Dubstepforum.com

Today wrote:

SCope13 wrote:I don't like either of them, Obama is just the lesser of two evils. Still not going to vote for him though.

if Nebraska's a swing state, please take my vote and give it to Obama.

AllNightDayDream wrote:If you recognize Obama is the lesser of two evils, but don't vote for him, you are effectively giving the opposition more power. That's when you really need to just stfu and don't have any right to complain about affairs, you make matters worse by giving a soulless asshat like romney the feasibility of attaining the presidency.

SCope13 wrote:Compromise? Where's the compromise? Both candidates are right-of-center. The two party system gives only gives us the illusion of choice.

AllNightDayDream wrote:But as an ex far leftist myself, you must admit then that obamas handling of the financial crisis was pretty agreeable considering the far right nuts he surrounded himself with.

Genevieve wrote:
The Democrats and Republicans believe the exact same thing. Take money from the poor, give it to the wealthy, and police the world.

SCope13 wrote:

Genevieve wrote:
The Democrats and Republicans believe the exact same thing. Take money from the poor, give it to the wealthy, and police the world.

Just out of curiosity, if you recognize this, why do you support capitalism?

Ted Cruz wins Texas Senate run-off election

A Tea Party Republican has beaten an establishment rival in a closely fought, expensive US Senate run-off election in Texas, projections show.

With more than half of votes counted Ted Cruz had 55%, with Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst on 45%.

The candidates fought for the seat of outgoing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The Republicans secured a majority in the US House of Representatives in 2010 and are seeking control of the Senate in November's election.
Hispanic Senator?

The Texas Senate seat is considered a safe one for Republicans, but correspondents say it is noteworthy that Mr Cruz, who is backed by the Tea Party, has been successful in the primary process.

His victory comes on the heels of victories for other Tea Party-backed candidates competing against veteran Republicans in state primaries in Indiana and Nebraska.

Mr Cruz, 41, is a lawyer from Houston and was formerly the state's solicitor general. He has never held elected office, but his campaign was endorsed by conservative figures such as Sarah Palin and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.

He faced Mr Dewhurst, 66, a wealthy businessman who presided over the Texas state Senate and has served in the US Air Force and CIA.

His campaign had the support of much of the Republican mainstream, including an endorsement from Texas Governor Rick Perry.

It was reported that Mr Dewhurst spent $19m (£12m) of personal funds on the race.

Mr Cruz was born in Cuba and would become the first Hispanic Senator from Texas if - as expected - he defeats the Democratic nominee in November's elections.

AllNightDayDream wrote:To a leftist, you'd have to recognize that the government taking over crucial industries in times of crisis was a step in the right direction. Otherwise I have a hard time believing that you know what that ideology actually entails. Such steps may have helped out certain people in the upper class, but it also saved heaps of working class people who otherwise would have no job or pension right now.

The far right nuts are primarily Larry Summers (who has since changed his tune) and Timothy Geithner. Summers fell under the faith based ideology that markets are ultimately infallible and should have free reign over the economy, and personally endorsed Gramm-Bleach-Lithely ontop of personally shushing any criticism of these new shadow markets by regulators. Geithner was particularly friendly to the financial institutions during the bailout and did not seek to tie any legitimate reform to the process.

But again, it's troubling that so called "socialists" don't see the benefit of government restructuring and investing in crucial industries, such as the case with GM, green industries, and healthcare.

wilson wrote:Have been quite fascinated with the elections over the pond. Romney seems like the acceptable face of pure corporate evilness and Obama is looking set to repeat 2008 by playing up the 'hope for change' angle and deflecting criticism by heavily attacking how dubious Romney's policies - and character - are, even though he failed to live up to pretty much every major issue he stood for before getting into office first time round. Can someone convince me that you're NOT fucked either way this year?