Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:23 am
Yeah, if I do vote this time around, it will be to decide local & state races. I'll probably do a write-in for preznit.
rigorousintuition.ca
What you don't know can't hurt them.
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/
The 2012 "Election" thread
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=33931
Page 2 of 70
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:58 pm
I'm going to write-in Cornel West and Naomi Wolf or something like that, and urge everyone I know, including Occupy folks, to do the same as protest against the process.
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:56 pm
"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/2 ... d%3D130277
LOLFidel Castro Calls Republican Race 'Competition Of Idiocy And Ignorance'
By PAUL HAVEN
01/25/12 11:38 AM ET
HAVANA -- Fidel Castro lambasted the Republican presidential race as the greatest competition of "idiocy and ignorance" the world has ever seen in a column published Wednesday, and also took shots at the news media and foreign governments for seizing on the death of a Cuban prisoner to demand greater respect for human rights.
Castro's comments came in a long opinion piece carried by official media two days after Republican presidential hopefuls at a debate in Florida presented mostly hard-line stances on what to do about the Communist-run island, and even speculated as to what would happen to the 85-year-old revolutionary leader's soul when he dies.
Cuba has become an important issue as the candidates court Florida's influential Cuban-American community in an effort to win the biggest electoral prize so far in the primary season.
Castro said he always assumed the candidates would try to outdo each other on the issue of Cuba, but that he was nonetheless appalled by the level of debate.
"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been," said the retired Cuban leader, who has dueled with 11 U.S. administrations since his 1959 revolution.
Castro also disputed international media accounts about the Jan. 19 death of Wilman Villar, a 31-year-old Cuban prisoner, saying the man was not a dissident and not on a 50-day hunger strike as human rights groups and the island's opposition claim.
Castro reiterated the government's contention that Villar was a common criminal sent to prison for domestic violence, and that he received the best medical attention possible. Washington and several European governments have condemned Cuba for his death, and Amnesty International says it was about to put Villar on a global list of prisoners of conscience.
Villar has become a cause celebre for opponents of the Cuban government, but he was not a well known figure, even among island dissidents, before his death.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney said during Monday's debate that Villar died "fighting for democracy" and that his death highlighted the need to remain firm on Cuba. Washington has maintained a near-50-year trade and travel embargo on Cuba.
Another Republican candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said he would authorize increased covert operations to bring down the Cuban government. And at another moment of Monday's debate, Romney and Gingrich sparred over whether Castro's soul would go to heaven or hell.
When asked what he would do as president if he found out Castro had died, Romney said he would first "thank Heavens" that the bearded revolutionary had finally "returned to his maker," to which Gingrich replied "I don't think Fidel's going to meet his maker. I think he's going to go to the other place."
Castro didn't refer to the comments specifically in his opinion piece, saying that he was too busy with other things to waste any more time analyzing the Republican competition.
P.S. I'm down with Cornel West! And Fidel himself would make a better president than the unbearded oppressors on offer.
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:19 pm
I was just looking around and a saying I've often heard struck me. I've often heard that people often pick mates that physically favor themselves. I find that to be true in many cases. Not all, but pretty often. I find it to be true with this case. Nothing against his wife. I'm sure she is a fine lady. Just an observation on society at large.
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:09 am
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:44 am
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:49 am
Ninakat, you owe me a new computer screen, now that it's drenched in water.ninakat wrote:
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:03 am
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:25 am
Comes with the territory.
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:57 pm
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:50 am
.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=33042
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=31308
Happened across this as well. Russell Brand, not sounding as insipid as some of the characters he portrays onscreeen:
http://www.russellbrand.tv/2012/01/russ ... spectacle/
U.S. politics provided copious fodder for the British Brand. Asked if his show would examine the 2012 president election, Brand allowed that the current crop of GOP contenders are “an interesting bunch. I don’t know much about them. But that could be a good thing.”
On Mitt Romney’s vast wealth: “Other billionaires must seem like Dickensian street urchins eating gruel with fingerless gloves.”
On the presidential race in general: “We know it’s meaningless who the president is. Don’t we? So I’m not going to be part of the meaningless spectacle. It’s like describing individual termites. The only legitimate distinction in global politics, I think, is: are you rich or poor?”
On former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s name: “[His] surname rhymes with sanitarium.”
On former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s name: “ludicrous, amphibious, bizarre.”
On U.S. Marines videotaped urinating on Afghan corpses: “It’s bad to wee on a dead body, but it’s worse to kill someone! A lot of people consider the old golden shower elitist.”
On Gingrich’s TV spot skewering Romney for speaking French: “Like that makes him elitist and a bit of a whoopsy. It’s so extraordinary that someone would be criticized for [speaking another language].”
On whether his show will traffic in the gossip of the moment, even if it involves him: “At the risk of plunging myself into a post-modern, self-referential vortex, I could analyze myself. If I’d done something actually newsworthy, then I’d cover it.”
On his goals as a comedian: “I don’t see myself or my role as a malevolent jester attacking people who are already disenfranchised. All I want is to make people feel better than they do now. All I want is to make people laugh. My goal is to acknowledge that within each of us is a divine and beautiful light.”
On the culture at large: “I consider contemporary culture to be a pink pony trotting through the world shitting glitter. They’re filling our minds with shit glitter!”
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=33042
.Belligerent Savant wrote:.
Don't need machines for voter fraud. Happens with or without machines.
Or, perhaps no 'fraud' need be committed at all at this point. Populace is just about dumbed down enough, manipulated enough, disinformed enough, to vote however the ' operational few' deem fit.
Maybe not for this upcoming National election, but we'll get there soon enough, barring system interruption -- ready to pull that lever for whoever we are told is the better candidate without the need for any fraud to facilitate the outcome.
So, go 'head and fix them machines. The game itself is rigged -- not the equipment.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... =8&t=31308
Belligerent Savant wrote:
... if we truly have any aspirations to overthrow the current power structure, NOT VOTING en masse would be the way to do it. It would send a clear message that WE aren't swallowing the BS any more. We refuse to accept it, and as such, will no longer PARTICIPATE in the farce. They can only continue their dirty work so long as we play along in the charade. There'd be nothing to rig/fix if there are no votes cast. So long as we continue to participate, the lies/propaganda/manipulations will continue.
But if we all -- ALL -- choose to pull off a Bartleby the Scrivener and "prefer not to" participate, they'd be rendered powerless against such a COLLECTIVE VOICE of OPPOSITION, left with no platform to build the LIES.
Happened across this as well. Russell Brand, not sounding as insipid as some of the characters he portrays onscreeen:
http://www.russellbrand.tv/2012/01/russ ... spectacle/
U.S. politics provided copious fodder for the British Brand. Asked if his show would examine the 2012 president election, Brand allowed that the current crop of GOP contenders are “an interesting bunch. I don’t know much about them. But that could be a good thing.”
On Mitt Romney’s vast wealth: “Other billionaires must seem like Dickensian street urchins eating gruel with fingerless gloves.”
On the presidential race in general: “We know it’s meaningless who the president is. Don’t we? So I’m not going to be part of the meaningless spectacle. It’s like describing individual termites. The only legitimate distinction in global politics, I think, is: are you rich or poor?”
On former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s name: “[His] surname rhymes with sanitarium.”
On former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s name: “ludicrous, amphibious, bizarre.”
On U.S. Marines videotaped urinating on Afghan corpses: “It’s bad to wee on a dead body, but it’s worse to kill someone! A lot of people consider the old golden shower elitist.”
On Gingrich’s TV spot skewering Romney for speaking French: “Like that makes him elitist and a bit of a whoopsy. It’s so extraordinary that someone would be criticized for [speaking another language].”
On whether his show will traffic in the gossip of the moment, even if it involves him: “At the risk of plunging myself into a post-modern, self-referential vortex, I could analyze myself. If I’d done something actually newsworthy, then I’d cover it.”
On his goals as a comedian: “I don’t see myself or my role as a malevolent jester attacking people who are already disenfranchised. All I want is to make people feel better than they do now. All I want is to make people laugh. My goal is to acknowledge that within each of us is a divine and beautiful light.”
On the culture at large: “I consider contemporary culture to be a pink pony trotting through the world shitting glitter. They’re filling our minds with shit glitter!”
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:05 am
ninakat wrote:
Now you owe me a computer screen.Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:32 pm
.
Love the Brand stuff.
Why hasn't this worked yet?
It was originally the case that only about a third or less of people could even vote, and the politicians who were elected were at least as bad as today's.
In the modern era, presidential elections have seen majorities of non-voters. The non-voters are always a plurality. Every mid-term election, 2/3 majorities do not vote for Congress. In odd years, without federal elections, elections for state legislatures and governorships and mayoralties can draw even less than one-third. Primaries draw something like 4 to 12 percent of eligible voters. "We" are no longer participating in the farce, as you say. How much more of a majority do you expect for your "NOT VOTING" program before it shows some results? It is not widely interpreted as a rejection of the system, neither among voters nor most of the non-voters. Election winners have not been handicapped by low turnout. Non-voting is a non-issue. It's rarely mentioned. After every election, academic and opinion survey whores bless the final results as reflecting the will of the people, explaining that if everyone had voted, the results would still have been the same. I think that's untrue in several ways, but hardly anyone contradicts it. If you examine this, I think you'll realize that advocacy for not voting is a big nothing as a program for political action.
.
Love the Brand stuff.
I know this is the hot button of hot buttons, and the position I've come to occupy on it after many years is usually misunderstood, so I should probably shut up since I don't want to engage in a 30-post exchange that leaves us nowhere, but...Belligerent Savant wrote:... if we truly have any aspirations to overthrow the current power structure, NOT VOTING en masse would be the way to do it. It would send a clear message that WE aren't swallowing the BS any more. We refuse to accept it, and as such, will no longer PARTICIPATE in the farce.
Why hasn't this worked yet?
It was originally the case that only about a third or less of people could even vote, and the politicians who were elected were at least as bad as today's.
In the modern era, presidential elections have seen majorities of non-voters. The non-voters are always a plurality. Every mid-term election, 2/3 majorities do not vote for Congress. In odd years, without federal elections, elections for state legislatures and governorships and mayoralties can draw even less than one-third. Primaries draw something like 4 to 12 percent of eligible voters. "We" are no longer participating in the farce, as you say. How much more of a majority do you expect for your "NOT VOTING" program before it shows some results? It is not widely interpreted as a rejection of the system, neither among voters nor most of the non-voters. Election winners have not been handicapped by low turnout. Non-voting is a non-issue. It's rarely mentioned. After every election, academic and opinion survey whores bless the final results as reflecting the will of the people, explaining that if everyone had voted, the results would still have been the same. I think that's untrue in several ways, but hardly anyone contradicts it. If you examine this, I think you'll realize that advocacy for not voting is a big nothing as a program for political action.
.
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:59 pm
Didn't the ANC run a very successful voting boycott in the final act of the takedown of Apartheid?
Re: The 2012 "Election" thread
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:17 pm
I don't know. Tell us about it. What elections were boycotted? Could the majority vote in the government elections in the first place, and if so which?Wombaticus Rex wrote:Didn't the ANC run a very successful voting boycott in the final act of the takedown of Apartheid?
If you do it here: How does anyone know you boycotted rather than just didn't care? How do you deliver the message behind your boycott? A 62 percent non-participation says what to whom? Who gets to speak for it? Because I guarantee you, the usual bad guys will be speaking for it, not you.
See, it would have a voice if a majority on that same night showed up at the parliament to announce they were the majority who had not voted, and therefore had the right to kick out the illegitimate non-representatives and write a new charter... but that would be neither voting nor not-voting. That's a protest by physical presence. Which need not concern itself with elections at all. Sort of my point.
.