You know who else was a Commie?
That's right...
P.S. Here's a tip for you, CSM: Ralph Nader isn't running this year.
But Jill Stein is.
Some other thoughts on the election here.
(Also, thanks to BDR for this Arthur Silber link.)
Mouse over pics for captions, and click them for larger versions.
~
26 comments:
And the best part of all?
How President Stein will effectively work with Congress to implement her agenda of ponies and unicorns.
That'll be cool...
Is it better to have our Democratic President implementing a right-wing agenda, mikey?
~
that romney sign is way bigger than the obama one next door. and the obama one is stuck in the middle of tombstones. hmmmmmmmm.
(i took the questionnaire thing, and i'm pretty split between stein & obama)
Is it better to have our Democratic President implementing a right-wing agenda, mikey?
Chances you'll get him or a Republican are 100%, and one of them will sign health-care/equal rights laws.
And continue protecting and enriching banksters, going after Social Security, and otherwise doing everything he can to make sure the Democratic party is completely discredited and we get some Republican like Ricky Santorum in 2016.
I linked this thread to Echidne's place above. How come the lesser evil keeps getting more evil?
Can the Obama Administration be considered a success for lesser evil voting...especially after the wave elections of 2006 and 2008?
Of course the good cop is better than the bad cop. That's how the game works. But at some point, you need to notice that you keep getting the crap beaten out of you.
~
But at some point, you need to notice that you keep getting the crap beaten out of you.
Noticing is good! Practical action has nothing to do voting Jill Stein for president. Just make sure you get a Romney voter to go with Gary Johnson and the futility balances out.
The wording of many of those questions was awful. I scored solidly more liberal than Obama, but the questions really were crap.
You are right, BBBB. Did you notice that you could click for more options on each answer? I used that a lot.
S McG: Could you show me how practical the action of voting for the lesser evil has been?
It's not hard to understand the mechanism: Your vote can be taken for granted, so your opinion and welfare can be ignored.
For instance: which thing has our Hope and Change President worked harder to achieve: a public option for health care, or cuts to Social Security?
~
Voting the lesser of two evils means the lesser never has to be anything but less evil than that other guy. All while both get more evil with each passing election, natch. Thus, booze.
For instance: which thing has our Hope and Change President worked harder to achieve: a public option for health care, or cuts to Social Security?
The public option.
Hey, that makes total sense to me.
So let's vote for the GREATER of two evils, because, um, hell, I got nothing.
Oh, and by advocating a vote that will contribute to the election of a candidate that advocates EVERYTHING you claim to be against, Paul Ryan FOR FUCKS SAKE, you are contributing to the prevention of those policies HOW?
Oh yeah. You feel pure. Must be nice. 'Cause Romney certainly won't cut social security and medicare and medicaid and there's NO WAY they'll expand drone attacks against innocent neighborhoods so we're all in for President Jill Stein who will have unlimited dictatorial power to prevent injustice and brutality even in the face of a Republican House and a Senate that empowers the minority to prevent action.
Dood, I SO want to live in your imaginary world...
We'll see, won't we, zrm.
~
Oh yeah. You feel pure.
And by voting for a President who is now doing those things I'm against, I would be contributing to the prevention of those policies HOW?
~
S McG: Could you show me how practical the action of voting for the lesser evil has been?
Yes. Choose any list and you'll find something substantial. I grant that you'll find bullshit like "dealt strongly with X country" but there are also things that will serve my friends and family for the better, health care being one of them. That meets the practicality definition, and I think it beats the hell out of Bill Clinton, welfare destroyer.
And by voting for a President who is now doing those things I'm against, I would be contributing to the prevention of those policies HOW?
You wouldn't be contributing to prevention at all. But neither would you be contributing if you voted for Stein, so it's not a good rationale.
By simply preventing them from becoming even MORE prevelent.
Dood. This is NOT terribly challenging...
Look, as long as we agree that Obama is the lesser of two evils, then, come on now, this isn't hard, he's the LESSER of two evils.
Why you want to vote for the GREATER of two evils baffles me, and it is NOT logical. You should either defend it or abandon your position, and I notice you have not been able to defend your position...
Voting is a sad fucking joke because only one of the two major party candidates will ever be elected or appointed, & because the American people are the largest single lump of brainless undifferentiated tissue on the face of the planet. None of it makes any difference in the long run anyway.
Maybe we should all vote Republican so the down-trodden masses will suffer enough to do something, but all evidence indicates they will continue to take it & take it & take it.
The choice is yours: Nihilism now or a long painful decline!
mikey: Why you want to vote for the GREATER of two evils baffles me, and it is NOT logical. You should either defend it or abandon your position, and I notice you have not been able to defend your position...
You're the one who insists that voting for Jill Stein is the same as voting for Romney. I don't agree. (And furthermore, you continue to ignore my position: settling for the likes of Obama precludes getting anything better.)
In fact, what I see is more venom reserved for Jill Stein voters than for the Obama-Holder decision to give people like Karl Rove a pass for all his crimes.
Guess what: we're not the ones who have raised hundreds of millions for Republican attack ads.
Substance McGravitas: ...and I think it beats the hell out of Bill Clinton, welfare destroyer.
I completely disagree. The fact is, this is central to my point, as the saying goes.
I recall someone at LGM (Scott Lemieux, in the comments, I believe) making the assertion that Bill Clinton was right of Obama, and citing welfare reform, the repeal of Glass Steagal, and perhaps the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (and if he didn't, I'll cite it anyways, as one of the worst things Clinton did).
Nonetheless, what Obama has done (and not done) under the circumstances is worse, and that's something I'm going to address in an update.
~
I cannot wait for this election to be over. (and I'm not even in the U.S.!)
Facebook has become obnoxious with political "status updates". (not saying your blog is obnoxious). It just feels like this election has been going on forevah!!! :P
((Hugs))
Laura
Eh. I'm not touching this debate with a ten foot poll. (As I'm sure you know my feelings anyway.)
I do enjoy the ENORMOUS Romney sign. Trust a wingnut to overcompensate.
You're the one who insists that voting for Jill Stein is the same as voting for Romney. I don't agree.
Yeah, well, I know some people who don't agree that humans cause global warming. It's an agenda-driven belief.
By not agreeing you don't have to accept the primary flaw in your electoral strategy. You can simply cover your ears, sing real loud and give Romney another +1 vote against Obama, because even though you won't acknowledge it, it's a two-man zero sum game. Any vote that is not a vote for Obama is a vote for Romney.
I'll be honest - I'd shut up and leave you alone if you (or any of your disaffected ilk) would simply admit that you want to see Obama defeated and that you acknowledge that means you support a Romney presidency. At least the assclowns who claim to believe that four years of Romney/Ryan might create a liberal paradise (heh heh, sorry, but that's funny) have the courage to admit that their goal is the defeat of Barack Obama. You keep avoiding addressing the consequences of your advocacy, and, frankly, I would have expected more honesty from you.
You also have demanded from me at least four times I tell you how voting for Obama has worked out for me so far. I have answered every time that unless you think a McCain/Palin presidency would have been better, there's your answer. But in spite of my willingness to address that time and time again, you keep demanding I answer that question and you won't address the fact that you're advocating a Romney/Ryan presidency over an Obama/Biden administration because of social security, medicare, health care, wealth inequality, bank prosecutions and war mongering. Seriously? Talk about cognitive dissonance...
You also have demanded from me at least four times I tell you how voting for Obama has worked out for me so far.
No. It's not one election I am referring to, it's a series of elections, and trying to find a way to keep the lesser evil from growing ever more evil.
...and you won't address the fact that you're advocating a Romney/Ryan presidency over an Obama/Biden administration...
I'm advocating strengthening a third party because I see the Democratic party as hopelessly corrupted.
Here's a deal I'm proposing: if I can find enough people I trust in Blue States who will switch from Obama to Jill Stein, I'll vote for Obama here. According to Nate Silver, my vote is worth a lot more, so I want some leverage for that deal.
~
We'll see, won't we, zrm.
Don't move the goalposts, dude. You asked what he has WORKED HARDER to achieve, I responded by showing that a quasi-public option (including non-profit operator) is actually BEING ENACTED. You responded by linking to a speculative article about what might happen in the future, supported by a bit of mind-reading.
By definition, he has achieved steps toward a public option. He has NOT achieved any steps toward cutting Social Security.
Now, I concede that many things might happen in the future. But that wasn't your question, was it?
If the Greens (and you, for that matter) were truly committed to establishing a third party, they need to be ESTABLISHING a third party, which is not done by quixotic Presidential campaigns, rather by hard work from the bottom up. Get elected to school boards. Aldermen. Mayors. Create a constituency and foundation from which pressure can be brought to bear.
It's how the right wing crazies have swung the Republican Party. A quadrennial martyrdom isn't getting anybody anyplace.
We'll see, as we'll see if I can get it. Right now, I call that speculative.
It's how the right wing crazies have swung the Republican Party.
Not really. That was a top-down process that was begun and is being continued by right-wing billionaires. One thing they do have is now (thanks to years of propaganda) is a base that is committed to crazy ideas like no tax cuts, ever.
Meanwhile, the Democratic base has no ideas they're committed to defending. Not even the inclusion of Social Security in deficit reduction schemes, where it has no place. Or the wholesale adoption of the Bush-Cheney national security state by a Democratic president.
~
I ended up only 94% Stein, not that I'd get to vote for any of these folks.
On the topic of The Debate - first, let's dispense with the "voting my conscience" and higher moral arguments and consider only the practical applications.
MB has a great point about the futility of voting - especially in the FPTP Electoral College system. And some folks are located in places that are going to be pretty comfortably Obama by a substantial margin. Especially this election where Willard was dead in the water over a year ago.
So unless you live in one of the few truly competitive states, this is the presidential election for you to register your disapproval with the current two party system. I feel comfortable saying that because I know my opinion isn't going to sway millions of voters - which is the minimum Willard is going to need to be competitive.
The "a vote for not-Obama is a vote for Romney" argument loses weight when the sheer volume of votes needed to shift the needle is staggering, and the distance the needle has to move is large.
IMO, the issue really comes down to this - is getting Obama from 300 to 301 electoral college votes more important than moving a third party from joke status to practically-a-joke status. YMMV.
Here's a deal I'm proposing: if I can find enough people I trust in Blue States who will switch from Obama to Jill Stein, I'll vote for Obama here. According to Nate Silver, my vote is worth a lot more, so I want some leverage for that deal.
A reasonable idea. Good luck!
Post a Comment