Pundits chiming in that Romney "won" the debate....

[RadioRaheem84]

Media pundits are already chiming in that Romney won the debate today.

First off, what do they mean by Romney "won"? Are these debates measured by which one presented their pov better? If so how can Romney spin what he has in store for American in any positive light? How on Earth did he manage to even sell the image that his vision of America would be a better one at all?

How could have Obama "lost" going against that? Was he too incompetent to counter any of the easily debunked right wing logic Romney spews?

I have yet to see the debates as I was working, but will catch what I recorded later.

Even liberal pundit Rachel Maddow said "there was no clear winner". How in the hell could there be no clear winner with Romney saying that he hates government assistance, hates people on government assistance and will gut every social program known to man. I mean he is on record as saying that he is for the rich yet the US still believes that this man won a debate and can jump start the American economy!

Have we arrived at an Orwellian future or what?!

[Marxaveli]

I watched it, and I must say Obama came out waaaaaaaay too passive, and missed too many opportunities to call Romney out. Romney basically lied the whole time by switching his views, but Obama didn't ever call him out on any of them. Even though I hate both of them, it will be truly scary if Romney wins this thing - there goes all the medicare, more tax cuts for trillionaires, cutting pell grants, almost certain war vs Iran, etc.....

[Drosophila]

Who cares?

[Marxaveli]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Obama didn't go for the throat.

[Bardo]

Capitalism won the debate against capitalism.

[Sasha]

obama plays better hardball with bibi nethanyahu than mitt "posh twat" romney, he seriously messed up, but meh, romney came of a asshole so i think they both lost as much as they gained..

[Geiseric]

Well Obama bailed out the big banks, so he's not any better than Bush nor Romney.

[Zealot]

If the names of Romney's top contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286) are anything to go by, he won the debate before it started. It's mostly a ceremonial event.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am watching the first segment and ten mins in I am already wanting to throw my laptop to the wall! Obama isn't doing shit and is letting Romney drone on and on about shit he never even mentioned on the campaign trail. When the hell did Romney come up with these positions? All of a sudden he's not for a "tax break that adds to the deficit"? How the hell does he propose that?

The guy knows his rhetoric but Obama stood there like a lamb and didn't side swipe him with even typical liberal rhetoric.

[Drosophila]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

So at this point you're placing the fates of things like social security and Pell grants on individuals who, in the grand scheme of things, can't significantly affect them? That's some anti-Marxist, Great Man Theory shit you've got there.

So no, I don't feel that I "better fucking care" who "wins" these debates.

[Ostrinski]

Yeah, Obama performed very poorly I think.

Romney really smelled blood and exploited the opportunities that were created for him.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think we should care who wins the debates or elections, obviously that's liberalism.

But I also think that objective commentary on bourgeois politics is pretty harmless.

[Marxaveli]

So at this point you're placing the fates of things like social security and Pell grants on individuals who, in the grand scheme of things, can't significantly affect them? That's some anti-Marxist, Great Man Theory shit you've got there.

Great Man Theory? Man, FUCK YOU. Don't ever put words in my mouth. :mad:

And anti Marxist? Hardly. I hate both GOP and Dems equally.

But I also know that if Romney wins and social security and pell grants are eliminated, my mom will lose EVERYTHING she has - including her home, and I won't be able to go to school anymore. Like it or not, these services are critical to our survival, well being, and basic needs in this hostile capitalist system. At least with Obama these things will remain intact, even if he is a capitalist douche bag like the rest of them.

It is YOU who is a reactionary, selfish asshole, not I.

[Zealot]

So at this point you're placing the fates of things like social security and Pell grants on individuals who, in the grand scheme of things, can't significantly affect them? That's some anti-Marxist, Great Man Theory shit you've got there.

It's not really a Great Man theory since the president does have quite a large amount of power, not to mention the US doesn't have a politically neutral public service a la Westminster bourgeois democracies, which means that almost the entire public service is replaced with government stooges after every election.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It's not really a Great Man theory since the president does have quite a large amount of power, not to mention the US doesn't have a politically neutral public service a la Westminster bourgeois democracies, which means that almost the entire public service is replaced with government stooges after every election.

LOL, look:
"Bain Capital $268,470" That's his own company!

[Ostrinski]

I didn't phrase anyone in my post, so FUCK YOU. Don't put words in my mouth.

And anti Marxist? Hardly. I hate both GOP and Dems equally.

But I also know that if Romney wins and social security and pell grants are eliminated, my mom will lose EVERYTHING she has - including her home, and I won't be able to go to school anymore. Like it or not, these services are critical to our survival and basic needs in this hostile capitalist system. At least with Obama these things will remain intact.

It is YOU who is a reactionary, selfish asshole, not I.Hey man, try to relax a little. The GOP is going to have to dominate Congress before they can ram through their more ambitious desires. Namely, the whole gutting of pell grants thing proposed by Ryan ain't gonna pass. I go to school on grants too and it mildly concerns me but if bourgeois politicians could do everything they wanted to do then it wouldn't be a very efficient system.

[Drosophila]

I didn't phrase anyone in my post, so FUCK YOU. Don't put words in my mouth.

Huh?


And anti Marxist? Hardly. I hate both GOP and Dems equally.

But I also know that if Romney wins and social security and pell grants are eliminated, my mom will lose EVERYTHING she has - including her home, and I won't be able to go to school anymore. Like it or not, these services are critical to our survival and basic needs in this hostile capitalist system. At least with Obama these things will remain intact.I said "anti-Marxist" because you are acting as if things like social security, pell grants, and mortgage rates (all of which have taken hits during the last four years, by the way) could significantly be affected by anything other than the capitalist economic machine. Obama can't just step in and command that nothing will go wrong. Ultimately it's beyond the control of bourgeois politicians.


It is YOU who is a reactionary, selfish asshole, not I.thanks ;)

and thx 4 the creative "Fuck you" negrep, btw. I'm trying to carry on a serious discussion here. Maybe I sound hostile since that's common on this site, but I'm really not.


It's not really a Great Man theory since the president does have quite a large amount of power, not to mention the US doesn't have a politically neutral public service a la Westminster bourgeois democracies, which means that almost the entire public service is replaced with government stooges after every election.

Not really. I'm assuming you know the process by which laws are passed in the USA, so I won't go in to too much detail, but the president really doesn't have a great deal of control over anything besides military affairs. Other than that, the president can set a sort of "tone" for Congress to go by, but we've seen that that doesn't work for shit.

[GPDP]

I lo'd when Romney called out Obama on gutting $700 billion out of Medicare. To be honest, I don't actually know if that figure is correct, but seeing Romney criticize Obama from a left-wing POV, and Obama never rebutting him, was hilarious to me. Romney curb-stomped Obama so hard, it was funny.

Obviously, though, the debate was nothing more than two bourgeois dickheads bickering on how best to fuck over workers, so in the end, we all lost regardless of who won.

[Robocommie]

and thx 4 the creative "Fuck you" negrep, btw. I'm trying to carry on a serious discussion here. Maybe I sound hostile since that's common on this site, but I'm really not.

You really shouldn't have started in on him with stuff about "anti-Marxist" and "Great Man" theory of history stuff, especially because he's clearly just worried about getting by. If you think he's wrong then fine, tell him so, but he didn't say anything really offensive, so why put his feet to the fire over it?

[Drosophila]

You really shouldn't have started in on him with stuff about "anti-Marxist" and "Great Man" theory of history stuff, especially because he's clearly just worried about getting by. If you think he's wrong then fine, tell him so, but he didn't say anything really offensive, so why put his feet to the fire over it?

Alright, fair enough. I guess this is what happens when I have too much caffeine after a crappy day. My apologies to Rosa'sDream for sounding like an ass.

(I should also note that my "Who cares?" post was not directed at Rosa's~Dream but rather at the question of "who won the debate.")

[RadioRaheem84]

I think debate showed just how much of a fraud Obama really is. When Romney questioned him on the corporate jet taxes. It showed me just how corporate Romney really is and just how much of a community organizer Obama really is trying to play with big business types.

It's like Romney was saying, "woah man, you don't know shit about my game. Corporate jets are yada yada yada,".

Called him out and made him look like the stooge he really is. Then again, Romney was admitting just how much of a corporate boss he really is.

[Geiseric]

Great Man Theory? Man, FUCK YOU. Don't ever put words in my mouth. :mad:

And anti Marxist? Hardly. I hate both GOP and Dems equally.

But I also know that if Romney wins and social security and pell grants are eliminated, my mom will lose EVERYTHING she has - including her home, and I won't be able to go to school anymore. Like it or not, these services are critical to our survival, well being, and basic needs in this hostile capitalist system. At least with Obama these things will remain intact, even if he is a capitalist douche bag like the rest of them.

It is YOU who is a reactionary, selfish asshole, not I.

Comrade, Jerry Brown, a democrat, is in the vanguard of austerity in california. Obama has done nothing different from bush. So honestly, if it was between a labor politician and a liberal, i'd be with you, but there is nothing different between what Romney and Obama can and will do.

[Zealot]

LOL, look:
"Bain Capital $268,470" That's his own company!

LOL, well the utilisation of personal finances probably happens quite a lot in US politics and bourgeois elections in general. The billionaire-mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, also "just happens" to be the 10th richest person in the United States according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/). Speaking of Forbes, the self-proclaimed "Information for the World's Business Leaders", this bourgeois collective are unashamedly Romney disciples who themselves declared Romney as the winner:



And the Winner Is: Romney

Mitt Romney won big tonight. President Obama got digs in on the former governor over the lack of detail of his proposals, but Romney clearly came out to play hard. The other big winner was the American people. This was a real debate with real differences, real clarity. Too bad voters have had to be assaulted by attack ads and hyper-emotion.

Romney displayed a mastery of the economy, of small business, of health care, of taxes — of all issues. He was aggressive, something that was deemed risky beforehand, but he did not get personal or mean. He was respectful to the sitting President, but in no way awed by his presence.


While Obama took it to the GOP candidate (Where’s the beef? Where are details on tax cuts, on health care?), Romney handled it deftly — this debate was about principles and style. Romney reminded the President and voters that he was a bipartisan leader who sought and achieved consensus and legislation by working with the other side in Massachusetts.


Romney also showed his differences on Obamacare. This was a difficult task because this could have opened him up to charges of hypocrisy. He is a seasoned debater and this was the discussion on health care we should have had all along.


Obama scored a major point on pre-existing conditions. But Romney came right back to argue that no insurance company would deny service. We will have to see how that plays out but at least the discussion was held and it was civil.


Finally, I had said before the debate that Romney would have to show a command of the economy and put it in personal terms — a tough task. He did that tonight. The President was uncomfortable, stammering at times. Romney won.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2012/10/03/zogby-and-the-winner-is-romney/

[Marxaveli]

Comrade, Jerry Brown, a democrat, is in the vanguard of austerity in california. Obama has done nothing different from bush. So honestly, if it was between a labor politician and a liberal, i'd be with you, but there is nothing different between what Romney and Obama can and will do.

Tell me something I already don't know? Romney and Obama are basically same shit, different pile - but it is quite clear that the formers policies would have more immediate and direct effect on my and many other comrades quality of life. Basically, Obama wants to keep things the way they are, which is really bad, and Romney wants to make them even worse. But if Romney wins and I get my pell grants taken away and my mom loses her home cause he cuts or privatizes SS, I will fucking lose it. I have an intense hatred of Capitalism as it is....but if I get pushed over the edge, things gonna get ugly real fast.

[Agathor]

Watching it now. Fuck me it's dull.

[Marxaveli]

Watching it now. Fuck me it's dull.

Did you expect anything else from two bourgeoise sheep debating?

[Agathor]

Sheeple

[Robocommie]

I know how they can make the debates more enjoyable for everyone.

http://www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/images/Police_Verso.jpg

[Grenzer]

So honestly, if it was between a labor politician and a liberal, i'd be with you, but there is nothing different between what Romney and Obama can and will do.

So you're saying if you had to pick between Tony Blair and David Cameron you'd pick Blair and not just oppose them both?

It's not difficult to see where this idea of former Trotskyists brainstorming the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan comes from..

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fell asleep right before it.

Seems like Romney killed Obama from the highlights though.

Love how some people here are qualifying their commentary with 'but they're both assholes' or whatever, as if nobody's allowed to have personal preferences.

I'm actually surprised at the Romney transformation with debating, it's clearly his field, he seems good at it.

I've never thought Obama is that good a speaker. He is quite an engaging guy in an informal setting and probably a 'nice' guy, but he seems quite stuttery and struggles to look people in the eye. And kinda monotone.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Love how some people here are qualifying their commentary with 'but they're both assholes' or whatever, as if nobody's allowed to have personal preferences.

People are allowed to have preferences, I just don't think it makes much sense to.

I didn't watch the debate for two reasons.

1. It started at the same time as king of the hill and I figured the latter was more important.

2. It's become increasingly difficult for me to observe American politics. The whole thing just makes me sad and angry. I remember a few months ago when Joe Biden said something along the lines of "They want to put you in chains" (referring to Romney and the republicans). There was a huge media backlash and even so called leftists like Jon Stewart condemned him for it. I swear to god every time I hear someone utter the word "bipartisanship" I want to kick them in the face.

EDIT: I mean, if even a tame comment like Biden's results in such an outcry, it doesn't bode well for us at all.

[RebelDog]

Was he too incompetent to counter any of the easily debunked right wing logic Romney spews?

Not incompetent, implicit.

[Ostrinski]

I know how they can make the debates more enjoyable for everyone.

http://www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/images/Police_Verso.jpgThey should revive that most interesting of Roman traditions: topping off the night of intellectual or political events with a pure, unadulterated orgy.

Who doesn't wanna see some Obamaromney love?

[ed miliband]

obama plays better hardball with bibi nethanyahu than mitt "posh twat" romney, he seriously messed up, but meh, romney came of a asshole so i think they both lost as much as they gained..

both seem very much like "posh twats" to me. or at least as "posh" as americans can get.

[Sean]

I spent most of the debate listening to Romney closely, muttering "bullshit" and giggling at twitter taking up the #occupysesamestreet cause. I thought he was being a shithead and kept looking at Obama instead of the audience. He also ignored the hell out of the debate rules.

Now having slept on it I can see that I completely ignored Obama, can't remember a single thing he said and Romney's actions have been spun as if he was an angry pugilist too concerned with the things wrong with America to be tied down with the rules of debate.

Its a popularity contest and Romney did come off better, because all eyes were on him. It was one of those cases where he might as well have been arguing at an empty chair like Clint Eastwood because Obama was hardly there at all.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I didn't watch the debate because these things are always so predictable, but I'm surprised to hear people say Romeny performed better than Obama. Everyone I know is talking about how sinister he came accross.

[ComradeOfJoplin]

The problems I kept of hearing was Obama did keep on openly questioning how Romney was going to pull all of miracle plans out of his arse, but Romney just kept on skirting around how and was very vague.

[Yuppie Grinder]

both seem very much like "posh twats" to me. or at least as "posh" as americans can get.
Back in the good old days American conservative politicians strived to be as posh as possible, but not after Reagan. Now even Newt Gingrich fronts like he isn't part of the elite.

[Will Scarlet]

I laughed when Romney accidentally mentioned 'poor kids' when they were on about schools or something, and quickly corrected himself to "low income kids". Don't mention the poor!

Romney was the more convincing of the two though, this is the first time I've really seen a lot of him and I guess it must have been a lot better performance than he usually gives judging by the criticism he's had on that front. Obama's only really comeback on Romney was that he wants to get rid of 'Obamacare' and some bank shit etc but not saying specifically what he'd do, that's true but Romney played it off pretty well. He painted Obama as the guy who would make cuts to welfare (and the military) as well as increasing the deficit and taxes and Obama didn't come back at it at all.

If you cut my head open you'd see the words Middle Class Families burned into my brain. Eurgh.

[Igor]

Did you expect anything else from two bourgeoise sheep debating?

You think boy Willard and Obama are "sheep"? I hate sheeple rhetoric so so much but it's pretty weird to use it to people who are really fucking powerful, even if they lost this election.

Anyways, I'm not sure why some people keep saying Obama is a good speaker. He really isn't, he's always seemed kinda weirdly clumsy and awkward to me, especially in spontaneous situations. The beaten-to-death Fox News talking point about obummer teleprompters isn't really that far away from the truth. He's a smart guy, knows what he's doing, but doesn't really shine in public speaking situations and really seems monotone and soulless. People give flak for Romney all the time for being a bit.. robotic but I honestly don't see Obama being too different from that on stage.

[Lynx]

I know how they can make the debates more enjoyable for everyone.

http://www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/images/Police_Verso.jpg
A definite thumbs down from the 'electorate' :lol:

[Ostrinski]

I didn't watch the debate because these things are always so predictable, but I'm surprised to hear people say Romeny performed better than Obama. Everyone I know is talking about how sinister he came accross.I don't really think there's anything particularly sinister about Romney, not from a socialist perspective. He's pretty honest about his contempt for working Americans, which you have to respect somewhat if only from a cynical perspective.

The real sinisterity imo comes from Obama. I mean, he didn't even attempt to try to convey that he gave one single shit about what he was talking about, and in light of his assault on the working class, I find the fact that he would try to charade as if he's got a pro working class program while not feeling like he even had to sell it at all to get people to take the line and hook very smug and yes sinister.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Obama was constrained by the fact that his backers now have to be wary of him using too much left populist rhetoric-with the Chicago teacher's strike and the memory of Occupy still very much alive, and looming explosions in Greece and Spain the rhetoric has to be as bland as possible.Obama can't do what he did in 2008.

It was ironically hilarious but there was a moment where Romney spoke in favor of Dodd Frank and "banking regulation" trying to claim the left populist territory.

No matter who is elected (I still think Obama will win) there will be cutbacks to medicare, social security and other social services. Obama, very statesmanlike, will "reach across the aisle" and cooperate with the Republicans in imposing austerity.

Anybody watch the "extended coverage" on Democracy Now with Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

A good left analysis of the debate

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/post-debate-analysis-the-media-can-now-get-the-electoral-horse-race-it-wants.html


The reason Obama did poorly is simple. He is bad at governing America. He hasn’t solved the foreclosure crisis, the jobs crisis, the climate crisis, the energy crisis, the financial crisis, the debt crisis, the health care crisis, or really, anything. He can’t point to very much that Americans broadly like, except killing Bin Laden and the auto bailout. His second term agenda is to cut Social Security, Medicare, frack, cut corporate taxes, bust more teachers unions and pass more neoliberal trade agreements. He is proud of this record. So are his people. But he knows he can’t run on it because it’s unpopular, so instead, he presented himself as a nice likeable guy.

[Mr. Natural]

Yes, in terms of the American political scene, Romney won the debate, and as bad as Obama is, this is potentially really bad news. Not many comrades understand just how far right the US has gone, and that the Republican Party is now a Tea Partying proto-fascist formation.

I live in what I describe as Tea Party Town on the northwest coast of California. The county in which I reside is about to elect a deeply racist, carpetbagging, Tea Partying vigilante from southern California (he moved here just three years ago) as its county supervisor.

This guy and what he says is becoming standard for a large segment of the American electorate. He refers to Obama as the "Muslim-in Chief." He characterizes Obama as "an America-hating ideologue," and "anti-Christian, pro-Muslim and a closet black racist."

I could go on at great length on Obama's faults, but he is clearly neither a racist nor an ideologue. On the latter point, I don't know how there could be a more pragmatic and non-ideological servant of The System than Obama.

I want comrades to understand that approximately 40% of the American people now think in the manner of the supervisorial candidate. Capitalism rules but is failing, people are pissed but ignorant, and various forms of fascist police states are on the horizon for us all, unless ....

The left and the human species are clearly in a very, very bad place within a collapsing capitalism, and comrades will need to find new anarchist/Marxist ways to oppose The System. The old, classic Marxist revolutionary formula of proletariat versus bourgeoisie has clearly failed. What has gone wrong? What needs to change? And soon!

These questions need answers. My red-green best from an increasingly ugly America.

[ed miliband]

Back in the good old days American conservative politicians strived to be as posh as possible, but not after Reagan. Now even Newt Gingrich fronts like he isn't part of the elite.

yeah, that's probably true, just don't really understand why psycho would use "posh twat" to describe romney when obama's background doesn't really have much prole cred (and if it did, would it matter? no).

[Marxaveli]

Yes, in terms of the American political scene, Romney won the debate, and as bad as Obama is, this is potentially really bad news. Not many comrades understand just how far right the US has gone, and that the Republican Party is now a Tea Partying proto-fascist formation.

I live in what I describe as Tea Party Town on the northwest coast of California. The county in which I reside is about to elect a deeply racist, carpetbagging, Tea Partying vigilante from southern California (he moved here just three years ago) as its county supervisor.

This guy and what he says is becoming standard for a large segment of the American electorate. He refers to Obama as the "Muslim-in Chief." He characterizes Obama as "an America-hating ideologue," and "anti-Christian, pro-Muslim and a closet black racist."

I could go on at great length on Obama's faults, but he is clearly neither a racist nor an ideologue. On the latter point, I don't know how there could be a more pragmatic and non-ideological servant of The System than Obama.

I want comrades to understand that approximately 40% of the American people now think in the manner of the supervisorial candidate. Capitalism rules but is failing, people are pissed but ignorant, and various forms of fascist police states are on the horizon for us all, unless ....

The left and the human species are clearly in a very, very bad place within a collapsing capitalism, and comrades will need to find new anarchist/Marxist ways to oppose The System. The old, classic Marxist revolutionary formula of proletariat versus bourgeoisie has clearly failed. What has gone wrong? What needs to change? And soon!

These questions need answers. My red-green best from an increasingly ugly America.

I don't think Marx was wrong about modern class struggle being proletarian vs. bourgeoise, but I think he simply underestimated the cleverness of the ruling class. Gramsci's work nails it on the head, and really builds upon the foundation that Marx explained, yet Marx only touched upon economic/social relationships and politics that create and necessitate class conflict....he didn't get into the 'culture' of ruling class hegemony that is critical in understanding the persistence of capitalist domination.

[doesn't even make sense]

yeah, that's probably true, just don't really understand why psycho would use "posh twat" to describe romney when obama's background doesn't really have much prole cred (and if it did, would it matter? no).

I can only imagine the way the media would abuse a serious progressive presidential candidate of working class origins. Probably lots of psychologizing accusations of resentment. I mean you already see that with Obama and the whole "anti-colonialist" bullshit.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

To be honest... I didn't even know there was a debate.I completely tuned out, barely watch television as it is.

[KurtFF8]

I agree that Obama did quite poorly, the pundits are on point here.

I'm also wondering why on RevLeft we all feel the need to express the obligatory "but it's just between two capitalist parties!" as if we don't already all agree on that point. Just because something is a bourgeois concern doesn't mean we should dismiss any sort of engagement with it, especially when it's getting this much media attention.

[ed miliband]

I can only imagine the way the media would abuse a serious progressive presidential candidate of working class origins. Probably lots of psychologizing accusations of resentment. I mean you already see that with Obama and the whole "anti-colonialist" bullshit.

that's true, but i meant it wouldn't (or shouldn't) matter for us; i wouldn't become an obama supporter if i found out he was down in the mines from the age of four. britain has had a number of prime minister's from ordinary, "working class" (if only in a sociological sense) backgrounds and they have been every bit as bad as their eton-educated superiors.

[CryingWolf]

Drinking game rules for the next debate:

Easy mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'America'

Normal mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'families'

Hard mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'middle class'

Barney Gumbel mode: Down a bottle of vodka if someone uses all three in one sentence.

[officer nugz]

Drinking game rules for the next debate:

Easy mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'America'

Normal mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'families'

Hard mode: Take a drink every time someone says 'middle class'

Barney Gumbel mode: Down a bottle of vodka if someone uses all three in one sentence.you would pass out drunk quickly adhering to any of these modes.

[doesn't even make sense]

that's true, but i meant it wouldn't (or shouldn't) matter for us; i wouldn't become an obama supporter if i found out he was down in the mines from the age of four. britain has had a number of prime minister's from ordinary, "working class" (if only in a sociological sense) backgrounds and they have been every bit as bad as their eton-educated superiors.

Oh I wasn't trying to dispute that in any way, just using your comment as an opportunity to talk crap. If Obama with the same policies were instead you know some salt of the earth kind of guy who came into politics through union organizing he might be a lot easier to red-bait but he wouldn't be any more red.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't really think there's anything particularly sinister about Romney, not from a socialist perspective. He's pretty honest about his contempt for working Americans, which you have to respect somewhat if only from a cynical perspective.

The real sinisterity imo comes from Obama. I mean, he didn't even attempt to try to convey that he gave one single shit about what he was talking about, and in light of his assault on the working class, I find the fact that he would try to charade as if he's got a pro working class program while not feeling like he even had to sell it at all to get people to take the line and hook very smug and yes sinister.

I think he's pretty sinister. There are a lot of parallels between him and Mr. Burns.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.huffpost.com/gen/520957/MITT-ROMNEY-OR-MR-BURNS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/04/who-said-it-mitt-romney-or-mr-burns-picture_n_1319468.html&h=819&w=650&sz=211&tbnid=gS0Hpp8DjO2UZM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=71&zoom=1&usg=__C_gJNBwy4oGNnQ61b89TzylMw5U=&docid=J71uqblM-r8L5M&sa=X&ei=fO1tUL6OC9H8yAHK2IGgDw&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAw&dur=1006
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.huffpost.com/gen/520957/MITT-ROMNEY-OR-MR-BURNS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/04/who-said-it-mitt-romney-or-mr-burns-picture_n_1319468.html&h=819&w=650&sz=211&tbnid=gS0Hpp8DjO2UZM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=71&zoom=1&usg=__C_gJNBwy4oGNnQ61b89TzylMw5U=&docid=J71uqblM-r8L5M&sa=X&ei=fO1tUL6OC9H8yAHK2IGgDw&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAw&dur=1006

[officer nugz]

they are both extraordinarily sinister people. watching the debate all I could see was two people who want to fuck me over and the rest of the population spewing out mindnumbing rhetoric about americans and our nation etc.

[Zeus the Moose]

I should make clear as a disclaimer to all this in that I didn't watch the debate. As much of a political junkie as I can be, it's during this time of the election season that I become the most aggressively uninterested in what the media in general says about politics. With that in mind, I may be missing things that challenge the perspective I have on the debate. That said...!

It makes a lot of sense to me that Romney is perceived as "winning" the debate. Considering the series of gaffes and mistakes he's been reported making has developed a narrative that Romney has been so comically inept at his campaign, the bar was set incredibly low for him. Pretty much as long as he didn't babble incoherently and soil himself on camera, he would be portrayed as doing a halfway decent job. And considering from what I have heard about the debate, Romney was able to get his message out in fairly short soundbites (regardless of the half-truths, misdirections, and outright lies contained within said message), whereas Obama apparently took longer to get out his points. While the latter does make for better analysis-fodder (again, taking into accounts the half-truths, misdirections, and outright lies that will be told), the former, at least according to conventional mass media wisdom, translates better to a mass media setting. So points for Romney in that regard.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that this election needs to be portrayed as very close and competitive, especially considering both major candidates are very uninspiring for their own particular reasons. So again, even a halfway decent performance by Romney will be spun as a debate victory for him, in order to keep up the perspective that this is a very close election which everyone needs to pay attention to and cast their vote in. But when polling in states like Ohio and Virginia is indicating that Obama's lead is staying reasonably constant, it's difficult to portray this as a close election. A Romney "win" in the debate can do that.

[Lucretia]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

Gee, so I guess you had better start getting out the vote for Obama then. You revolutionary, you.

[Lucretia]

So you're saying if you had to pick between Tony Blair and David Cameron you'd pick Blair and not just oppose them both?

It's not difficult to see where this idea of former Trotskyists brainstorming the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan comes from..

Just because a party calls itself "labour" doesn't mean that it is, in fact, a labor party.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Gee, so I guess you had better start getting out the vote for Obama then. You revolutionary, you.

He's just worried about paying for school and his mom getting by, real life concerns. They matter a whole lot more than your idea of ideological purity.
I'm not advocating voting for the democrats, since I agree with previous posters in this thread that no matter which president gets elected the same shit is going to happen and the difference between the two is illusory.

[Geiseric]

I didn't watch the debate, but watching the highlights shows me I would of been pissed off. I was drunk last night, so it wouldn't of ended well I think.

[Pretty Flaco]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

i feel you. getting higher education isnt going to be happening any time soon for me if the republicans win. and my poor grandma is going to have an even tougher time since she can't work and has health problems.

i feel that the people who say "it doesn't matter who wins, it's still capitalism" don't actually feel the repercussions of different capitalist political orientations. it's sort of like different bosses at work. no matter what they're still the boss and there can be conflict, but I'd much rather have a boss that's friendly than a slavemaster that verbally abuses me and treats me like shit, yeah?

[Marxaveli]

He's just worried about paying for school and his mom getting by, real life concerns. They matter a whole lot more than your idea of ideological purity.
I'm not advocating voting for the democrats, since I agree with previous posters in this thread that no matter which president gets elected the same shit is going to happen and the difference between the two is illusory.

Yup.

I want revolution as much as anyone else here, but in the meantime, I need a roof over my head, food, and pell grants to help me pay for my education so I can sell my labor to some capitalist pig one day, so I can continue to survive and with any luck have a decent quality of life in this shit hole of a system.

[Ocean Seal]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.
I'm sorry for your situation, many of us here are dependent on government aid, but it is unlikely that Romney will gut these programs anymore than Obama, I'm sorry that's merely the way that it is. Romney is just your average bourgeois technocrat, there really isn't any difference between him and Obama.

[Mr. Natural]

Rosa's Dream, Yes, you as a college student and your mother at age 62 are in a very bad place: capitalism's place. And I, as a 70-year-old man, am facing the imminent downgrading or loss of Social Security and Medicare.

So all of us are in that very bad place: capitalism's place. I invite you therefore to grapple with capitalism as The System that has captured all forms of life on Earth. I believe you and other comrades need to engage capitalism systemically.

I believe you miss the reality of a globalized capitalist system when you refer to the "cleverness of the ruling class," and remark that Marx 'didn't get into the culture of ruling class hegemony that is critical in understanding the persistence of capitalist domination."

I believe it is incorrect and inhibitory to the development of viable revolutionary processes to attribute very much self-agency to the modern ruling class. Yes, it still makes some decisions, but it is a globalized capitalism with its values and institutions that is now the ruling system that rules its "ruling" class. Capitalism is now the only game in town, and it supplies the rules by which all classes play. Capitalism has captured the human species in its entirety.

So allow me to go "radical revisionist." The human species has been proletarianized. We all work for The System now, whether we are bourgeois, a factory worker, or a member of capitalism's reserve army of the unemployed. And we all face imminent ruin or extinction.

So my "new class" is the human species. The Marxist analysis of capitalism, surplus value, historical materialism, etc. remains valid, but this "new class revision" would enable revolutionaries to come to grips with the reality that a globalized capitalism has successfully moved past the old conflict of workers versus ruling class. The new reality is that we all work for capitalism and we all need to "go to revolution," and such an analysis seems not only correct but would provide many entry points for radical organizing.

Is this so far-fetched and un-Marxian? Doesn't "class" refer to one's relation to the means of production? Hasn't human labor on Earth been captured by capitalism? Aren't we all members of one giant class of captured labor--a class with many divisions? And isn't capitalism going to destroy us all?

My red-green best to you and your mom.

[ed miliband]

http://lbo-news.com/2012/10/04/why-obama-lost-the-debate/

pretty good. tl;dr version: obama hates people, wants to be loved by the rich, and doesn't believe in anything.

[Rugged Collectivist]

He's just worried about paying for school and his mom getting by, real life concerns. They matter a whole lot more than your idea of ideological purity.
I'm not advocating voting for the democrats, since I agree with previous posters in this thread that no matter which president gets elected the same shit is going to happen and the difference between the two is illusory.

"I'm not advocating voting for the democrats, but I'm defending this guy who is because he's just worried about 'real life concerns'"

[DasFapital]

I didn't watch the debates. Hell, I didn't even know they were airing until the day after they happened.

[leftistman]

Who was the winner to that debate you ask? Not the American people! They have been stabbed in the back by the two-party system. They have lost any protection from government-directed internment to the National Defense Authorization Act, they lost their personal liberties to the Patriot Act. The majority of Americans have never had any economic freedom or democracy because most people do not and have never had any ownership or control of what is produced or how it is produced, but now the government is aiding those who economically enslave others; both Romney and Obama have stated that they want to lower corporate taxes despite the fact that corporate profits are at an all-time high and income at an all-time low.
Will anything change? Not without a fight. People are always trying to choose between the lesser of two evils, but when the people gather round to choose between the lesser of two evils every four years, it never occurs to them that they don't need to choose between the two authoritarian corporatists; they have the power to create a freer society. It's only a matter of time before another revolution takes place, and when that revolution comes, everybody will be involved. People will have to choose who they want to see go first, the oppressors or the oppressed.

[Marxaveli]

"I'm not advocating voting for the democrats, but I'm defending this guy who is because he's just worried about 'real life concerns'"

Nowhere in any post did I say I was voting, and indeed, I'm not. Reading is fundamental.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

My first thread/post on here. Anyway, I've learned over the years voting doesn't matter unless it's at a local scale, on certain community laws/programs and what not. For example when I voted to give ALL schools within my counties district the same funding so as to not allow neighborhoods with more money to take up most of the education funds in so setting the stage for inequality in education.

Anyhow, socialists shouldn't be caught up in the Obama/Romney nonsense, at least not seasoned socialist who understand how our so called democracy works. When we support Democrats we're helping the system fool workers into thinking Democrats have the interests of the working class in mind. This is sorta revolutionary socialist ideology 101 stuff.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yup.

I want revolution as much as anyone else here, but in the meantime, I need a roof over my head, food, and pell grants to help me pay for my education so I can sell my labor to some capitalist pig one day, so I can continue to survive and with any luck have a decent quality of life in this shit hole of a system.
aye brubru maybe you'll do well enough in school to make it into the professional class

[Marxaveli]

Well, I'm a Political Science/International Relations major, which probably isn't the best major if I want financial rewards, but that is hardly my goal. I want enough to sustain myself and live decently, but most importantly, I want to do something that I love and im interested in. I'm an aspiring writer and social scientist at the end of my sophomore year, with a GPA of 3.85 - pretty damn high, but you generally need a Graduate level degree to even have a chance to do well in this field (I plan on going for my Masters one day, but one thing at a time). Part of the reason I am going to school is of course because it has become a necessary tool in this Capitalist society (and even then, it is of course, still no guarantee of anything), but more importantly I am doing this for self-enlightenment and knowledge. It was through my education that I discovered Marxism, and through my own personal research outside of school that made me become a Marxist. In addition to being treated like shit by every single company I worked for and just realizing that Capitalism is a complete and utter failure for humanity.

[Rational Radical]

Tell me something I already don't know? Romney and Obama are basically same shit, different pile - but it is quite clear that the formers policies would have more immediate and direct effect on my and many other comrades quality of life. Basically, Obama wants to keep things the way they are, which is really bad, and Romney wants to make them even worse. But if Romney wins and I get my pell grants taken away and my mom loses her home cause he cuts or privatizes SS, I will fucking lose it. I have an intense hatred of Capitalism as it is....but if I get pushed over the edge, things gonna get ugly real fast.
I'm sorry to hear that,it aches your soul doesn't it comrade? It's things like this that makes me want to put the class struggle on hold right now and run with insurrectionist anarhchist to fuck shit up. I'm fed up with this,but worseningmaterial conditions means the possiblity of a revolution.

[ed miliband]

I'm sorry to hear that,it aches your soul doesn't it comrade? It's things like this that makes me want to put the class struggle on hold right now and run with insurrectionist anarhchist to fuck shit up. I'm fed up with this,but worseningmaterial conditions means the possiblity of a revolution.

what is this i don't even

[Rational Radical]

what is this i don't even
Meaning it causes me to get extremely angry to the point I want to express my anger in a destructive manner instead of reading theory and trying to promote propaganda so people at least look into socialism. When the working class openly goes for the worst of the two evils,even though they're extremely similar,it boils my blood. Hopefully the left is more active in the upcoming years

[Crimson Commissar]

As much as I'd love to give Obama the finger along with the rest of the American capitalist entourage, one thing I think we all have to admit is that he's a fuck of a lot better than having Romney in office.

What people don't understand about the USA is that, whether Romney or any other President causes worsening living standards or not, it's highly unlikely to tip the American people towards the leftist side. There's an ever-growing trend in the West that, if one major party disappoints people, they'll simply turn straight around and vote for the other major party in the next election, falling for false promises yet again. We see this in Britain too, with the century long game of political ping-pong that Labour and the Conservatives have been playing over their increasingly narrowing social and economic differences.

I guess my point of view is: I don't want Obama, and I sure as shit don't want Romney, but I know full well that no other candidate has a chance in hell of winning so I'd much rather have Obama keep his place upon the throne of world capitalism and imperialism.

[ed miliband]

*yawn*

[Rugged Collectivist]

Nowhere in any post did I say I was voting, and indeed, I'm not. Reading is fundamental.


it will be truly scary if Romney wins this thing - there goes all the medicare, more tax cuts for trillionaires, cutting pell grants, almost certain war vs Iran, etc.....

Well, since you think it would be "truly scary" for Romney to win, I assumed you actually planned on doing something to prevent it.


Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

*emphasis mine*

So you're saying people "better fucking care" about a bourgeois election but at the same time you claim you aren't going to be voting in it?

Either you genuinely think it matters who gets elected. In which case I assume you would vote because it's so super important. Or you don't, which would then lead me to ask, why are you complaining about Romney winning if you don't think it would make a difference?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I was nearly yelling at my computer scream because Obama wouldn't defend himself from Romney's lies at all.

[Positivist]

Well, my retired 62-year old mother who relies on social security for her income and a tax write off for interest on her mortgage, cares. And to some degree, I do also, since I am a broke college student who relies on pell grants to help me out financially. If Romney wins, all three of these things, among others, will be jeopardized. So yea......you better fucking care.

You overestimate the democrats. These things are already very much jeopardized. A lot of these things are determined at the State level anyway these days, and if you haven't noticed, the federal platform of the democrats exists in stark contrast to the state ones many places. Each party supports austerity, it is just a matter of how that austerity is arranged.

[Marxaveli]

Right, but there is still a substantial difference between making cuts to these programs and turning them entirely into vouchers....the former would make things yet tighter for us, but the latter would immediately have a exorbitant impact on working class people and seniors, possibly to the extent that their livelihoods and dignity would be in complete ruins. There is a big difference between having to cut down on dining out and having to eat TV dinners and grilled cheese sandwiches, and between losing your home entirely and having no place to go.

[Let's Get Free]

What we call "debate" is nothing more than a matter of arranging staged encounters between equally noncommittal candidates, neatly tailored to fit 2 hours of prime network time, the object of the excersise being to establish an "image" of competence. If there are interrogators present, they have been handpicked and their questions rehearsed.

[Red Commissar]

Only benefit I've seen here is that the attacks on Big Bird give us an opening to make the Sesame Street Revolutionary Front and wage class war from the puppet street.

But yeah, I didn't watch the debate. I guess looking at it from a strictly neutral standpoint, Obama was weak and let Romney essentially guide the "flow" of the debate. More pitiful are the attempts to make excuses for Obama as to why he was so underwhelming in the debate.

Other than that it was as debates before, both candidates trying to pay lip service to the blob that is the middle-class while praising principles of capitalism (SMALL BUSINESS) that somehow benefit us.

[Smith's Dream]

The O'Reilly vs Stewart debate was a lot more fun to watch, and a hell of a lot more illuminating.

[Lucretia]

It really is disgraceful that perfectly good revolutionaries are banned from this forum for bullshit reasons, while reformists of the kind we see showcased in this thread are free to roam around spreading this reformist bullshit about how much distinguishes the democrats from the republicans.

[Crimson Commissar]

It really is disgraceful that perfectly good revolutionaries are banned from this forum for bullshit reasons, while reformists of the kind we see showcased in this thread are free to roam around spreading this reformist bullshit about how much distinguishes the democrats from the republicans.

One of the problems of the modern left, I'm afraid. I'm alright with having preferences and opinions on bourgeois politics, but there is a growing trend of self-proclaimed Socialists/Commies who take it a fair few steps too far.

I'd say if you're going to vote for any capitalistic candidate in an election, in the USA or elsewhere, then you really need to take a step back and reconsider where your political allegiances actually lie from now on.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I am watching the first segment and ten mins in I am already wanting to throw my laptop to the wall! Obama isn't doing shit and is letting Romney drone on and on about shit he never even mentioned on the campaign trail. When the hell did Romney come up with these positions? All of a sudden he's not for a "tax break that adds to the deficit"? How the hell does he propose that?

The guy knows his rhetoric but Obama stood there like a lamb and didn't side swipe him with even typical liberal rhetoric.

You do realize Obama has been the most right wing Democrat in decades? You do realize his purpose was to sell right wing policies to an almost drone like leftist population don't you? You must realize what most of us knew even in 2007, that Obama was put into power by capitalists in order to further their right wing agenda in the aftermath of the Bush administration. Obama was a 'trick' to shut the left up in America. It worked. Don't feed it or let it happen again. Please stop :)

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

As much as I'd love to give Obama the finger along with the rest of the American capitalist entourage, one thing I think we all have to admit is that he's a fuck of a lot better than having Romney in office.

What people don't understand about the USA is that, whether Romney or any other President causes worsening living standards or not, it's highly unlikely to tip the American people towards the leftist side. There's an ever-growing trend in the West that, if one major party disappoints people, they'll simply turn straight around and vote for the other major party in the next election, falling for false promises yet again. We see this in Britain too, with the century long game of political ping-pong that Labour and the Conservatives have been playing over their increasingly narrowing social and economic differences.

I guess my point of view is: I don't want Obama, and I sure as shit don't want Romney, but I know full well that no other candidate has a chance in hell of winning so I'd much rather have Obama keep his place upon the throne of world capitalism and imperialism.


Why would you rather "have Obama"? Details. The only good reason having Obama in office another 8 years, in my opinion, is it MIGHT further expose the uniform homogeneous nature of the joke of a democracy we have in America. Obama is even more right wing than Romney. I'd like you to try to prove me wrong. Please, have at it.

[∞]

I'll admit. If I had a gun to my head, I'd reluctantly vote for Obama. So would all yall.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I'll admit. If I had a gun to my head, I'd reluctantly vote for Obama. So would all yall.

I'd close my eyes and pin the tail on the donkey. Republicans and Democrats simply represent capital. Democrats do NOTHING for workers. Nothing. In fact, I'd rather Obama stays in, yes. That way he can keep on implimenting more right wing policies than Bush, maybe then it will all be clear? You'd think people would get it by now. Obama has attacked the working class more than Bush and Reagan combined.

[Geiseric]

A vote for Obama means a vote for Netanyahu, it means as vote for drone striking children in pakistan, and it means voting for deporting 400,000 immigrants a year. He is also just as likely to go to war with Iran as Romney. It also means voting for the future bailout that will happen again, once the recession picks up again.

[∞]

I'd close my eyes and pin the tail on the donkey. Republicans and Democrats simply represent capital. Democrats do NOTHING for workers. Nothing.

Its the really small reasons that would make me rather get shot in the head than stabbed through the eye-socket. With that said at least one of them wants birth-control on healthcare bill, supports gay marriage, and wants to end tax-cuts.

Hes still an imperialist. But I don't really get pissed off when I see him because at least hes smart. Hes almost as bad as Romney though.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

Its the really small reasons that would make me rather get shot in the head than stabbed through the eye-socket. With that said at least one of them wants birth-control on healthcare bill, supports gay marriage, and wants to end tax-cuts.

Hes still an imperialist. But I don't really get pissed off when I see him because at least hes smart. Hes almost as bad as Romney though.

Obama extended the tax cuts, extended the wars, extended teh bail outs, extended the attacks on the working class ten fold from anything Bush did. Part of his attack on the working class was that god forsaken healthcare bill. Not one of us should tout that as some victory for workers. The health bill is an all out attack on us with capital pulling the trigger. Are theer any threads on this site concerning the healthcare bill? If so direct me to them. This is all why I'm getting back online. Peoples perception of things is so off base it's no wonder I had to deal with this sort of thing at Occupy events (from so called socialists). The healthcare bill. Oh geeze.

I'm editing this because I just read this "at least he's smart". I'll reply to that later when I'm not angry but for now I'd like to ask you to elaborate. Thanks.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

It seems these posts have made my 'rep power' and reputatuion decline. Double geeze. Gee wiz even. This happens every four years, election time comes and many of us put our heads back in the sand for some reason. Pragmatism, to me, is a euphamism for giving up, not only giving up but giving in. I've given up before but in doing so I didnt use my fustration to legitimize the current system. :confused:

[Geiseric]

Its the really small reasons that would make me rather get shot in the head than stabbed through the eye-socket. With that said at least one of them wants birth-control on healthcare bill, supports gay marriage, and wants to end tax-cuts.

Hes still an imperialist. But I don't really get pissed off when I see him because at least hes smart. Hes almost as bad as Romney though.

Obama extended the tax cuts though in the past 4 years. Why would he reverse now?

Those concessions are simply the same as when he told latinos that he would reform the immigration situation. And he didn't. They occupied his campaign offices and said that in some cases "defered action," would allow some deportees to stay. But he's doing these things for votes, not to advance a mass movement.

What Obama is capable of doing is demobilizing thousands of workers, like in wisconsin. That is a bigger obstacle than the Republicans. We need to break the illusion that the Democrats are better by creating a labor party to make it blatantly clear what the limits of bourgeois democracy are.

[∞]

It seems these posts have made my 'rep power' and reputatuion decline.

I did that because you told me to go snort estrogen.


Obama extended the tax cuts though in the past 4 years. Why would he reverse now?

Those concessions are simply the same as when he told latinos that he would reform the immigration situation. And he didn't. They occupied his campaign offices and said that in some cases "defered action," would allow some deportees to stay. But he's doing these things for votes, not to advance a mass movement.

What Obama is capable of doing is demobilizing thousands of workers, like in wisconsin. That is a bigger obstacle than the Republicans. We need to break the illusion that the Democrats are better by creating a labor party to make it blatantly clear what the limits of bourgeois democracy are.

Whatever man, I don't even care.

[Doflamingo]

I think they should settle these with a Pokemon battle. I think Obama would win a Pokemon battle since he seems more hip and modern than Romney. Plus I could totally see Romney only having 1 high leveled pokemon and a bunch of low leveled pokemon because he doesn't care about poor pokemon.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I did that because you told me to go snort estrogen.



Whatever man, I don't even care.

You posted a thread asking why you were eating and masturbating so much which I found quite immature to do on a socialist political site. I havent been here long so the standards must be pretty low if you're the norm around here. One would think too much testosterone in a growing young male would account for your obsession with food and masturbation. Either that or you're depressed. You're obvious immaturity isn't limited to posts about excessive masturbation though, I'd say it's quite apparent your political views are just about as bad. Lets stick with your political views please. We all go through a learning process.

A couple posts ago you said a vote for Obama is better for the working class because: "he's smart", the healthcare bill/abortions in the bill, "he supports gay rights" (ya right) and he "wants to end the tax cuts". It's not your fault you think these things, I put the blame on the shoulders of the older socialists who lead people down the wrong path. In reality Obama is more right wing than any US president EVER but somehow the opinion you just put forth is almost the norm on the "radical" left. It all starts with such people as the folks at DemocracyNow!, Michael Moore, socialist worker.org etc and so on (ready to catch flack from ISO members).

Just holding your nose and voting because you think it can make some small difference is one thing, it only takes about 20 minitues to vote and if you want to waste your time go ahead but when that support transfers into emotional investment, as in, defending his policies, rooting for him in the debates on a socialist forum, advocating support for Obama/democrats during any activist work at the grass roots level etc and so on then I have a huge problem with it. If you truly don't care about the facade that is teh democrat/republican lie of a democratic process thats great because the more you care the more you legitimize the lie. :)

[Crimson Commissar]

Why would you rather "have Obama"? Details. The only good reason having Obama in office another 8 years, in my opinion, is it MIGHT further expose the uniform homogeneous nature of the joke of a democracy we have in America. Obama is even more right wing than Romney. I'd like you to try to prove me wrong. Please, have at it.

I'm not massively informed on the positions of the two candidates this time around, but to me Romney seems a lot like another Reagan-type president. Strongly capitalist, strongly nationalistic, and looking to shove the hand of the US Army and the CIA wherever there is a government that disagrees with him. I suppose it's not that I'd rather see Obama in office, it's just that I really don't want to see Romney in office.

[∞]

I suppose it's not that I'd rather see Obama in office, it's just that I really don't want to see Romney in office.

Which means you'd rather have Obama in office.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I'm not massively informed on the positions of the two candidates this time around, but to me Romney seems a lot like another Reagan-type president. Strongly capitalist, strongly nationalistic, and looking to shove the hand of the US Army and the CIA wherever there is a government that disagrees with him. I suppose it's not that I'd rather see Obama in office, it's just that I really don't want to see Romney in office.
Obama is strongly capitalist, so much so he gave trillions of dollars to banks and corporations (large capitalists). Obama has attacked public education, cut funding to public programs, almost killed medicare/medicaid all together with his law for everyone to buy private health care. Obama has overseen a massive privatization effort in the USA. One that would give Reagan's dead ghost wet dreams.

Obama has sent the US military to more nations at once than any president ever - case in point (other than the obvious current war's being waged around the globe) is Obama sending troops and the CIA to Columbia to intimidate Chavez. All the reasons you listed for rather having Obama in office, man, he's done all of it ten fold further than any Republican. I'm not saying vote Republican I'm saying don't make excuses for Obama. Don't be a socialist who's "pragmatic" because thats no socialist at all in my book. Obama has been a creul trick played on well meaning people. The large capitalists sure know what they're doing. They have machiavellian mind fuckery down to an art form.

[Rafiq]

I'd close my eyes and pin the tail on the donkey.


http://edu.glogster.com/media/5/30/20/99/30209972.png


Fucking reformist

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

If the names of romneys money men are anything to go by, he won the debate before it started. It's mostly a ceremonial event.

I hadnt checked up on that yet. Yep. Obama is a one term president. I'd be interested to see what the election results have been every four years compared to the funding from the largest finacial institutions, corporations and wall st law firms. Does anyone have time on their hands?

[Robocommie]

I'm not massively informed on the positions of the two candidates this time around, but to me Romney seems a lot like another Reagan-type president. Strongly capitalist, strongly nationalistic, and looking to shove the hand of the US Army and the CIA wherever there is a government that disagrees with him. I suppose it's not that I'd rather see Obama in office, it's just that I really don't want to see Romney in office.

This is what Obama and Democratic strategists want you to think, seriously. They want you to be so scared of Romney that you'll vote for Obama even if you don't like Obama. That's how the Democrats keep progressives and leftists in line even when they don't deliver on their promises.

Romney is a jerk. Don't get me wrong. However if you watch him closely enough, you'll notice that he tailors his message to the audience he expects to be addressing. What he says to what he assumes is a closed fundraiser of the super-rich is quite different to how he presents himself to the NAACP, which is somewhat different to how he presents himself at the debate. And the truth is, Obama is the same way.

Elections do not decide policy, pressure and lobbying on elected officials decides policy.

[Robocommie]

Don't be a socialist who's "pragmatic" because thats no socialist at all in my book.

What's the point in saying "in my book" to try and persuade someone? You just got here, who the fuck are you? Nobody cares yet.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

What's the point in saying "in my book" to try and persuade someone? You just got here, who the fuck are you? Nobody cares yet.

I'm not concerned with a popularity contest on internet forums I'm concernd with the real life ongoings here in the Bay Area concerning activists investing emotion in and sometimes outright advocating the Democrat party. I'm almost 40 years old and have seen this cycle over and over every four years. There are a few of us on about 30 varios forums at the moment poking at socialists who perpetuate this cycle. Sorry if it offends you. You wouldnt happen to be with the ISO?

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

A lot of Obama supporters around here. This site is hopeless. Ban me please.

[Robocommie]

A lot of Obama supporters around here.

Yeah, that's accurate.

[GPDP]

A lot of Obama supporters around here. This site is hopeless. Ban me please.

I agree with most of what you have to say, but seriously, get over yourself. There is some apologism for the Dems in this board to be sure, and it's very unfortunate, but they are in the minority as far as I know. Some of it stems from a lot of posters simply being rather young and new to the left, and some of it stems from irrelevant ideological lines. If you'd stick around a little longer, you'd know this. But it seems you're more concerned about appearing as prolier-than-thou than helping to expose such narrow and naive viewpoints in the biggest socialist internet forum there is.

All that said, I don't blame you if you don't wanna stick around, because this board has a lot of problems, and it says something when countless good posters have been restricted or banned because of petty reasons while Obama cheerleaders remain uncontested.

[Geiseric]

He's hardly a "Prolier than you," by pointing out how much of a dirtbag Obama and the rest of the Democrats are. They present a bigger obstacle to us than the republicans, because any movement from below has a chance of being co-opted and dissipated by the democrats, not the republicans.

Obama losing would politically be better for socialists, because we can point out that he lost because he didn't follow through on anything he promised. And he didn't follow through with any of it because he's a capitalist, plain and simple. Romney is another capitalist, and let's see if he'll do anything different from Obama. He won't, which will press the need for an alternative independent labor party.

[Krano]

He's hardly a "Prolier than you," by pointing out how much of a dirtbag Obama and the rest of the Democrats are. They present a bigger obstacle to us than the republicans, because any movement from below has a chance of being co-opted and dissipated by the democrats, not the republicans.

Obama losing would politically be better for socialists, because we can point out that he lost because he didn't follow through on anything he promised. And he didn't follow through with any of it because he's a capitalist, plain and simple. Romney is another capitalist, and let's see if he'll do anything different from Obama. He won't, which will press the need for an alternative independent labor party.
Reforming capitalism? Soc-Dems have been doing that for decades, hardly revolutionary. If anything that hurts our cause,
because people get too comfortable with living in a welfare state and nobody wants to rock the boat then.

[Questionable]

Is there a list somewhere on the internet where I can read about all the things Obama has done to screw over workers? Preferably somewhere trustworthy.

[Crimson Commissar]

This is what Obama and Democratic strategists want you to think, seriously. They want you to be so scared of Romney that you'll vote for Obama even if you don't like Obama. That's how the Democrats keep progressives and leftists in line even when they don't deliver on their promises.

Romney is a jerk. Don't get me wrong. However if you watch him closely enough, you'll notice that he tailors his message to the audience he expects to be addressing. What he says to what he assumes is a closed fundraiser of the super-rich is quite different to how he presents himself to the NAACP, which is somewhat different to how he presents himself at the debate. And the truth is, Obama is the same way.

Elections do not decide policy, pressure and lobbying on elected officials decides policy.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd have no intention of voting for Obama even if I was in the US.

It's not as if I like either of the candidates, just so people don't start to misunderstand my position here.

[Geiseric]

Reforming capitalism? Soc-Dems have been doing that for decades, hardly revolutionary. If anything that hurts our cause,
because people get too comfortable with living in a welfare state and nobody wants to rock the boat then.

Well fucking great, people don't get welfare anymore, people don't get any health care, the minimum wage gets lowered, abortion's made illegal, immigrants get deported at a rate of a few hundred thousand a year, and the working class stays co-opted by the bourgeois parties. I'm fucking sick of this "reformist," baiting. The working class needs help from the government, or else it is less likely to become involved in politics, since it's worried about surviving. Workers in Nazi Germany were hardly revolutionary, since they were working in slave conditions. More poverty doesn't equate to a more revolutionary population.

I see ultra lefts use the "reformist," label as a way of staying out of actual real life struggles. Am I a reformist for wanting a minimum wage, or money for food? Am I a reformist for wanting to live comfortably? Or not wanting to work 12 hours a day for 6$ an hour? Obviously I must be, since i'm not trying to overthrow capitalism. The working class has problems that it needs to overcome before it can develop class consciousness necessary for overthrowing capitalism. Don't reply to one sentence that you take out of context, reply to the entire post.

[Marxaveli]

Reforming capitalism? Soc-Dems have been doing that for decades, hardly revolutionary. If anything that hurts our cause,
because people get too comfortable with living in a welfare state and nobody wants to rock the boat then.

So you think people need to suffer more for things to get better? The welfare State is a product of Capitalism, but getting rid of the welfare State will not, I repeat, will NOT get rid of Capitalism. I don't like the welfare State either, but it isn't the root cause of the problem. Capitalism is. But I think using austerity as a method to create class consciousness, which is what you seem to be suggesting here, is not only selfish, but has been proven many times to actually make workers more reactionary, rather than revolutionary. And a welfare state doesnt necessarily benefit everyone equally anyways, there are always divisions in the working class that get screwed, in particular women and minorities. If reforming capitalism improves many peoples lives in the meantime, then I have to say that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem with Social Dems is that they think this is a final and ultimate solution, and it most certainly isn't. But I think destroying the welfare State for the sake of ideological purity is pretty selfish, and anti-Communist if you ask me. Destroy capitalism, and there won't be a need for a welfare state then. There are much better ways of creating class consciousness than destroying peoples lives and dignity.

[Krano]

Well fucking great, people don't get welfare anymore, people don't get any health care, the minimum wage gets lowered, abortion's made illegal, immigrants get deported at a rate of a few hundred thousand a year, and the working class stays co-opted by the bourgeois parties. I'm fucking sick of this "reformist," baiting. The working class needs help from the government, or else it is less likely to become involved in politics, since it's worried about surviving. Workers in Nazi Germany were hardly revolutionary, since they were working in slave conditions. More poverty doesn't equate to a more revolutionary population.


I see ultra lefts use the "reformist," label as a way of staying out of actual real life struggles. Am I a reformist for wanting a minimum wage, or money for food? Am I a reformist for wanting to live comfortably? Or not wanting to work 12 hours a day for 6$ an hour? Obviously I must be, since i'm not trying to overthrow capitalism. The working class has problems that it needs to overcome before it can develop class consciousness necessary for overthrowing capitalism. Don't reply to one sentence that you take out of context, reply to the entire post.
Then why do you keep advocating for bourgeois politics? US is a two party state where corporate money wins elections. Adding a labor party that would just be as corrupt as these two main parties wouldn't change anything.

So you think people need to suffer more for things to get better? The welfare State is a product of Capitalism, but getting rid of the welfare State will not, I repeat, will NOT get rid of Capitalism. I don't like the welfare State either, but it isn't the root cause of the problem. Capitalism is. But I think using austerity as a method to create class consciousness, which is what you seem to be suggesting here, is not only selfish, but has been proven many times to actually make workers more reactionary, rather than revolutionary. And a welfare state doesnt necessarily benefit everyone equally anyways, there are always divisions in the working class that get screwed, in particular women and minorities. If reforming capitalism improves many peoples lives in the meantime, then I have to say that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem with Social Dems is that they think this is a final and ultimate solution, and it most certainly isn't. But I think destroying the welfare State for the sake of ideological purity is pretty selfish, and anti-Communist if you ask me. Destroy capitalism, and there won't be a need for a welfare state then. There are much better ways of creating class consciousness than destroying peoples lives and dignity.
I never said abolishing welfare states would mean abolition of capitalism, I only pointed out what happens to revolutionary potensial in a welfare state.

[Robocommie]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd have no intention of voting for Obama even if I was in the US.

It's not as if I like either of the candidates, just so people don't start to misunderstand my position here.

I totally missed that you're British, my bad. In that case, you should definitely vote Obama for local MP.

[Geiseric]

I'm advocating for creating a party that can propagandize why we need socialism. The purpose of creating an electoral party is for the destruction, not the strengthening of the bourgeois state. Calling for an end to the war will weaken the state. Calling for more welfare will weaken the bourgeois state. Calling for an end to subsidies to capitalists is weakening capitalism. And at the same time, you call that "Bourgeois politics." I don't understand. The method of propaganda is the same as bourgeois parties, but that is where the similarity ends.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Has anyone said that no one wins? I feel like someone should have made that joke by now.

[Krano]

IWDJEc92d38