• Obama continues poll rise
    101 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bentham;37593653]You're voting for someone who can't even legally be president if she won?[/QUOTE] voting isn't the way i try to enact change.
[QUOTE=gra;37593665]if you're already in a blue state and you vote for obama, your vote's meaningless anyways.[/QUOTE] Because a majority of people will be voting for Obama? But what if everyone shared this viewpoint, and didn't vote based on that assumption?
[QUOTE=Bentham;37593630]And if you don't vote? you're willingly stepping out of the booth and not lending any kind of say whatsoever.[/QUOTE] You aren't lending any kind of say in the current system. Democracy does not mean you get to fucking choose between two oppressors. Democracy does not mean you get the choice to shoot yourself in the foot or the hand. Vote with your body, not with a ballot. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gra;37593665]if you're already in a blue state and you vote for obama, your vote's meaningless anyways.[/QUOTE] If you are in a blue state and vote for Romney, your vote is worthless as well. Remember that Bush won the 2000 election, but lost the popular vote. The electoral system turns losers into winners, and causes third party voting to actually elect your least favorite choice.
I respect that view, and I consider myself socially active, but I feel obligated to vote anyway, to put my vote in, so it can be counted, even if it isn't a deciding factor.
I don't get the idea of a "wasted vote". Your vote is a drop in the ocean, what does it matter that it's a drop in a small ocean or a big one? [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37593697]You aren't lending any kind of say in the current system. Democracy does not mean you get to fucking choose between two oppressors. Democracy does not mean you get the choice to shoot yourself in the foot or the hand.[/QUOTE] lmao, that's exactly what democracy is for. I don't remember the source, but the best definition I've read for democracy is "Democracy is the political system that makes citizens complicit in their own destruction."
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37593697]Democracy does not mean you get to fucking choose between two oppressors. Democracy does not mean you get the choice to shoot yourself in the foot or the hand. [/QUOTE] There are such things as write-in votes
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] I'd much rather have Obama not doing what he promised than Romney doing what he's promising.
[QUOTE=gra;37593607]that question is a false dichotomy, there is a third option and that's what i told him to do. i'm actually voting for peta lindsay, candidate for the party of socialism and liberation. however, since she's obviously not going to get elected, it's a symbolic vote more than anything.[/QUOTE] You could vote for Stewart Alexander or Jill Stein.
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url] 190 kept and 112 in the works (out of 500 total), I'd say by most metrics that's pretty good.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;37593893]You could vote for Stewart Alexander or Jill Stein.[/QUOTE] i agree most with the psl's marxist-leninist approach and i'm also involved with them tangentially so i feel obligated to vote for them [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sp00ks;37593882]I'd much rather have Obama not doing what he promised than Romney doing what he's promising.[/QUOTE] we've been over this [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1210823&p=37593454&viewfull=1#post37593454[/url]
who in the right mind would vote for Romney? I don't even live in the US but that guy talks through his mouth like his anus spews shit
That "Chances of winning" chart. haha
The reason that people are voting for Romney is because of bipartisanship. That's really the only legitimate reason I can think of.
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;37593203]all of you fucks better go out and vote or else I will find to your house and punch you in the dick[/QUOTE] Gary Johnson 2012.
[QUOTE=gra;37593454]instead of voting for someone you think is less worse, realize that the answer to the current problems we face is to work outside of the electoral system. politicians will always be politicians. become active in social justice groups, join your local occupy, and, the best thing, work for change locally in your own community. think globally, act locally.[/QUOTE] or make a ton of money and become a professional philanthropist
[QUOTE=salty peanut v2;37593203]all of you fucks better go out and vote or else I will find to your house and punch you in the dick[/QUOTE] Im masochist pls do something less erotic
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] Except he has.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37594189]or make a ton of money and become a professional philanthropist[/QUOTE] philanthropy, while definitely a good thing, only throws money at problems caused by capitalism (poverty, disease, war and genocide, oppression, etc) instead of trying to fix the root of all the problems
Abolish capitalism
[QUOTE=gra;37594282]philanthropy, while definitely a good thing, only throws money at problems caused by capitalism (poverty, disease, war and genocide, oppression, etc) instead of trying to fix the root of all the problems[/QUOTE] how exactly does capitalism cause any of those things
[QUOTE=gra;37594282]philanthropy, while definitely a good thing, only throws money at problems caused by capitalism (poverty, disease, war and genocide, oppression, etc) instead of trying to fix the root of all the problems[/QUOTE] no you're actually completely wrong you silly person philanthropists earned their money so they generally don't like wasting it, why would they attempt to solve a problem in a way that would ensure they would keep having to throw money at it? unless of course they are just trying to buy status, but there are far more efficient ways of doing that. look up givewell and 80,000 hours. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] as for capitalism causing war, lmao you couldn't be more wrong. war is a negative-sum game - it might make a few capitalists happy (say, arms manufacturers) but it'll make a lot unhappy (people that would otherwise sell their products in that warzone). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace[/url]
my parents are both crazy for romney, and are trying to make me go register and vote for him. i said i was gonna vote for obama and my mom got pissed, so i played it off like a joke... its awful
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37593477]It's quite pointless as the OWS groups have already made their point, and most have probably moved on after their protests. It's practically a dead movement at this point.[/QUOTE] It's a dead movement since the start. Just a collection of people wanting to let off some steam. No political goals, short-term nor long-term. And no, "fuck capitalism" is not a goal.
[QUOTE=Gubbygub;37594827]my parents are both crazy for romney, and are trying to make me go register and vote for him. i said i was gonna vote for obama and my mom got pissed, so i played it off like a joke... its awful[/QUOTE] That's why we have private voting. Vote for Obama then lie afterwards.
[QUOTE=Bumgall;37593664]whats scary is how many people are actually voting for romney[/QUOTE] What's scary is that people just vote for Romney not because of his policies but because of political tribalism. I've talk to a Republican once who considers to change sides, treating it as if it's a fucking big deal.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37594732]no you're actually completely wrong you silly person philanthropists earned their money so they generally don't like wasting it, why would they attempt to solve a problem in a way that would ensure they would keep having to throw money at it? unless of course they are just trying to buy status, but there are far more efficient ways of doing that. look up givewell and 80,000 hours. [/quote] philanthropists don't want to overthrow capitalism because they don't want to lose their power, even if they want to help others they don't want to help others in any way that inconveniences them to a large extent. money is expendable to them. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37594732] as for capitalism causing war, lmao you couldn't be more wrong. war is a negative-sum game - it might make a few capitalists happy (say, arms manufacturers) but it'll make a lot unhappy (people that would otherwise sell their products in that warzone). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace[/url][/QUOTE] your link only talks about capitalist countries fighting each other. capitalist countries go to war with countries not as advanced as them to take control of their resources and spread their influence. the us's war with iraq was [URL="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3879"]largely because of oil.[/URL]
[QUOTE=gra;37595021]philanthropists don't want to overthrow capitalism because they don't want to lose their power, even if they want to help others they don't want to help others in any way that inconveniences them to a large extent. money is expendable to them.[/quote] uh okay? what's wrong with that? why should anyone want to overthrow capitalism, it's the most successful economic system in human history. if they're not suffering, then so what? think of it this way, if philanthropy required considerable inconveniences, then how many people would become philanthropists in the first place? don't confuse suffering with worth - it might be politically vulgar but it's possible to be a good person while also living in luxury. [quote]your link only talks about capitalist countries fighting each other. capitalist countries go to war with countries not as advanced as them to take control of their resources and spread their influence. the us's war with iraq was [URL="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3879"]largely because of oil.[/URL][/QUOTE] note the part where I said "makes a few capitalists happy and makes a lot unhappy". consider that at least a trillion dollars were lost to the iraq war. sure, you've cited a single example where ~capitalism~ was a motive. so? shouldn't there be more? like way more? there's loads of developing countries with tinpot dictators that have resources the West wants, why not invade those left and right?
[QUOTE=gra;37593333]he hasn't held his last election promises and will continue not to if he's elected again[/QUOTE] Because he totally has a big, red button on his desk labelled "Make America good again", right? News flash: He doesn't. He's had to deal with a primarily GOP congress that cockblocks everything he tries to do out of sheer pig-headed partisanship. Given what he's been forced to deal with he's done a damn good job so far. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37593768]I don't get the idea of a "wasted vote". Your vote is a drop in the ocean, what does it matter that it's a drop in a small ocean or a big one? [/QUOTE] The way our election system is set up renders the popular vote more or less a dog-and-pony-show. Your vote, my vote, Yawmen's vote, none of them mean a fucking thing. If the electoral college in your state likes Candidate X that's who's getting the vote, even if the majority in your state vote for Y. They can and will override your sentiments, as seen in bush's second election. The populace wanted Kerry, Bush still got another term. Thanks, Electoral College! It's why I don't vote at all. My vote doesn't matter. I'm not a part of the electoral college, whatever I put on that ballot is meaningless. I could vote for my cat, my lawnmower, Alyx Vance, The Lone Wanderer or Obama and it all means the same thing: Nothing. I'm actually tempted to write-in some of the equipment around my house. Let's see how well a 42" Craftsman lawn tractor with a slight oil leak and no brakes can run a nuclear-armed superpower! [sp]Sadly I think it'd do a better job than Romney...[/sp]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37595098] note the part where I said "makes a few capitalists happy and makes a lot unhappy". consider that at least a trillion dollars were lost to the iraq war. sure, you've cited a single example where ~capitalism~ was a motive. so? shouldn't there be more? like way more? there's loads of developing countries with tinpot dictators that have resources the West wants, why not invade those left and right?[/QUOTE] Because we put up those dictatorships and they happily exploit the people and land for us(us as in the elite class).
[QUOTE=gra;37595021]philanthropists don't want to overthrow capitalism because they don't want to lose their power, even if they want to help others they don't want to help others in any way that inconveniences them to a large extent. money is expendable to them. your link only talks about capitalist countries fighting each other. capitalist countries go to war with countries not as advanced as them to take control of their resources and spread their influence. the us's war with iraq was [URL="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3879"]largely because of oil.[/URL][/QUOTE] Wow a small website that says Iraq was for oil with a shoddy source that has not been mentioned for the past five years. Never mind the fact that oil imports to the US have actually dropped since we have invaded Iraq.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.