presidential elections.

That tells me that "true progressives" enjoy bitching & moaning, because it takes a lot less work to pound out angry screeds into the ethernet, than to do the hard work to elect progressive school boards, city aldermen, governors, state legislators who can then rise through the ranks to run for federal office. I don't get what's so hard about that. When you look at modern day liberalism, I think people are more turned off by the messengers, than the actual message. :hi:

[CrispyQ]

62. Well said.

I don't know what the solution is, but using a corrupt & broken system to try to fix the corrupt & broken system isn't working.

Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us a democratic party that reflects the values of old time republicans more than it does the values of old time democrats. But, even though they don't represent me, I'm supposed to vote for them, because the other party doesn't represent me even more. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:banghead:

[immoderate]

63. This idea does not do well at DU. Obama is there to soften the crash!

--imm

[Autumn]

64. You said it like it needs to be said

well done.:thumbsup:

Never-ending Reaganomics and never-ending military occupations can not continue. Not if we are to survive.

[eridani]

70. You don't except with outside actions like OWS

And of course putting more progressive Dems into local pipelines.

[HughBeaumont]

72. It'd be nice if some local Democratic bigwigs PROMOTED progressives.

Ohio has it's share for sure (Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Betty Sutton, Sherrod Brown, etc), but other states are strictly DLC/Third Way or the highway.

[eridani]

79. Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, Jim McDermott

Lynn Woolsey, most of the MA delegation, etc.

[LittleBlue]

73. Nail meets head

Can't say it any better.

[kjackson227]

4. Well, this is enough "fear mongering" for me...

This is only ONE of the scariest things that could happen if the country votes in another Republican... I can think of a few more...

[Sherman A1]

5. Yes, in fact I am

It's my vote and I get to choose for whom it is cast and if it is cast at all.

I have voted straight D for as long as I can remember, but I am not particularly happy with the results I have seen from this decision.

I will vote in 2012 just as I will vote in the upcoming 2011 local election, but may indeed skip offices if I am not happy with the choice offered.

The lesser of two evils thing just doesn't play with me any more. Someone wants my vote, they need to earn it on their own behalf, not just the "better than the other guy (or gal) choice" line of thinking.

[styersc]

7. Who was the last Obama appointee to be confirmed?

How many interim appointees and "Out of Sessinon" appointees are operating the government right now? If Obama makes another Supreme COurt appointment, he/she will have to be so far to the right that they will not be identifiable as a Dem.

[GoCubsGo]

8. Both of his appointees were confirmed.

[woo me with science]

11. Yup, how many times have we heard excuses for conservative appointments,

because a liberal could not be confirmed? :eyes:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. What was wrong with Kagan and Sotomayor?

I thought that they were good appointments.:shrug:

[MADem]

18. I thought Kagan and Sotomayor were GREAT appointments.

Talented, hardworking and "looking like America." Total trifecta.

But we're still just one Supreme away from a RW crazy court. RBG isn't getting any younger. The opportunity may well present in the next four years.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. I agree

I don't know why anybody would be complaining about them and we sure as hell don't want any more Thomas and/or Scalia-clones on the bench.

[Pirate Smile]

29. As RW as the current Supreme Court is, if the Republicans get to appoint a Justice to replace one of

the 4 liberal Justices (probably Ginsberg), then this current court will look decent. It will be that horrible - truly!

Another Alito for Ginsberg would be such an enormous disaster for this country that I just can't believe the number of people on DU (I've seen others) saying it doesn't matter.

I can't believe people are doing that again so soon after the whole "Gore = Bush so who cares" garbage of 2000. They caused so much damage and people ARE DOING IT AGAIN! :nuke: :banghead:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. If people can't tell the difference between a Ginsberg and an Alito

things are seriously messed up IMHO! Elections have consequences!

[MADem]

51. I don't understand how people who insist that they are wired into what is "important" in our

society can fail to understand that the Supremes can fuck with EVERYTHING. They can change Life As We Know It. They decide what laws are constitutional, and which are not. They can decide that DADT is constitutional, along with DOMA, and that Roe V. Wade was a fuckup and needs to go. They can make social security go POOF with the right argument.

They CAN do this. Will they? Well, maybe my examples are extreme, but extremist views are often arived at in a creeping, crawling sort of way.

People don't seem to realize how much power those assholes have.

[COLGATE4]

32. Don't forget that, in addition to her age she's also a cancer

survivor. I think that if Obama wins a second term she will retire, hoping he'll fill the vacancy with another liberal. However, I agree with the previous comment that, unless Obama dramatically changes (doubtful) any candidate he proposes will be so far to the right as to be essentially unacceptable to the Liberal community. Either way, we're screwed.

[frylock]

39. what was wrong with kagan and sotomayor?

how about this?

WASHINGTON — The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.

<snip>

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

The case, Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272, arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, police officers in Lexington, Ky., rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.

But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds from inside the apartment that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

[MADem]

54. What--the cop is supposed to ignore the obvious illegal activity because it is weed?

What if it was "meth lab stink" and there were kids in the next apartment over?

Look, MJ laws are stupid, but those are a separate issue from the fact that if a police officer sees (or smells) a crime in progress, it is his duty to do something about it.

I don't think that decision was off the mark.

If a cop sees a crime happening through a window of a home, should he not take action? If a cop hears a scream for help (stop, thief/help, rape) should he ignore it because it's behind closed doors?

Further, in the case of drugs, sometimes, not always, but sometimes, where there's smoke, there's meth, cocaine, heroin and other drugs, particularly when we're talking dealers of the products.

I can't get all exorcised about that decision, even though I think that mj laws are silly and the weed should be legalized. The police don't make law, though-- they just enforce it. Until they take that weed off of the "prosecute" list, they are within their authority to arrest, and follow a probable cause lead if mj leads them there.

[frylock]

58. i'm sorry that you can't get all exorcised over the erosion of our civil rights..

i'm also sorry that you conflate the odor of burning cannabis to the first-account witnessing of a rape. moreover, if it was "meth lab stink" then get a fucking warrant.

[MADem]

67. Probable cause is probable cause, and I'm sorry you can't see that.

Should the police get a warrant when someone is stabbing you to death "behind closed doors?"

Grow up.

[Pirate Smile]

20. That is not true. Today the Senate is taking up an Obama nominee who will be the second out lesbian

on the Federal bench.

Senate to Vote Today on Alison Nathan's Nomination, Would Be Second Lesbian Federal Judge



Photo: President Barack Obama greets departing Associate Counsel to the President Alison J. "Ali" Nathan, left, Meg Satterthwaite, and their twin sons Oliver and Nathan, in the Outer Oval Office on July 7, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.)

Today, the U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the nomination of Alison Nathan for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Nathan, an out lesbian, would be the second out lesbian federal judge in the country if confirmed, joining U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York. Also on that court, which is located in Manhattan, is U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken. Oetken was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate for the judgeship earlier this year and currently is the only out gay male judge serving in the federal judiciary.

Per an agreement announced on Sept. 26 between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a group of four judicial nominees were to have their nominations considered for a vote as soon as Oct. 11. The first of those, Jane Triche-Milazzo, had her nomination for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 11. The Senate is slated to vote on the other three nominations today following a "period of morning business" that begins at 10 a.m.

President Obama nominated Nathan, who had served as a White House associate counsel earlier in the administration, for the federal judgeship on March 31. Following a hearing on June 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 14 favorably reported her nomination to the full Senate for a vote.

In addition to Nathan, the Senate is due to vote on the nomination of Katherine Forrest for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Susan Hickey for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Michael Fitzgerald, another of Obama's out LGBT judicial nominees, has been nominated to serve in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The judiciary committee held a hearing on his nomination on Oct. 4, but it has not yet acted to report the nomination to the full Senate. The final out LGBT judicial nominee, Edward DuMont, was nominated in April 2010 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has been waiting longer than any of Obama's judicial nominees -- LGBT or not -- for a hearing.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/10/senate-to-vote-today-on-alison.html

[MADem]

55. "Outer" Oval Office? nt

[TheKentuckian]

75. Where is she on civil liberties, war powers, and corporate capture of government?

Being gay doesn't mean anymore than being straight in a judge or any other decision making position.

Like there aren't gay neocons and greedheads a plenty? Nathan may well be fanfuckingtastic but being gay doesn't make it so, decisions and opinions do.

[WI_DEM]

22. So I guess that will be your argument for sitting out the election and allowing

one of the republicans to be elected? If you did some research you'd find that both of Obama's appointees were confirmed and they both have voted regularly with the so-called 'liberal bloc'

[styersc]

42. Kagan and Sotomayor were an eon ago. Nothing since.

Or did Eliz. Warren resign to run for Senate?

[MADem]

56. Barney Frank said she had a Senate run on the radar BEFORE her term expired.

Of course, people like to think that mean old Obama wouldn't send her before the nasty Senate.

I think she wanted the Senate seat, myself. She's certainly well prepared and well funded.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Scare tactics!!!!

:sarcasm:

But seriously, no, we can't let Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or, heaven help us, Herman Cain making another round of SCOTUS appointments, particularly when it seems highly likely that at least one of them will be stepping down sometime over the next 4-5 years. Elections.have.consequences.

[woo me with science]

12. Here we go again.

Ooga booga! Who else ya gonna vote for, suckah? :eyes:

This is all part of the design. It is so easy to move rightward when there is always someone further right. And it will continue until we stop it.

[pacalo]

16. I support Obama, but I'm not the type of supporter who is satisfied with the status quo &

thinks everything is hunky dory.

The fact is that having another Republican president should scare the hell out of anyone who has any good sense.

The OWS protesters, although disenchanted by both political parties, seem to share Democratic principles; they are angry about the same things Democrats are angry about. As someone in the media said, the protesters have the potential to move this country to the left of center. This would give Obama the security & leverage he needs to be the Democrat we're looking for him to be.

Think positive.

:hi:

[woo me with science]

You assume that he has any interest in being the Democrat we all want him to be.

Unfortunately, the history and evidence are weighted heavily in the opposite direction:


The ACLU on Obama and Core Liberties
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2069714&mesg_id=2069714

A Push for Republican Policies in Every Major Area
www.obamatheconservative.com

Obama and the Hamiltonian Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315

Obama the Candidate versus Obama the President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x31514


We have two corporate parties now. Part of the way they stay in power is by pitting us against one another to enable the lesser of two evils. It is so easy to go rightward, when someone else is always further right.

It will continue until we make a decision to stop it.

[pacalo]

21. But we should all be hopeful that the OWS protests are going to effective

& push the politicians more to the left.

What good is done by griping about Obama? What one good thing is accomplished?

I won't vote for a Republican -- ever.

What other choice would I have? None.

I see no constructive reason to focus my anger on a Democratic president when there are Republican candidates who would be 100 times worse than Obama.

I understand & share your frustration, but I'm not going to work against a Democratic president when the only other choice is a rabid Republican anxious to show how inhuman he can be to 99% of this country.

[woo me with science]

23. Keep enabling the lesser of two evils,

and you will continue to get evil. They are in both parties now working a very clever game, and they will continue this game until we stop it.

"What good is done by griping about Obama? What one good thing is accomplished?" I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that we should shut up about policies that are destructive to us all.

Do keep supporting OWS, and be alert to all attempts by corporate parties to co-opt and dilute its mission. OWS is really our only visible hope for change right now.

[pacalo]

26. I'm all for free speech, which is why I don't get involved in heated threads.

Those are particularly annoying & not at all constructive.

I do share your frustration, believe me, but I'm not going to enable the Republicans by sitting out the election or by voting for a Republican.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

82. it could also be argued that refusing to vote for the 'lesser' evil

lets the 'greater' evil win, and are you seriously telling me it would be better for your goals/agenda/the country if the greater evil wins?

addendum: I do not agree with the view that Obama is an lesser evil, but using the term above since its based on your line of reasoning/thinking

[tledford]

59. "It is so easy to move rightward when there is always someone further right."

Bingo.

We've gotten beyond the point where the country can be saved by elections and voting. There is far too much money invested in maintaining the status quo.

Here is an idea: Identify progressive benefactors who can afford to buy every one of the 24 million un- and under-employed a bus ticket to Washington and a baseball bat. Our military can't be deployed to shoot down 24 million citizens, they're all overseas. So maybe 24 million Americans with baseball bats can persuade those who *currently* occupy Washington and run the country without any interest in or concern about Americans, to resign, and then step in and run the country the way it *should* be run.

[catbyte]

19. A Republican SC--THAT scares the crap out of me.

[slay]

71. It's supposed to. It's meant to scare us into accepting politicians like Obama as the new Dem norm

even though his pro-corporate style has harmed us greatly. he's more Repub than Dem in my book.

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. It will be none of them.

[Jakes Progress]

25. So why would the party care about you?

What do you do about the fact that if you think like this, the party will know they have you in the bag and never have to do anything that you want. They have no reason to do progressive things, to fight for the people, to act like Democrats. If you fetal up and whimper every time the Supreme Court is mentioned, the party, this administration, this campaign can just stuff you in their pocket. Your concerns and wants don't matter at all to them. They will be free to jump way right and try to pick up a couple of sleepy republicans.

It is a path that leads to complete conservative government. Fear is the mind-killer.

[workinclasszero]

35. WTH should we do then?

Our own president was elected to stop the wars. He continued both. Not only that, he started another and might be in the early planning stages for another one!

He was also elected to end the Bush tax cuts which he didn't do! He was elected to raise taxes on the rich. Somehow that didn't get done. He was also elected to bring us universal health care, which he didn't do when he and the democratic party had total control of Congress!

And today he signs into law 3 more job killing free trade agreements cause the wall street mafia demands them! Oh and the fu**in SCOTUS is firmly

in the claws of the reich wing even as we speak!

So...WTH should we do??? Just keep on electing people who will betray us at every turn and hope for the best???

Now you see why there are thousands of people on the streets today at #Occupywallstreet/yourtown/yourcity/yourcountry! And I believe soon it will be MILLIONS! These parties and the mobsters on wall street are killing us and killing the whole damned world for a stinking dollar profit!

This shit has got to change! No one represents us in Washington DC! NO ONE!

[frylock]

38. how is this shit any different than cheney threatening the electorate..

with the spectre of a terrorist attack if we elected kerry to office? fuck this shit.

[Scurrilous]

40. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Sheepshank]

41. Supreme court was very wrong to give Corporations political personhood.

Corporations are people for taxing purposes, but not for criminal prosecution right? So that hybrid in this and so many other legal, social, moral instances, (when corporations sometimes counts and sometimes does not count as a person) is something that seems somewhat arbitrary to me. To permit any 'person' with the financial clout of an entity to play politics, was without conscience. The gov't is here to serve the people, the needs of a corporation have never been the same and will not be the same as the needs of a person.

When individual persons reach into their own pockets and pull out $50 to donate to the candidate of their choice, there are moral decisions, choices and personal (PERSONHOOD) choices being made. But when the conscience of a PERSON is degraded into being of equal worth as that of a corporation then the Supreme court of dead wrong.

A corporation does not make the same sacrifice to donate financially as an individual (flesh and blood) person. A corporation will not be missing a fancy meal, because that money was donated. The corporation will not be worried about the school system for their offspring. The corporation will not be concerned over medical bills. Sure the officers of a corporation may have those same concerns, but they are not being denied the right to participate the political system, the same as any other person. Those officers siimply want MORE influence that the regular, everyday dude or dudette.

Given todays climate of buying off politicians, corporations will enjoy direct (and rarely broad application) of financial gains from policies they have influenced. The ruling has effectively removed the influence of the majority of the people.

Money corrupts. It is what it is........The job of the corporation is to increase wealth by any means. When that wealth has been increased to the point that the officers of a corporation are able to use the financial power of that corporation to influence morality, and other personal issues (abortion, marriage etc) then it's easy to see how the idea of corporate personhood in the case of politics, is not used for noble but all the wrong purposes.

The officers of a corporation in essence get two very powerful access and influential angles in politics...their personal voting power, and wielding the corporate financial power.

[great white snark]

44. One of the MANY reasons I won't sit this out.

[ecstatic]

45. Look, the people who are OK with that aren't liberals or progressives

They are trolls, idiots, and anarchists.

[CakeGrrl]

46. REC

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. And those who are declaring that they will not vote will be the VERY same ones

complaining about the destruction of this country when any one of these assholes gets a hold of it.

Folks have every right to exercise their right not to vote; however, I don't want to see any complaining here on DU about how "Republicans did this" or "Republicans did that."

[Umbral]

57. Sitting out the election? Not likely, I'm sure I can write-in a Democrat for President...

or at least a liberal. And no, I'm not afraid of the Supreme Court, they won't be the ones who stop Global Warming.

[Hotler]

60. I was thinking about sitting out but,

now that we have more Free Trade Agreements I'm in with bells on. OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA

[and-justice-for-all]

65. Damn that is a lot of fucking stupid on that stage...nt

[Sentath]

66. Oh, I'll show up at the polls

Unless I'm dead, and even then you never know, I Am a Democrat. :evilgrin:

But,

Donate? I'll be picky about it
Volunteer? Maybe locally

[slay]

68. Don't blame us for Obama being a bad leader and betraying traditional Dem values

seriously. i hear what you're saying but if Obama loses this election, it is HIS fault.

[red dog 1]

83. Don't blame us for all his broken campaign promises either.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings

[polichick]

69. OCCUPY THE VOTING BOOTH...

This idea came from signs at an Occupy Wall Street gathering near Philly - I do hope the movement leads to a big voter turnout as well as a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics and verifiable voting.

[Skip Intro]

74. Bullshit. I'm sick of being threatened to vote a certain way. As if there is somethign wrong with

having a conscience and voting likewise. That's what the hell the system is set up to capture.

Some people would actually rather vote for something than against something.

Myself, I'm keeping an open mind and don't need anyone's effin' approval to do so.

All this crap with the threats and the coercion is total bullshit.

Get your effin' gun outta my effin' face.

[Zoeisright]

77. Meanwhile, how many people will suffer and die for that "purity"?

Grow the fuck up.

[Umbral]

81. Whenever someone attacks your maturity...

it's a sad attempt to coerce you into doing exactly what they want. Seriously, how old were you before you disallowed this sort of manipulation from those who would take the place of your parents?

[MjolnirTime]

78. Who will you give your ever-so-principled vote to?

[Zoeisright]

76. Plus one BILLION.

Spot on.