Accidental Troll

Schweet!

From:

pictsy.livejournal.com

Huntsman is probably the least wacko, but I haven't heard his name much recently.

From:

jukebox-heroine.livejournal.com

bachmann makes me so angry i could spit. i usually don't get worked up about political things, but she is a straight up asshole.

From:

so we can burn down the country quickly or we can burn down the country slowly... in the end, shit's burned down. and millions of people sink even further into poverty because no one gives enough of a fuck to do anything about the shitty economy, other than to just make things worse.

that said, people who don't bother to vote shouldn't bother to complain.

From:

Yes, I'd go with slowly because thanks to watching the world news we know for a fact that if we collapse entirely the very predictable replacement is not utopia, but a series of gangs, warlords, and then a dictator with great influence of religion.

From:

also, there's a wide chasm of difference between "I can't have exactly what I want" and "Obama didn't do anything remotely adequate to help the economy, and capitulates to the GOP at every opportunity"

a too small stimulus, Mitt Romney's health care plan, continuation of the abhorrent "detainee" policies of GW Bush, and trillions of spending cuts in the midst of the worst economy since the 1930's... sorry, i want more. but i guess expecting people who run as Democrats to actually govern that way is "childish"... good to know.

From:

There is also a list of decent things he has done - but I share some of your dissatisfaction with Obama, but I cannot see not voting or voting for any of the insane lineup from the republicans. When you don't choose, you help the extreme right.

From:

it's my hope that someone who deserves my vote comes along. i'm not really interested in voting for a Republican... or for someone who acts too much like one, far too often.

From:

Well hopefully then you're voting in your local elections. Often you have to choose a lesser evil, but...well our system is set up for small incremental changes. If you get a less-righty, the it's easier to get to the middle, and easier to get lefty. If you just don't vote because the choice isn't lefty, then all those rightys will vote and you'll never even be on the ballot. Not voting helps the right, flat out.

Would be nice to have a choice, but I'm voting in all primaries to try and help someone get up. I admit I realistically don't expect the country to allow a non-centrist anytime soon, but I'll fight like hell to keep those right-nuts out of office.

From:

i always vote, and 2012 won't be any different.

From:

Sweet. Wish you had a better choice though. Nothing wrong with voicing great, great, great disappointment in the choices made and choices to make.

From:

i'm hoping we at least get a Democratic primary for Senate, here... Feinstein is up again, and she's even more interested in kicking liberals than Obama...

From:

fitfool.livejournal.com

But the economy sucks so I'm guessing Obama won't get a second term

From:

I thought so too until I saw the front runner opposition.

From:

Obama's presidency has been a long line of disappointments, but staying home and pouting on election day doesn't help anybody either. At this point, I wouldn't vote for Obama, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote at all. There's always other stuff on the ballot here and it's easier to make a difference on local stuff.

If it comes down to Obama vs Bachmann and reputable polls somehow show things really close in CA...well then I'd probably vote for him after all. If he decides to start leading and remembers some of those principles he first ran on, that would help too.

From:

Yeah I miss the hope I voted for. Still, I don't blame him as much as others. I am frankly freaked out by the new terrorist republicans willing to destroy the economy for cheap short-term political gains. Is Obama too much a reed in the wind, or just the first decent human to be hacked to bits by a torch wielding mob?

From:

Obama's willingness to capitulate isn't his problem, it's a Democrat problem. And the reason I'm not a Democrat. The party doesn't stand for anything anymore, they let Republicans define every aspect of the debate years ago. The major difference until recently seemed to be how each party would accomodate business demands. The Republicans will fall overthemselves trying to open the door to let an oil company drill somewhere. The Democrats will say they're against it and put up a fuss before caving and going on about 'difficult choices', blah blah. The Republicans would just get rid of the EPA. The Democrats will just fire or silence scientists whose reports show that what some rich industry is doing is bad for us.

They put up a token resistance and then somehow interpret people's anger with them as a sign that people don't want them to fight, when the reality is that people were angry because they weren't fighting hard enough and it was obvious.

Now the Republicans have gone off the deep end, and I'd like to think the Democratic party could be taken back somehow and made to stand up, but they seem more interested in courting the votes of old style Republicans and this elusive 'independent' vote that they always seem to think is just to the right of them.

From:

(good analysis, I hope it's not that bad but I'm not sure it isn't)

From:

I think it's safe to say that not everybody in the party is bought and sold by Wall St., Chevron, and AT&T - but enough of them are that the efforts of honest, public-service minded people are buried.

There is a bright side to the Republicans furious gallop toward some kind of feudal anarchy - should they get their way, things will very rapidly get worse for most Americans. And apparently one of the reasons people don't vote to help the poor is that they are comforted by the fact that there are other people poorer than them, so they don't want to help those people and find *themselves* on the bottom. I figure if the crazies get their way, the middle class will start to disappear and more people will start to vote to help the poor, as they find themselves among them.

Unfortunately while that happens a bunch of chronically ill, elderly, and disabled people (and poor children) will probably die of avoidable causes...so it's more of a tiny dim pinprint of light in a very dark mass than a 'bright side'.

From:

I was reading an analysis of this very thing, but I have a hard time believing it. The economist was quoting that study but it seems so insane...

From:

It makes about as much sense to me as people who don't want to tax the rich because they hope they'll be rich someday, so I can't doubt that it holds true for some people.

From:

But there is no reason other than the lottery to think they'll be rich. They make no motions, have no rich relatives, and don't go to school for 24 years and then sacrifice and plan financially for another 24 years to do it. I just can't wrap my head around the bizarre unfinished lines of thought.

From: