No it most certainly is not. It is sheer hypocrisy to vote Democrat in the hopes that your interests will be furthered when you’ve been convinced that the Democrats are not going to further your interests. The Christian Coalition can go fuck itself, since my decision not to vote has nothing to do with what I think they want or don’t want. It has to do completely with whether or not I believe voting will further my interests. I don’t, so I’m not going to.
Bullshit. If I wanted to consciously work to "re-"elect Bush, I’d register with the DC Republican Party, attend GOP fundraisers, hand out Bush election material on the street, and go into that voting booth on November 2nd and pull the lever with his name on it. And if it looked like a close call in a state I’d go down with a bunch of my Republican friends and cause disturbances outside the recount centers. Kerry can do his own goddamn work to get himself elected, and if he even thinks about putting any effort into his campaign he’ll probably do much better than Gore did. Don’t blame us for being disgusted with the Democrats; blame the Democrats for being disgusting.
And the Republicans will? It has already been shown to you that there are several degrees of difference between the two parties. The Demos may not be progressive enough for you, but they are sure going to be more amenable to your goals than the GOP will.
But you fail to see that not voting is what they want. Your current stance makes Karl Rove a very happy man. By all means, stay home, don’t vote. Let Bush get reelected.
Yeah, that’ll further your goals.
You don’t know what hypocrisy means, do you? Go look it up and come back.
At any rate, you persist in missing the point. You’re not choosing the option that’ll further your goals; you’re choosing the option that’ll prevent your goals from being thwarted.
Or you don’t vote, and you choose to let your goals be thwarted in this one specific real way.
In any case, you’re making a choice: to prevent your goals from being thwarted, to let them be thwarted, or to support their being thwarted. Pat Robertson knows that you won’t choose the last one, so he’s really hoping you’ll choose the middle one. Be proud that you’re cooperating so nicely with him–when the next Supreme Court Justices are up for nomination, if Bush is the one doing the nomination, you can nudge your friends and say, “See? I helped that happen!”
Politics is real. The choice you make has consequences. Be proud, at least, of what those consequences will be.
Daniel
[QUOTE=gobear]
And the Republicans will? It has already been shown to you that there are several degrees of difference between the two parties. The Demos may not be progressive enough for you, but they are sure going to be more amenable to your goals than the GOP will.
[quote]
No they’re not. Clinton expanded the death penalty; I support its abolition. Kerry shows absolutely no spine on the question of gay marriage; I support its full and immediate implementation. The Democrats think capitalism can be fixed to work for everybody; I want to chuck the whole rotten system out and build something new.
Good for them. Give me an alternative that’s clearly worth voting for, and I’ll gladly get in that booth and pull the lever, and sing “Fuck You, Christian Coalition” to the chorus of The Battle Hymn of the Republic so that the people waiting in line can hear.
I’m sure Karl Rove is also made happy by any Democratic fumblings that alienate more potential voters. The Democrats owe it to us to make themselves deserving of our votes; we don’t owe the Democrats our vote simply because they’re not Republicans.
I agree with you on that point, but that’s not the point anymore. Based on what I saw last night, if enough people do not refocus efforts at least this once on defeating George Bush, you might lose all your rights in the near future, including voting. He is the most serious threat to civil liberties since King George III. You not only won’t be having a revolution, you won’t even be writing about it. Refusing to vote for Kerry right now to show support for Marxism is like refusing to dodge a bullet to show support for pacifism. You won’t have more support because of the oppression. It isn’t being sold as oppression. It’s being sold as patriotism, and nothing can come of it but disaster. You’re making the same mistakes as Marxists in 1920’s Germany.
Harassment of whistleblowers does not impending fascism make. I agree it’s disgusting, but it happens all the time both in government and in business. This is just a particularly high-profile case. (OT: What was Clinton’s response to the 1994 spill?)
Your analogy is a little too painfully stretched, unfortunately. Weimar Germany was in the depths of a horrendous economic and political crisis. The capitalists weren’t able to impose the old order by themselves, and the left, though organized, was not sufficiently so to make a successful push for working-class power. In those delicately balanced conditions it was easy for the fascists to make an appearance and appeal to the working class’ desperation and anger (i.e. selling oppression as patriotism) while at the same time garnering political and financial support from German capitalism to impose order.
The US is not in the same sort of crisis. Bush, however right-wing and putrid his politics, is not a fascist. On the other hand, the Democrats aren’t doing much to actually stand up to the Republicans - they’ve rolled over on many of the major issues Bush has railroaded through. If the Democrats really were a party of opposition, like the Social-Democrats of Weimar Germany, then yes - it would be a mistake of historic proportions to refuse to support them and work alongside them against the right-wing offensive. But they’re not; they’re the junior partner in that same offensive. The Democrats are not a real alternative, and it is not a mistake to reject them and their politics.
Okay, so we’re back in the desert again. Olentzero is dehydrated and near-death, and I’m standing there with two glasses – one empty, the other half-full.
“Which one do you want?” I ask.
“Fuck that! Gimmie a cheeseburger!” Olentzero retorts.
I dig through my pockets, and produce two crumbs of bread. “That’s the closest I’ve got, enjoy.” I then drink the half-full glass of water, and vanish in a flash of light.
Olentzero forces the crumbs down his parched throat, then wonders why he’s still dying if dehydration.
There’s a moral to the story somewhere, but I lost it under the seat cushions.
I never thought I’d see this day, but here it is, and I’ll say it. Libertarian is *not * the most rigid, blinkered, choleric ideologue on this board; by comparison he’s become a voice of reason and sanity.
And when I was a kid, I wanted a pony. And getting good grades wasn’t gonna make that happen, so why bother…
Wow, you’re right: one party, if elected, will hit you over the head on Tuesdays with a 2x4, and the other won’t do a thing for you on Tuesdays, but won’t hit you either. I mention this to you, and you say, “such a tasty crumb!” I say, OK, but don’t blame me when you wake up in an alley with your head sore.
Not to mention, whether the guys you sneered at may actually help you on Wednesday or Friday isn’t important to you.
Basically had to institute a fee system that was more expensive than what insurers paid to doctors - and it’s one of the reasons Medicare’s not doing so great from an actuarial standpoint.
Yeah, and in the long run we are all dead.
And you’ll have so much more of it that needs doing! Lucky you.
Not without vetoing the entire budget, I expect. Besides, you can’t exactly veto a cut. You know this.
Wrong; he was head of GE. Unless GE owned UPS, which seems a bit improbable.
‘It’ did? No, the Teamsters did. (Go back and re-read your Debs quote.)
Whatever you say; all I know about this is what you’re telling me right now. But at any rate, that point about building up confidence was one of mine too - which is why an administration that isn’t overtly hostile to labor can give room for the possibility of confidence-building victories. A GOP administration will do its best to choke any hope for labor before it is born.
Well, you know what, I don’t lower my expectations either. But I know not all of my expectations are going to be met by next January, no matter who’s elected. So I ask myself: which candidate that can win, will minimize the distance between reality and expectations? Costs me nothing to vote for that candidate.
Because an inconsistent friend is better than an outright enemy?
I think something’s happening out there. The Internet has changed things. McCain-Feingold has changed things. Dean gave the Dems a backbone transplant. Pelosi isn’t gonna back off anything. No, I think right now, 2004, is the ‘when’ to break on through.
Because they’ve executed Tim McVeigh?
OK, then, don’t bitch at me when Bush’s judicial activists rewrite laws you’d taken for granted. But I will sure as hellfire bitch at you.
Awww, one vote! Lookit how slimy he is, he dodged one tough vote! Oooh no, a snake, a snake, oooh, it’s a snaaaaaake!
Yeah, like that makes him anywhere near as slimy as Bush, who lied every which way from Sunday to get us into Iraq.
Me, in December 2000. If I could have pushed a button and guaranteed that no new laws would have been passed between January 2001 and January 2005, just one long continuing budget resolution, I would have done it so fast your head would have spun.
I disagree with your assessment of capitalism; it’s certainly got its flaws, but it does produce wealth that can be divided up. I see no real evidence that communism can do that. But you’re right; the Dems believe in capitalism with some restrictions and regulations. The GOP believes in capitalism with no restraints.
yeah, on that one issue. But overall, what’s happened?
Exactly.
And if they did, the world would differ little in 50 years from the world in which they stayed their course.
With all due respect, Kim - and unfortunately your aggressively snide attitude has greatly lessened that amount, in my opinion - how the fuck would you know? Are you fucking Michel de Nostradame, with the entire future of the world in the palm of your hand? Times change. The world changes. Things that seemed rock solid crumble into dust. In 1894 the Russian autocracy seemed unassailable, but a mere 23 years later there were changes the likes of which history had never seen. Those kind of radical changes can happen here as well, because the same social and political contradictions that existed then exist now.
Me staying home and not voting does not automatically guarantee a Bush victory, nor would a Bush victory be the direct result of me staying home. The Democrats failed to appeal to half the voting population of the US, and that’s their own damn fault. If they want to win those votes, they might actually have to try moving further to the left. But they’re too scared of losing their powerful conservative wing and their powerful corporate support, so they’re going to continue appealing to just 25% of the voting population and scrabbling for the swing vote of the less conservative Republicans. Their shortcomings are not my fault, and blaming the people who are disgusted with the Democrats rather than blaming the Democrats for being disgusting is absolute folly.
You keep telling me that the Democrats aren’t like the Republicans, but the best you can muster in support of your argument is that they won’t send us to hell in a handbasket quite as quickly as the Republicans would. How is that supposed to inspire confidence in me, or anyone else for that matter, in the future? Am I supposed to live a long and happy life knowing that by voting Democrat, I’ve only delayed the slide into barbarism so that my children or grandchildren get to enjoy it? And yet, when I say “no thanks” to such an option, and try to find another solution entirely, your hatred of the Republicans swamps your ability to think and discuss rationally and you hurl opprobrium and snide remarks regarding an organzation you know absolutely nothing about.
Next to Polycarp, I regarded you as one of the most level-headed Dopers on the boards. These other guys on the thread, I’m used to their tactics of attacking me and/or the ISO instead of the arguments I lay out. And it’s no less annoying for it. But it’s something I never expected from you, and it’s saddening to see. If you really want to debate the merits and shortcomings of the Democrats, by all means let’s do so, even here in the Pit. But if you want to resort to the tactics of ignorance and keep insulting me and the organization to which I belong, simply because we differ in our opinions on the Democratic Party, then it is with no small amount of sadness that I’ll have to ask you to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.
Ahem.
At this point, I will likely vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. I’m not crazy about them either, but let that slide.
Given the options of only Bush and Kerry, however, I’d take Bush.
My reasoning is nearly the same as Olentzero’s: I am not happy with the platforms or the people of either major party, therefore I will choose to vote for the candidate whose views most closely match mine, even if it does lead to what I’d consider the greater of two evils.
I can only hope that if enough people do the same, one of the major parties might reconfigure themselves in such as way as to attract my vote.
Now, does anyone arguing with Olentzero that he’s throwing his vote away want to tell me that I should vote for Bush because he’s more electable?
No, they don’t. We don’t have an absolute monarchy, an entrenched, parasitic aristocracy, nor do we have landless peasants in a largely agrarian society, nor do we have an alienated, disenfranchised urban proletariat. And the changes in Russia between Nicholas II and Gorbachev are nothing to brag about.
And that demonstrates your lack of knowledge. Unlike Czarist Russians, 21st century Americans are invested in their system. People don’t want revolution and land distribution, they want DVD players, SUVs, and jobs. Skewing further left will only further marginalize the Democrats. You might dislike it, but you can’t say it’s not so.
You have called me names, I did not respond in kind. I have not attacked your political orientation or the ISO in particular, only your decision not to vote for Kerry, and for you to assert that I have attacked you personally is, excuse my Anglo-Saxon, a goddamned lie.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
My guess, furt, is not likely. I’m sure most of the Democratic supporters in this thread would be more than happy to see the existing conservative vote split among two or three right-wing candidates, as that would mean a greater chance of election for their man Kerry. The main problem is that these folks see the reality of a disaffected voting population of 50%, with the Democrats and the Republicans evenly splitting the remainder, and assume that these are the conditions under which they have to work, without questioning if that is really so, let alone asking themselves if or how they could change that.
My biggest fear is that this Kerry fellow will turn out to be another Clinton — a conservative wearing a liberal armband. Has there been any clue as to who his AG will be?
Sure, those 50% of people who didn’t vote in 2000 are simply a lazy bunch of plutocrats.
If you’d ever paid attention to any of the threads in which I’ve discussed the Soviet Union, you’d know how I stood on the subject.
100 million disaffected voters. They’re all Republicans?
You remember this little phrase at all?
True, you didn’t respond in kind because you fired the first shot.
More from your first post here:
Or will you hide behind the defense that that was an impersonal “you” and not directed towards me specifically?
Thanks for removing that mote from my eye. That beam looks awful uncomfortable, though.
He is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, same as both Bill and Hillary Clinton. I recommend reading the document Progressive Internationalism on the Progressive Policy Institute website for a good taste of what the DLC sees as the future of US foreign policy. Heck, you guys, leaf through the whole database and come back with what you think might sway me to vote for the Democrats.
I apologize for the “loony” but for nothing else, because those are criticisms of your actions.
Actions. At least then you had the excuse of not knowing the depths to which the Bush regime would sink. Now you have the obligation to get rid of him.
They sure aren’t peasants or starving factory workers. They’re just not motivated to vote. Saying that our society exactly parallels Czarist Russia is nonsense.
As I recall, you employed the “One True Marxist” defense.
Thinly-disguised attacks at best. You want to criticize actions? “Not voting for the Democrats was a mistake; here is why the Democrats are a viable political alternative.” And so on. “You screwed up; go join the GOP” is not a criticism, it is an attack.
To paraphrase you - If you can’t see the difference, then maybe you should stay here in the Pit and out of the other forums for all the good your behavior accomplishes.
Now was that a criticism of your actions or an attack?
Exactly? Of course they don’t. But they are both class societies subject to the rule of capitalism; the contradictions inherent in capitalism as a whole are found in both.
Then you recall quite wrongly. I direct you to this post which examines the matter independent of political criticisms of the leaders involved.
A criticism, obviously, and possibly a useful one.
Oh, that–since you know that you and I believe in diametrically opposed political philosophies, we can just agree that we will NEVER see eye-to-eye on that subject.
As for your referenced post:
As I said, the No True Marxist defense. I recall quite rightly.