Voting for Third Party Candidates or Chaos
This is a bit of a sequel to my first essay. I'm just trying to probe the overall mood around here, whilst still trying to get into my stride. This was a bit of a pain in the ass to write since I couldn't seem to get it quite right.
Is it okay to vote one's conscience even though it may result in a terrible candidate elected for president? There are plenty of people that would like to guilt people into voting for their favored candidate. I question the wisdom of the whole Bernie-or-bust mentality. I don't wanna begrudge people who would vote for Jill Stein instead of Hillary, if she is the nominee, like people who voted for Nader instead of Gore. I'm way more sympathetic to those kinds of voters, and that's probably because I find myself in a similar boat coming into the GE. I mean, there comes a time when the argument for voting for the lesser of two evils starts to lose its impact. You just get sick and tired of that shit. And just how effective is the Supreme Court nomination to young people?
One prominent poster from the Dutch National Soccer Team Site (TOS)—as well as maybe a few commenters on there—have said that some people are privileged enough to advocate for chaos. I remember someone being critical of one of OPOL's last diaries and accused him of "consistently impugning the integrity and intelligence of those who vote for a different candidate than you. In my years positing on Dkos there has never been a user that has espoused the ideals of white privilege more than you. What an honor that must be." I don't know what being white has to do with this election since both candidates are white, but if you want to talk about privilege, just look at all the privileged folks that are making it rain on Hillary's campaign.
Denise Oliver Velez similarly said, "Some people are privileged enough to advocate for chaos." Well, shit. If chaos is what it takes to get the get so,e profound change within our system, then chaos it shall be. Anything to get more than two viable parties to choose from rather than paper or plastic. You know chaos doesn't last for long. Order comes from chaos. Said order may come in the form of several different fiefdoms rising from the ashes of chaos. We'll have new things to worry about, such as the New California Republic invading Cascadia for its water, which is to be expected given the effects of climate change. Since I'm a shitlord, I guess I can advocate for chaos. Let's be optimistic about this and hope it all goes well, and it should go well as long as the Dark Enlightenment doesn't get involved. We don't need that level of dystopia—I'm a realist, so I expect some small amount of dystopian elements—in the new future. At least some sort of upheaval would be preferable to actual chaos.
Now, if you're going to vote (and you should), don't vote for Trump. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, it wouldn't look good if Bernie supporters started acting like butthurt Clintonistas did back in 2008, trying to convince people to vote for McCain (and by extension, his running mate, Sarah Palin—smh). Don't advocate for voting for Trump. You wouldn't vote for a neocon, so why the hell would you vote for a fascist? Don't make Us look like asshats by suggesting in anyway that we should vote for Trump (or Tundra Ted). I don't want to see any left-wing version of PUMA. It's just not a good look.
Just to reiterate, it doesn't matter who you vote for, just vote. If you want to vote for Hillary, that's okay. If you want to vote for Vermin Supreme, by all means. If you want to vote for Truz, please don't, but I won't stop you, but I doubt most people on here would be seriously considering doing that, amirite?
Comments
Well here's one response.
"Is it okay to vote one's conscience even though it may result in a terrible candidate elected for president? "
There's also voting for terrible candidates, resulting in terrible candidates being elected for president, which is what we usually do.
"Denise Oliver Velez similarly said, 'Some people are privileged enough to advocate for chaos.'"
The sort of order Oliver Velez likes is a nice right-wing order, which benefits the privileged (while hurting the rest of us) far, far more than any advocacy of chaos. This isn't just rhetoric -- it can be documented, with solid facts and figures.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
And that's what confuses me.
Velez used to be a member of the Young Lords. She was a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, if I've ever seen one. Maybe even far left. She seems to have grown weary, and to have lost that revolutionary spark. The conflict is over for her. I guess you can't fight for causes you care about.
And Velez wouldn't seem to benefit herself from this right-wing order. She's not rich and she's a black woman. Do you think some rich, white male hedge fund manager cares about people who match her description?
If they can be used as a weapon against the left? HELL YEAH!
It doesn't cost anything to play identity politics games. As long as they can keep the poor fighting with each other over who has it worse, they the rich can run off with all the fucking money.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
The Obama presidency gives Oliver Velez opportunities --
lots of them -- to call us "racists" if we object, for instance, to our obligation to buy crap insurance under the labyrinthine rules of the ACA. But, yes, your point is taken -- the benefit experienced by neoliberal antiracists is not an economic one, unless they are rich neoliberal antiracists. The first Obama administration experienced the biggest downturn in Black economic fortunes vis-a-vis white ones since the Great Depression.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
Oliver Velez dichotomy
She has written some of the best diaries IMHO on TOS. And the worst.
She has also IMHO become the antithesis of a John Dewey Democratic thinker. She has had enough of the 'polis'.
She has become the poster child of the John Dewey defined authoritarian. Fear is her weapon, whether she realizes it or not she has become an analogue of what she preaches against.
Gazed too long into the abyss?
Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
--Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Since we're talking about privileges here
How about the privilege of sitting in your home in the United States pontificating about the necessity of Clinton's election when it will mean more (and more) mass death for the un-privileged people of the earth?
The crassness and transparent manipulation of accusing Clinton's opponents of privilege reeks to the skies.
The hell with what Clintonites think about anything. How long can people who tell themselves they stand for something left of center get punked by people who despise them and push them to the margins?
Time is long past to pursue alternatives to normative politics. I believe we have an obligation to think for ourselves and follow our separate consciences, even if all we can do is keep alive the notion that a better world is possible. If we can't keep that flame alive, what the hell are we good for?
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
And the notion of a better world is possible
is what the Sanders campaign has caught. To think big, outside the box --the current system is not doing much for average Americans AND wreaking havoc worldwide. Why consider fixing details, shaving off a little here, adding over there when Everybody Knows very little would change. And the climate clock ticks. Then chaos.
Obama talked Hope and Change, then dodged. Sanders picks up with change for a hopeful future. It feels different.
Not to make it personality-driven. That's not my intent.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
between trump and hillary
the choice as i see it, it is which arsenal of nuclear weapons they will pick and choose in the next war they will instigate. trumps fancies the trident brand of atomic missles, the fast track to ww3. hillary is a little vague but likewise trigger-happy, has not been specific of which ones she'll be launching, but nukes are also her preferred option for settling scores. all of this is on public record since 2015 for both candidates. i am not making this up.
i will wash my hands clean of the whole thing and vote third party if sanders isn't on the ticket. they will launch whatever nukes they like, i can't control these monsters and i'll most likely be watching the torturous end of planet earth in slow-motion beginning in 2017.
i am just hoping for sanders to come thru.
I think we are at the point
I think we are at the point in time that we might just have to burn it down (figuratively). It isn't working anymore. Not for the 99% at least. I honestly don't think I can vote for Hillary. Our government needs to be re-vamped. And I don't think she is the person to do it. Drastic changes need to be made immediately. That is not Hillary's position. We cannot wait for small changes. Small changes that will be watered down even further if we still have a Republican congress. We need a revolution right now.
JerseyGirl
This kind of argument
sounds to me like what serial abusers use - i.e., "I wouldn't hit you if you didn't (fill in the blank)."
If Hillary wins all, so be it.
If Trump wins all, so be it.
No one should be expected to be an active participant in their own abuse, that's all we're saying. It's the only power we have and we WILL exercise it.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
And I can't even believe
that someone would QUESTION whether someone has a right to vote their conscience. Freaking Bizarro world we're living in these days.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
This infiltration of lesser-evilism into the minds
Of so many people is sad evidence of how successful corporate liberals have been in selling their garbage.
Do we have a right to vote our conscience? I share your shock that the question is even being asked. I'm torn between bitter acceptance that people can be fooled by skilled manipulators like the Clintons and their kind, and rage that the process is so damn easy for the manipulators.
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
Exactly.
Totally get the rage. I think some people are just too lazy and others are just too personally untouched by what's happening to so many Americans. I don't understand the latter, because there are plenty of us who are not personally suffering who recognize the plight of others. Someone would have to be a special kind of selfish and self-centered not to feel others' pain.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
Arguments that no longer work on me:
With regards to how I vote.
1. Supreme Court: Obama thoroughly Debunked that one.
2. Nader cost the Election. More Democrats voted for Bush Than Voted for Nader.
3. ANYTHING DOV says.
4. And if Trump starts actively talking about bringing the troops home, he has just taken a position I would actually consider voting for. Back off the Border Wall, etc, and he's actually to the LEFT of Hillary. Still planning to vote for Stein, but somehow claiming that Hillary is to the left of Trump is ludicrous. She's practically Mussolini in a dress.
5. We are already seeing the dystopian elements going on in the South. Armed Churches and Papers Please for Transpersons. I doubt seriously that voting for Hillary will slow their progress at ALL, especially considering who we have in office NOW.
6. Hillary can never earn my trust enough to earn my vote. No matter what she Claims, she's proven to be a liar and a windsock on almost every issue, guaranteed to spin in whatever direction the money is blowing. She clearly believes in the alliance between corporations, banks and government.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
its simple Hillary, win my vote
Its the responsibility of the candidate to win over the voter. If a candidate loses it is 100% their fault. Hillary has made no effort to win my vote. It would be a start if she were to call for the ouster of DWS, pledged to end superdelegates and would support honest, open Dem primaries so our candidates have a chance to win.
Funny (in bizarro world) that the Democratic Party
became so afraid of grassroots movements that they dreamed up superdelegates, making the selection process oh so un-democratic, while the Republican Party didn't think about that until now.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
There's no difference anymore...
between the parties that matter.
This is really the thing. The nomination of someone who is actually a conservative by someone who purports to be left tells us that SCOTUS is NOT going to be a good argument for the Democratic party. SCOTUS is effective for the GOP, but not Progressives. If there is essentially no difference in SCOTUS nomination.
The level of corruption shown by the Democratic party in trying to elect Hillary and shut out Bernie shows it's no better than the GOP and in fact is more effective than the GOP that is falling apart into numerous pieces. If the GOP wins the presidency, that president will not be effective because the GOP is so totally disjointed that it can't agree on anything substantial.
Bernie has temporarily brought new people into the Democratic party, particularly young people. If Hillary manages to win the nomination (which is becoming less and less certain), it will be seen by many Bernie supporters because of the corruption that won her the nomination, then many of those supporters will abandon the Democratic Party. Many will possibility give up completely on the political process. That would be a shame.
However, others will look elsewhere. Some have suggested a write-in campaign for Bernie. It's a possibility, but very difficult as each state has different requirements for write-ins and some don't allow it all. I think my state of Ohio requires that names be submitted ahead of time to the state's Secretary of State that will be allowed to be write-ins and those who write-in the candidate must spell it exactly as submitted to the Secretary of State of the state.
The other Progressive option is Jill Stein as she's already going to be on the ballot for the Green party. If there is essentially no difference between Hillary and the GOP nominee(s). Then for some, Jill is a good choice.
I don't know what I'm going to do. Although, I will NOT vote for Trump directly.
-9.75, -8.21
I live in Arizona
For years, I have been saying it doesn't matter who I vote for in the General, because the Electoral Votes will go for the Repubs. Now I guess I can add the "Primaries" (PPE, in Arizona), to the "doesn't matter who I vote for" list.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Order according to Denise Oliver Velez
She doesn't mind a police state as long as she gets to be the police.
And her complaining about anybody else's "privilege" is ludicrous. She's one of the most privileged writers back at GOS.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I had her picked out as an underprivileged "elite."
Which is to say that she's one of those people who has enough cultural trappings to think of themselves as a member of an elite but who is actually underprivileged. Isn't she still an adjunct professor?
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
In the Hudson Valley
that bastion of poc. Check out what her 'white privileged' students say about her. Arrogant? Hell yeah. I don't believe for a minute that she a radical combat boot wearing black radical as she once told me she once was. . She has street cred like I was a member of SDS. Yeah right. Underprivileged my ass. Pardon me but the NAACP does speak for the underprivileged. They speak for the privileged black people who have attained success by sucking up to and making it in the establishment.
Privileged enough, apparently,
that she can afford to vote for Clinton. I don't think there is much chance that she will be suiting up for any of our coming wars.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
"I don't think there is much chance that she will be suiting up"
A privilege many of her students and their cohort cannot claim.
Vote for the warmonger or you're privileged?--this from a teacher of draft-age people?
“If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”
My take?
Not only is it "OK", but it is the very essence of democracy. I suppose voting for a less good candidate might make some strategic and philosophical sense if I was looking at great and greater. But I have never been presented with that choice in my 53 years. More, why on earth would I take responsibility for Trump if I didn't vote for him? That's on those who did. From an ethical perspective, I see no reason why I should take responsibility for other people's choices.
On a pragmatic level, let me just ask, "So how's that lesser of two evil thing working out for you?" We now have our Democratic front-runner talking pretty much non-stop Republican talking points. As someone so eloquently put it on GOS, If we keep doing the lesser of two evils approach, we'll have a Trump in the White House in the next 20 years. The only difference is that he'll be a Democratic and you'll be rooting for him.
Further, at the tactical level, if the oligarchs know that they can put up whatever corporate shill they want and Democrats will vote for him or her, then how does that get us anywhere? At what point do we say, "Sorry, I prefer my Republicans in Republican clothing"?
And finally, at a moral level, how many dead Muslims are you willing to put your stamp of approval on? How many starving children both here and abroad will you affirmatively stand up for? How much misery, death, and suffering are you willing to say "Yup, I voted for that."
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
very little indeed.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I'd nominate this for top
I'd nominate this for top comments if we had such a thing here.
SnappleBC
that is the greatest answer I've read in ages on this whole voting for whoever argument! I read it like three times. I went back and reread the essay and all the comments. You expressed exactly how I feel about it. You put words to my musings. I, alone, am responsible for my vote. Whoever wins will be the one (usually) with the most votes, electoral college bs, etc. to the eventual winner. I have but one vote. The collective will be the determinate.
Vote your conscience.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
well done, Snapple!
I don't react well to guilt-tripping. My answer, should Trump win and I get told I caused it, "next time get a better candidate". There's a lot more to be said, of course, including there's no reason for Democrats to expect my vote any more than they'd expect any Republican or independent to vote for the Dems.
I don't like having to choose between a neocon and a fascist.
I'd like to say that this is not a fair choice, but this is hardly meant to be fair.
My feelings exactly
Well done and written, thank you for sharing it.
The privilege and spoiler
The privilege and spoiler arguments are gaslighting of the highest order.
We have to start sometime
The Greens have accomplished a lot internationally, especially with advancing green energy and organic agriculture. The longer we delay, the farther we fall behind other democracies. Soon, we won't even be a functioning democracy (as Jimmy Carter has said) and then what? It's not a question of Bernie or bust for me. I psychologically gave up on establishment politics long ago. I'm only back in this because of Bernie. I won't be voting for establishment Dems down ticket either. My only regret is that I didn't leave the party sooner.
We Progressives have no party
And will never have a party if we keep electing more not better Democrats. The Clintons came up with the formula. Might as well call it the Corporate-MIC strategy. Play to power to get power. The GOP was ascendant when Bill ran and he had a strategy to take the White House away from them. The problem is that he left no legacy and very little difference with the GOP. We paid the price with GWB and then got another DINO president. The problem is that we are going nowhere. The middle class continues to get a smaller and smaller share of the GDP and world sanity is on a continuous march to hell. One of the reasons that we love Bernie is that his very candidacy calls out the Democratic Party for what they are, corporate-MIC shills. Can you ever imagine that the party of FDR would outsource our jobs, laugh at economic rights, support continuous overseas wars, put the credit card industry as prison keepers to the economically stressed (thank you Joe Biden), and fill our prisons with young men. We still haven't come near FDR's dream in his Second Bill Of Rights.
I don't see how any vote for a Democrat, other than Bernie, helps to fix this problem. Jill Stein has an interesting essay on her website about voting for a third party candidate. It takes three election cycles to make a significant change in a given Party. We have to be about fixing the political problems in thus country, or we have no chance to fix our endemic problems and nothing will change.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Privilege, Evil, Bait
Choosing to support Bernie Sanders is a positive choice. Many reasons are woven together in making it. Each of those reasons is the better half of a set of paired opposites: the other side is in shadow. In choosing accountability, corruption is rejected. In choosing democracy, elitism is rejected. In choosing economic and social equality, entitlement and privilege are set aside. In setting them aside, the arguments of it's-my-turn and i-am-inevitable and i-deserve-it-more-so-i-can-do-stuff-you-can't-do become moot. It is the point of view, the attitude, that is rejected, not the person that has them. Having rejected them, it is not possible to support someone whose whole reason for being is to further them. If you choose an ideal rather than an excuse, then you cling to it and let the other go...into the void.
Evil is evil and there is no gradation. Every teaching that professes good warns against treating with evil. That's because there is a line between them and no one can tell which microbe of evil will prove to be too much. "Choosing the lesser of two evils" is not a choice, it is an excuse. The ideal is to persevere through apparent defeat.
Elite Repubs bait their rank and file with "family values". Once the election is over, the elites switch it back to more privilege for themselves. Elite Dems bait their rank and file with "the greater good". Once the election is over, the elites switch it back to more privilege for themselves. The only difference is the bait. This works until the rank and file gets hungry for something more. And the elites have no idea what that is.
As it is today, the elite Dems have nothing but the White House: without that they have nothing at all. They have less than a third of the statehouses. They are seven months from losing the Senate. If a movement wanted to reform the Democratic Party, then it would be necessary to negate the power and influence of the elite Dems. The power and the influence of the elite Dems would be negated if Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
The only difference is the bait.
Could not have said it half as clearly or succinctly myself.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Against my better judgement, I am going to say
that we probably should not spend a bunch of time badmouthing someone like D.O.V at this site. I hope that this site does not just become a place where people go to safely complain about TOP and its more outspoken members. I would rather it be a completely new home that I can spend time conversing with people about elections, issues, etc.
I have my issues with Dee, but I can share them with her over there if I like--and face her wrath. This just feels like talking behind someone's back.
As far as the rest of the diary is concerned, people should just vote for whoever they want to vote for.
I hear ya.
I half typed a "She did it about us before I ever mentioned her" post before I took a good hard look at it and realized that's freaking Clintonian thinking.
I think this diary just pushed a button on a LOT of long standing resentment from a lot of people. I'm gonna Acknowledge, learn, move on...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I agree this is not a place to come to just bitch about
Dkos, Kos, or DOV. However nothing said here is behind anyone's back. This site is open to the public. Membership/registration is not required to read c99.
You are free and correct to admonish against obsession with TOP. Others are free to express their frustration with TOP. Hopefully it will become an exception rather than a rule.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm so over TOP
But, newcomers may need to loose their frustrations until they're finally free themselves of the muck still remaining from having touched that placed.
Then they can be free. Finally free! TO be the progressives and voice their opinions without fear of censorship.
-9.75, -8.21
Well, that's just it, isn't it?
Not everybody can get that with DOV, which is probably one reason you might expect to see her name come up in discussion elsewhere. While I'm with you about not making bashing DK a habitual ritual around here (it's actually come up a few times already), I have a hard time trying to find any concern for the feelings of some of the regulars over there, given their share of divisive rhetoric and patronizing lectures directed outward, and she's definitely one of them.
So, Ranger, is it not okay to talk about
Mr. Moulitsas here as well? I am very new and don't know much and many people here are decompressing from a VERY negative experience where, apparently, D.O.V. (whoever that is) is now. Is it okay to talk about HRC? If, as you suggest, Ms. D.O.V. is a heavy duty wrathful person, surely she can come over here and defend her own words? Aren't some caucus99 members being spoken of HORRIBLY where D.O.V. is? Has D.O.V. stood up for them? I await your response.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
I have no say over what you can or can't talk about.
You can talk about whatever you want. I am just saying it's not going to be a great place to hang out if all it becomes is a place to bitch about TOP and its members. I never was a big fan of gossip.
Okay, sorry if I over reacted.
I don't know who any of those people are, but I do know that many people came here hurt. I am a considerate kind of person, so if there is anything else that would make you uncomfortable to hear about, just let me know. I try to avoid mistakes when I can. And while I am being considerate of you, please do not lecture people here about who or what they shouldn't talk about cuz that makes ME uncomfortable, okay?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
What makes me uncomfortable
is the very sort of thought censorship that happened at GOS and you're hinting at here.
I don't want you to talk only about things that make me comfortable. I want you to talk about things which are important to you. I want you to do so eloquently and with factual citations where appropriate so I can validate your line of reasoning which may, in fact, change my own.
In my opinion, if you present a factual and well ordered argument then it's not possible for you to make a social mistake here. That sort of community is what already exists over at GOS.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Facts
are over rated. Every single person on here can make facts jump and spin. Facts are useful only in eliciting feelings. Feelings are what people respond to, what convinces them. Three facts presented in one order can elicit a certain feeling and rearranged can suggest another. When facts (and especially facts of gender or race or religion or national origin)are used to elicit feelings of guilt or inadequacy or patriotism it is not eloquence but manipulation. And when guilt is used to elevate one person above all others...to create a special person...then it is repugnant no matter who that person is. Everything in this statement is a fact.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
Keep in mind, you're free to click on the next post
Don't overdo it, okay?
I'm real cranky this morning, what with the New Something Shiny SQUIRREL Sex Scandal breaking. Fuck. It's tiresome. Hell, you should WANT people to talk about those con artists over there at the DK. Talk about anything, in fact, as long as we stop talking about what a lying, dishonest, godawful candidate Hillary Clinton really is....
I think the point is...
ranting about particular people over at TOP kinda dilutes the point in leaving.
Yeah, DOV bad mouths people all the time. Yeah, she badmouths us over here for being a collection of racists. I'm acknowledging it, but giving her words zero power to influence me.
A lot of people are still angry about TOP and IMHO have the right to be angry. They have a right to say whatever they want to as well, IMHO. I just hope that one day we can get past letting the opinions of idiots have power over what we talk about away from them.
Reason I'm choosing to try to just let TOP go. Still hard when a button gets pushed, but getting easier every day.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
If a slur falls in the forest and a 99er isn't there to read it
is a shit actually given?
Btw, "What you said, dmt."
Improve the Resilience Resource Library by adding your links.
Vote Smart - Just the Facts - 40,000 politicians by name or zipcode
maybe
if it's written on tp.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
It's ok to talk about it
but I'd like to express my (and only my) opinion on it: It's mostly a waste of time.
It might feel cathartic for a bit, so by all means, write your own blog about everything that is wrong with the GOS, its owner, and various other people of some limited fame who have apparently forgotten their radical pasts. Get the anger and maybe there's even grief, out of your system.
But then I recommend to move on, because complaining about it past initial catharsis does nothing to improve this place, or the status quo of our sad, sad politics. If you can, you might instead use it to fuel your own resistance -- I hate phone banking, and it's hard to motivate myself for it, so I use particularly egregious comments on GOS as an impetus to add another 10 minutes, and another 10, and another 10 -- it all adds up, and I am turning animosity and anger into actual votes. Find something that allows you to rechannel that energy into something beneficial for yourself, something beneficial for causes you support, something beneficial for other communities that are springing up because the GOS is no longer our place.
I am still new here too, and it's a bit difficult to feel the true spirit of the place when so much anger is spilling over into it. That's another reason why I don't want to rant much here; I don't want to damage what was here before we found it. New immigrants change a place, and while that is inevitable, I really rather we not change it for the worse.
#BernieOrBust
Is a warning shot and a rallying cry. It asks for a better candidate, and it reinforces that we are indeed free to vote for whom we please. 40 years of voting for the lesser of evil has brought evil. Obama is nominating a corporate Republican who supports CU to the Supreme Court and bragging about his audacity and lesser of evil choice. As the saying goes, fuck this shit. Enough is enough.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Maybe at sometime I would have considered HRC
as an alternate choice from Bernie. BUT, no more after the dirty politics she and her minions have been playing. If she and Bernie were simply two candidates that discussed their policy differences, then I would have been able to make a rational choice about which candidate I would prefer and which candidate would be my second choice. But, it is clear that this election for her is all about winning and whatever she has do to accomplish that. That is where she has lost our entire family; the lesser of two evils is not an option for us.
Someone like D.O.V.....
Anyone know Ranger_995? Is he ranger as in "scout"? "long range patroller"? If this was a Mexican restaurant would he be on the menu as "amole"?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
Well, the topic of the post "Third Party candidates"
went by the wayside, didn't it?
You be the judge. I know what I think, after a good night's sleep and a freaking guffaw over the MSM's new Shiny Thing already this morning...
There Comes A Time When You Have To Lance the Boil
Or you have to face the reality that you're abetting the infection. Maybe this is why the GOPmachine is suddenly coming to the conclusion that Trump would sink the gravy boat just as surely as Hillary Godiva. (a meme I'd like to catch on, lefties)
Voting the Lesser of the Evils never achieves anything more than more evil. We 99ers have been doing it cycle after cycle and see where it's gotten us. And this voter is sick and tired of doing it.
It's like repainting one room at a time despite the entire house being eaten away by termites.
So bring on the Chaos. By all means. Nobody ever said Revolution was going to be painless.
Shameless essay whoring... Have You Read My Memoir Yet?
Improve the Resilience Resource Library by adding your links.
Vote Smart - Just the Facts - 40,000 politicians by name or zipcode
Hillary Godiva???
That would make her transparent and pressure her to reveal all - ESPECIALLY her well-paid promises to Goldman Sachs and other Wall St. firms.
I think a better meme would be Hillary Regina, since she's about to be coronated if DWS can manage it.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
She Who Must Not Be Looked At
All eyes must turn away. Lady Hillary Godiva passes by.
Those who turn and look instead see a crone from Macbeth.
Improve the Resilience Resource Library by adding your links.
Vote Smart - Just the Facts - 40,000 politicians by name or zipcode
Lesser of evils
I have a different definition of lesser of evils. Evil is evil so there's no lesser. We can pick the evil that does less damage and it is not necessarily the lesser evil.
What we're up against is not a single person, there's enough check&balance in the constitution to prevent a single person from doing much damage, we're really up against a political system of bipartisan corruption with the Clinton pretty much as the matriarch and patriarch of that politics-milking money machine.
So, by affirming their inevitability, we're really enforcing the corrupted you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours practice. She will be around for 8 years doing her best together with Democrats and Republicans to pay their common financial masters for issues where there are common interests (just like Bill Clinton did with the Crime Bill, welfare reform, NAFTA, Glass Steagall, telecommunication bill). This time there will be more wars if Hillary Clinton has her way. And the damage will go way beyond the 8 years.
On the other hand, let's just assume that Trump becomes president (I don't think he can but it's just a hypothesis). He is detested by just about everybody, Democrats and Republicans, so what can he do ? Pretty much nothing. He can shoot his mouth off for a while and then he will get tired of it. He is actually a lot less hawkish than HRC (he just wants to let the Russians to fight in Syria while HRC wants to enforce a no-fly zone and boots on the ground, for example). He will most likely be voted out after 4 years after doing a lot of damages to the Republican party because of all the stupid things he says. That doesn't sound like a bad thing.
In this age of social media political dynamics can change fast
A lot of what happens in November depends first on what happens with the pledged delegate count and then what happens at the convention. The stage could easily be set for a wave of people to start donating to Jill Stein and then what happens if Jill Stein starts outpolling Hillary Clinton. Should we still vote for Clinton? I'm waiting to see where we're at in November so I'm not swearing any loyalty oath.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I don't have to say 'yes'
to something I don't believe in. It may come to pass anyway, but I don't have to help it or be a cheerleader for it. So I won't.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
You should vote your conscience
IMO strategic voting only has an effect if it is coordinated. We could, for example, all decide to try turn one red state blue or green by moving there en masse and starting to change politics from the local level on up. States rights being what they are, that would probably do the most good for those people who can manage to move there. Do you see that happening? Yeah, me neither. Herding cats is child's play compared with herding lefties.
At the national level, most of our votes don't matter. Our state is either solidly blue or red, and only the few who live in swing states can affect anything, and then only if there is an overall shift and lots of people act alike, and if the place hasn't been gerrymandered to hell and back. And then some electors get to represent us. We're so far removed from actual democracy. So, so many people have long since checked out and don't even vote at all -- there's something to concern ourselves with. I basically think we have to do that, pull the people who have given up into the process. Bernie is a good start, but he is by far not enough. We should pay more attention to Jill Stein and her party too.
So no, you're not responsible for any chaos that might break out if you don't vote for the Dem nominee. Just like you're not responsible for your President deciding to make war on brown people elsewhere; unless you elected them based on that premise. People who voted for Nader are not responsible for the Bush Presidency; people who voted for Bush are, and people who supported Bush by voting for his wars are. I am immune to emotional blackmail of this kind because I grew up with a mentally defective mother who had it down to a fine art. I am responsible for my own actions, not for what other people do or do not do. Why blame the Naderites and not the people who didn't vote at all? At least the Naderites had their convictions and put their vote where their heart was. I think that's a good thing. The 2-party system is undemocratic crap.
Besides which it is complete and utter nonsense to scare us all with the "chaos" Trump would bring. Trump may be the chaos candidate because nobody really knows what he will do if elected, but he's not all-powerful, and he's not Hitler (nor Mussolini), and there are many checks and balances in place. I don't see him having a considerably worse impact than Clinton -- and I actually see ways in which he could be better, though no, I won't vote for him. Besides, we won't be any more powerless if he gets elected. Maybe we can contemplate all moving to one state then, *wry grin*.
One step from chaos
is where a lot of us have to live our lives.
When we wake up and realize that no one in power has seriously tried to make our lives a little easier to live, a little more stable, more secure, when they really could have, then we feel an urge to vote for something completely different.
We don't have much to lose, I guess.
My thought and feeling exactly congenitalefty!
O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.
No Worries About A Drumpf Vote From Me!
"If Bernie doesn't get the nomination...Don't advocate for voting for Trump."
There is no chance of that happening. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, I and my family are all planning on writing in Bernie on our ballots. If things end up like this, at least we can say we did all we could to avoid corporatist rule. I'm still healing from being burned by Obama even if I never voted for him.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.