why I don't vote... any more.

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
cbb137
cbb137's picture

Hey Thom,You want people to vote yet you sing the praises of obomber for murdering an unarmed decrepit old fart. That is a war crime. This is exactly why I don't vote any more. I did voted for the man of peace last time.... what a fool I was. Never again. b

Comments

bobbler
bobbler's picture
Of all the things I dislike

Of all the things I dislike about the [apparently republican] Obama, killing Osama is the least of my worries.. Although I distrust the media so much, that who the hell knows what is really going on..

cbb137
cbb137's picture
Congratulations... like thom…

Congratulations... like thom… you’re part of the problem....

 

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
Your "man of peace" has

Your "man of peace" has always supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq.  Perhaps after the "murder" of the defenseless old man, Obomber can get to the business of peace in Afghanistan too.

edmondsjh
I don't vote anymore because

I don't vote anymore because the Democrats don't do what they say they will do, and they don't push back on the wingnut Republicans. 

edmondsjh
In Seattle, the news is that

In Seattle, the news is that Chase Bank has made over $400,000 charging welfare recipients ATM withdrawal fees of 85 cents per transaction.  Wahoo!  I need to become a bankster!

bobbler
bobbler's picture
It is not practical to hope

It is not practical to hope for 100 percent agreement with any politician..  What exactly is your issue? 

I feel very strongly about Cheny/Bush's war that got almost a million people killed (not counting people killed for medical reasons when funds went to making bombs instead of health care)..  Osama is just once more dead person in this war for oil (that I strongly disagree with).. 

cbb137 wrote:

Congratulations... like thom… you’re part of the problem....

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
edmondsjh wrote: In Seattle,

edmondsjh wrote:

In Seattle, the news is that Chase Bank has made over $400,000 charging welfare recipients ATM withdrawal fees of 85 cents per transaction.  Wahoo!  I need to become a bankster!

Liz Warren sought to put a cap on debit transaction fees, which all retailers supported, but was shut down by the banks. Though they are against equivalent swipe fees, or trading transaction fees that would reduce the deficit, reduce speculation, reduce commodities manipulation, reduce gas prices, reduce food costs...reduce bonuses.

The same fee would reduce instability, too,/the_new_geopolitics_of_food but war is cheap.

/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

Jah
Jah's picture
cbb137 wrote: Hey Thom,You

cbb137 wrote:

Hey Thom,You want people to vote yet you sing the praises of obomber for murdering an unarmed decrepit old fart. That is a war crime. This is exactly why I don't vote any more. I did voted for the man of peace last time.... what a fool I was. Never again. b

Seems to me nothing has changed for you. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. You get what you get due to your own inaction. You have been neutered. You are politically impotent - just where the Republican corporate elites want you. Good doggie.

It is YOU that are the problem.

America is full of idiots that want and expect democracy and at the same time decide not to participate in the democratic process. Then they turn around and want to whine. Typical conservative thinker who thinks it's all about him.

FIST IN THE AIR IN THE LAND OF HYPOCRISY!

micahjr34
When I was going to school

When I was going to school the other day I saw a "conservative" bumper sticker.  It said,"You can keep your change," meaning that the way things are working now are within that person's ideologies.   A big problem here is that many people want change,  but do nothing.   Also,  there are those who don't want change because it suits their selfish interests,  regardless of any externalized suffering caused by it.   These people don't care.  They are selfish "tortoises" that go about their business and step on ants with utterly no care in the name of achieving personal excellence.   When the ants complain,  the only solution that these selfish people give is that you should become like them.  "You can keep your change."   When you don't vote you empower these "individuals."

demandside
demandside's picture
If voting changed anything,

If voting changed anything, it would be iilegal.

The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath. The system becomes a farce when Citigroup gains $470 billion in federal TARP bailout and pays no taxes for four years, when revolving doors replaces checks and balances, when arsonists become firefighters, when war is normalized and foreign policy is miolitarized, when education, health care and housing become privileges instead of rights and when the "arsenal of democracy" becomes the "arsenal of hypocrisy.."

Democracy, theoretically, could prevent government failure from becoming state failure. The people must rise up and form an opposition and plead for an economy that sets human need above economic greed.

micahjr34
You have a point about

You have a point about hypocrisy!  Do you know of any potential solutions?

micahjr34
If voting were to become

If voting were to become illegal...  that reminds me.   "No taxation with out representation."  The colonists before the revolution had no real vote at all.   They had to fight for their right to vote. 

ah2
cbb137

cbb137 wrote:

Congratulations... like thom… you’re part of the problem....

 

Yes NOT engaging in the democratic process is the solution?   You are an idiot.

DRC
DRC's picture
Believing in this process

Believing in this process would be wrong.  But failing to do what we can with every tool we have is also wrong.  I want to distinguish between tactics and emotions when thinking about protest votes.  If you can come up with an effective tactic, great.  If you are just depressed, angry or disappointed, please think about the victims of your emotions.  Wendell Potter said we should vote for Obamacare even though he was the best critic on the tv.  Real people would die.  

For those who find electoral politics too depressing to be part of, please be busy building the alternatives.  Work locally because that is where Third Parties can do something and have meaning.  The larger campaigns are educational with some possibility for tactical and strategic points.  But we are not going to beat the duopoly, and even sending another Bernie Sanders to the Senate does not change the math enough.

In smaller states, you might be able to break the duopoly, but in counties and cities, you do have a real chance to build new coalitions and address real issues.  

If we need to, we could establish community political counseling centers where the disappointed and betrayed could find healing.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
To say that there is no

To say that there is no difference between President Obama and Republicans is psycho talk. To advocate not voting or voting for a third party is the equivalent of voting Republican because if we Democrats show up, we win. If we don't show up, we lose or we are vulnerable to having an election stolen from us as was the 2000 election.

The world would be a much better place today if Bush was not appointed as president. Now Al Gore had his problems. It was a huge tactical error to distance himself from the Clintons and if he had not done that then it would not have mattered that Nader drew critical votes away from Gore and Florida would not have been close enough have been stolen.

I presume the clientele on this board is primarily Democrats so I have to question the motivations of anyone who comes here sowing discontent and advocating indifference or disaffection at the polls. What sane person would want another George Bush, or worse? And after watching the Republicans since November at both the federal and state levels, my goodness, what other proof do you need as to how dangerous these people are?

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
ah2 wrote: cbb137

ah2 wrote:

cbb137 wrote:

Congratulations... like thom… you’re part of the problem....

 

Yes NOT engaging in the democratic process is the solution?   You are an idiot.

Amazing. Isn't it?

Absolutely amazing.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
demandside wrote: The people

demandside wrote:

The people must rise up and form an opposition and plead for an economy that sets human need above economic greed.

I understand what you're trying to say and I don't have a problem with your sentiment. However this reminds me too much of a "conservative" bumper sticker slogan.

I prefer De Tocqueville's idea that Americans had the idea that they had to take of each other not so much because it was the right thing to do, as much as they recognized that taking care of each other was in their mutual best interests. When you see this truth the concept is less ideological and French Revolution-like and more objective.

As for WE, THE PEOPLE I would like to think we were smart enough to rise up. We don't need to form an opposition. WE have the power and WE simply have to take it. The problem was recognized by H.L. Mencken: no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

That truism is reinforced by people on this very board advocating things like not voting for Democrats. These are either confederate Republicans attempting to spread discord and discontent in order to dissuade WE, THE PEOPLE from asserting our will, or they are just plain old stump stupid. The Democratic Party is not perfect, by any means, but it is our best and only vehicle for our idea that taking care of each other is the best and only way.

 

 

awol288
How long has this same

How long has this same argument been repeated? If a young black president with a history of progressive stances is held hostage by the system and called Bush the third, it's time to think things over. You can't change how other people will vote but you can decide for yourself, a person with some integrity would stop this nonsense and at least vote for a third-party. Take a stand and decide to never cast another vote for a democrat or republican. It doesn't matter what others are doing-- your vote isn't going to sway the ship, it's already set its course, in other words we're dealing with systemic problems. No one president is going to fix it, but at least we can stop supporting outright incompetent candidates and the parties that legitimize them. Look at those in the 2012 running-- and this is still being debated? The age of conveinence has produced a population looking for the easiest way to gain back their democracy, unfortunately it will take more than casting a single vote.

DRC
DRC's picture
We have been saying that the

We have been saying that the electoral system will not produce the change, but that does not translate into "not voting" or just going Third Party with no strategic nuance.  It does mean doing a lot of work outside the electoral parties and organizing constituencies of interest.  I have no idea what you mean about "stop supporting outright incompetent candidates and the parties that legitimate them."  If you mean we should have rejected Bush and Cheney on incompetence, I would agree.  But Obama is nothing if not competent.  You just don't like his job description.

When you "take a stand," try to have some solid political ground under your feet.  Principled martyrdom is not good politics unless it is unchosen.  

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Not supporting the

Not supporting the neoliberals (or the neocons) means you're either a "confederate Republican" or stupid? Good grief.

Lesser evilism is illogical: http://www.counterpunch.org/levine05062011.html. Richard Nixon was to the left of Bill Clinton. But some of you don't see the problem with continuing to support the "lesser evil?" Seriously?

What's also illogical is this notion that "we shouldn't support a third party, such as the Green Party, because it isn't viable." Supporting alternatives is the only way to make alternatives viable, but let's not support alternatives because they aren't viable. Yeah, that makes a world of sense.

bobbler
bobbler's picture
THE DIS-ILLUSIONED PARTY (the

THE DIS-ILLUSIONED PARTY (the progressive answer to the tea party)..   We obviously need a "positive" sounding name though, LOL..  Maybe the very disappointed among us could form a voting block, and speak with one voice to who we will vote for..  We need to show our support for more progressive politicians, I think this is the way to do it..  The internet is not cranked down yet, so maybe we can organize..  

DRC wrote:

Believing in this process would be wrong.  But failing to do what we can with every tool we have is also wrong.  I want to distinguish between tactics and emotions when thinking about protest votes.  If you can come up with an effective tactic, great.  If you are just depressed, angry or disappointed, please think about the victims of your emotions.  Wendell Potter said we should vote for Obamacare even though he was the best critic on the tv.  Real people would die.  

For those who find electoral politics too depressing to be part of, please be busy building the alternatives.  Work locally because that is where Third Parties can do something and have meaning.  The larger campaigns are educational with some possibility for tactical and strategic points.  But we are not going to beat the duopoly, and even sending another Bernie Sanders to the Senate does not change the math enough.

In smaller states, you might be able to break the duopoly, but in counties and cities, you do have a real chance to build new coalitions and address real issues.  

If we need to, we could establish community political counseling centers where the disappointed and betrayed could find healing.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
Garrett78 wrote: Not

Garrett78 wrote:

Not supporting the neoliberals (or the neocons) means you're either a "confederate Republican" or stupid? Good grief.

I have encountered this before. Labeling moderates as "neoliberals" or "neocons" isn't a valid argument. I am not a "neoliberal" nor am I a "neocon" by any stretch, and you're not qualified to render me any less liberal than I actually am. 

Nor are you qualified to demote President Obama in any similar fashion. You have an opinion and that's about it. Now you really need a foundation for that opinion and I have never seen any one of you who take this opinon have anything even remotely resembling a foundation. What's worse is that you and your fellow righteously indignated completely gloss over my foundation which is:

The U.S. has a plurality system. Therefore the effect of any third party is to draw votes away from one coalition party or the other. The empirical evidence bears that out 100%, where Perot siphoned off votes from George H. W. Bush helping Clinton win and Ralph Nader helped George W. Bush win. Further I cited to you the fact that if Democrats turn out we win, and if we don't turn out Republicans win. This is more true than ever as white males continue to represent less and less of the electorate.

Now I'm sure I'll hear some disjointed, righteous indignation schtick about this but the fact is that coalitions are necessary and appropriate and that means compromise, not purity. I like Bernie Sanders but he's never ever going to be president. Sorry, but that's the reality. You can get a few Senate seats and a few districts but your ultimate salvation is going to have to come through mainstream Democrats. Otherwise you get George W. Bush.

 

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
bobbler wrote: THE

bobbler wrote:

THE DIS-ILLUSIONED PARTY (the progressive answer to the tea party)..   We obviously need a "positive" sounding name though, LOL..  Maybe the very disappointed among us could form a voting block, and speak with one voice to who we will vote for..  We need to show our support for more progressive politicians, I think this is the way to do it..  The internet is not cranked down yet, so maybe we can organize..  

Or maybe you could see the glass as half full and help to get the other half filled instead of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Getting "conservative" Republicans elected will never do any of us any good.

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Rosenthal, I highly recommend

Rosenthal,

I highly recommend reading this: http://www.counterpunch.org/chazelle04022008.html

As well as A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.

As well as works by Chris Hedges or the late Howard Zinn.

It's a sad state of affairs in the US where Bernie Sanders (or another European centrist such as Kucinich) is considered a radical.

ah2
We need to pull a page from

We need to pull a page from the Right wing hand book.  They fabricate a reactionary astroturf movement in the Tea Party to make their increasingly conservative politics look main stream.  What we really need is not a progressive movement but a hardline socialist/communist one.  They would never get elected but it would tip the scales back in the "left" direction so people have some friggin perspective...

demandside
demandside's picture
The left suffers in its lack

The left suffers in its lack of a great narrative or utopian dream.

Our age is the age of converging crises where the private economy implodes (e.g. private health insurance industrry, mammoth banks that do not issue credit, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry receiving subsidies while reaping billions in profits).

Ive never understood why forming anti-fascism and anti-Wall Street coalitions is so difficult.

The bomb changed everything except the way we think (Albert Einstein). The 68 revolution was a revolution against militarism and violence that was demeaned as idealistic dreaming and tree-hugging.The world has turned against the Washington Consensus (deregulation, privatization and opening markets). As social justice is a way of life and not only a movement, may we live out the ethic of  resistance and solidarity.

The empire like Narcissus fell in love with its reflection and drowned. We can be a republic and abandon the empire illusion.

Here's a link to Noam Chomsky impromptu address in Eugene on April 20, 2011."Global Hegemony: The Facts and The Images."  an 83-minute tour de force!  Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebK7VVDayY&feature=player_embedded#at=41

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
[quote=cbb137] Hey Thom,You

[quote=cbb137]

Hey Thom,You want people to vote yet you sing the praises of obomber for murdering an unarmed decrepit old fart. That is a war crime. This is exactly why I don't vote any more. I did voted for the man of peace last time.... what a fool I was. Never again. b

[/quote

I don't know what planet you've been living on. 

At 54, Bin Laden may have been decrepit because his kidneys had failed and he required dialysis to stay alive, but you apparently think that he was older than he was and that he was simply decrepit because he was.  Wrong.

Nobody on the left side of the aisle has more problems with Obama and his corporate masters and minions than I do, but I also like to think that I can discern enough true reality, separate and apart from the crap we're spoonfed by the government and the media, to learn enough truth to be functional, and it didn't take one hell of a lot of sifting to realize that Bin Laden was a monster, mass murderer, and serial killer.  He had to go, one way or the other, and he wasn't about to come along peacefully.  Besides, he wasn't worth even one Seal risking death by trying to drag him out of there alive so they could try him.  Bin Laden's death?  Not one whit; not one iota; not one hackneyed tinker's damn can I bring myself to waste on it.  Decrepit old man?!  DECREPIT MIDDLE-AGED MONSTER!!!  Good shot, SEALS!

My problem with it is the U.S.'s overtly smug and self-righteous invasion of another sovereign nation state to get him.  We say we respect other countries' boudnaries, but that's crap.  We didn't respect Pakistan.  We're among the worst of hypocrites, ethically.  We say we're different and above dirty dealing, bullying, and aggressive unilateral action, but whenever our politicians believe that the interests of their Wall Street masters are threatened, our governmental ethics become instantly situational and we become no better than the guy in a cave 80,000 years ago when he set off on preemptive raids against his neighbors.  Oh, I forgot:  that's "American exceptionalism."  The rest of the world really respects that, don'tchaknow?

Unarmed?  Don't be stupid.  He didn't need to run around armed to be deadly dangerous and to foster and carry out mass murder, anymore than Hitler needed to run around wearing a helmet and carrying a field pack and Mauser to murder six million Jews and incite a World War in which about 87 million total human beings perished.  Don't be stupid.

 

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Rosenthal wrote:To say that

Rosenthal wrote:
To say that there is no difference between President Obama and Republicans is psycho talk. To advocate not voting or voting for a third party is the equivalent of voting Republican because if we Democrats show up, we win. If we don't show up, we lose or we are vulnerable to having an election stolen from us as was the 2000 election.

There is a difference, but not nearly as much of a difference as those of you naive enough to believe in the American two-party system believe.  Unless/until the infrastructure of the system is changed, this is an unending battle which will be fought for as long as the earth continues on until we poison ourselves into extinction with pollution, blow it up with nukes, or breed ourselves into extinction by using up all the resources.  It's hopelessly naive, and even stupid, to think there can be real change at all levels without infrastructural change to the system.  My grandfather used to say that the only real difference between the Dems and Republicans is that the Dems will let you earn half a loaf or give you one if you can't earn it, whereas the Republicans don't care whether you have a job to earn the half-loaf and if you don't, they'll let you starve in the gutter.  I've come to believe that he was right.

Quote:
The world would be a much better place today if Bush was not appointed as president. Now Al Gore had his problems. It was a huge tactical error to distance himself from the Clintons and if he had not done that then it would not have mattered that Nader drew critical votes away from Gore and Florida would not have been close enough have been stolen.

Gore sold out morally and ethically when he chose not to continue the battle after it became clear they were rigging it.

Quote:
I presume the clientele on this board is primarily Democrats so I have to question the motivations of anyone who comes here sowing discontent and advocating indifference or disaffection at the polls. What sane person would want another George Bush, or worse? And after watching the Republicans since November at both the federal and state levels, my goodness, what other proof do you need as to how dangerous these people are?
 

Bad presumption; some of us are progressives and only support the Dems because they're the lesser of two evils.  Dissent is patriotic and I am no less a good American than you are when I criticize Obama for being a corporate sellout on many points and a craven professional politican on others.  Just because I don't want Bush and his ilk doesn't mean that I think Obama's just ducky  in everything he does and great on all of his positions.  The degree of difference is well-expressed (but not directly analogous) when I tell you that just because I wouldn't want to live under Hitler or Stalin doesn't mean that I'd be ecstatic to live under Franco.

You are a naive individual.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Thnking globally and working

Thnking globally and working locally is all right as a concept, but it has several serious flaws. 

First, local/micro economic, political, cultural, and scientific status quos and norms are not exempt from national and international/macro master trends.  If they were, enlightened city states built on successful local activity could emerge as shining Edens amid the muck of the rest of the world, but, alas, the depraved majorities of the world control the master trends that preclude that from happening.

Second, enlightened local activity cannot gather enough force to change or overturn depraved national and international status quos.  The only way enlightened local activity can practically lead is by example, and there isn't enough of that, and people are too apathetic to set such examples through building and participation as long as they have beer and football, so, like Christianity, enlightened local activity doesn't  work unless everybody practices it.  From-the-ground-up style revolutions have succeeded when all or most of the populace have engaged, whereas coups d'etat have succeeded when small cabals have directly seized the levers of power without the populace participating.  Thinking globally and acting locally doesn't work because all too few are interested in thinking at all, and when they do, the response isn't global.  Concerted action only works when it can bring overwhelming force (persuasive, political, physical, or religious) to bear on its objects of change.  Given human nature, Good Luck. 

Stand outside a football stadium sometime and ask people the names of their Congresspeople and Senators, as well as the names of the stars on their home teams and the visiting teams, and see for yourself which questions the majority of them can answer correctly. 

 

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
ah2 wrote: We need to pull a

ah2 wrote:

We need to pull a page from the Right wing hand book.  They fabricate a reactionary astroturf movement in the Tea Party to make their increasingly conservative politics look main stream.  What we really need is not a progressive movement but a hardline socialist/communist one.  They would never get elected but it would tip the scales back in the "left" direction so people have some friggin perspective...

I wouldn't describe the Right as "conservative." That issue aside, what you're advocating reminded me of this: http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Ulysses, Nonetheless, I think

Ulysses,

Nonetheless, I think those of us who do think critically should think globally and act locally. Examples must be set in hopes that they will inspire still more examples. And so there's a model in place for when folks no longer have the option of not thinking globally and acting locally.

ah2
Garrett78 wrote: ah2

Garrett78 wrote:

ah2 wrote:

We need to pull a page from the Right wing hand book.  They fabricate a reactionary astroturf movement in the Tea Party to make their increasingly conservative politics look main stream.  What we really need is not a progressive movement but a hardline socialist/communist one.  They would never get elected but it would tip the scales back in the "left" direction so people have some friggin perspective...

I wouldn't describe the Right as "conservative." That issue aside, what you're advocating reminded me of this: http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated

 

yep this is exaclty what I mean.  Too bad it was named after someone already...  ha.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Small changes can make a

Small changes can make a difference, because those changes when implemented and shown to work are not as easily cast aside. Vermont just got single payer, and they purposely pursued that goal low key, so as not to get painted with a bulls eye. The former presidential candidate from Vermont was on Morning Joe discussing Ron Paul. He pointed out the demographics of Ron Pauls appeal within the subroup republicans. Ron Paul appeals to younger 18-35 voters. They have more a fiscal leaning [libertarian], they also see that old style republicans have always spent more money while claiming to be responsible. The old style base of hate the  gays, muslims, & seculars doesn't work on the young either because being young they know gays, muslims, and seculars personally.

Now, back to starting small. Look at the beginnings of CA's proposition movement, CA is not small, yet changes came.

I would start at PTA level. To make a point I want to use something Drc posted:

Quote:

If we need to, we could establish community political counseling centers where the disappointed and betrayed could find healing.

Pre- PTA contact the board and either the Principal or Superintendent to see if a pre/post seminar could be presented, since the facility is already appropriated, presentation tech available, and an informed speaker be it the Principle, Superintendent, or Teacher of Civics/American Govt, or city Council member.[depending on whether your home is in a municipality, township or smaller] If you have a local news paper, invite them. The contact levels and their respective names could be laid out in flow chart diagram style, shown in a  powerpoint and archived to internet.

A simulation of a grass roots action process could easily be shown point by point, time frame to time frame. For example a ballot measure to allow instant runoff in elections, at the local level. If the seminar in local/reagional civics is met with support, the next township over, or the the next contiguously connected munis could be offered voluntarily  the same presentation, or assistance to run their own.

When you don't vote, you also simultaneously assist the third branch that has more effect on your life than you can imagine. Judicial is where the decision to honor fraudulent mortgage papers, or eviction notices is made. It's also where citizens corruption... I mean united....came from.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
Ulysses wrote: Rosenthal

Ulysses wrote:

Rosenthal wrote:
To say that there is no difference between President Obama and Republicans is psycho talk. To advocate not voting or voting for a third party is the equivalent of voting Republican because if we Democrats show up, we win. If we don't show up, we lose or we are vulnerable to having an election stolen from us as was the 2000 election.

There is a difference, but not nearly as much of a difference as those of you naive enough to believe in the American two-party system believe.  Unless/until the infrastructure of the system is changed, this is an unending battle which will be fought for as long as the earth continues on until we poison ourselves into extinction with pollution, blow it up with nukes, or breed ourselves into extinction by using up all the resources.  It's hopelessly naive, and even stupid, to think there can be real change at all levels without infrastructural change to the system.  My grandfather used to say that the only real difference between the Dems and Republicans is that the Dems will let you earn half a loaf or give you one if you can't earn it, whereas the Republicans don't care whether you have a job to earn the half-loaf and if you don't, they'll let you starve in the gutter.  I've come to believe that he was right.

Quote:
The world would be a much better place today if Bush was not appointed as president. Now Al Gore had his problems. It was a huge tactical error to distance himself from the Clintons and if he had not done that then it would not have mattered that Nader drew critical votes away from Gore and Florida would not have been close enough have been stolen.

Gore sold out morally and ethically when he chose not to continue the battle after it became clear they were rigging it.

Quote:
I presume the clientele on this board is primarily Democrats so I have to question the motivations of anyone who comes here sowing discontent and advocating indifference or disaffection at the polls. What sane person would want another George Bush, or worse? And after watching the Republicans since November at both the federal and state levels, my goodness, what other proof do you need as to how dangerous these people are?
 

Bad presumption; some of us are progressives and only support the Dems because they're the lesser of two evils.  Dissent is patriotic and I am no less a good American than you are when I criticize Obama for being a corporate sellout on many points and a craven professional politican on others.  Just because I don't want Bush and his ilk doesn't mean that I think Obama's just ducky  in everything he does and great on all of his positions.  The degree of difference is well-expressed (but not directly analogous) when I tell you that just because I wouldn't want to live under Hitler or Stalin doesn't mean that I'd be ecstatic to live under Franco.

You are a naive individual.

You just compared President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco. I am not naive. What I am is a mainstream, moderate, and liberal Democrat. The difference between you and me is that people like me can and do attain office. We live in the real world and tend to reject the ridiculous, over the top stuff like the stuff you have generated here.

I don't like the word "progressive." It's a capitulation to the "conservative" effort to denigrate the word "liberal" but I have never before thought of it as a label for radical, over the top lefties who would compare President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco.

Dissent is not synonomous with discord and discontent. I have no problem with dissent and would agree that it is healthy. Discord and discontent is counter-productive and in this instance will only aid and abet Republicans. That's why they have professional shills on internet boards. They want to sow discord and discontent and dissuade the radical left from voting.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Howard Dean was the great

Howard Dean was the great statesman from the great state of Vermont.

interview_zizek is another perspective, he has wriiten quite a bit, this is just a sip

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Regarding the blame Nader

Regarding the blame Nader game: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/05/nader_gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ06OM9viRY&feature=related

http://www.commondreams.org/views/112000-106.htm

http://www.timwise.org/2000/11/no-more-mister-fall-guy-why-ralph-nader-is-not-to-blame-for-president-bush/

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Rosenthal wrote:You just

Rosenthal wrote:
You just compared President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco.

No, he really didn't. He was suggesting that Democrats are to Republicans as Franco was to Hitler/Stalin. It was an expression of the degree of difference (and, as he put it, not directly analogous).

You speak of a "radical left" in such a way that implies its membership consists of anyone who doesn't support the "lesser evil" neoliberal Democrats. By those standards, Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon were members of the "radical left."

The "real world" is a phrase that's lost meaning. The world consists of many factions and points of view. US "mainstreamers" and illogical "lesser evilizers" don't possess a monoply share of what's considered the "real world."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebK7VVDayY&feature=player_embedded#at=41

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
It's time to back a candidate

It's time to back a candidate who is not controlled by the powers that be, someone who emerges from the grassroots and can be trusted. That goes for the presidential as well as congressional campaigns.

Our economy has been taken over by those who advocate budget cuts targeted at the poor. Only by running third party candidates, free of the democratic party machinery, can we offer people a viable alternative. 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Garrett78 wrote: Rosenthal

Garrett78 wrote:

Rosenthal wrote:
You just compared President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco.

No, he really didn't. He was suggesting that Democrats are to Republicans as Franco was to Hitler/Stalin. It was an expression of the degree of difference (and, as he put it, not directly analogous).

You speak of a "radical left" in such a way that implies its membership consists of anyone who doesn't support the "lesser evil" neoliberal Democrats. By those standards, Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon were members of the "radical left."

The "real world" is a phrase that's lost meaning. The world consists of many factions and points of view. US "mainstreamers" and illogical "lesser evilizers" don't possess a monoply share of what's considered the "real world."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebK7VVDayY&feature=player_embedded#at=41

You, indeed, understood it.  Rosenthal qualifies for the title, "Epitome of Naivete," and did not understand it.  Rosenthal tried to distort my meaning, even though I put a disclaimer on it.  Real world?  Rosenthal is the one living in La La Land, and it's positions like Rosenthal's which actually obstruct MEANINGFUL change, because they're so willing to crawl along on their bellies, inch by inch, one step forward, one step back, for the power structure, until, of course, the power structure decides to rescind all the single steps forward via phenomena such as the "Reagan Revolution."  At that point, the Rosenthals of the world are content to commence crawling all over again, from their original starting point, all the while deluding themselves that they're accomplishing something, but never realizing, let alone admitting, that they never will, because they're playing on a rigged roulette wheel.  Sad. Very sad.  The worst part of it is that it isn't just their own problem.  If it were, others of us could simply leave them to their fools' folly and move on. Unfortunately, if they vote in enough numbers to control the opposition to the Right, they're able to drag the rest of us along for the bad ride.  It's at that point that I begin to despise and abhor them as drags on the rest of us, rather than simply pitying them for the naive twits that they are. 

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
Ulysses wrote: Garrett78

Ulysses wrote:

Garrett78 wrote:

Rosenthal wrote:
You just compared President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco.

No, he really didn't. He was suggesting that Democrats are to Republicans as Franco was to Hitler/Stalin. It was an expression of the degree of difference (and, as he put it, not directly analogous).

You speak of a "radical left" in such a way that implies its membership consists of anyone who doesn't support the "lesser evil" neoliberal Democrats. By those standards, Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon were members of the "radical left."

The "real world" is a phrase that's lost meaning. The world consists of many factions and points of view. US "mainstreamers" and illogical "lesser evilizers" don't possess a monoply share of what's considered the "real world."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebK7VVDayY&feature=player_embedded#at=41

You, indeed, understood it.  Rosenthal qualifies for the title, "Epitome of Naivete," and did not understand it.  Rosenthal tried to distort my meaning, even though I put a disclaimer on it.  Real world?  Rosenthal is the one living in La La Land, and it's positions like Rosenthal's which actually obstruct MEANINGFUL change, because they're so willing to crawl along on their bellies, inch by inch, one step forward, one step back, for the power structure, until, of course, the power structure decides to rescind all the single steps forward via phenomena such as the "Reagan Revolution."  At that point, the Rosenthals of the world are content to commence crawling all over again, from their original starting point, all the while deluding themselves that they're accomplishing something, but never realizing, let alone admitting, that they never will, because they're playing on a rigged roulette wheel.  Sad. Very sad.  The worst part of it is that it isn't just their own problem.  If it were, others of us could simply leave them to their fools' folly and move on. Unfortunately, if they vote in enough numbers to control the opposition to the Right, they're able to drag the rest of us along for the bad ride.  It's at that point that I begin to despise and abhor them as drags on the rest of us, rather than simply pitying them for the naive twits that they are. 

Unfortunately you have nothing to back any of bravado. I like Alan Grayson, don't get me wrong, but exactly what has he accomplished? Bernie Sanders is my favorite Senator and I am glad he's there, but he will never carry the Senate all by himself. He has to caucus with the Democrats and he rarely speaks against them the way you do.

Reality is that there are conservative forces within the Domocratic Party because that's the way it supposed to be and because the party is healthy. The Republican Party is sick, and there is a huge difference. Assertions to the contrary are utterly ridiculous and your need to attack me, personally, for giving you the facts of life ought to give you pause.

And at the end of the day your efforts at sowing discord and discontent are no different than cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
Ulysses wrote: Garrett78

Ulysses wrote:

Garrett78 wrote:

Rosenthal wrote:
You just compared President Obama to Hitler, Stalin, and Franco.

No, he really didn't. He was suggesting that Democrats are to Republicans as Franco was to Hitler/Stalin. It was an expression of the degree of difference (and, as he put it, not directly analogous).

You speak of a "radical left" in such a way that implies its membership consists of anyone who doesn't support the "lesser evil" neoliberal Democrats. By those standards, Dwight Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon were members of the "radical left."

The "real world" is a phrase that's lost meaning. The world consists of many factions and points of view. US "mainstreamers" and illogical "lesser evilizers" don't possess a monoply share of what's considered the "real world."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebK7VVDayY&feature=player_embedded#at=41

You, indeed, understood it.  Rosenthal qualifies for the title, "Epitome of Naivete," and did not understand it.  Rosenthal tried to distort my meaning, even though I put a disclaimer on it.  Real world?  Rosenthal is the one living in La La Land, and it's positions like Rosenthal's which actually obstruct MEANINGFUL change, because they're so willing to crawl along on their bellies, inch by inch, one step forward, one step back, for the power structure, until, of course, the power structure decides to rescind all the single steps forward via phenomena such as the "Reagan Revolution."  At that point, the Rosenthals of the world are content to commence crawling all over again, from their original starting point, all the while deluding themselves that they're accomplishing something, but never realizing, let alone admitting, that they never will, because they're playing on a rigged roulette wheel.  Sad. Very sad.  The worst part of it is that it isn't just their own problem.  If it were, others of us could simply leave them to their fools' folly and move on. Unfortunately, if they vote in enough numbers to control the opposition to the Right, they're able to drag the rest of us along for the bad ride.  It's at that point that I begin to despise and abhor them as drags on the rest of us, rather than simply pitying them for the naive twits that they are. 

Unfortunately you have nothing to back any of your bravado. I like Alan Grayson, don't get me wrong, but exactly what has he accomplished? Bernie Sanders is my favorite Senator and I am glad he's there, but he will never carry the Senate all by himself. He has to caucus with the Democrats and he rarely speaks against them the way you do. Reality is that there are conservative forces within the Democratic Party because that's the way it is supposed to be and because the party is healthy. Our political parties are coalition parties and your best and only hope to have your preferred policies as the policies of the land is to be a part of the coalition.

The Republican Party is sick because of its purists, and there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, there are elements of the Democratic Party that are venal and craven but it is nothing compared to the Republican Party. Again, just look at what has happened and is happening in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Here in Illinois we would be experience a similar assault on WE, THE PEOPLE but for the fact that Governor Quinn, a Democrat, prevailed.

Assertions to the contrary, that it doesn't matter which party is in power, are totally and utterly ridiculous. Moreover your apparent need to attack me, personally, for giving you the facts of life here ought to give even you pause. Attacking me and calling me names is going to do what for you, exactly? You're certainly not impressing me. Quite the contrary. When you behave like that you don't win friends and influence people.

And at the end of the day your efforts at sowing discord and discontent are no different than cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Rosenthal wrote:Unfortunately

Rosenthal wrote:
Unfortunately you have nothing to back any of your bravado.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Quote:
I like Alan Grayson, don't get me wrong, but exactly what has he accomplished? Bernie Sanders is my favorite Senator and I am glad he's there, but he will never carry the Senate all by himself. He has to caucus with the Democrats and he rarely speaks against them the way you do. Reality is that there are conservative forces within the Democratic Party because that's the way it is supposed to be and because the party is healthy. Our political parties are coalition parties and your best and only hope to have your preferred policies as the policies of the land is to be a part of the coalition.

Convenient alibi/rationale for sitting on your butt and not calling for REAL change.

Quote:
Assertions to the contrary, that it doesn't matter which party is in power, are totally and utterly ridiculous. Moreover your apparent need to attack me, personally, for giving you the facts of life here ought to give even you pause. Attacking me and calling me names is going to do what for you, exactly? You're certainly not impressing me. Quite the contrary. When you behave like that you don't win friends and influence people.

You're not intellectually capable of giving anybody the facts of life, because you prefer delusion to reality.  If calling you out for choosing to believe hallucinations is attacking you, so be it.  As I've said, I believe knucklers under like you are a major part of the problem.  Impressing you?!  Where did you ever stumble on the hallucination that impressing you was ever my goal in the first place?  You'd do well to remember that deluded people eventually cave in.  Winning friends and influencing people is not my goal, either.  I do realize that whenever you crawlers are held hard up against true reality, you panic, make faulty assumptions, and run from it like ants on a hotplate.  Who cares?!!!

Quote:
And at the end of the day your efforts at sowing discord and discontent are no different than cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Go bark in the wind, pinhead.

P.S.  Hell, you couldn't even get the format for posting in this thread correct; you unnecessarily posted your last response twice.  That's typical of the ineptitude displayed by all too many establishment politicians of both parties, Democrats included, and their apologists, like you.  Many of them govern ineptly and fight the Republicans ineptly, and their apologists, like you, post responses ineptly.  Keep on figuratively taking knives to political gunfights and enjoy yourself when they keep eating your lunch.  Dummy!

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
ROTFLMAO. Ad hominems, no

ROTFLMAO.

Ad hominems, no matter how many you spew, don't constitute a real argument. Moreover you're not very good at it.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
Boohaha, Ulyses: Barack Obama

Boohaha, Ulyses: Barack Obama is president and he's going to win again in 2012.

ROTFLMAO.

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Well, I don't think the

Well, I don't think the powers-that-be who vetted Obama several years ago have any reason to be disappointed.

SueN
SueN's picture
Please do not attack fellow

Please do not attack fellow members; not only is it against te forum rules, but it is a sign that you have lost the argument.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
SueN wrote: Please do not

SueN wrote:

Please do not attack fellow members; not only is it against te forum rules, but it is a sign that you have lost the argument.

Sue, thank you for this but I have to take some minor issue with "you have lost the argument." And please understand that this is not directed at you. This is more of a statement of where I am coming from here and of course anyone is free to take it or leave it.

I am not in any kind of competition with anyone here. It is not a win or lose proposition, but rather some words on an internet discussion board. There is no winning or losing. Any ego involved is pure ridiculousness.

I like discussing politics and economics and that discussion is the end in and of itself. The problem with the rude name-calling and ad hominem is not a matter of winning and losing but rather it is a complete waste of time and energy. I guarantee everyone here that it's not going to affect me in any meaningful way, except that I am not going to hold people who behave this way toward me or toward anyone else in high regard, for whatever that is worth.

My real cause here is to defeat "conservatives" and Republicans because I regard them as detrimental and dangerous. We experienced them for 8 long years of George Bush's wars and policies grossly favoring the top 1% to the detriment of everyone else, culminating with an economy that needed a bailout of trillions of dollars. Anyone who operates against Democrats is indeed cutting off their noses to spite their faces and there is nothing naive about that conclusion.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Garrett78 wrote: Well, I

Garrett78 wrote:

Well, I don't think the powers-that-be who vetted Obama several years ago have any reason to be disappointed.

Touche; no, indeed they do not.

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
I'm currently reading

I'm currently reading Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon Wolin. From the chapter titled, "Domestic Politics":

Sheldon Wolin wrote:
While the Republican Party is ever-vigilant about the care and feeding of its zealots, the Democratic Party is equally concerned to discourage its democrats.

The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts points to the crucial fact that, for the poor, minorities, the working class, anticorporatists, pro-environmentalists, and anti-imperialists, there is no opposition party working actively on their behalf. And this despite the fact that these elements are recognized as the loyal base of the party. By ignoring dissent and by assuming that the dissenters have no alternative, the party serves an important, if ironical, stabilizing function and in effect marginalizes any possible threat to the corporate allies of the Republicans.

Later, in a chapter titled, "Demotic Moments":

Sheldon Wolin wrote:
Today the challenge for democrats is to recover lost ground, to "popularize" political institutions and practices that have become severed from popular control. It involves renewing the meaning and substance of "representative democracy" by affirming the primacy of Congress, curbing the growth of presidential power, disentangling the stranglehold of lobbyists, democratizing the party system by eliminating barriers to third parties, and enforcing an austere system of campaign finance.

Put simply, the Democratic Party is being anti-democratic when it attempts to keep "third" party candidates out of the debate and off the ballot. As are those who support those anti-democratic efforts.

Rosenthal
Rosenthal's picture
For those of you who hate

For those of you who hate President Obama, I don't know him personally. However I have friends who served with him in the Illinois Senate, one of whom rommed with him in Springfield.

It's not so easy being POTUS and the hand that the Republicans dealt to President Obama was the worst handoff since Lincoln took over. Moreover Republicans have been worse than atrocious, not caring how much damage they would cause as long as they can thwart President Obama. They're still at it, as Bernie Sanders stated today.

Anyway my friends say that President Obama is the real deal. I know radical lefties love conspiracy theories but President Obama is not bought. He is fighting for us and you Obama haters are selling him short.

You aren't going to get any better than President Obama. You sow discord and discontent to your own peril and to the benefit of the truly pernicious forces you claim to oppose.