steve wrote:

yut wrote:It is people like you, Steve, that let the Democrats off the hook so easy. It is people like you that swallow these lies again and again and put these losers in office.

It's people like you, anonymous internet fucktard, that provide the winning margin for the demonstrably much worse regime to remain in power for the better part of my adult life. Fuck this "they're not real leftists." I know that. I also know that I'm not going to get a chance to vote for a real leftist in the forseeable future, so my energies are best spent defeating the right wing and those who would foster hegemony in the Left.

The problem is, both parties are towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of how they act. You are basing your views on what they say and not what they do.

Clinton was a right winger. He admits he is against big government and is for "free" trade. He is also a Democrat, and for some reason, people think he was a liberal and a friend of the working man.

I think nothing spells Tweedledum and Tweedledee than the last election, were we had a fine choice between Skull n' Bones... Heinz or Halliburton?

I hate Republicans, but I don't think Guiliani would be any worse than Hillary.

What about the realignment of Democratic and Republican politicians at many levels of government? If it is easier to run as a Republican or Democrat, quite a few politicians have switched party affiliations simply to get elected. This just screams "hello. we are pretty much the same party"

Look at Mit Romney... In Massachusetts, he ran as a moderate Republican... Now he is getting more conservative.

These people do what they do to get elected. Representing you is their 1000923rd priority.

NerblyBear wrote:

yut wrote:You are buying the party line. Look at results and not words.

Again, to pose the question that you must answer to justify your position:

Compare Bush's two terms with Clinton's two terms, and then tell me honestly that you have absolutely no preference between the two of them.

This is hypothetical. But I can say Clinton said he would put 200,000 troops in the middle east... He said this about 3 months ago. I stay informed and do not form my views on theoretical vapors about the party plaforms. The devil is in the details, and when you look at the details, both parties are devils. Democrats are slightly better, and worth voting for. I have never said that. Just don't put too much faith in your vote. Instead of telling people to vote, people with influence (like rock stars who tell people to "rock the vote") should encourage grass roots organizing. These are the things that have changed the world. Civil rights and labor rights have come about through these means, and not through our republic (we are not a democracy). Albini voting for Kerry doesn't do shit and never will. He's nuts if he thinks his vote is worth more than a dog shit.

You guys really need to go beyond high school civics on this one. Sure, vote for Democrats. They are better than Republicans. But seriously, you are not accomplishing as much as you are giving yourself credit for.

When I was in college, I worked 30-40 hours a week, took a full schedule of classes, and also did research for a multi-union organization that was organizing service workers in Los Angeles. This is important stuff. Your vote isn't going to change jack squat... A basic fact of political economy.

You can't compare these two regimes, because there are different circumstances.

The point is -- who do I vote for if I don't want a war at all?

Eisenhower (a Republican) was even a bit more liberal than Clinton, if you consider his views on the military industrial complex... Clinton is all for the military and increasing funding for it...

Sure, vote for Democrats... But if you really care, you will know that it is interest groups that change things. They always have and always will. Anyone who talks of voting or Democrats and Republicans is naiive of the realities of politics and the history of the past century.

Okay, so we're in agreement:

Vote for Democrats.

End of story. That's all I asked you to concede.

By dismissing both of the parties as irrelevant while still voting for one of them--did you vote for Gore or did you not vote at all?--you betray your hypocrisy.

yut wrote:This is hypothetical

No it's not. He's asking you to compare 1992-2000 vs. 2000-present. Please do so and then tell us you see no difference between the two administrations.

The problem is, both parties are towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of how they act.

The Bush administration is run by extreme neoconservative reactionaries who believe in the unitary executive theory, unending war in the Middle East, extraordinary rendition, and the torture of American citizens. They have contempt for civil liberties and democracy, and will happily sacrifice both in the name of national security. You can't get further right than that.

I stay informed and do not form my views on theoretical vapors about the party plaforms.

Why is it always the most self-evidently fact-deficient posters who insist on the factiness of their views?

yut wrote:The problem is, both parties are towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of how they act. You are basing your views on what they say and not what they do.

Nonsense. I am well aware of how short the "left" in america falls of its stated goals and promises. You are the one who is obsessed with the difference between their rhetoric and their actions. I am concerned only with the tangible difference in their behaviors. The right wing is worse in every single attribute.

To pretend they are not worse is to deny the obvious in service of your preconception that there is no difference. Your preconception is demonstrably wrong.

yut wrote:The point is -- who do I vote for if I don't want a war at all?

That isn't a ballot option, nor is giving yourself the Ambassadorship to Sri Lanka. Don't let your frustration blind you to those things you can influence.

lars wrote:

yut wrote:This is hypothetical

No it's not. He's asking you to compare 1992-2000 vs. 2000-present. Please do so and then tell us you see no difference between the two administrations.

I can only go on what Clinton said three months ago. "I would have 200,000 troops on the ground too". Who do I vote for if I don't want a war? Please answer this? What good has this war done? Has it eliminated Al Queda, the Taliban, and Bin Laden or has it strengthened them at the cost of 3,000+ Americans and 300,000+ Iraqis? Please answer this!

I think the regimes are similar but different because the events are different. Clinton didn't have to deal with our nation being attacked, but he clearly indicates that his response would have been to send 200,000 troops in the middle east. He said they would be mostly in Afghanistan, but we should not have any troops anywhere.

We should spend this money on education so people have a better understanding of politics beyond high school civics class. One thing people just don't understand is that interest groups have FAR more power than voters. You could have a Republican regime with strong leftist interest groups that force poltical change (Eisenhower and desegregation for example). The thing is, the strong interest groups are all interested in a right wing agenda, and since most of you are idiots and "rock the vote" and then eat curry and listen to indie rock, both the Democrats and Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank on how naiive you all are. They just say "health care" and it's like when I say "dinner" to my dog. You all go crazy... Stupid pseudo-libs. You are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs. You don't even think about it. People like Obama and Hillary are like rock stars because the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. I would actually vote for Obama, though. He actually voted against the war. Even if he became president, he would have to deal with a legislature that is for the most part bought out...

You give far too much credit to politicians. After all, they are just doing their job. They are representatives who work for the people who give them money.

The thing is, labor unions are pissed at the Democrats. They give them money for their campaigns, and pass free trade legislation that puts their workers out of jobs. That's OK for Democrats. They can take money from Chevron, Halliburton, and Rupert Murdoch too (and they do!).

Anyway, I could go on and on trying to make my point that you are delusional when you think Democrats are doing something great. They have the potential to, but so do Republicans. If people were less concerned with voting and more concerned with the politics of interest groups, even a Republican regime would have to bend. It has happened in the past, and it can happen again, but not when people look at the problem through the lens of a 12th grader in high school civics class.

steve wrote:

yut wrote:The problem is, both parties are towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of how they act. You are basing your views on what they say and not what they do.

Nonsense. I am well aware of how short the "left" in america falls of its stated goals and promises. You are the one who is obsessed with the difference between their rhetoric and their actions. I am concerned only with the tangible difference in their behaviors. The right wing is worse in every single attribute.

To pretend they are not worse is to deny the obvious in service of your preconception that there is no difference. Your preconception is demonstrably wrong.

Steve, let me know when the Republicans reverse Roe v. Wade and build that wall between the U.S. and Mexico... These extreme views are simply to get the redneck and Christian vote. They will not do it because industrialists need cheap labor; Republicans need to entice Christians to vote; and many Republicans actually don't care about abortion at all, and some of the actually support choice. They don't want to alienate the business Republicans. So, just like the Democrats can waive their health care carrot for 40 years, Republicans do the same. But they all tend to move towards the middle.

I can't be excited about a party that treats me like a total idiot and continually lies to me. On the heels of this Iraq lie that got them the majority, it seems like I am one of the few who is complaining about it. By voting for these people, you are encouraging it. Perhaps you should vote Green to send them a message. Green will never win, it is not possible in an SMSP electoral system with gerrymandering.

Let's face it -- Guiliani is the next president, and he isn't much worse than Hillary. People have such a boner over 9-11, they will at least get over their WASP fetish and put someone of southern european heritage in the White House. I would like Nader... But realistically, we are going to have another Republican in the White House -- Rudy Guiliani.

Yes, Republicans have done a lot of bad. Democrats have done some amazingly bad things. JFK, in particular, was a bastard when it came to foreign policy. That asshole almost nuked us all. It wasn't entirely his fault, but those missiles wouldn't have been in Cuba in the first place if it wasn't for his secret war with Cuba.

Clinton's economic policies have set us up for slavery with China. He sold us out to China. Period. He is against the working man.

Anyway, I have to buy some toilet paper and feed my Chihuahua... Good luck with your voting and stuff. Rock that vote! It sure has seemed to be working...



























...for the richest 1%...

steve wrote:

yut wrote:The point is -- who do I vote for if I don't want a war at all?

That isn't a ballot option, nor is giving yourself the Ambassadorship to Sri Lanka. Don't let your frustration blind you to those things you can influence.

Exactly... In fact, very few things have been settled at the ballot boxes. Civil rights and workers' rights were achieved through non-violent direct action. Voting is almost meaningless.

People could change things now, without voting, but it would take some organization and people would need to cough up some money and time.

Even Eisenhower had to desegregate the schools, not only because of the Supreme Court, but because of the pressure from interest groups. He was a Republican and a racist.

yut wrote:Voting is almost meaningless.

My ass it is.