You're right, we need to stop replying to this guy. We'll probably see a lot more of these now that school is out. What, was the YouTube comments section down for a few hours?

This really gets me though:

You would have been better off voting for the 3rd party loser regardless.

I wish someone would name one way they're better off. Unless their idea of being better off is being able to act like a dick on messageboards.

This is what I've been saying for quite some time - the people who put themselves on the "I'm too pure to vote Democratic" pedestal are the ones who will never have to worry in the short term about things like being sent to Iraq or losing their jobs. As far as their personal lives are concerned, they are right - it won't matter whether McCain or Obama wins. I'll readily admit that most of my 'suffering' during the Bush years has been of the moral sort, though the gas prices are a bit of a bother.

I'd add some nuance though. I don't think the majority of the American people are right-wing any more than they are left-wing. In fact, my general impression is that if you took the positions people generally support, it would look something like the Democratic Party's platform. The majority are in favor of legal abortion with some restrictions, increased education spending, and stem cell research. They are also in favor of ending the war and diplomatically engaging our 'enemies'. And they would actually be in favor of tax increases on the wealthy if they came bundled with tax cuts for the middle class, if they weren't distracted by cries of "socialism!" and "tax increase!"

Basically, I think more than anything, the "American people" are confused and easily malleable. This is obvious even now when most people oppose the war yet still "trust" McCain more to deal with it. And if you compare the Clinton years and the Bush years, you'll see that generally, whatever party is in power is able to control the narrative. So it's not that the country would inherently be ideologically opposed to someone like Nader or Kucinich, whose positions really aren't that 'extreme' compared to, say, Ron Paul who wants to abolish the Department of Education and go back to the gold standard.

Rather, like you said, we need to work to create an environment that would be receptive to progressive ideas and where we could convince people that they are in their best interest. And like it or not, such changes happen incrementally rather than overnight or in an all-or-nothing fashion. The point is that maybe, just MAYBE a Democratic-controlled Congress with Obama as president would at least be secure enough to be open to some ideas from the progressive left, as opposed to a scenario where the McCain presidency gives us all the finger, the media allows him to control the narrative, and the Congress is too busy fighting him to listen to us.

Also, we can't be too loud about this, but I was actually heartened by the reports of Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. It's pretty reasonable to believe that a UofC professor involved in the Hyde Park intellectual scene is progressive. If we can actually get a liberal academic into the White House, it will be a pretty big deal.

...shrieking that they're gonna vote for McCain because Obama wasn't sensitive enough to their feelings. If you're not enough of an adult to rationally consider the consequences and vote on the issues, you really don't deserve to be paid attention to. Unfortunately, this probably describes a good chunk of Americans, whose political opinions turn on a dime. So I guess we need to coddle them and reassure them that we love them and everything's gonna be alright.

This is purely in the speculative dimension, since the mere mention of gun control seems to turn a lot of people into ranting savages. But wouldn't the commonsense approach to gun laws be to legalize all hunting rifles and shotgun-type weapons while banning handguns? Rifles can easily be used for home defense, but they're nearly impossible to conceal in public. And nobody's going to be hunting with a handgun. Of course this still wouldn't please the psychos who want a society where everyone carries a piece on them at all times, but it would effectively neutralize the hunting and home defense issue, which seems to be the main sticking point for a lot of people.

I agree that the requirement to keep it disassembled is silly and makes guns completely useless for home defense. But other than that, do you think my suggestion of the 2nd amendment not pertaining to handguns makes sense?

It's ridiculous for people to claim that the 2nd amendment automatically means that they have a right to own any firearms you want. Remember, easily concealable handguns didn't even exist in the founders' time. Do you think they intended for us to have machine guns too? High-powered sniper rifles? Rocket launchers? Where does it end?

So again, if you're making a practical argument for the right to hunt and keep a firearm to defend your home, I'm completely on your side. But the point where you start claiming an absolute 'sacred' right to possess any and all kinds of weapons and playing dumb by pretending not to see what makes this 'liberty' fundamentally different from others is the point where I start to cautiously back away.

P.S. I mean 'you' in the general sense, not you specifically.