General Discussion

edhopper

(33,927 posts)

18. I wish that some of the folks here

Mon May 7, 2012, 01:36 PM

May 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we ban "Romney would be worse" from our discussions on DU? [View all] edhopper May 2012 OP

It's not irrelevant jeff47 May 2012 #1

No, Sir, It is Not Irrelevant: It Is The Deciding Fact Of the General Election The Magistrate May 2012 #2

+1,000,000. TheWraith May 2012 #69

It Certainly Does Here, Sir, With 'First Past the Post' Standards The Magistrate May 2012 #72

Hell no! We need to bang on that like a gong, every day. bemildred May 2012 #3

I made that statement about two or three days ago Aerows May 2012 #4

Exactly -- since the real issue is, "Why is Obama as bad as he is?" on the given issue villager May 2012 #5

why is irrelevant? You didn't give ONE reason. and because YOU say so cali May 2012 #6

I believe the OP is talking about it's use to belittle people in regards to issues Marrah_G May 2012 #34

"Not as bad" is a popular campaign slogan for both of the establishment parties. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #7

it's a political reality bigtree May 2012 #20

"..functionally irrelevant choice.." Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #23

I can see the reasoning in voting that way bigtree May 2012 #24

Significance is what I'm talking about. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #27

it's not as if outcomes are automatic bigtree May 2012 #37

Actually, red or blue states. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #49

thanks for your answer, Tierra_y_Libertad bigtree May 2012 #52

Thank you for the discussion. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #56

some people believe the courage of their convictions.. frylock May 2012 #45

so you're convinced that only folks who vote for candidates other than the nominees are sincere bigtree May 2012 #50

that's the only thing left to say to perfectionists treestar May 2012 #29

I don't like your approach to this issue, Nye Bevan May 2012 #8

yep, its already tired quinnox May 2012 #9

Suffering from 'Romney would be worse' fatigue? randome May 2012 #10

ban???? as in censor? DrDan May 2012 #11

Do we not want to talk about facts? liberal N proud May 2012 #12

Romney's spokesperson just said CJCRANE May 2012 #13

i don't think the future of the nation is irrelevant spanone May 2012 #14

NO! What other indisputable fact would you like to ban? n/t wandy May 2012 #15

Like to ban speech, do you? DevonRex May 2012 #16

Curious, eh?...nt SidDithers May 2012 #33

that's always been the nature of our politics bigtree May 2012 #17

I wish that some of the folks here edhopper May 2012 #18

you're still not understanding bigtree May 2012 #22

When Obama attacks edhopper May 2012 #26

actually, on those issues bigtree May 2012 #43

And that excuses Obama edhopper May 2012 #73

What you obviously fail to comprehend is the fact that when you question PBO's Vincardog May 2012 #40

nailed it frylock May 2012 #47

. Capt. Obvious May 2012 #19

the other problem is people are looking at everything through the elections prism quinnox May 2012 #21

I think it would be more relevant... RevStPatrick May 2012 #25

Nnnnnnope cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #28

No. Too bad if you don't like it, but it's a legitimate response... SidDithers May 2012 #30

I could not agree more Marrah_G May 2012 #31

"Lesser of two evils" ProSense May 2012 #32

It reminds me of Civil War doctors discussing gangrene and amputation. rug May 2012 #35

It reminds me of whining. n/t ProSense May 2012 #38

That doesn't surprise me. rug May 2012 #44

You know, ProSense May 2012 #51

What words do I demand be banned? rug May 2012 #55

My bad ProSense May 2012 #57

Was it too subtle? rug May 2012 #58

The OP ProSense May 2012 #60

No, only about 83,525 would. rug May 2012 #61

So ProSense May 2012 #62

The OP doesn't need justification. rug May 2012 #64

Wow ProSense May 2012 #66

Oh, I can give you a tighter definition. rug May 2012 #68

I wasn't edhopper May 2012 #75

Read my response #18 edhopper May 2012 #74

I think the answer is no. GeorgeGist May 2012 #36

I agree...people think this is a legitimate argument... joeybee12 May 2012 #39

I'm waiting for some one to create the "Progressive Prez 2016" group on DU. JoePhilly May 2012 #63

It would be great if it wasn't thrown out there jp11 May 2012 #41

Or you could, you know, just respond to the person if you feel their argument is flawed. NYC Liberal May 2012 #42

No, we can't ban things you don't like. JNelson6563 May 2012 #46

Gay rights? frankly I don't know of any president who has done more for gay rights than Obama. WI_DEM May 2012 #48

Why don't you just post a list of all the things you want banned at DU? NNN0LHI May 2012 #53

Unless the question is, "What kind of car elevator should I buy?", then Romney would be worse. FSogol May 2012 #54

+1, bashers can so they're taking away the comparison cutter uponit7771 May 2012 #59

No, I don't think that's a very good idea at all. MineralMan May 2012 #65

Romney would be worse is a way of ignoring an issue, so I sympathize with you. mmonk May 2012 #67

What are you SMOKING? Worst NONSEQUITUR I've ever heard. ProgressiveEconomist May 2012 #70

There are many posters on the DU who cannot stand any complaints of Obama. It is really odd to me. Logical May 2012 #71