Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 10 Dire Consequences of Voting 3rd or Pouting

Posted 7 years ago on Oct. 26, 2012, 7:13 a.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

10 Awful Things a President Mitt Romney Would Likely Do

It's hard to predict with a candidate who's had five positions on every issue, but here's our best shot.

October 25, 2012 |

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (C) greets supporters as he arrives at a campaign event with US Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock (Rape is a gift from god) (R-IN) (L) at Stepto's Bar B Q Shack in August 2012 in Evansville, Indiana.

With the polls showing a tightening race, a Mitt Romney presidency is becoming a real possibility. As I write, New York Times polling guru Nate Silver gives the Republican a 29-percent chance of emerging victorious when the votes are cast in just under two weeks.

The Romney-Ryan campaign has offered a bewildering and often contradictory array of positions on the issues, which makes predicting what a Romney agenda might look like exceptionally difficult. What's more, we'd see a very different Romney administration if Democrats retain control of the Senate. Silver gives them an 88 percent chance of doing so, projecting Dems to hold 52.4 seats in the next Congress (it's highly unlikely they'll win the House).

But if Romney were to sweep the tossup swing states – which he has to do in order to win the White House – that would require a strong GOP turnout and a stronger showing in those Senate races.

Despite the difficulty nailing down a chameleon-like candidate's positions, we've tried to discern some of the economic measures that Romney would likely champion if he wins. We'll follow up with a look at non-economic policies in the coming days.

1.) The Romney-Ryan Budget

Let's assume, for the moment, that the Republicans take the Senate.

Mitt Romney has at times embraced Paul Ryan's “roadmap,” and he's also distanced himself from it. But there will be quite a bit of pressure from conservative activists and the Republican House to enact something along the lines of the roadmap.

There are two things to understand about Paul Ryan's budget. First, it has been carefully written so that most of its provisions can be passed under a process known as budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of votes in the Senate. Second, it is a right-wing fantasy that, if enacted as written, would trigger a major drop in employment and send the economy into a tailspin. Its cuts are so deep, and would effect so many constituents – including traditionally Republican constituents – that it would have to be modified. It's one thing to campaign on such a plan and another to govern with it.

What does it do? According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “by 2050, most of the federal government aside from Social Security, healthcare and defense would cease to exist, according to figures in a Congressional Budget Office analysis.”

The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO notes, “spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]” and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of government would largely have to disappear. That includes everything from veterans’ programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families and individuals other than Medicaid, national parks, border patrols, protection of food safety and the water supply, law enforcement, and the like.

Ryan has already modified his plan in response to the outcry over a CBO analysis that found future retirees would face $6,400 more in out-of-pocket healthcare costs. We can expect further modifications because no Republican administration is actually going to slash veterans' benefits to the bone, to name just one example. It's untenable, but that doesn't mean President Romney wouldn't push through something moderately less damaging.

2.) Tax Cuts

3.) ObamaCare

4.) Medicare

5.) Medicaid

6.) Social Security)

7.) State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)

8.) The Rest

If the Republicans run the field in a big win, expect a lot of talk about a constitutional amendment capping federal spending at a given share of our gross domestic product. It will only be talk. It's a right-wing fantasy of a policy that can only be enacted with a constitutional amendment, which isn't going to happen.

That doesn't mean there won't be deep, deep cuts to non-defense discretionary spending under a Romney administration. Under the Ryan plan, non-defense discretionary spending would be on a downward trajectory leading to 39 percent less funding than currently projected by the year 2040. What is “non-defense discretionary spending”? Well, about 40 percent is education, training and research, and the rest is veterans' programs, various programs for low-income families, public safety and disaster response and the like. It's basically government, absent the Pentagon budget, Social Security and Medicare.

9.) If Dems Have 40-50 Seats in Senate (With Ryan the Tie-Breaking Vote)

Although he has been vocal in his opposition in the past, there's a good chance that as Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, might embrace filibuster reform – dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 -- if the Dems hold a minority in the upper chamber.

Either way, one thing not to expect in this scenario is Senate Democrats turning the tables on the GOP and blocking their legislative agenda at every turn. That's a strategy the Republicans can undertake because their overarching narrative is that governent doesn't do anything right – it ultimately works to their benefit when they can “prove” that theory by rendering Congress incapable of action. Democrats still adhere to the idea that good governance can improve our society, so they can't play the same game and get away with it.

10.) If Dems Hold Senate

If the Dems hold the Senate they will act as a firewall against the radical restructuring of the public sector promised by the Ryan budget.

That means maintaining the status quo, more or less, at least through 2014, with one painful exception. Cheered on by the Beltway media, the Democrats, having embraced the non-existent recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission (the chairmen drafted recommendations but the gang of 18 didn't vote to approve them), would almost certainly be willing to strike a “grand bargain” with President Romney along those lines.

The only question is whether Speaker Boehner (or Cantor?) would have any trouble coming up with the votes for a “balanced” deficit reduction deal – for a deal that raises some new revenues. If history is any guide, even the most ideological House Republicans will support a Republican president in such an effort.

Currently, non-defense discretionary spending is expected to hit its lowest level since 1962, and Simpson-Bowles would cut deeper still – with a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. That means programs that help the poor and middle class will be on the chopping block. Simpson-Bowles also called for a hike in the Social Security retirement age, despite the fact that life expectancies have only increased significantly for the well-to-do who don't rely on the program as heavily as working people and the poor.



Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He's the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (4181) 7 years ago

I really like Jill Stein but am so terrified that my dissident vote will inadvertently elect Romney - I think in this election we have to go with lesser of 2 evils

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Here is the one dire consequence of continually voting for the Duopoly.

  1. Strengthening the power of tyranny ever further. The longer we vote for it, the harder it will be to defeat it.
[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Trust Independent Senator Bernie Sanders.:

Dear Victor,

Thank you for the support that you have given me during this campaign. The result: We have received more individual campaign contributions than any other incumbent senator -- over 140,000 separate contributions. An incredible number! And you made it happen.

At a time when billionaire funded PACs are pouring millions into campaigns, our average individual contribution is $45. Yes, $45. In other words, because of your support we have shown that a progressive campaign can raise the money it needs without becoming dependent upon wealthy campaign contributors or Big Money interests.

As I promised you we would do, we are in the process of completing a very strong grass-roots campaign. By Election Day, we will have held some 45 political town meetings in every area of Vermont -- including some of our smallest towns. At these meetings, which last at least 1 ½ hours, serious political discussion takes place (along with great music and food). Our goal here is not just to win votes. It is to educate, organize and get people involved in the political process. By the time this campaign ends I will, at these meetings alone, have spoken to some 7,000 Vermonters (please remember, we are a state of only 630,000). Click here to watch! In case you missed it, click here to watch a video of our 41st campaign meeting.

Further, with our great staff and volunteers, we will have knocked on some 20,000 doors throughout the state -- and distributed thousands of lawn signs.

I am proud of the grass-roots campaign we have run. It is, to my mind, an alternative to the 'war of negative ads' that is the way most political campaigns are run these days. We are educating people about political realities, building new political communities, increasing -- not diminishing -- voter turnout. All of this would not have been possible without your support.

In my view, during the next five days, we have got to do everything we can to defeat right-wing extremism. We have got to re-elect President Obama, make sure the Democrats continue to control the Senate, and do everything we can to expand Democratic seats in the House.

But that is not enough!

On the day after the election we must aggressively make certain that President Obama and the Democrats address the needs of the struggling middle class of this country. We must demand that they stand up forcefully to the Big Money interests who have so much power and influence over what goes on in Washington.

As the lame duck session approaches on November 13, our demand must be: the White House and Congress must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor -- the people who are already suffering because of this horrendous Wall Street caused recession. NO CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID and other important programs which millions of working families depend upon.

Deficit reduction is important, but there are ways to do it that are fair and economically responsible. The deficit was largely caused by two unpaid for wars, tax breaks for the rich, an unpaid for Medicare Part D prescription drug program and a significant decline in revenue because of the recession.

The way to go forward with deficit reduction AND raising the revenue needed for a strong jobs program is to ask the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their fair share in taxes, and to end the absurd policies which allow the rich and corporate interests to stash trillions in tax havens in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere to avoid paying U.S. taxes. We must also take a hard look at excessive and unneeded military spending as well as waste which exists in many other federal agencies.

These are very tough times for our country. The rich are getting richer while the middle class continues to decline. Corporate political power, because of the absurd Citizens United Supreme Court decision, is now at an all time high. Women’s rights are under fierce attack from right-wing extremists. Global warming threatens the stability of the planet. Among many other issues!

Can we win this struggle? Yes! But only if we stay involved and keep fighting.

Once again, thank you very much for your support. There are five days left until this vitally important election. Let’s get out the vote and do everything we can to win.

Best Wishes,


[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Even Bernie is wrong sometimes. He talks about the negative aspects of CU, while Obama benefits from millions of dollars that are a result of CU.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You think Pres Obama should refuse campaign contributions related to CU? And reject superpac support because it is CU created?

Would that be unilaterally disarming?

CU and other poor campaign laws are corrupting but they are the rules and if you wanna win to do good things you gotta play by those rules no?

Otherwise he shouldn't even run. Concede.

Really it is up to us to change things. We let it get this bad and only we the people can change it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

So you only vote for people you see on TV? How very typical and predicatable of you as usual.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

What? Where did that come from.? TV? How did that become the measure? What about the need for protest?, you neglected to comment on that.

I support progressives. My House representative is an OWS supporter & a Working Families party member.

For Pres we all have only 2 candidates that can win. So I support the better one by far.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Where do yo uthink the vast amount of campaign money goes to....to TV commercials. Duh. Does Obama need the TV commercials to compete?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Pres Obama?. Do you mean does a presidential candidate need TV commercials to compete?

Obviously they do. Are you joking?

The campaign finance laws must be changed, And WE must do it.

Support Movetoamend. I can't blame the candidates for playing by the rules even though the rules are screwed up.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

So you admit that the TV runs american's thinking, that running countless tv commercials is very effective?

Would YOU accept money from Goldman Sachs? Gutless?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Many Americans are brainwashed by TV.

If I were running I would take money from Goldman Sachs in a NY minute. I would not however cater my policy to their liking.

Do you understand that difference.?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Holy shit, you are such a gutless punk....I didnt think there was anything else you could say that would suprise me, but you never manage to outdo yourself, whatever you are.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

your insults just betray the impotence of your position.

Please refrain from the personal attacks. If you can keep it together long enough to have an honest civil discussion about important issues, I'm willing.

Otherwise your childish personal attacks are useless.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

If we participate we can select good people.

Do you have a problem with the Dem platform? It's really very liberal and progressive. Pro-people and pro-labor.

We just don't show up. That's the real problem.

What are you really after? Platform wise?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

A fair vote. The few wealthy contributors have more influence in our elections than millions of voters do. Third parties and independents have a hard time even getting on the ballot. The primary system is a sham that favors the two major parties and excludes many of the states voters from having any say. The presidential debate is actually owned by the two major parties and excludes all other candidates.

Our election is a fraud and the best way to overturn it is to vote for candidates who do not participate in the deception. Candidates who do not accept more than a few hundred dollars from each contributor. Candidates who are loyal to the people first, and their party second.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

One is worse than the other.

Rombot is landfill loads worse bad than the teaspoons of bad Obama is.

Money: http://www.opensecrets.org/

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

Your only statement that I disagree with is "the best way to overturn it is to vote for candidates who do not participate in the deception". Do we have that luxury? If martial law is declared in the next four years, say by Romney's Cheneyiac neocons, how do you think OWSers would fare?

It can be argued that it's better to rip the curtain away from the power-behind-the-curtain. It can then be fought directly. But at what cost?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Do we have the luxury? We have the duty to not cooperate with the current tyrrany, and encourage others as well. By the number of Occupy'ers here who choose partisanship instead of freedom, our battle will be long and hard.

Occupy is ripping that curtain, but many refuse to believe it. A lady come by our protest who refused to believe that 50% of Americans make less $26,000 a year, even though I had the social security administration website as the source on my sign. I didn't believe the figure myself when I first read about it on this forum, but after careful examination of much economic data, it became crystal clear just how unfair our economic system has become.

Hope you weathered the storm.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

That is our duty. I think all non-paid posters agree with that, though the suggested paths may be different.

I'm fine thanks. Lucky in location.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

This is the Green Party platform.

I'm going to point out which progressive and very liberal issues are on the Green Party platform that are not on the Democrat platform which claims to be very liberal and progressive.

Bombing 6 countries in 4 years - Democrats and Republicans approve, Green Party does not

Monetary Policy dedicated to giving banks unlimited resources - Democrats and Republicans approve, Green party does not.

Million of non-violent Americans are in prison despite the fact that they have committed no real crime. - Green Party has policies to reform laws to change this... democrats and republicans do not.

Iran is a threat and military action is possible if they do not meet US demands. - said by republicans and democrats... Green Party disagrees.

The difference on their stance on Trade law reforms is almost astronomical. The Green party wants to re-formulate all international trade relations and commerce as currently upheld by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), and the nascent Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) to protect the labor, human rights, economy, environment and domestic industry of partner and recipient nations so that the growth of local industry and agriculture has the advantage over foreign corporate domination.

They also want trade laws to abide by American labor standards. This could potentially end or at least greatly reduce outsourcing which has been used to under cut american wages.

You should check out the Green Party's platform. It is quite fantastic. And Jill Stein is amazing! She has joined the people in protest against illegal foreclosures and rallies behind the eco movement to fight climate change.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

We will be recovering from the last Con Regime for at least another decade. The millions in lives and treasure are lost forever.

There is no comparison!

Quit smearing and sliming, Con Zombie!

Learn from the past, Cons did: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15142

And remember the down ballot when you VOTE!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

What kind of pathetic human being votes for evil?

Do you live your entire life like that? Or just vote like that?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Republican voters.

Obama/dems ain't evil. Your repubs are.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ya, voting for war, and droning innocent people is the stuff that god wants us to be doing.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Voting for Obama does not mean one is voting for war, drones, and etc. , although we know that is exactly what is going to happen. Voting for Romney, or voting for a third party candidate, or not voting at all which may enable a Romney win is going to also give you war, drones, and etc. too. So no matter what, its going to be wars, drones, and other evil policy. Thus that is not what the vote is about. For me it is about not letting things get even worse by letting tea bagging racist's man win. They'll be gloating for the next four years up and down my street (and probably yours too.) I can't take that.

We can work on Obama's evil after he wins.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

If you have candidates running with plans of continuing war and bombing countries, and you have a candidate running on not bombing countries... and you vote for the bomber guy...

You're voting for war.

And this dates back to 2008 where you had Dennis Kucinich who was the only democrat presidential candidate who voted no against funding the war in Iraq 100% of the time and the only guy who voted no on the patriot act as well as the only guy running who tried to impeach Bush.... and instead they voted for the guy who wanted to increase a war in Afghanistan, a guy who funded Iraq as a Senator under the Bush administration, and a guy who voted for the patriot act and thinks there is nothing wrong with a monetary policy that gives unlimited resources to banks.

The democrats made the choice to vote for war in 2008. They had the chance to vote against it. If you vote for pro-war candidates... you're voting for war.

You'd probably have no problem telling Akin his supporters are voting for legitimate rape. LOL

I tell Romney supporters they vote for war too.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Actually I did campaign for Dennis Kucinich back in 2008. I learned something from the experience; in the primaries political candidates for office are not elected by any sort of a vote. They are selected. So, come November we are not really given a choice. We are thus left to play the political hand given to us. And as we know, the hand is not very good.

Politics unfortunately is not like a race, but rather like a very tricky game of chess.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Selected for mass funding.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

"We can take care of Obama's foreign policy later ...."

Classic. Bush won. War is no longer an issue.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Yeh, I know. You got me there. Pretty frustrating to see only twenty some people show up at an anti-war rally after the Democrats pulled the money out of the movement. I wonder what is going to happen to OWS after the election?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

So the Dems were funding "the movement"? And people were only attending the rallies "for the money"? Nice. Bought and sold by the wealthy elite apparently. No gullible sheep here folks. Nothing to see...move along.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

The people attending the rallies were sincere alright, but it takes money to plan and organize. That has to come from somewhere. Yup, the Dems were funding the movement through organizations like MoveOn.org. They were using the movement as a tool to defeat Bush.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

How does it take money to plan and organize? Are you saying that people who are anti war refuse to spend a couple of dollars to print flyers? Or use their own access to social media to spread the word? Seems like if people really believe in something, they'll willingly contribute whatever they can to promote it themselves.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Every try printing flyers? It costs more than a couple dollars. Then you need to eat.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

I used to work in a print shop. Black and white copies are 3 cents each at our Kinkos. 100 copies for the price of a Starbucks coffee.

But whatever excuse you need to make, you go right ahead.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Pleeeeeeeeeeease, Obviously, you never were involved in running a serious movement.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

I could get more than 20 people out to lay sod at a neighbor's house in under an hour and spend ZERO money doing it.

Obviously there's a reason why no one takes certain "movements" seriously. If the people IN IT aren't willing to personally sacrifice for it, and build it, and sustain it, then no one else will be either. But you keep standing there with your hand out and hope for the best ok?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Civil rights movement been going on for 150 years, and in many parts of this country the movement still has a long ways to go. You can't tell me money doesn't make a difference. Fact is it does.

But that does not mean there are not a lot of sincere antiwar people out there not making sacrifices. They're there, and they are being successful. They just don't have the media exposure anymore which would be a great help.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

When your up against things like Fox news, or MSNBC; its on a whole other level than laying some sod on Sunday.

Nobody is waiting for a handout.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 7 years ago

So the reason that the Civil Right's movement worked is because it wasn't up against Fox News or MSNBC......please. You're embarrassing yourself AND the movements you align yourself with.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Pres Obama has reduced drone bombings from 120 in 2010 to 35 this year in Pakistan. Innocent deaths are accidents. no one wants to kill innocents.

Pres Obama has reduced the US military killings from a million+ to thousands.

These reductions reflect the goal of bringing bombing/killings to zero!

Repubs would increase & escalate the war/bombings.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

LOL so now you're referencing the John Birch society for your drone numbers? I linked a wik page... you chose to use the Birch Society info.

According to detailed and cited information from The Bureau of investigative journalism,

it's been confirmed 46 illegal bombings so far this year in Pakistan, 298 illegal bombings there total under his presidency

51 illegal bombings in Yemen

and 9 illegal bombings in Somalia

I say illegal because the ACLU has cited laws in which prove they are illegal. "The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program." - ACLU. You can go to their website to view more detailed information.

Romney even praises Obama for the drone increase and Obama graciously accepted. You can watch that video here - at 1:25 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW7vbB-IVvA

Strikes under 8 years of the Bush Administration: 52

Strikes under almost 4 years of the Obama Administration: Over 300

Not that Bush wasn't a warmongering murderer... he was... it's just fucked up when a democrat uses more drone strikes than a republican like Bush.

these are confirmed numbers. The CIA and Obama administration refuse to acknowledge much of the targeted killing program.

You can praise that if you want... I'm not going to.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

John Birtch? Don't use 'em.

The numbers you cite from BIJ is always the high end for Pres Obama and you ignore or play down Bushs.

I just read an article at BIJ that mentions sources that indicate only 50 civilian deaths, and states that civilian deaths were way down in 2011. BIJ also confirms that Pres Obama has reduced total drone strikes.

So, based on even your sources (which you have skewed in a partisan way) I say I support the massive reduction of drone strikes, military killings because it is on it's way to zero.

I am against the drone strikes. I am anti war. I protest against Pres Obamas continued military actions and rights violations.

Republicans ARE the fear mongering, War mongering party. They will escalate. Dems are reducing.


[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

Stop droning now.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Yeah. I agree. End the drone bombings.! When is the next protest?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Even Wikipedia has the number this higher, where do you get your stats from, Organizing America? haha

Here is the Act that ended the War, educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

If he wanted them to be zero, after FOUR FUCKIN YEARS they would be zero. How long does it take the commander in chief to announce enough is enough, bring em home?

Looks like morals with Obama are just as bad with Bush- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

"even wiki" Are they the authority on number of drone bombings?

I got my numbers from an article your friend Trevormoronic linked.

I think Pres Obama increased them in order to kill enough of the taliban/al Qaeda (including Osama) so as to be believable when he declares the war on terror over.

Get it?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago


HAve a nice night endorsing the killing of Anwars kid, drone bombs, and insulting thos that have to work. Peace.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I'm against the drone bombings. I do not endorse them. I protest them.

Your lying & name calling betrays the impotence of your position.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

^Hates Democracy and other nations with a better democracy than ours...

Wants corporatism to win again. Not a supporter.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 7 years ago

So are you agreeing

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

While democrats are telling Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson supporters that their votes are really secret hidden message votes for Romney.... Republicans are telling Gary Johnson supporters that their vote is really a secret hidden message vote for Obama...

LOL you're even using the same bullshit propaganda.

Revolution is the new Fuck You!


[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Some people will promote this shit just to subvert an election, and some people will promote this shit oblivious of it's subversion.

What difference does it make if it results in a new Bush-Cheney Regime on Robot-Ryan Steroids? Huh? What difference does it make???

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

You think third party voters who oppose war just do it to subvert elections?


Corporations are sponsoring Barack and Romney to subvert elections. In 2008 I supported the only guy running for president that tried to impeach Bush. Money chose someone else to silence people like Dennis Kucinich. They fund the "lesser of 2 evils" to silence the people that speak against the corporate/bankster agenda and the corruption in the wars and in politics in general.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Some people will promote this shit just to subvert an election, and some people will promote this shit oblivious of it's subversion, or consequences.

What difference does it make if it results in a new Bush-Cheney Regime on Robot-Ryan Steroids? Huh? What difference does it make??? NONE!!!!


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Good luck

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

1 dire consequence of voting Obama or Romney


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago


I will try to find one for Unicorns for YOU!!

But it has a lot of your "issues."

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

It's pathetic that you compare the idea of ending the wars to unicorns.

Only shows how desperate Obama and Romney supporters have become.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Obama didn't start the wars YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Please don't be an idiot and stop acting like he was in no way involved in war.

He voted to fund Iraq along with republicans and democrats and he supported a war in Afghanistan since day 1. He supported a war against Libya and joined that with NATO. He supports drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Soon possibly going more into North Africa if he sides with the CIA. He chose a Vice President that voted for the war in Iraq with a ton of Republicans and Democrats too.

And last week they had the largest military preparation with Israel in history. Weeks before that the largest in the Straight of Hormuz with several other countries. And he and Romney agree on Iran.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Your consistent inability to understand and ability to misinterpret cannot be innocent.

Especially considering the fervor as Robot is losing!

Frank Luntz is paying I hear.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Funny how you can't argue the facts. Let me guess.... you think he was forced to sign for indefinite detention laws and forced to appeal for them as well?


[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

"LOL" what, are you 12!

No, you're just another Republicon zombie.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me. I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel. So long, Dott.

-Pee Wee Herman

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I knew Paul Reubens, he would not like the likes of you taking his name in vane. Good Dem!

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

But he has ended, or is ending your repubs wars, He has resisted your right wing pressure to invade Iran, he has started no new wars, has reduced drone strikes & US military killing from a million+ to thousands (going towards zero)

Most of all he does not take part in the repub fear mongering that repubs started when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

That is the roots of the US peoples support for the repub military adventure. That repub fear mongering propaganda must to denounced and ended in order to end the US military action & the rights violations you pretend to oppose.

Peace, Good luck in all you good efforts

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Pres Obama has ended Iraq war, ending Afghan war, & resisted right wing war mongers pressure to start Iran war, and hasn't started any other.

He is also very close to declaring an end to the repub created 'war on terror'.

So I think you are confused.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Increased troops in afghanistan, signed agreement till 2024, and has bombed 6 nations in 3 years.

He just sent marines into Turkey and has increased the military budget every year, according to himself.

We will not tolerate you spreading your lies on our site.

You called flip a sucker for having to work, youve told me you are fine with war if it only kills hundreds and not thousands, you are a Republican plant who is here to make the site look like a bunch of morons.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I am anti war & anti drone strikes. I support Pres Obamas drone strike reductions because he is on the way to zero.

I know also that your war mongering repubs will escalate while dems will deescalate.

Peace, Sucka! LoL

[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Your endorsement of war only helps the Dems stay right, you are just too dumb to realize it.

Only a sick fuck supports drone killings. Stockholm Takeover.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I am against the drone strikes. My understanding of the situation & explanation in answer to your slanted partisan attacks does not equal an endorsement. My support of the reductions is not an endorsement.

That's you lying, 'cause your position is too impotent to stand up to the truth.

Same with your vulgar insults. just means you lose.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 7 years ago

Democracy is not a dire consequence and we aren't going to get it by voting for people that sold us out. Even if the other side sells us out too; but if enough people vote for sincere candidates then they win.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

When that system is implemented.

Until then, Vote against RepubliCons. They will never implement!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

12 years late, my friend.

Are you proposing that our newbies learn from history??

Obama "Hope and Change" and "Boomer Babies"(c), have summoned a lot of political newbies. But unlike the political generation before them, their political mettle was not tempered by JFK-MLK assassinations, Vietnam, riots and Watergate. Fickle and petulant, their views are softer and shallower and narrower. Let's work on that. I think their collective thought needs help, too...

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8252) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

One lesson we can hope to pass along is that getting on the ballot is not the answer, look at the Greens they did not grow from 2000, people (like me) were pissed that Bush won and even though I had good thoughts toward the Greens before afterwords not so much, I do not wish to raise the profile of the Greens as it could cause another Bush at any time. This cause me to not want to participate in any thing they might do or anything that might grow their party. There is a way but getting on the ballot is not it, that is ego speaking.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Instant Runoff Voting/Elections!

Campaign party restructuring (laws?).

Publicly funded elections.

Repeal of CU!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8252) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago
[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

But you completely missed the point -
If I vote for Gary or Ricky or Jill -

it will make ME feel so good!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Frustrating, I KNOW!


Obama "Hope and Change," and the coming of age of "Boomer Babies"(c), have summoned a lot of political newbies. But unlike the political generation before them, their political mettle was not tempered with JFK-MLK Assassinations, Vietnam, Watts Riots and Watergate. Their views are softer and shallower and narrower. Let's work on that. I think their "collective conscience" needs help, too. (X100)

Also those Unicorns need debunking!


[-] 0 points by jdjohn1990 (3) 7 years ago

There have been 25 times in which a president has been elected to office and then run for another election. Of those times, only 10 have failed. What does that tell you about Obama

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Not a damn thing.

I worry about the low information electorate.

People: VOTE!

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Republicans' Shocking Positions on Rape and Pregnancy Aren't Outliers -- They're Central to the GOP Agenda

With the takeover of the G.O.P by the religious right, Mourdock's position on abortion, rape and incest is in line with the party platform -- and echoed by top party leaders, including Paul Ryan.

October 25, 2012 |

With all of the excitement attending the recent comments of Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, that a pregnancy conceived in rape is “a gift from God,” much of the political class is shaking its collective head at the refusal of presidential candidate Mitt Romney to revoke his endorsement of Mourdock -- or at least to pull his endorsement ad for the former state treasurer from the Hoosier state airwaves. What they’ve missed is the fact that, in the Republican Party of today, Mourdock’s position is the new normal.

Even Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, held a no-exceptions abortion stance -- at least until Romney, who would allow exceptions for rape and incest, elevated him to the national ticket. As reported by TPM:

“I’m very proud of my pro-life record,” Ryan told WJHL-TV in Virginia in an interview aired Thursday. “I’ve always adopted the idea, the position, that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”

Nearly all of the Republican presidential primary candidates take the same position: that a rape-induced pregnancy is the will of the Creator -- and they signed a pledge in Iowa that said as much. Of the 33 Republicans running for U.S. Senate this cycle, all but three are anti-abortion, and among them, at least nine oppose any exceptions in cases of pregnancy by rape and incest. (That the incest portion of this position has gotten little attention is even more troubling: Should an 11-year-old-girl really be required to bear her father a child?)

Against some stiff odds, the Republican Party is smelling winds of change that would render it control of the upper chamber this year, which would require a net gain of four seats. Romney doesn’t dare risk harming a single candidate -- or his own chances of winning the votes of religious-righters -- which he could if he withdrew his support from any of them.

The party’s cruel platform

If you still have any doubts, just look at the abortion plank in the Republican Party Platform, as reported by the Associated Press:

The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

Note the lack of any exceptions.

With the takeover of the G.O.P by the religious right, beginning in 1976, the party’s position on abortion has been on a slow and steady march toward deepening misogyny. Women are to be punished not just for choosing to have sex, but for being sexual beings at all -- for having vaginas, if you will.

The critical Christian right vote

Although evangelical Protestants, who now comprise 26 percent of the U.S. population, were not always so draconian in their views on abortion, the movement’s alliance with the Roman Catholic Church -- which prohibits any exception, even to save the life of the pregnant woman -- has led to the present-day, Dark Ages dictates of the religious right on matters of women’s sexuality and sexual vulnerability.

Among the most influential of the groups comprising the Christian right is the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins. Here’s an excerpt from a pamphlet (PDF), The ‘Hard Cases' of Abortion: A Pro-life Response, published by FRC:

If we constantly reaffirm the value of life and the state’s duty to protect all life from the moment of conception, then we will see the number of pro-life supporters rise in the years to come.

Only an uncompromising, no-exception approach, that refuses to support or veto for legal toleration of the intentional killing of innocent human beings, can offer the educational potential to restore reverence for the sanctity of life of every age and condition.

In September, I reported Perkins’ assertion of FRC’s close relationship with Romney, whose campaign he called the most cooperative he had ever dealt with. The support of the evangelicals represented by FRC is seen as critical to Romney’s fortunes in November; to throw Mourdock under the bus would be to severely jeopardize Romney’s support among a crucial constituency.

Much of Romney’s ground game, as I have reported, is in the hands of Ralph Reed, through the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a church-targeting get-out-the-vote operation.

Romney’s endorsers

When he finally won his party’s nomination, Romney proudly accepted endorsements from his former rivals: Texas Gov. Rick Santorum, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ga., and former U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania -- all of whom signed a pledge demanded by PersonhoodUSA that declared a no-exceptions policy on abortion. Were Romney to pull his ad in support of Mourdock, would he retain the endorsements of the also-rans, particularly Bachmann -- who announced her endorsement with Romney at her side -- or Santorum, who nearly bested Romney in the primaries?

Tell me where the daylight is between Mourdock’s position and those of Bachmann and Santorum. Here’s Santorum via the New York Times, from August 2011:

“To put rape or incest victims through another trauma of an abortion, I think is too much to ask.”

Here’s Bachmann during the June 2011 Republican presidential debate in Manchester, N.H.: Q: [to Bachmann]: Gov. Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, an I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.

The rape-baby Senate candidates

Then there are those Senate candidates. Here we offer you some choice quotes from news reports and the Republican Senate candidates themselves.

Josh Mandel, Ohio

CONTINUED: http://www.alternet.org/republicans-shocking-positions-rape-and-pregnancy-arent-outliers-theyre-central-gop-agenda?paging=off

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington correspondent. Follow her on Twitter:

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

A post observing the 10 dire consequences of not voting third party and keeping the monopoly on our rights constrained to two parties that don't really differ might be more applicable today.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Which one of the 3rds has achieved the promises they advocate? Here's the problem, not only is it impossible for any of them to win until we adapt and reform our political system to accommodate 3rds, they can promise or advocate anything ANYTHING because they will never have an elected office in which they can achieve anything. Until we make the needed reforms, we have to keep RepubliCons out or we will go straight to hell in a hand basket. A vote for 3rds is a vote for Cons!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 7 years ago

There are at least four candidates for president right now who are on enough state ballots or write-in qualified, to get enough electoral votes to win.

The duopoly made it hard for them to get on those ballots, and tried to silence their voices, but at this point, the only thing stopping them from winning is the lie of "they can't win".

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

The myth that a 3rd party can't win is self perpetuating and kept going by the very words you just wrote....and as long as the population keeps thinking this, 3rd party won't win.

3rd party can absolutely win...there is only one thing holding that back right now....lack of votes..lack of votes stemming from people using their vote for a lesser of two evils, instead of being used to vote in someone who will actually make a difference.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

You are blind

[-] -1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Top all that off with all those racist bigots who will be gloating everyday for the next four years if Romney wins. That is reason enough to vote for lesser evil.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

8 years, they don't allow "Herberts" anymore. They'll start a fucking war.

[-] -3 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

Choose your own poison? Cool - give me some of that Romney shit, I haven't tried that yet.