2016: Let's Hear The Rationalizations

[JackRiddler]

What in the world would motivate the Democratic Party to do away with their part of the duopoly? That makes no sense.

Which is why I didn't say it. What does make sense is that the discrediting of the yahoo right will end its dominance over the very vocabulary with which we are allowed to speak (this has started). It will open up space for a third party to arise on the social democratic left. Long as the Republicans are a real threat, the Democrats are taken seriously as the only alternative in a binary system. The only thing that can change that would be to campaign against the binary system itself (not only the duopoly, but the "one winner" provisions in the constitution of 1787). This can start with proportional representation initiatives on a state level. "Money out of politics" is of course always good.

Furthermore, the genuinely outcast and progressive are mostly in the Democratic party. Plenty of people inside if down-low in the hierarchy want to see a truly progressive party, and feel stuck with the Democrats for the same reason so many others do, because of the binary system. The base for a revolution in this country is inside the Democrats, not the Republicans as presently constituted. (As well as outside both parties.)

Not voting isn't a strategy for anything. Its a neutral state of being.

Not once you've advocated it to others. If you're for it in words, it's more than that.

Fighting and dying to cast a vote is a tragedy. A total waste of precious life.

Tell it to those who did die. Tell it to those who murdered them. Your desire for historical ignorance is little of my concern. Also, tell it to those who are being disenfranchised right now, by the new Jim Crow of the criminal justice and prison system, by the efforts to purge voter rolls and stop people from voting in many states. And tell it to those who are making these efforts.

Voting is championed on this board with religious fever. Pages and pages of flame wars. I don't think I'm projecting at all.

Bullshit. Not only are you projecting, you're reversing the reality. I see a handful of people who actually look around at this country describing its political reality and saying yes, they'll vote, for the tiny difference it may make. (No guarantees.) Meanwhile, a group of the anti-voters are calling those who vote baby murderers (and posting pictures of the babies we've killed) and speaking with intense moral fervor as if -- by the simple inaction of not voting -- they can magically separate themselves from this system in which they pay taxes, drive, work, shop, consume and choose every day whether to speak out and how.

How can I affirm anything by not participating? That's like saying I can still win the lottery if I don't buy a ticket.

Because you're here. You can see what's happening. Like it or not, you're part of this.

This isn't the lottery. If you don't play the lottery, you can't win anything. But if you don't vote, you will "win" one of the two options. There is no vacant office, there is no third possibility (although there are third options that cannot win). This is true of all of us. We all get one out of two of these bozos as the winner. We're all participants in this system and we all have our small chance to affect it by voting. If there is a collective upheaval to change it, we will all be part of that, as participants or stay-at-homes.

I could care less if Romney wins. I honestly think he couldn't do any worse than Obama.

Okay. Could turn out to be reality. I'm not talking about which one is the head of the government, however. I'm talking about the effects of a poll held every four years in which there are two choices put to YOU:

1) Do you want to be fucked over?

2) Do you want to be fucked over a lot more horribly than that?

If you don't choose, the assumption is that you for #2.

In a sense it doesn't matter which of the two individuals or even parties is truly the worse. It matters how the American people answer the above question. Romney just promised everyone that he will cut "Big Bird" (Sesame Street is a common symbol among racists for multiracial society and the social safety net) and increase the war budget. The only thing he spoke with fervor about at this "debate" was his desire to raise the holy war budget. Obama may do the same after the election because it's "scripted," but he didn't promise it; he promises he won't. We're all receiving the message. If we respond by choosing #2, that is what we will get, and most of us will believe that's what the majority wanted. Even if we hate it, we are demobilized and discouraged. If instead Obama cuts "Big Bird" (not PBS but in the dogwhistle sense) and raises the war budget, we know we've been double crossed. If we don't fight then, it's just as much our fault.

A look at history shows that this is how it works. The Republican executives revolutionize the power of the state and do so from a doctrine that says they don't have to explain or follow the law. The Democratic executives then consolidate and legalize these gains, and split their own followers by always collaborating with the right-wing on the key economic and military-foreign questions. This makes them unpopular, even though they are structurally the majority party by far. The scam fulfills itself by bringing in the next hardliner who promises new wars with popular support. The function of the system is not just to produce indistinguishable choices, but to constantly revive a right-wing on life support.

.

[brainpanhandler]

@jack, yes to everything except possibly this:

The base for a revolution in this country is inside the Democrats, not the Republicans as presently constituted.

It may not be the revolution you and I want to see, but they've got the seeds of their own insurrection waiting to be watered with our blood.

[coffin_dodger]

Take a look around you - the system that we are all part of is falling apart. Marx was on the right track - Capitalism is destroying itself.

To maintain the system we have all lived under for hundreds of years, ruthless, self-indulgent assholes have run things. It's the way capitalism is supposed to work. But like feudalism and monarchy, capitalism has run it's course. It's in it's death-throes right now. Modern comms, mechanization, roboticization and general scientific advances have doomed it.

Doesn't matter who you do or don't vote for - MASSIVE CHANGE AHEAD. Can't you guys feel it? No, I don't know what, I'm not a soothsayer. However, I feel the answer may lie with the machines.

[compared2what?]

How can I affirm anything by not participating? That's like saying I can still win the lottery if I don't buy a ticket.

No. It's like this:

You're Canadian. Unless you go to truly exceptional lengths to opt out, that means you're a member of a civic/political collective in which you've been actively participating in one way or another pretty much since you were old enough to tie your shoes. Voting is voluntary in your collective, per the terms of the collective agreement. So you're free not to do so without giving up any of the benefits or privileges of membership in it. But that doesn't mean you're not....

I guess it is kind of like winning the lottery without buying a ticket, actually. There's just not much of a jackpot.

_________________

^^That's not intended as a paean to the virtues of voting, btw. I'm really just stating the facts, out of pure non-value-laden let's-not-make-not-voting-into-something-it's-not spirit.

[LilyPatToo]

Have a look at GodLikeProductions to see the ludicrous invectives being hurled with venom at Obama:

From the lead/owner This Election Isn't About The Lesser of Two Evils, It's a Communist VS a Capitalist! YOU MUST VOTE!

I thought this was a weirder than weird, conspiracy forum. Apparently Obama's very existence has driven the transformation into a an openly racist and rightwing hate site. I mean, the idea that Obama is vaguely socialist amuses me.

The mind boggles. I think it is to his credit, at least, that he forces these morons out into the open.

McCain/Palin would have been worse in ways that we can only speculate. There would have been dead brown children a plenty to wring your hands to. There would be drones, TSA gropes and further erosion of legislative protections from the predations of corporations.

Or maybe not: Maybe there would have been the holy dawn of a new epoch of tolerance and collective evolution.

But, I just don't think so. And for those who think giving Obama a new term in office is a bad thing - there is only one other probable alternative. The election will go ahead, with or without you. They will not say 'gee, some Obama voters felt cheated by the 'Hope and Change' schtick; I guess we should do it all again, but fair this time'. This binary operation must have one of two results.

And Willard and Paul, most definitely, most determinedly, will see to it that things are worse for you and yours.

If you have any non-white friends, their lives will be made harder.

If you have gay friends, their lives will be made harder.

If you have any friends at lower (or no) income levels, their lives will be made harder.

If you know any women, their lives will be made harder.

Your life will be made harder. Unless, you are so rich to be immune to any social legislative changes. I don't know how many multimillionaires read this forum: Not too many, I am guessing. (but if you are, then vote for Romney with wild abandon! I give you that)

Thanks for this post, Rory. One group that will be much, much worse off if Romney wins will be anyone over 65 who was depending on Medicare to have access to medical care. Out of that group, the lowest-income people will literally face death, disability and extreme poverty.

I swore I wouldn't let myself get dragged into the attempt to wake up the "don't vote at all" folks again, but I cannot bear to think that they'll sway others away from voting. And it's so much easier to just look blasé and stay home that day. You'll find lots of support for your inaction and frankly you won't have struck any kind of blow for a more just society--instead, you stand a very good chance of actually enabling the worst of the monsters in their predation.

Even if you have to hold your nose to vote for Obama, if you're other-than-white, GLBT, female or elderly (or have friends/family who are), you'd damn well better do it. Otherwise you've joined the ranks of the Americans who incomprehensibly and consistently vote against their own self-interest or the slackers who loll at home and sneer at their neighbors who at least make an effort on Election Day.

And in almost every local election there are measures and candidates whose election can hugely impact schools, the environment and local employment issues. If you swan about being above-it-all and let the people who turn out and vote determine these issues, you've fucking copped out. And you and other non-wealthy people will pay the price, which is a lot more than "a rationalization."

LilyPat

[wintler2]

Here in Australia the "voting affects nothing" camp have declined, perhaps related to us now being in our second term of ALP ('labour'/centrist) minority govt with Green & rural Independants support. When Lab-Grn-Indi's first formed govt, every paper in the country was certain it wouldn't work and couldn't last. It has, and has made a difference.

[bks]

JackRiddler wrote:

Ironically enough, I think these things are fixed, but through a consensus process of the power-elite stakeholders that produces two sufficiently acceptable candidates, and not in the fully scripted, masterminded fashion imagined by some here. Which is not to say that a body like the Bush mob doesn't ever step in to get exactly what they want by way of illegal intervention, as they did in 1980 and 2000.

One small, recent, entirely visible manifestation of this truth (appropriate for the season) would be the duopoly-managed Committee for Presidential Debates, which displaced the League of Women Voters in 1988 as the sponsor of the "Superbowl" of American Politics. The result: a patently fraudulent 15% polling threshold for debate inclusion, designed not so much to keep the multitudes off the stage, but to keep the intelligent, ideologically impure candidate away from the mass audience they would otherwise get for their anti-corporate message. Large majorities wanted Nader and Pat Buchanan to be given space in the 2000 debates, but the corporate sponsors of the CPD certainly didn't want them there. The CPD kept Ross Perot out of the 1996 debates, a candidate that (whatever you thought of him) had been rewarded with $29 million of taxpayer money off his 19% showing in 1992.

Debates, wouldn't you know, can make a difference. They propelled a professional wrestler to the Governor's mansion in Minnesota. He had less than 10% of the electorate two months from election day, and 37% on that day. Which famously drew the CIA's attention.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... /jessecia/

[Luther Blissett]

The US Presidential debates' illusion of political choice
The issue is not what separates Romney and Obama, but how much they agree. This hidden consensus has to be exposed

Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian, Thursday 4 October 2012 15.20 EDT

Wednesday night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about America's presidential election season: the vast majority of the most consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process. This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies – and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream political debate is in the country.

In part this is because presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for substantive debates.

But in larger part, this exclusion is due to the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in full-scale agreement on many of the nation's most pressing political issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise their support base and heighten fear of the other side.

Most of what matters in American political life is nowhere to be found in its national election debates. Penal policies vividly illustrate this point. America imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation on earth by far, including countries with far greater populations. As the New York Times reported in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5% of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."

Professor Glenn Loury of Brown University has observed that these policies have turned the US into "a nation of jailers" whose "prison system has grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history". The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik called this mass incarceration "perhaps the fundamental fact [of American society], as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850".

Even worse, these policies are applied, and arguably designed, with mass racial disparities. One in every four African-American men is likely to be imprisoned. Black and Latino drug users are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned at far higher rates than whites, even though usage among all groups is relatively equal.

The human cost of this sprawling penal state is obviously horrific: families are broken up, communities are decimated, and those jailed are rendered all but unemployable upon release. But the financial costs are just as devastating. California now spends more on its prison system than it does on higher education, a warped trend repeated around the country.

Yet none of these issues will even be mentioned, let alone debated, by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That is because they have no discernible differences when it comes to any of the underlying policies, including America's relentless fixation on treating drug usage as a criminal, rather than health, problem. The oppressive system that now imprisons 1.8 million Americans, and that will imprison millions more over their lifetime, is therefore completely ignored during the only process when most Americans are politically engaged.

This same dynamic repeats itself in other crucial realms. President Obama's dramatically escalated drone attacks in numerous countries have generated massive anger in the Muslim world, continuously kill civilians, and are of dubious legality at best. His claimed right to target even American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations, without a whiff of transparency or oversight, is as radical a power as any seized by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yet Americans whose political perceptions are shaped by attentiveness to the presidential campaign would hardly know that such radical and consequential policies even exist. That is because here too there is absolute consensus between the two parties.

A long list of highly debatable and profoundly significant policies will be similarly excluded due to bipartisan agreement. The list includes a rapidly growing domestic surveillance state that now monitors and records even the most innocuous activities of all Americans; job-killing free trade agreements; climate change policies; and the Obama justice department's refusal to prosecute the Wall Street criminals who precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.

On still other vital issues, such as America's steadfastly loyal support for Israel and its belligerence towards Iran, the two candidates will do little other than compete over who is most aggressively embracing the same absolutist position. And this is all independent of the fact that even on the issues that are the subject of debate attention, such as healthcare policy and entitlement "reform", all but the most centrist positions are off limits.

The harm from this process is not merely the loss of what could be a valuable opportunity to engage in a real national debate. Worse, it is propagandistic: by emphasising the few issues on which there is real disagreement between the parties, the election process ends up sustaining the appearance that there is far more difference between the two parties, and far more choice for citizens, than is really offered by America's political system.

One way to solve this problem would be to allow credible third-party candidates into the presidential debates and to give them more media coverage. Doing so would highlight just how similar Democrats and Republicans have become, and what little choice American voters actually have on many of the most consequential policies. That is exactly why the two major parties work so feverishly to ensure the exclusion of those candidates: it is precisely the deceitful perception of real choice that they are most eager to maintain.

• This is an op-ed I wrote to appear in the Guardian newspaper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ate-deceit

[vanlose kid]

^^
yeah, but voting in the next election will change all that. that's why it was invented to begin with.

*

[vanlose kid]

until voting begins to work though...

The Great Scam: America's Richest Politicians Get Richer As Democrat, Republican Wealth Converges
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/07/2012 12:30 -0400


It will, or should, come as no surprise that as a result of the Great Financial Crisis, just as in real life, so in D.C., the wealthiest politicians have gotten wealthier: in fact at least 72 politicos have doubled their wealth in the past 5 years. It will, or should, also come as no surprise, that as a result of the GFC, the average wealth of Republicans (which declined) and Democrats (which rose) has converged, confirming that at least when it comes to the economic disparity between America's two big parties, there is no longer any difference. At least these are the findings of a recent WaPo study looking at how America's lawmakers have benefited from the laws they themselves institute. In other words, while America's laws may be designed for its people, those who actually benefit from this country's fiscal (and of course monetary) policy is just one group: those who continue to transfer wealth from what little is left of the middle class and into their own, mostly offshore, bank accounts.

From the WaPo: "You would find that, contrary to many popular perceptions, lawmakers don’t get rich by merely being in Congress. Rich people who go to Congress, though, keep getting richer while they’re there." We are fairly confident that there were no "popular perceptions" that anyone goes to Congress to get wealthy. Congress, and certainly the Senate, are merely vehicles to allow those with power and money to simply perpetuate a status quo that benefits the 1% and takes, what little is left, from everyone else. And sadly, this theft transcends political lines and ideological colors. In short: everyone is doing it, even as America continues to delude itself there is an option. There is none.

For the complete matrix of just who steals from you, dear Americans, click below.


Other WaPo findings:

The wealthiest one-third of lawmakers were largely immune from the Great Recession, taking the fewest financial hits and watching their investments quickly recover and rise to new heights. But more than 20 percent of the members of the current Congress — 121 lawmakers — appeared to be worse off in 2010 than they had been six years earlier, and 24 saw their reported wealth slide into negative territory.

Most members weathered the financial crisis better than the average American, who saw median household net worth drop 39 percent from 2007 to 2010. The median estimated wealth of members of the current Congress rose 5 percent during the same period, according to their reported assets and liabilities. The wealthiest one-third of Congress gained 14 percent.

The Post also found that some congressional financial interests intersected with public actions taken by legislators: 73 lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that could have benefitted businesses or industries in which either they or their families were involved or invested.

Among the other findings is perhaps this key one: "The estimated wealth of Republicans was 44 percent higher than Democrats in 2004, but that disparity has virtually disappeared." In other words, when it comes to wealth, and thanks to the crisis, which made some Republicans poorer as it made some Democrats richer, America now has only one party: those who do not represent the people, but merely those who will do everything to preserve their own wealth.



And as noted above, the richest just get richer and richer:



More:

Between 2004 and 2010, 72 lawmakers appeared to have doubled their estimated wealth.

At least 150 lawmakers reported receiving more income from outside jobs and investments than from their congressional salaries of $174,000 for rank-and-file members.



Representatives in 2010 had a median estimated wealth of $746,000; senators had $2.6 million.

• Since 2004, lawmakers reported more than 3,500 outside jobs paying their spouses more than $1,000 a year. The lawmakers are not required to report how much the spouses are paid or what they did for the money.
• Lawmakers’ wealth is held in a variety of ways: 127 primarily in real estate, 117 in institutional funds, 75 in their spouses’ names, 51 in essentially cash, 36 in specific stocks and bonds, 32 in high-turnover trading, 30 in business ownership and 20 in agriculture. More than 40 had reported assets of $25,000 or less.

Those wishing to learn how America's representative government continues to die a slow and painful (for most, if not all) death, can read on here.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-0 ... lth-conver

*

[compared2what?]

^^
yeah, but voting in the next election will change all that. that's why it was invented to begin with.

*

Nobody is making that argument. Or has made it. Even one time.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

Hahahaha! We are not only getting 'derailed' but this nation has left any notion of some sense -even the barest-of reality behind. USA = Beamed up to the Mothership. This -uh- man -proves it

Along with the whole video being pretty much inaccurate this idiot has never heard of James Buchanan apparently -our real first gay president!
"Biden's a joke compared to Paul Ryan" man this dude has his head screwed on backwards!
thanks for the laughs jd!

edit: I truly hope that the machine is tearing itself apart and that this sense of insanity increasing every day is just a symptom of that, and that it will stop when it is done destroying itself

[justdrew]

the video has to be preserved as a hysterical document

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

the video has to be preserved as a hysterical document

hell yeah! That is almost better than the Lloyd Bentsen/DQ video - "..senator you're no Jack Kennedy"

[compared2what?]

until voting begins to work though...

The Great Scam: America's Richest Politicians Get Richer As Democrat, Republican Wealth Converges
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/07/2012 12:30 -0400


It will, or should, come as no surprise that as a result of the Great Financial Crisis, just as in real life, so in D.C., the wealthiest politicians have gotten wealthier: in fact at least 72 politicos have doubled their wealth in the past 5 years. It will, or should, also come as no surprise, that as a result of the GFC, the average wealth of Republicans (which declined) and Democrats (which rose) has converged, confirming that at least when it comes to the economic disparity between America's two big parties, there is no longer any difference. At least these are the findings of a recent WaPo study looking at how America's lawmakers have benefited from the laws they themselves institute. In other words, while America's laws may be designed for its people, those who actually benefit from this country's fiscal (and of course monetary) policy is just one group: those who continue to transfer wealth from what little is left of the middle class and into their own, mostly offshore, bank accounts.

From the WaPo: "You would find that, contrary to many popular perceptions, lawmakers don’t get rich by merely being in Congress. Rich people who go to Congress, though, keep getting richer while they’re there." We are fairly confident that there were no "popular perceptions" that anyone goes to Congress to get wealthy. Congress, and certainly the Senate, are merely vehicles to allow those with power and money to simply perpetuate a status quo that benefits the 1% and takes, what little is left, from everyone else. And sadly, this theft transcends political lines and ideological colors. In short: everyone is doing it, even as America continues to delude itself there is an option. There is none.

For the complete matrix of just who steals from you, dear Americans, click below.


Other WaPo findings:

The wealthiest one-third of lawmakers were largely immune from the Great Recession, taking the fewest financial hits and watching their investments quickly recover and rise to new heights. But more than 20 percent of the members of the current Congress — 121 lawmakers — appeared to be worse off in 2010 than they had been six years earlier, and 24 saw their reported wealth slide into negative territory.

Most members weathered the financial crisis better than the average American, who saw median household net worth drop 39 percent from 2007 to 2010. The median estimated wealth of members of the current Congress rose 5 percent during the same period, according to their reported assets and liabilities. The wealthiest one-third of Congress gained 14 percent.

The Post also found that some congressional financial interests intersected with public actions taken by legislators: 73 lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored legislation that could have benefitted businesses or industries in which either they or their families were involved or invested.

Among the other findings is perhaps this key one: "The estimated wealth of Republicans was 44 percent higher than Democrats in 2004, but that disparity has virtually disappeared." In other words, when it comes to wealth, and thanks to the crisis, which made some Republicans poorer as it made some Democrats richer, America now has only one party: those who do not represent the people, but merely those who will do everything to preserve their own wealth.



And as noted above, the richest just get richer and richer:



More:

Between 2004 and 2010, 72 lawmakers appeared to have doubled their estimated wealth.

At least 150 lawmakers reported receiving more income from outside jobs and investments than from their congressional salaries of $174,000 for rank-and-file members.



Representatives in 2010 had a median estimated wealth of $746,000; senators had $2.6 million.

• Since 2004, lawmakers reported more than 3,500 outside jobs paying their spouses more than $1,000 a year. The lawmakers are not required to report how much the spouses are paid or what they did for the money.
• Lawmakers’ wealth is held in a variety of ways: 127 primarily in real estate, 117 in institutional funds, 75 in their spouses’ names, 51 in essentially cash, 36 in specific stocks and bonds, 32 in high-turnover trading, 30 in business ownership and 20 in agriculture. More than 40 had reported assets of $25,000 or less.

Those wishing to learn how America's representative government continues to die a slow and painful (for most, if not all) death, can read on here.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-0 ... lth-conver

*

vk --

Please stop using that "oh, until voting works la-di-da" line of argumentation to introduce an article that says stuff that's already been repeatedly conceded by all the people who AREN'T saying that voting is a solution, the answer or a means to change the world.

The only people on this thread who have ever (apparently) thought that voting in a presidential election was the ticket to world change are the non- and anti-voters.