We disagree, oskar.  As long as people vote for the lesser of evils we will only get evils.  Why not hunt for someone better, put up someone better than Obama instead of accepting well he is the lesser of evils.  He can't handle it.  We know that.  So, try to find someone else who may be able to handle it better.  Give them a chance instead of sticking with a known wimp.  Don't tell me I have to vote for Obama.  I don't.  It is a wasted vote.  It is giving up and saying the dems can't do any better.  I disagree with that.  Not voting is saying there are no good options.  If the dems lose it isn't because of people like me, it's because people are tired of having to choose the lesser of evils and the dems offer no good reason to vote for their person.  I think it's funny that the best the dems can come up with is at least he's not a repub.  When he caves in there really is no difference.  Tell me what the dems will do differently in the next 4 years to fix the problems, not what the repubs do wrong.  I know what they do wrong.  The difference is I also know what the dems do wrong.  Both result in no help for the people who desperately need it (except maybe the chosen few).

  

He deserves 4 more years because he is black?  He didn't handle racist issues well.  Any real racist attacks against him were handled well enough but he used the race card to beat Hillary, so I'm not really impressed.

Why do you think dems will gain seats when people are mad at both parties and the President?
  

So, try to find someone else who may be able to handle it better.

That's what primaries are for.
USians have all the tools. If those tools are misused, tough noogie.
We have even less choice when it comes to our PMs.

yes, oskar, it is.  Will the cowardly dems put up anyone against him?

If they don't they're nuts.
Furthermore, if they don't, people like you won't vote and you'll end up with President Perry or worse.
If you want to avoid that I'd suggest you get more actively involved (along with other US citizens) in the process before you end up like pre-revolutionary Cuba.

    

That may well be true, oskar.  When faced with two incompetents people may vote for the one they don't know as well, while people like me don't waste a vote on incompetents.

As for the second part, you don't know how actively involved I am and have always been.  
  

Yeah, opting to not vote. That's really involved.

Yes, oskar, as involved as sticking with proven incompetence.

I assumed by involvement you meant actually working for something, not just voting.  My bad.

I'll refrain from the "whoosh".

Ha, involvement in the process is more than just voting.  Right now it involves trying to get the dems to find someone good to run against Obama in the primaries.  Debate within the party would be healthy.  Apparently most dems don't want that.  They prefer to appear to blindly support Obama.  Well, it isn't helping his approval ratings.  Perry won't win because I don't vote.  If he wins it will be because the dems gave them nothing worth voting for again.  Blame the repubs, blame people like me.  Don't look at the dems and see if maybe they have problems, too, problems big enough that people won't vote for them.

Never mind. I'm outta here for a bit.

voter apathy is a rational response to representatives that don't represent, imo.

i am not apologizing for jeanne. but i completely understand the rationale.

uhoh.  Perry just made an honest statement.  He said he was wrong to mandate the Gardisil vaccine for all girls.  Damn, if he starts using honesty as a campaign tool no one will know how to handle it.

Too bad we don't have a "no" option for voting, as in no, I don't want either of the candidates.  And if the total no votes are more than a certain percentage, both parties have to put up new candidates.

HEY! I put in a smilie and that's all I got! "Laugh" in bold????

ha.  I see a laughing smiley, Sid.

Wow, I'd go for that.    

  

Now I do too...

strange...

Now I don't... [img]/domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/frown.gif[/img]

What a thread!

I refuse to believe that Obama is incompetent. I believe he needs the tools to push more of his agenda, meaning a healthy majority of Democrats in the House and in the Senate.
A majority without the Blue Dogs, that is. We have all seen how it works. A decent proposal, watered down to get at least a few of the Reps to agree on, and then a categorical rejection by Reps AND Blue Dogs, re-negotiations until barely recognizable.
Yes, if need be I'll vote for the lesser of two evils anytime. The alternative to not voting is another Dubya, another lost decade, more of the crap this President has to work with.
Putting up another Dem to run against Obama? Great idea, if you love to watch the Dems throw their money into that battle just to lose out against the corporate republican money machine in the end run. Say hello to president Bachmann.

Support your current President and give every incumbent Rep or Senator hell to win to give Obama the tools to govern.

I understand.  My view is that the dems are not campaigning right and will lose more seats rather than gain and may even lose the Presidency.  It can't be all about the evil repubs.  It has to be something positive, too.  What if Congress stays the same, what will he do differently?  What will the rest of the dems do differently?  Is there any possibility they could get a super majority?  If not, what will be different? 

I do not agree that blind support is a good thing.  The dems have their blind supporters and the repubs have theirs.  It's the other people whose votes the dems need.  I guess maybe I'm trying to find out what the dems will do to get those votes.  Somehow, I don't think whining about repubs will get it.  There are issues out there.  Some don't agree with Obama's "agenda".  They don't agree with the repub "agenda" either.  In my view voting either way is a waste of votes unless something changes in the rhetoric.

How are the dems going to get a healthy majority?

Buckle up ~ gonna be a long and bumpy ride with Perry's 'machismo' tossed into the mix ~ FTR, ThinkProgress has a whole section devoted to Perry that goes back many months ~ it's updated regularly and can be accessed at http://thinkprogress.org/tag/rick-perry ~ Sooz

August 16, 2011 8:00 AM
Perry makes quite a first impression
By Steve Benen

Though Rick Perry's name has been in the political mix for a while, yesterday was the Texas governor's first weekday as a candidate for national office. The New York Times noted his “confidentâ€

Methinks Perry is making up for lost time verrrrry quickly ~  ~ Sooz

August 16, 2011 10:10 AM
Revisionist history — two weeks later
By Steve Benen

Ordinarily, when Republicans try to rewrite history, they tend to point to events that happened quite a while ago, which makes it easier to play on short memories. Rewriting the events of two weeks ago seems more brazen.

As the buffoonish governor sees it, “the president's refusal to control spendingâ€

Here's more ~ Sooz

August 16, 2011 12:35 PM
Perry won't disavow extremist Fed rhetoric
By Steve Benen

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry raised a few eyebrows yesterday with borderline-violent rhetoric about the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke. “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas,â€