I watch the daily show

Yes quite sudden like after the bitching had gotten very loud. LoL

I do like this little delusion you have that the "left" is somehow united.... It doesn't surprise me that some "leftist" bloggers might be critical of the right-wing Obama....

But then again....

The president of the US is not some lousy Mitt Romney who has to defend why many republicans have strange ideas of rape and why he changed his mind on this matter over the last years. Press conferences of Obama were rare, but when he now turned to the media everybody wanted to hear what he said = Maximum mobilisation and public attention.

I asked you for facts. You didn't present any. Way to take the intellectual high ground.

I have explained why Obama ultimately ends up with a pretty united socialist/welfare bum base: Complain as they may, they still support him. Sure they complain he hasn't gone socialist enough, but they have no better option. They're not voting for Romney. And a lot of them show up as surely as they want a bigger welfare check and unemployment for 2+ years.

Where is your explanation of how they're actually split beyond complaining that he's not socialist enough (he couldn't get more socialist policy passed: his policies don't really even speak of him but of the composition of Congress)? I didn't demand citations, I asked you for an argument.

You haven't made one. You're just spamming.

You're not exactly setting an example.

Why don't you try, making a point in the process? You're implying that you're not only capable, but that it's your normal mode of responding. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? I don't strongly disagree. I'm open to evidence and explanation of how the "left" may be legitimately fractured. But you're not exactly convincing me, let alone anyone else.

Like this, you're spamming and I'm talking honestly about the topic. I have twice offered my thoughts and pointed out that you haven't made any case for your claims--absolutely no explanation whatsoever. This would be the third time.

If I'm legitimately the spammer and you're the intellectual heavy-weight, shouldn't it be the other way around?

So you're not going to make any point whatsoever.

BUT you ARE going to CRY about someone who did!

People aren't united behind Romney. And I can explain why. I can explain why they won't bother voting. Or why they'll vote for other people.

Yet when you say people aren't united behind Obama, you are unable to explain why they won't bother voting or they'll vote for other people. I have explained why many will still vote and vote for Obama; the self-interests and ideals of his primary constituents are very obviously served and best-served by Obama. You haven't responded with any explanation of mitigating factors which make this less so than I implied.

The Libertarian party isn't just too scary to pansies who hate freedom, it's relatively poorly managed and marketed as well! (their Facebook page makes me sad)

Not expanding social freedoms can be corrected in the near future. Laying waste to our economy with massive deficits and production-stifling industrial engineering (intentionally spiking the price of fossil fuels in order to impoverish Amerika) will reverberate in the standards of living of Amerikans for decades.

This is in addition to the fact that Obama is against social freedoms. He support's Bush's unconstitutional spying and imprisonment policies. He has no intention of legalizing any drugs or prostitution. He has no intention of removing the federal government from marriage but rather supports expanding it.

How you can mistake Obama for a supporter of social freedoms is beyond me.

That said, I'm not voting for either. You're all a bunch of ignorant hypocrites.

LIbertarians always have a tin foil cap and a phone number to a lawyer who specializes in marijuana busts.

"Right wing" people have just the same reasons to be 'united' behind Romney as the "left wing" people have to be behind Obama. Communists will not be behind Obama as he is not communist in any way shape and form. He may have some policies that look that way but he is still for a capitalist state so they will vote the communist candidate, albeit in little numbers to count. Green socialists likewise will vote Green party, and be as ineffectual, but will not be 'united' behind Obama because he does not believe in the 'green economy' like they do, once more lip service is given to snare some of the more mainstream 'greenies' or 'commies' but they are not united.

It is likely that none of this will make sense to you, but hey that is not my fault now is it...

You_Fool,

Obama's not for a capitalist state, he just claims to be as much for one as it takes for him to get elected. Most communists do not ignorantly presume, as you do, that his aspirations aren't far more socialist/communist. He's openly admitted that his position is far more "left" than he's recently voiced: In the past, he has openly advocated fully socialized medicine, increased redistribution of wealth, and far, far more government involvement in all kinds of private industries.

You do understand that Obama is not an autocrat, right? You do understand that he has to posture to get his policies passed by people far less socialist/communist than him, right? You do understand, as Obama does, that such socialist/communist changes must be enacted in steps, right? It appears that you have no understanding of the restraints Obama puts on his rhetoric in order to appeal to moderates. He's given countless speeches arguing for a more "green" economy (which you just denied he supports much of), but he doesn't go overboard because more attention to this politically sensitive issue will lose votes.

It's a matter of movement in that direction. He's gotten legislation passed moving us in that direction while in office, and he was far more openly vocal about his socialist/communist ideology before he sought national office. Most communists are aware of this and give him their support.

This is in stark contrast with most Libertarian (America's 3rd largest political party)-leaning voters, who are aware of Romney's many substantive disagreements with their ideals and policy positions:

While Obama is not socialist in name, he clearly wants to move the country in that direction (which all socialists know is how to get the country where they want it).

Romney not only isn't Libertarian in name, but is substantively opposed to Libertarian positions on a great number of issues. Romney clearly wants to move the country farther away from the direction Libertarian voters desire.

Pretending that socialist voters are as fractured from Obama as Libertarian voters are from Romney is just ignorant of Amerikan politiks. There's no parallel. These different groups have fundamentally different disagreements with the major-party candidate who is closer to their ideology. Romney's not very close to Libertarian ideology at all.

Einstein,

You_Fool is a troll. This is the first time I've been happy with our mods for a while. I knew that Zarf guy was alright! And maybe those other one or two whose names I do not recall!