rigorousintuition.ca

Jeff wrote:I think hope in Carousel has to pass, and the ride has to be virtually riderless, before things can change substantively for the better.

I completely agree.

marmot wrote:So now you're saying that those who don't align themselves with your appreciation of democracy shouldn't participate in it? Exclude those who don't subscribe to the status quo, the state-sponsored, consensus reality of America?

No. All I'm saying is that by pretending not to participate you won't make a lick of a difference.

You may even be making it worse.

nomo wrote:

marmot wrote:So now you're saying that those who don't align themselves with your appreciation of democracy shouldn't participate in it? Exclude those who don't subscribe to the status quo, the state-sponsored, consensus reality of America?

No. All I'm saying is that by pretending not to participate you won't make a lick of a difference.

You may even be making it worse.

Bravo, Nomo! I do believe you nailed it.

Let it get worse. If it gets bad enough, maybe it will motivate people.

nomo wrote:

marmot wrote:So now you're saying that those who don't align themselves with your appreciation of democracy shouldn't participate in it? Exclude those who don't subscribe to the status quo, the state-sponsored, consensus reality of America?

No. All I'm saying is that by pretending not to participate you won't make a lick of a difference.

You may even be making it worse.

But I and others, while not participating in this one supposed mode of changing the system, are actively working through other means that may in fact be more effective! Why can't you see or acknowledge that?

Eldritch wrote:

Jeff wrote:I think hope in Carousel has to pass, and the ride has to be virtually riderless, before things can change substantively for the better.

I completely agree.

Ditto!!

Thank you Jeff. That about sums up my sense of all this.

Another awesome tune from the crazy arse-holers of Austin, Texas!!

Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates — but that’s not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that.

Well, looking at it historically, the “solution” has to be a break from the officially-approved mechanisms. It must have the form of a broad movement based on the interests of the bottom 80-90% of the population, rather than on the interests of the top 1%. It has to be what they call “radical” politics — something that big business and the media are definitely not going to like, any more than they like Kucinich or antiwar protestors.

The 2 parties are really just a mechanism of social control. They’re not a way for “the people” to express their will; they’re a way for rulers to control the people — partly by making them believe that they (the peeps) have some say (which they don’t). Building a movement to oppose this takes time. But its sine qua non is political consciousness — the type that socialists understand & try to cultivate; and that the big-business parties & media try to suppress & eradicate.

We need Latin American-style "socialist" revolution in the streets, complemented by effective traditional political organizing, social-class based. Genuine socialism is good. An honest look at history shows that it's what the global fascists truly fear. (For instance, read "Killing Hope" by William Blum.) Why do privileged first worlders always think they/we know better, with their next new quasi-capitalist new-big-thing?

elfismiles wrote:But I and others, while not participating in this one supposed mode of changing the system, are actively working through other means that may in fact be more effective! Why can't you see or acknowledge that?

Why can't it be both? Work on changing the system while also making sure John McCain doesn't get in the White House?

nomo wrote:

marmot wrote:So now you're saying that those who don't align themselves with your appreciation of democracy shouldn't participate in it? Exclude those who don't subscribe to the status quo, the state-sponsored, consensus reality of America?

No. All I'm saying is that by pretending not to participate you won't make a lick of a difference.

You may even be making it worse.

See, Marmot! It isn't Obama's fault for supporting the empire in word and deed—and thereby turning off voters—it's YOUR fault. Can't you see that?

It can never be Obama's fault if he's losing support. Because to say it's Obama's fault is tacit support for McCain! And we don't want to support McCain because, after all, he's evil—even though Obama does many of the same evil things.

What a load of shit the "'You must support the lesser of two evils because, if you don't, you'll be supporting real evil!' idiocy" is.

nomo wrote:

elfismiles wrote:But I and others, while not participating in this one supposed mode of changing the system, are actively working through other means that may in fact be more effective! Why can't you see or acknowledge that?

Why can't it be both? Work on changing the system while also making sure John McCain doesn't get in the White House?

Why does it have to be?

elfismiles wrote:

nomo wrote:

elfismiles wrote:But I and others, while not participating in this one supposed mode of changing the system, are actively working through other means that may in fact be more effective! Why can't you see or acknowledge that?

Why can't it be both? Work on changing the system while also making sure John McCain doesn't get in the White House?

Why does it have to be?

Because you can bet your bottom dollar that with McCain as president it'll be a lot harder to effect any meaningful change? Because the world simply can't afford another four years of neocon/republican thuggery?

Eldritch wrote:What a load of shit the "'You must support the lesser of two evils because, if you don't, you'll be supporting real evil!' idiocy" is.

Uh, no. Your statement above is the load of shit. Welcome to the real world, where you always have to choose.

nomo wrote:

elfismiles wrote:

nomo wrote:

elfismiles wrote:But I and others, while not participating in this one supposed mode of changing the system, are actively working through other means that may in fact be more effective! Why can't you see or acknowledge that?

Why can't it be both? Work on changing the system while also making sure John McCain doesn't get in the White House?

Why does it have to be?

Because you can bet your bottom dollar that with McCain as president it'll be a lot harder to effect any meaningful change? Because the world simply can't afford another four years of neocon/republican thuggery?

Ok nomo ... if I DO vote for Obama ... I'll be sure to tell my voting booth handler, "I did it as a symbolic gesture for NOMO neocon thuggery."

elfismiles wrote:

nomo wrote:If by "not supporting" Obama you will hand the presidency to McCain, will you feel better?

Whatever dude. You and I both know that the sElection aint that simple. I do not believe in voting for the Evil of Two Lessers.

I'm not handing my support to any person I don't feel morally or ethically deserves my support.

There is No Choice engendered in your proposition.

'
PRETEND IT'S NOT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

PRETEND IT'S A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON WHETHER RUTH BADER GINSBURG WILL BE REPLACED BY SOMEONE WHO VOTES WITH SCALIA, THOMAS, ALITO, AND ROBERTS ON EVERY CASE.

Because except that it might be a referendum on whether it's not Ginsburg, but Breyer, or possibly Souter, or ALL THREE who will be replaced, THAT'S NOT A PRETENSE.

IT'S A REAL CHOICE, AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE IT.

Sorry for the all-caps. But if you know the election as presented is bullshit, why make a decision based on the bullshit terms as it defines them, not as you do? That's like giving up your freedom to think for yourself without even being asked, let alone forced.

The vote might or might not be counted. But the evidence suggests some of them are, and that the larger the number of fixed votes has to be, the more detectable the fraud is.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE BY ITSELF.

Thanks for your attention,

c2w

"Obama may do evil things, but McCain is SO MUCH worse! Therefore, support Obama."

What preposterous idiocy.

compared2what? wrote:

elfismiles wrote:

nomo wrote:If by "not supporting" Obama you will hand the presidency to McCain, will you feel better?

Whatever dude. You and I both know that the sElection aint that simple. I do not believe in voting for the Evil of Two Lessers.

I'm not handing my support to any person I don't feel morally or ethically deserves my support.

There is No Choice engendered in your proposition.

'
PRETEND IT'S NOT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

PRETEND IT'S A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON WHETHER RUTH BADER GINSBURG WILL BE REPLACED BY SOMEONE WHO VOTES WITH SCALIA, THOMAS, ALITO, AND ROBERTS ON EVERY CASE.

Because except that it might be a referendum on whether it's not Ginsburg, but Breyer, or possibly Souter, or ALL THREE who will be replaced, THAT'S NOT A PRETENSE.

IT'S A REAL CHOICE, AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE IT.

Sorry for the all-caps. But if you know the election as presented is bullshit, why make a decision based on the bullshit terms as it defines them, not as you do? That's like giving up your freedom to think for yourself without even being asked, let alone forced.

The vote might or might not be counted. But the evidence suggests some of them are, and that the larger the number of fixed votes has to be, the more detectable the fraud is.

AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE BY ITSELF.

Thanks for your attention,

c2w

Thanks but I'll really just feel too damned DIRTY and won't be able to look at myself in the mirror any more if I vote for someone I truly DO NOT SUPPORT.

I really can't believe all of you care so much about making me vote for someone I really don't want to support.