Well, so much for voting this November.

[RTFirefly]

Awww, fer fuck’s sake. Are Naderites (and my friend Olentzero) playing the “Democrats have sold their souls, so it doesn’t make any difference to us if Bush gets re-elected” game again?

Point Numero Uno: This is only secondarily about the Democratic Party. The point of voting is to, hopefully, choose the guy who’s best for the country.

Point Numero Two-o: If lefties “punish” the Dems by voting for Nader rather than Kerry, and Bush gets elected, how exactly is this a victory for liberalism? It’s not. It’s a fucking hell for liberalism, not to mention for the American people that we liberals are supposedly fighting for.

Yeah, another four years of zero impediment on corporate rule: that’s exactly what the American people need, and they’ll get it good and hard.

Point Numero Three-o: if Kerry, who’s certainly given some blowjobs to the corporate world in 20 years as a Senator, wins over Bush, you think there’s a chance that his policies will be more friendly to average Americans than those of George Bush, who never met a corporate interest he wasn’t ready to blow, and who’s willing to fuck over typical Americans until the cows come home in order to better serve the rich and his corporate masters?

Point Numero Four-O: If Bush is elected, do you think the Big Lie Machine that is the current White House and the GOP generally will diminish in influence, so that liberal ideas are more easily heard? Or would it be easier to counter the disinformation of the right if we had at least one of the branches of government occasionally helping out?

Point Numero Five-O: Under which possible President will it be more likely that Americans will have a chance to see the success of some at least mildly progressive policies? And do you think that it might be easier or harder to sell Americans on actual liberal policies after mildly progressive policies have been visible for awhile, as opposed to the policies of corporate rapaciousness?

I mean, I just don’t get it. I don’t care how far to the left you are, barring the extreme that hopes for armed revolution (even though conservatives have most of the guns), it’s hard to see how another four years of Bush can be better for the country, in your POV, than four years of Kerry, no matter how tainted you think Kerry is.

And anybody who can’t see the enormous gulf between a pol like Kerry, however compromised a Dem you think he is, and a right-wing true believer like Bush, has my sympathy. I’ll chip in toward your white cane and seeing-eye dog. Whatever you think of today’s Democrats, there’s never in my fifty years been as enormous a gap between the two parties as there is today. It’s a fuckin’ Grand Canyon there.

[Soapbox, as if I weren’t there already. But even more so.]
You know what I think? I think 2004’s for all the marbles. Another four years of Republican rule, and we’ll be well on the road to where the wages of American and Indian workers meet somewhere in the middle, even as our GDP soars, and the shareholder class laughs all the way to the bank. But I think we have one last good chance to do something about that, this year, even if it’s just putting on the brakes. The question I have for Olentzero & Co. is:

Whose side are you on?

[/Soapbox]

[Liberal]

Whose side are you on?

I’m on mine.

[rjung]

RTFirefly omitted one more point in his list:

Point Numero-Six-o: If you think four years of George W. Bush were scary enough, do you really want four more years of George W. Bush as a lame-duck President with no accountability whatsoever?

“Hell, I’m gonna be out in 2008 anyway, let’s really turn the thumbscrews now!”

[Lemur866]

Actually, I believe that Olentzero really is a member of the extreme fringe who hopes for an armed revolution. Or at least a “revolution”, since I’m pretty sure he’d prefer it to be bloodless. But in any case, our existing political and economic structures would have to be swept away and society reorganized on Marxist principles.

[UncleBeer]

Another four years of Republican rule, and we’ll be well on the road to where the wages of American and Indian workers meet somewhere in the middle, even as our GDP soars, and the shareholder class laughs all the way to the bank.

You’re aware, of course, that more than 50% of U.S. households own stock, right?

And please, define “typical American.”

[UncleBeer]

Point Numero-Six-o: If you think four years of George W. Bush were scary enough, do you really want four more years of George W. Bush as a lame-duck President with no accountability whatsoever?

Interesting. I was unaware that the Constitution, with it’s elaborate system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, had been repealed. When did that happen?

Look, I, too, think Bush is a fuck-up, out of his league, and likely to go down in history as one of our worst presidents, but you guys really are starting to sound like Chicken Littles. We’ve had incompetent fuck-ups as presidents before and whether you’ve noticed or not, the union is still standing. You guys are in danger of losing your perspective. If you guys are so afraid the sky is gonna collapse onto your heads if Bush wins another term, you need to do more than just stump for Kerrey, because no matter what you do, the presidential race is gonna be damned close; you need to do everything you can to take back control of the Congress. That might be more important than getting your man in the Whitehouse.

[blowero]

@bookbuster

I hate the attitude, “If you knew what you were actually doing by voting for Nader, you would be ashamed.”

I hate Nader.

[dublos]

Every few years the United States has something I prefer to call citizens’ day rather than election day. It’s not about celebrating who wins, it’s about celebrating the fact that we get to let our voice be heard.

@Olentzero

And if an independent whose politics and strategy I do approve of doesn’t come along, I’ll be staying home. Oh no wait, no I won’t. Nov 2nd is my birthday so I’ll be going out. Just not voting for Nader, though - simply partying it up.

In this regard Olentzero I must say… In my opinion you are an asshat. So there isn’t a presidential candidate you want to vote for on the ballot, do you really think that the presidential election is the only thing on your ballot? Leave that section blank if there isn’t anyone you like, but get your butt to the polling place and fill out the rest of the thing!

And yes, if your statistics posted later in the thread are correct I consider the 104.6 million people who were part of the “total population eligible to vote” and didn’t equally asshats in this same regard.

@bookbuster

There is no such thing as “stealing votes.” The phrase makes no sense.

@John Mace

Well put. Politicians don’t own the votes of any person or group of people. One politician can’t “steal votes” from another. The assumptions behind that kind of statement are actually pretty scary if you think about them.

Bookbuster and John Mace I disagree. Exit polls in Florida asked people if their candidate had not been in the race, which would they have voted for. Of those that would have voted, were Nader not in the race, a large enough number would have voted for Gore to change the election results.

On that basis I am willing to say Nader stole the election from Gore. I’m not particularly rabid on this particular topic because that’s still third hand knowledge and as I haven’t seen what questions were actually asked, how they were phrased, or how many voting districts were actually polled. If someone can come up with a cite that has all the particulars on this I might get really angry about it all.

But the general idea that a third (or fourth or fifth) entrant into the race will inevitably sway some of the voters who would have voted for a different candidate is certainly a valid one and there is every reason for the supporters of the candidate they were swayed from to consider that stealing.

This is especially true when that third (or fourth or fifth) candidate has zero chance of actually winning the election himself or herself.

@Olentzero

Make your case, then. Why should I vote for the Democrats if I find them just as distasteful as the Republicans? It’s kind of like asking an observant Jew whether he’d like a ham sandwich or a pork chop for lunch.

On this front Olentzero , please allow me to adjust your metaphor. It’s like telling an observant Jew that for the next four years the only menu options will be a ham sandwich or pork chops and asking them to choose which they prefer. Not voting does not get them a kosher meal on the menu, all it does is let other people determine which of the foods their religion won’t permit them to eat will be served to them.

In the final examination I really do not care who you vote for or even if you fill out the presidential section of the ballot, but if you don’t vote at all, you are an asshat.

[Frank]

@dublos

And yes, if your statistics posted later in the thread are correct I consider the 104.6 million people who were part of the “total population eligible to vote” and didn’t equally asshats in this same regard.

…

In the final examination I really do not care who you vote for or even if you fill out the presidential section of the ballot, but if you don’t vote at all, you are an asshat.

I would much rather have a smaller amount of informed voters than a bunch of asshats pulling levers at random or whim or the stray movement of their brain cell. But that’s just me.

[Surreal]

Otto-“Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes.”

Which means that 365 of the voters in New Mexico who cast their ballot for Gore could have not voted, and it would not have affected the outcome of the election. In fact, ALL of the voters in New Mexico who cast their ballot for Gore could have stayed home on election day, and he STILL would have lost.

Otto-“Every vote matters.”

Total non-sequitur.

[Olentzero]

@RTFirefly

Awww, fer fuck’s sake. Are Naderites (and my friend Olentzero) playing the “Democrats have sold their souls, so it doesn’t make any difference to us if Bush gets re-elected” game again?

“Sold their souls”? You mean, like, once they were the party of the honest working man or something like that? They weren’t ever, say, the party of the Southern slaveowners, or vicious opponents of Reconstruction? Or they never promised not to take the US into war and then did it anyway after an election? Or never lied as a pretext to taking the US into war? They’ve been as bad as the Republicans since before the Republicans ever got into office.

Point Numero Uno: This is only secondarily about the Democratic Party. The point of voting is to, hopefully, choose the guy who’s best for the country.

I look at it slightly differently. I’m looking for the person who would be best at helping the US working class get organized. I don’t care if someone is good for the country 'cos the state of the Union doesn’t matter to me. It’s the state of my class I’m worried about.

Point Numero Two-o: If lefties “punish” the Dems by voting for Nader rather than Kerry, and Bush gets elected, how exactly is this a victory for liberalism? It’s not. It’s a fucking hell for liberalism, not to mention for the American people that we liberals are supposedly fighting for.

It’s only a hell if we sit down and take it. And if the left votes Kerry simply because Kerry is not Bush, what’s to compel Kerry to take up the issues that concern us, to say nothing of actually being on our side on those same issues?

Yeah, another four years of zero impediment on corporate rule: that’s exactly what the American people need, and they’ll get it good and hard.

So the Democrats have never ever EVER done the same thing for corporations?

Point Numero Three-o: if Kerry, who’s certainly given some blowjobs to the corporate world in 20 years as a Senator, wins over Bush, you think there’s a chance that his policies will be more friendly to average Americans than those of George Bush, who never met a corporate interest he wasn’t ready to blow, and who’s willing to fuck over typical Americans until the cows come home in order to better serve the rich and his corporate masters?

Nope. How much is he worth? $500 million? He’s got the same interests as Bush has, he just appears to know how to coat them in chocolate so more of us will swallow them. No thanks.

Point Numero Four-O: If Bush is elected, do you think the Big Lie Machine that is the current White House and the GOP generally will diminish in influence, so that liberal ideas are more easily heard? Or would it be easier to counter the disinformation of the right if we had at least one of the branches of government occasionally helping out?

How’s Kerry gonna help us out? Is he gonna force the Washington Post to set aside a whole op-ed page for far left opinions? Is he gonna offer federal subsidies to Socialist Worker? What’s he gonna do, Kim?

Point Numero Five-O: Under which possible President will it be more likely that Americans will have a chance to see the success of some at least mildly progressive policies? And do you think that it might be easier or harder to sell Americans on actual liberal policies after mildly progressive policies have been visible for awhile, as opposed to the policies of corporate rapaciousness?

Mildly progressive ain’t enough, IMHO. Furthermore, if we depend on the good graces of Kerry and the Democrats to give us whatever crumbs they can be bothered to drop off the table, who’s to say they won’t be overturned by another Republican president four or eight years down the road? I heard it said once that if victory for liberalism was keeping a Democrat in the White House, then the battle’s already been lost.

I mean, I just don’t get it. I don’t care how far to the left you are, barring the extreme that hopes for armed revolution (even though conservatives have most of the guns), it’s hard to see how another four years of Bush can be better for the country, in your POV, than four years of Kerry, no matter how tainted you think Kerry is.

Like I said, if there isn’t any grassroots organizing and mobilization going on, it’s irrelevant who’s got the Oval Office. Howard Zinn once said “It doesn’t matter who’s sitting in the White House, it matters who’s sitting in.” And I couldn’t agree with that more.

And anybody who can’t see the enormous gulf between a pol like Kerry, however compromised a Dem you think he is, and a right-wing true believer like Bush, has my sympathy. I’ll chip in toward your white cane and seeing-eye dog.

Well, let’s not get that drastic, Kim. Why don’t you show me where those vast differences are, then? Let’s start with Iraq. OK, Kerry believes the US shouldn’t rely as heavily on unilateralism as Bush has. That’s nice. However, he doesn’t reject unilateralism out of hand - and he wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq. I hardly call that a step in the right direction.

Whatever you think of today’s Democrats, there’s never in my fifty years been as enormous a gap between the two parties as there is today. It’s a fuckin’ Grand Canyon there.

Illustrate your point, please. Give me something solid to chew on rather than mild histrionics.

I think 2004’s for all the marbles. Another four years of Republican rule, and we’ll be well on the road to where the wages of American and Indian workers meet somewhere in the middle, even as our GDP soars, and the shareholder class laughs all the way to the bank.

You mean that wasn’t happening under Clinton?

The question I have for Olentzero & Co. is:Whose side are you on?

The side of my class; neither they nor their interests are represented by the Democratic Party.

[erislover]

@UncleBeer

Interesting. I was unaware that the Constitution, with it’s elaborate system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, had been repealed. When did that happen?

Secret meeting. Sorry, executive privilege. You don’t need to know.

[jayjay]

Oh, for Og’s sake…

Even if Kerry took to his bed immediately after the election and didn’t come out for the entire next four years, he’d be a better president than Dubya. At least he’d be doing nothing instead of turning every damn thing he touches into a pile of feces.

[Otto]

@UncleBeer

You’re aware, of course, that more than 50% of U.S. households own stock, right?

How many of them are like me, who owns stock only because it comes from my employer? I own somehing like 0.73 share. You make it sound like half the country’s population are “in the market” as opposed to, say, having a small 401(k) or company stock purchase plan.

[dublos]

@This Year's Model

I would much rather have a smaller amount of informed voters than a bunch of asshats pulling levers at random or whim or the stray movement of their brain cell. But that’s just me.

Yep… Informed voters, that’d sure be nice.

Though, were you trying to imply the 105.4 million that did vote were better informed than the 104.6 million that did not? I don’t know if there would be a lot of supporting evidence for that.

Voting is a right, an eligible voter who doesn’t exercise it is an asshat. One that does exercise it without bothering to become informed is, in my opinion, also an asshat.

[Frank]

@dublos

Though, were you trying to imply the 105.4 million that did vote were better informed than the 104.6 million that did not? I don’t know if there would be a lot of supporting evidence for that.

I don’t know if I implied it, but I was definitely assuming it. Seems to me anyone who cares enough to vote would also care enough to learn enough to make an informed decision. Evidence for this? Diddley-squat. Just a feeling, which I readily admit could be wrong.

[Liberal]

Voting is a right…

Not according to Justice Scalia.

[Otto]

@Surreal

Which means that 365 of the voters in New Mexico who cast their ballot for Gore could have not voted, and it would not have affected the outcome of the election. In fact, ALL of the voters in New Mexico who cast their ballot for Gore could have stayed home on election day, and he STILL would have lost.

What I said, and which you might have missed behind the sneer, is that a few votes shifting in certain states would have made Florida moot. I did not discuss who ultimately won or lost.

Otto-“Every vote matters.”

Total non-sequitur.

Is that all you got? Functional illiteracy and a fancy Latin phrase?

[Liberal]

[Data voice]

I can assist with the translation. By “non sequitur”, the gentleman means literally, “(it) does not follow”. It is a reference to a fallacy of the predicate calculus in which one premise is not deduced from another by means of any acceptable formula or rule.

[/Data voice]

[erislover]

How is the communist party ever supposed to win without you, Olentzero? It’s people like you who make this country the pre-marxist unparadise it is! I hope you enjoy your birthday, meanwhile I’ll be lamenting the tyranny of the damnable borgeoisie.

…

Wait, are you even a communist anymore?