Can we ban "Romney would be worse" from our discussions on DU?

[edhopper]

Of course he would, we all know that and close to 100% of us here are voting for Obama.
But when we are criticizing the Pres. on a legitimate topic like Med. Marijuana or Gay Rights, "Romney would be worse" is irrelevant.

[jeff47]

1. It's not irrelevant

Given the position third parties hold in our current system, we have a choice of exactly two people in the upcoming presidential election. So "Romney would be worse" is quite relevant.

[The Magistrate]

2. No, Sir, It is Not Irrelevant: It Is The Deciding Fact Of the General Election

[TheWraith]

69. +1,000,000.

Exactly. Politics boils down to a zero-sum equation: either they win, or we win. There's no other way around that, really.

[The Magistrate]

72. It Certainly Does Here, Sir, With 'First Past the Post' Standards

[bemildred]

3. Hell no! We need to bang on that like a gong, every day.

Such an easy weapon to use, too, he doesn't even try to hide it.

[Aerows]

4. I made that statement about two or three days ago

And I don't think it is an irrelevant point at all. Obama isn't perfect, and I have criticized his decisions on certain topics. That doesn't mean I don't support him, because I do. The number one reason I support him is because I think at heart, he's a good man. The number two reason I support him is because I think Romney would be worse.

Those are both valid points, imho.

[villager]

5. Exactly -- since the real issue is, "Why is Obama as bad as he is?" on the given issue

Puzzlingly continuing terrible GOP policies, sometimes making the worse, etc...

[cali]

6. why is irrelevant? You didn't give ONE reason. and because YOU say so

doesn't count.

It's not even a little irrelevant. Why? Because we have a choice between Rmoney and President Obama.

[Marrah_G]

34. I believe the OP is talking about it's use to belittle people in regards to issues

Example:

Poster 1: "I am so pissed off that the WH is retracting statements that seemed as if they were going to finally support gay marriage. So much for being a fierce advocate"
Poster 2: "I hope you enjoy President Rmoney then"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "Not as bad" is a popular campaign slogan for both of the establishment parties.

Or, more concisely, both wings of the Establishment Party.

[bigtree]

20. it's a political reality

. . . at some point you either choose between the two candidates, or you make a functionally irrelevant choice (at least in the contest in which you're voting). The ultimate consequences of that choice are markedly different for each of the two candidates chosen. Folks pretending they aren't demonstrate a remarkably weak understanding of our political system of government.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. "..functionally irrelevant choice.."

I have voted in 22 federal elections. In each and every one, my vote was "functionally irrelevant" in that the outcome of each of those elections would have turned out the same no matter how I voted.

Perhaps you've had a different experience?

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[bigtree]

24. I can see the reasoning in voting that way

I just don't see any significant effect of such a vote (for good or bad, as you say).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Significance is what I'm talking about.

I've long since given up any delusions that the way I vote is going to be "significant' to anyone other than myself. We have a government that is devoted to maintaining itself in power and considers that to be it's most important function.

I'm no longer convinced that my vote is going decide the make-up of the Supreme Court, stop wars, decide whether women have the right to choose, or anything else. Time has proven that either political party will accommodate virtually any position in order to win an election.

I view elections on the federal level as a charade to convince us that we actually have a voice in what the powerful do.

[bigtree]

37. it's not as if outcomes are automatic

There may well be undue influence on our national legislature from interests removed from what voters actually want. but, the process and agenda isn't an automatic one. The ultimate decisions Congress makes isn't a compactly insulated process. Their actions are guided in many ways by the support or advocacy that Americans provide with their votes and their activism. We can certainly argue that there isn't enough of an influence from that voting public, but there is no way that a Congress left to its own design and will is going to produce the same result as it does as a result of our input from the outside.

Now, I can understand that folks in reliably blue states can sometimes afford to make other choices on their ballots and not risk that there will be a majority of votes making things worse than they would be by allowing the advancement of a republican candidate. But that's different from the suggestion that there's no influence at all in the votes of folks in the vast majority of the nation where these races are competitive.

Of course, those votes don't automatically solve anything. We still need to be active to ensure that our voices are heard at appropriations time. That's the nature of our democracy that there's a deliberative process after we vote which isn't assured or guaranteed. We can't just ignore the fact that there are myriads of disparate and diverse interests from around the nation which need to be reconciled if there is to be any advancement of initiatives or ideals into action or law. That's not going to be an easy or assured process, no matter what the level of integrity is among legislators.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Actually, red or blue states.

If I were living in Mississippi or Idaho, rather than in Washington, and voted Democratic or Republican, or neither, the result would be the same. And, I could argue that in a purple state, my vote wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.

I agree about the "activism" and contend that it is likely to accomplish more than voting. But, even that is rigged by the fact that the "activism" of corporations and their minions (which frequently include politicians of both parties) is even much more likely to have an effect.

The problem the two-party system is that it has the power to keep itself in power by making electoral laws that are designed to do so. I use the singular for the "two parties" on purpose. Both of the establishment parties are able maintain their supremacy by colluding together to guarantee it.

You spoke of the political "reality" of the current system. So am I. It is what it is. However, I don't think any resemblance that it has to democracy is, at best, tenuous. Nor do I feel compelled to support it by participating in an obviously fixed game.

Will my possible vote for a third party change it. No. Will your sure vote for an establishment party change it? No.

[bigtree]

52. thanks for your answer, Tierra_y_Libertad

best regards . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Thank you for the discussion.

I like civility even when in disagreement.

[frylock]

45. some people believe the courage of their convictions..

trumps the real cool feeling one may experience in belonging to a winning team.

[bigtree]

50. so you're convinced that only folks who vote for candidates other than the nominees are sincere

. . . everyone else is just trying to be 'cool?'

Where is this one-dimensional world you're referring to?

[treestar]

29. that's the only thing left to say to perfectionists

Now this thread is all about people who still want to carp during the election season! As if that will help anyone! It's bound to be a damper on things. Perfectionists always are.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I don't like your approach to this issue,

but Romney's would be worse.

[quinnox]

9. yep, its already tired

Its probably meant to imply you must be for Romney then if you are not pleased with whatever the issue being discussed happens to be. Pretty lame.

[randome]

10. Suffering from 'Romney would be worse' fatigue?

I hear you but I still think it's a valid point.

[DrDan]

11. ban???? as in censor?

[liberal N proud]

12. Do we not want to talk about facts?

The fact is, no matter what the topic, Romney would be worse.

He would be worse that a dead mouse in the White House.

[CJCRANE]

13. Romney's spokesperson just said

that Romney had that idea first.

[spanone]

14. i don't think the future of the nation is irrelevant

[wandy]

15. NO! What other indisputable fact would you like to ban? n/t

[DevonRex]

16. Like to ban speech, do you?

Interesting.

[SidDithers]

33. Curious, eh?...nt

Sid

[bigtree]

17. that's always been the nature of our politics

the nature of our democracy

[edhopper]

18. I wish that some of the folks here

would have read my entire post. It would be obvious that I was talking about specific subjects where the Pres. has made what one might consider a bed decision. NOT about the election in general. Defending the Pres. by simply saying "Romney would be worse", seems to beg the issue and avoid the crux.

Also for those literalists here. I use the term "ban" metaphorically. As in retire it as a useless point. a self censorship if you will.

[bigtree]

22. you're still not understanding

In our political system, our president doesn't often get to act unilaterally. Even unilateral moves can draw a corrective response from the legislature. Ignoring or dismissing the degree that each party leader would affect that political process is profoundly misleading. There is certainly merit in pointing out how tenuous the support in our legislature can be for issues and initiatives and how different the outcome would be if there was a republican in the White House directing and influencing that political process.

[edhopper]

26. When Obama attacks

Medical Marijuana at a more fervent pace than his GOP predecessor, "Romney would be worse" is a poor response.
His lack of support for Gay Marriage is another. It's not what he can do, it is where he stands. And when he is wrong, "RWBW" is a non-rebuttle.

You seem to not understand that.

[bigtree]

43. actually, on those issues

Romney would be worse. It really doesn't matter, though, if you personally get that. what is, is. And, what will be, will be.

[edhopper]

73. And that excuses Obama

for his actions?

Of course Romney would be worse, that isn't the point.

[Vincardog]

40. What you obviously fail to comprehend is the fact that when you question PBO's

lack of coherence on policy or social stands you are pointing out how undemocratic his positions are.
This calls into question the direction of the Democratic "leadership" and might imperil their quest for corporate donations.
We all know that every politicians' primary function is to get "contributions" to facilitate their reelection.

When you (or I) point out the inconsistencies and demand that the elected politician be responsible to the voters' concerns
you (and I) are interfering with the consolidation of the economic Royals control over political process.

The quickest way to short cut this obstruction by democratic principles is to say "He is better than RMoney".

That is why we are not allowed to discuss the real issues facing us.

If we did we would be forced to consider and implement real radical changes that threaten the established power base.

That is why Liberal (AKA forward looking) positions are to be shut down PDQ in favor of Conservative (established power sustaining)
Positions and discussions.

I hope this helps you understand the opposition to your request.

Cheers

[frylock]

47. nailed it

[Capt. Obvious]

19. .

[quinnox]

21. the other problem is people are looking at everything through the elections prism

I thought thats what the Politics 2012 forum was supposed to be for, people who want to talk about and look at all things using the upcoming election as a backdrop and focus. And general discussion would be for discussions more in-depth and generalized, and not always seen with "election fever" on the brain.

[RevStPatrick]

25. I think it would be more relevant...

...to ban people saying that we should ban people from saying something that some people think is irrelevant.

Or maybe we should just not ban people from saying anything?

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Nnnnnnope

[SidDithers]

30. No. Too bad if you don't like it, but it's a legitimate response...

Sorry.

Sid

[Marrah_G]

31. I could not agree more

I put people who use that line or lines like it on ignore. They think they are helping the president but in reality they just alienate people.

[ProSense]

32. "Lesser of two evils"

HRC President Stresses Romney’s Anti-Gay Rights Positions

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese stressed that President Obama and Mitt Romney are far apart on gay rights on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” Monday. Though Solmonese would like to see Obama be more forceful on gay rights, he stressed Obama’s accomplishments to expand rights, and how far ahead of Romney those actions are.

We’re going to step into a big trap if we get all focused on the distinction between the vice president’s words and the president’s and don’t focus on the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney because the difference between the president and Gov. Romney could be not be more stark. He signed a pledge to pass the federal marriage amendment. He doesn’t believe that we should have repealed ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’ And to me, you know, what I hope the community is mindful of and I think we are smart enough not to lose sight of this is the fact that this is not about Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. It’s about us. And these elections are a choice.

The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Obama’s re-election bid last year.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/hrc-president-obama-way-better-than-romney

Focus!

[rug]

35. It reminds me of Civil War doctors discussing gangrene and amputation.

K&R.

[ProSense]

38. It reminds me of whining. n/t

[rug]

44. That doesn't surprise me.

[ProSense]

51. You know,

since demanding that words be "banned" is cool by you, would you support a ban on people who demand that words be "banned"?

It would make everyone happier. Just think, never again having to deal with those words being posted here. Bliss!

[rug]

55. What words do I demand be banned?

I support letting lame arguments stand until they fall of their own weight.

[ProSense]

57. My bad

"What words do I demand be banned?"

...I thought this was agreeing with the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=655406

[rug]

58. Was it too subtle?

The fact that I think it's a lame argument does not equate with agreement on banning the phrase.

Black and white thinking destroys depth perception.

[ProSense]

60. The OP

"The fact that I think it's a lame argument does not equate with agreement on banning the phrase."

...title specifically asked that the words be "banned."

I mean, if every "lame argument" were banned, thousands of comments would disappear.

"Black and white thinking destroys depth perception."

Irony!

[rug]

61. No, only about 83,525 would.

BTW, I doubt the OP was being literal.

[ProSense]

62. So

"BTW, I doubt the OP was being literal."

...that's the justification: this is just grandstanding?

Which brings me back to my original point: Reminds me of whining!

[rug]

64. The OP doesn't need justification.

It's fair comment on a tiresome talking point that tends to stultify any semblance of thoughtful discussion.

You wouldn't be whining about this would you?

[ProSense]

66. Wow

"It's fair comment on a tiresome talking point that tends to stultify any semblance of thoughtful discussion."

...a new definition for whining.

Speaking of t"thoughtful discussion," where does a thread whining that words should be "banned" fit in?

[rug]

68. Oh, I can give you a tighter definition.

This is your what, sixth, comment complaining that someone had the temerity to call out a stale talking point?

Well, at least you haven't woven "better than Romney" into this subthread.

But it's early.

[edhopper]

75. I wasn't

as I soon posted in response #18

[edhopper]

74. Read my response #18

I used it metaphorically.
So pretend I said "We should voluntarily stop using"

Then maybe we can discuss the real point and not semantics.

[GeorgeGist]

36. I think the answer is no.

At least for folks who have no better response.

[joeybee12]

39. I agree...people think this is a legitimate argument...

and it really ins't...we should have the choice of voting for someone who si actually "good" not simply "not as bad." Should, but we really don't have that option this time around.

[JoePhilly]

63. I'm waiting for some one to create the "Progressive Prez 2016" group on DU.

Let's face it ... Obama will be the Dem candidate, and he's running against Romney. Those are the only REALISTIC choices for 2012.

And so ... those who are unhappy with Obama might decide to start drafting, and debating, the progresive candidate for 2016.

I'm not sure why those who are unhappy with Obama have yet to create this group as it would create a place to (a) be critical of Obama, and (b) start to decide who to put forward next.

[jp11]

41. It would be great if it wasn't thrown out there

so often instead of admitting that yes he (Obama) hasn't acted as well as we or some might want. Yet it seems to be a fall back 'suck it' kind of response to criticism of the President far TOO often. In other situations it could be an outright exaggeration when the previous republican president hadn't done as much 'bad' as the current democratic one.

[NYC Liberal]

42. Or you could, you know, just respond to the person if you feel their argument is flawed.

It's a message board after all.

[JNelson6563]

46. No, we can't ban things you don't like.

[WI_DEM]

48. Gay rights? frankly I don't know of any president who has done more for gay rights than Obama.

[NNN0LHI]

53. Why don't you just post a list of all the things you want banned at DU?

Take all the guesswork out of it that way.

Don

[FSogol]

54. Unless the question is, "What kind of car elevator should I buy?", then Romney would be worse.

I can't think of a single issue where Romney would be better.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, bashers can so they're taking away the comparison cutter

[MineralMan]

65. No, I don't think that's a very good idea at all.

It's never irrelevant that Romney would be worse. It's simply a true statement. Should we ban true statements from being made on DU? I don't think so.

[mmonk]

67. Romney would be worse is a way of ignoring an issue, so I sympathize with you.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

70. What are you SMOKING? Worst NONSEQUITUR I've ever heard.

[Logical]

71. There are many posters on the DU who cannot stand any complaints of Obama. It is really odd to me.