Reply #12: Mate, I've read more than a few posts... [View All]

[TheMadMonk]

...damned near enough for me to want to go bursar and totally librarian poo on damned near the whole lot of you.

Democratics' worst enemies are not Republicans, but each other. Just coming out and saying "The shit is just beginning" adds nothing to the conversation without coming out and saying exactly why?

You obviously agree (at least in part) with my observation: "And for a large part the Democratics won't be all that much better. "Rogue operatives and slips of the tongue will put the dirt (or a hint of it) out and then with an apology, a distancing step backwards and possibly a staffer "let go", they wait for the RW smear machine finish the task."


It is my not at all humble opinion that the "average American" deserves the fucking government he gives himself. The problem is that we, in the rest of the world, FUCKING WELL DON'T DESERVE what said "average American" inflicts upon us with his greed, bigotry and xenophobia.


Obama's not gay friendly enough for (generic DU) you? So fucking what? He's still a damned sight better than the alternative on the other side of the aisle. He's not exactly the guy who you'd want to vote for? Again, so fucking what? He most definitely opposes an arsehole you certainly should want to vote against.

Hillary "speaks" to you in a way that makes you feel privileged/superior? WOAH! BACK UP! She's also speaking to the bit of you that puts others beneath you. She speaks loudest to those who have never had to depend on "government handouts" and thus feel that they should not be required to contribute to those who have needed that safety net.

Kucinich is too idealistic and out of touch with the real world? Is he really? I see a bloke who acknowledges the real real world and promotes that which is guaranteed to ensure that the world will still be there for our children to enjoy rather than endure. Everyone else seems hell bent on either, squeezing out the last cent of profit; or at best shooting for the minimum possible compromise with reality.

Edwards? I don't know. My biggest worry is that he hasn't really managed to piss anyone off significantly. He's everyone's second choice candidate. And in politics, if you don't have enemies, you obviously aren't doing enough. The danger here is that if the numbers do come in in his favour, he'll finally come down on the side which is most personally advantageous and that unfortunately is probably the one that is not advantageous to the majority. I might be doing the man a complete disservice, but when betting on human nature, it pays to bet that arseholery will prevail.


This is the true grist (at least IMHO) of a great deal of what gets said here ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

O.K. Acknowledged.

Now what the fuck are we going to do about it?

Bashing each other's candidates, except on ground of demonstrable malfeasance is utterly counterproductive. It divides our ranks and offer (at least the hope of) victory to our mutual enemies.

My personal thought, given the non-viability of the only true realist in the pack, is to ignore politics entirely.

Which candidate's children are going to be the ones most adversely affected by future wrong headed decisions?

THAT CANDIDATE is the one we should all get behind, regardless of how closely they come to fitting our personal political ideals, or how far they stray.

So simple. One simple question raised each time a piece of "controversial" legislation comes up: "How will this affect your children's generation?"

Who is most likely to feel a kick in the gut, every time that question gets asked of them?

Who thus will be most manipulable by the voice which speaks for all, rather than just the privileged few?

Hint: Who's children can not yet vote?