Pull the lever and get all lemons.
Offline I was a Green Party member, but have since registered Democrat so I can vote in their primaries. In 2008, I'm planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries, and in the general I'll either vote Green or for whatever reptile scum actually punts for the Democrats. It looks like that will either be the lethally ambitious Mrs. Clinton, or the dashingly inept Obama. But who knows: I was planning to vote for squat firebrand Dean until they started amplifying the importance of his awkward "Byahhh!" bleating, and a stifling gray flog floated in, calling itself "John Kerry," to cock up the elections for us.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:All I see from you guys is bombastic theorizing.I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to by this comment, but I'm assuming you're referring to the anarchist ideas expressed in this thread. As I stated earlier, you and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily and I think it's reasonable to assume that you and those millions of others would prefer to engage in those acts at your own discretion without first having to run them by State central-planners for approval. There's nothing theoretical about it.
...this is a total threadjacking.
"None of the above" is a perfectly legitimate option.
Right, putting Kroger bags over parking meters and mixing Canadian cents into the rolls you give to the bank. J-walking, stealing packets of Wrigley's, and giving the wrong time. Using a fake name on your Guns and Ammo subscription card, and not declaring the money you made selling pot. Yeah, sure showed the feds what's up.
You know, until now, I've enjoyed committing petty acts against our culture; arguing with people, trying to get them to question their assumptions. But seeing that kind of thing defended here as important subversion, it just looks sad. I wonder if that's how I come off to the people I've argued with.
that is of course, your right. But the truth of the matter is, you DON'T offer a real alternative to the state. I would wager that a majority of people are pretty content with the laws and regulations that the state gives us, and of the group that is not content, most of them are not willing to give up many of the social safety nets that our state has in place.
Oh right, the point: who ya gonna vote for?
I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything.
you sound like my dad, bitching and whining about the system with your "I'm smarter than you" brand of cynicism.
I'll vote for a democrat.
My preference is obama, I'll take inexperience and charisma over the kind of experience that washington seems to value.
After that, I like bill richardson and biden about even, then edwards, Clinton is actually my last choice in the democratic field, not because of mistrust or anything, I'd just really like to get away from this whole bush/clinton/bush crap.
I'd consider voting for ron paul if he had a shot, though I'm not sure I'm much for the libertarian viewpoint, its nice seeing a repub who actually sounds like a conservative.
I dont vote third party, not that I dont like their views, I just dont really want to feel like I'm throwing my vote away. If someone in teh green party had a real shot, I'd probably vote for em.
What does?
Jarem, re: third parties
Isn't that the catch-22? There's no confidence in third parties because the numbers are low; the numbers are low because there's no confidence. We're stuck with two parties with marginally different platforms, both plugged into the lobbying system because of the exorbitant cost of a modern campaign.
If we had a different campaign model, like a flat budget ceiling for all, or if we limited the avenues of promotion to a predefined set of public platforms, we could level the playing field and reduce the political debt incurred to lobbyists in the staging of a campaign.
I think it was Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky who remarked on voting for third parties in non-critical elections (that is, where you're not trying to beat somebody like Bush) to set the precedent. In any case, I think a certain number of people have to "throw" their votes in order to raise confidence in third party chances.
I'll be supporting John Edwards in the primary. Regardless of who wins any candidate will be better than the Republican. I'm hoping Hillary doesn't win. She's one of those Senators in that cult in D.C., 'The Fellowship' and a member of the DLC.
I'm just disappointed that the way the system works is that the media picks the candidates they want then declare the rest unelectable. The media called Dean crazy because he was against the war he was labeled a liberal extremist. So instead the media went with Kerry calling him the most electable.
I would agree with pretty much all you said there Magilum
The two biggest things I'd love to see happen would be campaign finance reform with limits and no secrecy, and term limits to get rid of career politicians. I am technically an independent and refuse to affiliate myself with one specific party, I simply support democrats as a lesser of the evils sort of thing.
I really, really hope hillary doesn't get the nomination, but I just cant see myself supporting any of the republican candidates.
If Bloomberg got in as a third party, I might vote for him, but I dont see him getting in the race, though it'd be really cool to see how it shakes up the status quo.
Well do you think that if you go cast a vote you're going to have any effect whatsoever?
It depends what you want to change. But voting doesn't change anything. No matter what you want to change, you won't change it by voting. You'll just get the illusion of having done your "civic duty" or some bullshit like that. But you won't have actually done anything.
Zhwazi,
Give me an example of something in society you care about, and how you're going to change it.
I'll have more of an effect than if I sit on my ass and bitch about a right that people have died for. I'm not deluding myself that my one vote could change everything, but I'm not playing into the cynical apathetic worldview that so many people have. I have my senator's and representative's voting records a click away and make my voice heard, I keep up on current events and pay attention to what every presidential candidate is doing. And every two years I use my priveledge of voting and cast a ballot for the person I believe is the least fucked up and might just have enough stones to actually challenge the way things have been in washington, and move towards a fairer system, and put the interests of America before the interests of groups that just throw money at the politicians to get them.
I'll vote for whichever candidate will
1) increase freedoms in this country enough to let non-religion grow
2) not turn this country socialist (I was technically living in poverty not long ago, and am currently unemployed, and I still believe free markets are the best systems. If you are poor and socialist, I pretty much don't pay attention to you because I don't trust most people enough to separate their bitterness towards rich people from their understanding of economics.
The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...
Voting legitimizes the State. The State is an institution of force and coercion which provides people the means to commit immoral acts which they might not otherwise commit on their own. The State provides a moral disconnect which conveniently shields people from guilt, shame, risk, and consequences. As a result, over half of Americans receive income from the State and 20% of the workforce works for the State.
I care about people being robbed by taxation, so I will spread knowledge on how to avoid taxes.
I care about people's rights being violated by the police, so I will tell them how to deal with cops.
I care about people falling into useless political traps (like voting), so I will tell them where they are.
I care about people obeying without reason to obey, so I will tell them why obedience is not virtuous.
I care about freedom and wealth, so I will spread information about freedom and wealth to all those who will hear me.
I care about people being lied to by politicians, so I will expose those lies.
Get it?
Not if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 15 minutes to make a strong, compelling argument to somebody that is receptive and change somebody's mind. I've changed people's minds on the state in 10 minutes, it isn't hard if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 20 minutes to get in your car and go vote in November. By contrast, that 20 minutes will be spend toward zero change. Is there a probability it might change something? Yes, like there's a chance you'll hit the jackpot 10 times in a row. Is it worth the effort? No, it's better spent elsewhere. You'll get more by putting $5 towards a beer than you'll get by putting it in a slot machine.
You either believe voting changes something or you don't. Which is it?
Uh-huh. And how many times has this effort paid off so far?
This man speaks the truth! Too bad Rothbard died in '95.
The same can be said about someone going out and getting people out to vote for their candidates, passing out flyers, helping to run voter reg. booths, etc. I find its better to work within the system than to nihilistically write it off because its been abused by special interests.
I believe that voting changes things, but whne you have a large number of completely apathetic and politically retarded individuals who couldn't give a rat's ass to give up 20 minutes to an hour to register and vote, or think that voting is too hard or not worth it, then it takes away from the overall ability. If candidate A is looking for Voting Bloc A to vote for him, and Candidate B is looking for voting bloc B to vote, but half of Voting bloc A doesn't even vote, then Candidate B will win. A non-vote is just as bad as a vote for a politician you don't like.
I can't really say at this point. I've only been old enough to vote in two elections (04 and 06). The candidate I voted for has only cast two votes that I disagreed with (Iraq war funding, and NSA wiretap.)
To turn the question around, how well has your political inactivism done? Are we close to some magical utopian society where everything works perfectly according to your ideal of a state? Are we even close?
I'm not wowed by the anarchist stance so far. At the guarantee of sounding like an asshole, that's pretty much the attitude most people your (and often my) age take on things. Being a radical is cheap, easy, and totally meaningless most of the time. I'm far from having mainstream views, but I realize I'm not monkeywrenching the feds by making thermite or not watching primetime TV. I mean, is there something systematic, to where you can clearly goal being accomplished, that you are involved in?
So it's worth the effort to get 500 people together to see if any one of you can win a jackpot 10 times in a row? You still have no chance of affecting change.
Sure, but there's no completely apathetic or politically retarded individuals here, and even so you had almost no chance of changing anything to begin with.
I don't like any politicians. Why should I vote for a politician I don't like when not voting is just as bad as voting for a politician I don't like? Nonvoting is easier to do also.
In other words, no percievable affect.
We? No, "we" are not. But I am. I can only speak for myself. I am living according to my ideal of a state.
My goal is my own freedom, and I've achieved that. My main goal has been accomplished. My other goals, getting others to free themselves, I'm working on that, and yes, I can see it working. Not so much here, but this place helps me sharpen my razors and it's fun to argue with people.
You and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily. Would you prefer to have to submit all of your decisions to State central-planners for approval? Are State central-planners more qualified to run your life than you?
Anarchism doesn't mean living without rules. You have rules of conduct in your home, do you not? Suppose your guests don't respect the rules. Do you go running to the government and get a law passed or do you handle it?
Thanks for the Big Brother scenario.
All I see from you guys is bombastic theorizing. That's fine: that's what being a 17-25 year-old is like in the first world. But there's a difference between making a bump key, reading the Poor Man's James Bond, or hanging out at the Chestnut Tree Cafe, and offering a social and economic solution that works for the variety of people in this country/world and has a snowball's chance of actually being established. It's literally all just talk.
BTW, this is a total threadjacking.
Oh, and have fun watching a lot of your gung-ho "radical" friends become yuppie reptiles.
It does work for the variety of people in this country and world, because it's the only policy that allows for everybody to choose their own solution. It's the government, the one-size-fits-all government, that is the absurdity, supposing it can offer a social and economic solution that works for the variety of people in the country.
And how does one establish anarchy? Of course it has a snowball's chance of being established. Anarchy isn't something you establish. It's something you recognize. It is always there if you would just open your eyes to see it.
Stop talking to us and we won't be able to continue hijacking the thread.
I asked "Who ya gonna vote for," not, "ZOMG votig is useeless amirite??? lollers."
Put the "Fight Club" DVD away, buddy.
If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.
Zhwazi
Having seen your answers, and seen you parrot the same responses over and over again, I've found it rather useless to continue arguing with you. I must admit, you do sound something like an angry thirteen year old who thinks "the man" is out to get him.
If you refuse to use your right to vote (or are just too young to use it and worried about "the man"
that is of course, your right. But the truth of the matter is, you DON'T offer a real alternative to the state. I would wager that a majority of people are pretty content with the laws and regulations that the state gives us, and of the group that is not content, most of them are not willing to give up many of the social safety nets that our state has in place.
Our representative republic works, yes is has had and will have hiccups. Yes many aspects of the system have been hijacked by special interests, but it has faced worse and weathered it fine. It is still infinately better than older monarchial governments and dictatorships. Frankly, I like that the state protects copyrights and patents, which, as an artist, is especially helpful for me not to get screwed over by a client or some idiot trying to plagerize my work.
With that said, and to get this thread on track again, I'll reiterate that my most favored candidate is Obama, as I am willing to overlook inexperience for something completely new in teh white house, I think if he gets the nomination he'd be smart to look for someone with experience who is a bit more centrist as a running mate, and would probably have a slightly better time in the general than hillary because he doesn't have all the clinton baggage. He's also the only front runner who has remained consistent on his stance on Iraq.
I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to by this comment, but I'm assuming you're referring to the anarchist ideas expressed in this thread. As I stated earlier, you and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily and I think it's reasonable to assume that you and those millions of others would prefer to engage in those acts at your own discretion without first having to run them by State central-planners for approval. There's nothing theoretical about it.
"None of the above" is a perfectly legitimate option.