Putin, there has to be a line beyond which there can be no compromise, or else you have no principles. For me, an executive claiming the right to disappear people without any sort of review is beyond that line.

More to the point, you are in no position to scold me about my position or work regarding union issues and women's issues.

"Putin, there has to be a line beyond which there can be no compromise, or else you have no principles. "

So have you voted for any Democrat for President, or have you been helping Republicans win elections your whole life?

Bob Genghiskhan

"Wisconsin, voted write in for Aaron McGruder, because I cannot vote for someone who claims the right to kill American citizens extrajudicially."

You know Gary Johnson *and* Jill Stein both hold the same position and *without* the trutherism right?

C'mon now, lunatic conspiracy theories are not a red line for the morally pure among us.

So, Putin, when did you stop beating your wife?

@President Eden, yep. But voting for Johnson or Stein would have been much less personally amusing.

Anyway, taking Putin's plaintive whining as serious for a moment, which is more pernicious to the Republic: crank beliefs about Bush the Lesser's culpability for 9-11, or the actual exercise of the dubious legal theory that due process does not imply any sort of judicial oversight of executive actions? For me, it's the latter.

And you helping to elect Republicans is going to change that legal theory in what way? Or make it less prone to being used/abused?

And this is all hypothetical to you since your politics will never bother the state enough to care about using it on you. Voting for cartoon candidates is the least threatening thing you can possibly do from the point of the view of the ruling class.

Some people believe in making a difference where you can, and protecting civil rights/liberties where you can. Why should women sacrifice their healthcare rights and equal pay rights because both parties are bad on national security? Why should African Americans sacrifice their voting rights because both parties are bad on national security? Why should gay people sacrifice their civil rights because both parties are bad on national security? Why should workers sacrifice their organizing rights because both parties are bad on national security?

"@President Eden, yep. But voting for Johnson or Stein would have been much less personally amusing."

fair enough

Because the fundamental civil right in society is that you cannot be deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Without that, you don't have any civil rights to speak of. But hey, keep on supporting the ability of the government to disappear any citizen the President chooses, without any oversight whatsoever. It worked out pretty well for Argentina under the desaparacido, no?

How will any of that change by not voting Democrat?

"It worked out pretty well for Argentina under the desaparacido, no?"

Friends of mine have been hauled before kangaroo courts by the FBI for their political views. I'm well aware of the problem you're talking about. But I'm not willing to gut every other limited legal protection I have because of that. That's stupid.

And I'm not willing to ratify that behavior by voting for a President who supports it. On a local level, I have no problem voting Democratic, and did, pretty much straight party ticket (our local Democratic county clerk is kind of an idiot, so I wrote in voted in that race as well). But I am not going to say that it's okay with me that the President holds the fundamental civil right without which none others matter so cheaply, by giving my vote, or volunteering and donating as I did for Mr. Obama in 2008.

The only power that I have over national policy is my ability to donate to a party, volunteer for a party, and vote for a party. When a party is in accord with my values, such as the Wisconsin Democratic Party more or less is, I will support it to the best of my ability. when a party is in disharmony with my views, especially over a matter so fundamental as exhibiting a willingness to do away with judicial oversight of the executive, they will not get a plugged nickel of my financial support, they will not get a moment's worth of volunteering out of me, and they will not receive my vote.

"And I'm not willing to ratify that behavior by voting for a President who supports it"

Politics isn't about your personal feelings. It's about actually making an effective difference. Refusing to vote against the Tea Party at the Presidential level does *exactly nothing* to preclude and rather increases the potential for the abuse of national security law.

Politics has to be about principle, or it's just petty opportunism.

Both Obama and Romney believe things that should disqualify any decent person for voting for them, and Obama (like Bush before him) has done things that warrant at least impeachment proceedings. I'm voting for Johnson, my wife for Jill Stein. We're in Alabama.

Putin, can you point out some of the substantial differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama? As in, what major difference in policy do you think we will see if one is elected and not the other? Not Democrats vs. Republicans, but the two men who have the best chance of being elected president.

"So have you voted for any Democrat for President, or have you been helping Republicans win elections your whole life?"

I'm 16. So no and no. I would have voted for Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, and Obama in 2012. I'd support a third party monetarily. I am economically conservative. I don't want to tax too much; I want to significantly cut spending. Socially and environmentally, I'm extremely liberal. I am repulsed by the things Romney says about people and I think he will send us spiraling to a worldwide environmental disaster (probably beginning with either Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, ending up with Manhattan underwater). So I'd vote Obama.

"Politics has to be about principle, or it's just petty opportunism."

Yes, well, you can call preventing the party of Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Steve King, Todd Aiken, and Mourdock from controlling the White House "petty opportunism", I call it surviving. Call me when your "principled" voting for a 9-11 truther actually does any good for anybody except your own feelings.

"Putin, can you point out some of the substantial differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama?"

Romney - wants to privatize Fema. Obama - has been the single best President when it comes to disaster relief.
Romney - wants to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare. Obama - expanded contraceptive coverage, provided domestic violence screenings, and well woman visits through Obamacare.
Romney - has a 'no abortion even in cases of rape' running mate. Obama & Biden - adamantly pro-choice.
Romney - has a running mate who co-sponsored a bill that would redefine rape. Obama? First bill he signed in to law gave women legal protections for pay discrimination.
Romney - signed the Grover Norquist pledge to oppose getting of tax loopholes for big corporations and raising revenues in any way shape or form. Obama? Wants to return taxes on the rich to Clintonian levels and proposes getting rid of tax loopholes for oil companies and outsourcers.
Romney - supports turning Medicare into a voucher program that would lead to cuts in coverage. Obama - expanded Medicare coverage.
Romney - wants to cut Medicaid funding for autistic and other special needs kids. Obama - doesn't.
Romney - wants to cut Pell Grants. Obama - wants to make them more widely available.
Romney - wants to restore the old healthcare policy of letting insurance companies block people with preexisting conditions from getting coverage. Obama - made eliminating that policy the hallmark of his first term.
Romney - wants to let lobbyists write our energy policy. Obama - has done more to limit the influence of lobbyists in the White House than any President in history.
Romney - hates unions. Obama - supports the Employee Free Choice Act and had trade unionists speak at his convention.
Romney - thinks hiring teachers is useless, and large class sizes are just fine. Obama - supports hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes.
Romney - opposes gay marriage, supports a federal amendment against it. Obama - supports gay marriage.
Romney - opposed repealing DADT. Obama - repealed it.
Romney - thought a government supported rescue of the auto industry would lead to the death of the auto industry. Obama - implemented rescue plan which has been hugely successful.
Romney - wants to repeal consumer protections implemented by the Obama administration. Obama - established the Consumer Protection Agency and Dodd-Frank.
Romney - 17 out of 24 foreign policy advisers are Bush holdovers. Bush - the same guy who lied us into Iraq and ignored Bin Laden. The same guy who alienated us from the entire world. These people still call Russia the Soviet Union and are deadset on bombing Iran at the first opportunity.

The list is endless. Why don't you bother paying attention so I don't have to explain this to you.

Vermin Supreme!

Many of the differences you list are more apparent than actual. You're letting rhetoric get in the way: just because people said Bush would be small government or Obama would be transparent doesn't mean that they actually were or are. Romney isn't going to cut Medicare, that would be politically foolish. He'll probably expand it, the way Bush did.

If Obama is so much better for gay Americans, why did he drag his feet for two years on ending DADT, including having his Justice Administration fight for it in court? I suppose Obama's evolving views on gay marriage are mildly preferable to Romney's, but I have yet to see any evidence that we would see a meaningful change between the two. In other words: When it has come to actual policy, Obama has fought against changes much more than he has fought for them.

Admittedly Mittens is difficult to pin down on health care, but last I heard he wanted to keep much of Obamacare, including protection of pre-existing conditions. He created a very similar program, after all. Why people are so happy with an enormous subsidy to health insurance companies is another question, I guess.

Some of that's just wrong, too. Obama's alleged anti-lobbyist cred is a fake, as this WaPo story points out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-visitor-logs-show-lobbying-going-strong/2012/05/20/gIQA2ok4dU_story.html This is perhaps, to me, the most annoying thing that Obama supporters talk about, besides his fake immigration reform and fake medical marijuana reform.

In the other parts of this list you are twisting the truth. It's true that Romney wants to cut FEMA, but Obama's 2013 budgets wants to cut FEMA too. Not sure how one measures who is the best single president when it comes to disaster relief, but whatever.

I will give you this: Obama and Romney do differ sharply over abortion, contraceptives, etc. But this is probably the place where their differences matter the least. The president can't do a lot about this.

Even this brief discussion has been exhausting, so that's enough enough for now. Here's my real question: you're a socialist of some flavor, right, Putin? I don't understand why you're so gung ho for one particularly wing of the American government-industrialist complex. These guys are a nickel apart on most of the issues that the president has any say in and a quarter apart on rhetorical issues that the president can't practically do much about. These are two candidates bought and paid for by Wall Street, and their minor differences on social policy won't show up in their presidential behavior. Shouldn't you be "a pox on both their houses"ing throughout this entire election?

I wouln't say Biden is pro-choice. HE is just anti-legislation and assertion of his own religious values. He is pro-life when asked about it directly, but said he doesn't believe it is his place to enforce his values onothers.

Thinking about it, that makes him pro choice *and* pro life. He believes others have to make that decision for themselves (pro choice) but that he would counsel his friends and family to keep it if put in the situation (pro life). Interesting...

If I were a Yank I'd vote Obama, but without much enthusiasm. The best of a bad bunch.

‎"Analysts who consider this issue often compare the chances of a vote making a difference in a national election to the odds of dying while driving on Election Day: it is more likely that you will die in a fatal accident than that your vote will be decisive."

I changed my mind....