I don't really care about Politics.
Everyone makes a Promise to do and fix things. We'll neve rhave everything. But we can only HOPE for SOMETHING.

All in all, not matter who wins, there are benifets, and then there are Consequences.

Remember, some bad would have come out of Rommey too

SOME bad? more bad would have come from romney's side, and not just because of romney (i shudder to think what would have happened if we had allowed paul ryan to get that close to the presidency)

See, this is what gets me so frustrated. Everyone I talk to is like this.

"Romney bad because I say bad, hurrr."

Don't give me the rhetoric and don't give me popular talking points. Explain -your- points. Do your research. Explain the cause, the effect, and the so many ways that we would be boned if what you say is true.

Thats right. PUNCH that Typewriter!
Let the Angry Flow

I agree with these points entirely. The question ultimately becomes, 'what are you willing to sacrifice'.

I myself feel like the last four years have done so very little. We deserve better. When you're offered an opportunity, that I feel is a risk worth taking. That's how Obama got in, after all, isn't it?

I hope for the end of partisan politics. I hope for the end of my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

And all I have to say about the above is, well, look at who has been taking these stances. One side is seemingly incapable of respecting dissension of ideals and it isn't the left.

That attitude right there. That one. That is why people will never end partisan politics.

You're preaching hypocrisy: "I hope for the end of my-way-or-the-highway attitude" and in the next sentence "The right can't respect dissension of ideals."

Give and take. Both sides are Guilty of that attitude. The second you even attempt to wash that guilt away is the second that you prove you are not interested in ending partisan politics. All it translates to is: 'bipartisan' means 'my side wins'.

I disagree that my attitude is the cause of partisan politics, as I disagree with the entire premise of your counterargument.

And this following statement will likely offend you, so please don't take it as a personal attack.

The entire premise of your counterargument and indeed, much of your responses to other people in this journal, is that there are two facts to every issue and both are legitimate. That both political parties are based on logic, reason, and sets of evidence that supports their views. This is not the case. This is the Fox News style of self-justification.

I am not espousing that Democrats are always backed up by facts. Democrats are wrong on a lot of issues, subject to the same corrupt political system that in principle allows for two or more truths to every story, even when there is only one - such as on climate change or the Affordable Care Act. Disproportionally, it is the right-leaning statesmen that take an opposing viewpoint on these issues regardless of the mountains of evidence and facts before them. And in fact, when confronted with this evidence and the de-legitimizing of their stance, they dig more firmly into their beliefs.

Not all Democrats respect the stances of their counterparts, just as not all Republicans disrespect the stances of their counterparts. But if you compare the two parties, one has been hijacked by extremism (Tea Party). Keep in mind that the Fiscal Cliff was the creation of Republicans unwilling to compromise. When you hear of political gridlock, Republicans are quick to claim that the other side is unwilling to work with them, when they are the ones guilty of what you just accused me of.

Bottom line: Democrats are far more willing to debate, deliberate, dissent, discuss on every issue than Republicans, who have shown that they are far more willing to repeat the same talking points and disproven, and often disingenuous, claims.

The blame is not fair. The blame is not balanced. Both sides are guilty but one side is far more guilty than the other. It is not partisan to point this out. It is not a my-way-or-the-highway attitude to point out their my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

When one political party publicly declares their hatred for an opposing ideology, that is partisan.

Do not mistake my accusations against Republicans as validation for Democrats. Both parties are shit, but one party (Republcians) have built a mountain out of it and live on it.

I can pretty much copy paste your entire argument against you.

Obama stated "I won" when 'discussing' with the house. 'Do what I say.'
Liberal comedians call conservatives idiots based on what? Only the fact that they are conservative.
Let's not forget the hundreds of attacks on Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney to define who they are before they've had a chance to define themselves.

There is only -one- truth Echoen, there will only EVER be one objective truth and it is not our place to know it but it is our place to pursue it relentlessly and endlessly. The blame is fair when we get as close to that objective truth that we possibly can, no matter where it lies.

The thing is, Echoen, we're in a nation that doesn't care about that objective truth anymore. When you do not present that objective truth that you condemn both sides then you make your comment you endorse the other. And when you present this idea that somehow republicans are always at fault and democrats are just saccharine despite the filth they writhe in it disgusts me.

Every person on the planet could simultaneously pray to the christian god for obama to not win and it wouldn't make a difference. The people don't know what the fuck they want (as evidenced by romney winning the popular vote). Frankly, we have avoided a trainwreck in favor of constant minor derailments.

It's okay for people to not be interested in politics. Politics will still be interested in them. Apathy leads to puppetry.

Thing is Majora, if everyone did that and Obama still won, that would be one heck of an amount of strangeness.

Also, even if you avoid a trainwreck, 'constant minor derailments' will still throw you over and over again.

Eventually you're going to run out of track.

God has nothing to do with it.

I remember the one time I met a man of no consequence. He said something that has influenced my life forever.

"It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God, God believes in you."

It doesn't matter if you don't believe in pink alien unicorns, pink alien unicorns believe in you. Seriously you cannot grasp how nonsensical what that man said to you is. It's basically a quasi-philosophical way to justify literally anything. It's phony wisdom.


The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Actually if you take a look at God as a fourth dimensional construct it actually makes perfect sense. I'd say take a look at it, to consider it, but I know you won't.

I'm a man of no consequence, and you should let my sentence influence your life forever.

Say something that sounds wise and I may consider it.

Ever head of the phrase "preaching to the choir"?

I'm going to be brutally honest. While I was unable to register to vote, I would probably have gone Obama. But I would not have picked him because I liked him. It would have been because I knew what to expect from him and knew that I didn't trust Romney at all. I can only hope that in 2016 one of the parties gets their act together and runs a moderate in their line of fresh blood for the WH.

See, I'm okay with this. You admit that the reason you'd vote for him is because you knew what to expect from him.

But here's the thing I have to ask: How much research did you do? Did you look up information and did you bother to actually understand the issues at hand and try to formulate an opinion through that method? Or did you simply listen to the press and nod your head?

I took what the press said and tried to apply facts and common sense to it (not to mention I checked the facts). Based on that and the potential policies as stated by the candidates themselves helped me determine who I thought might be the better choice.