http://crookedtimber.org/2010/11/01/on-not-being-obliged-to-vote-democrat/
― Mordy, Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:35 (eleven years ago) link
The argument I want to establish here is that the decision about whether or not to vote Demcrat (versus the alternative of abstaining or voting for a minor party) is a serious one, which is up to the conscience of the individual voter to make, and which deserves respect from other people whether they agree with it or not. Obviously in making that argument, I’m going to have to venture into a number of unpalatable home truths about the Democrats as they are currently organised (abstract: ineffectual, cowardly, surprisingly warlike, soft-right, generally an obstacle to the development of social democratic politics), but let’s get this clear right up front - voting Democrat might often be the right thing to do in any given case, depending on local conditions; it might even usually be the right thing to do. What I’m not going to accept, however, is that it is always or definitionally the right thing to do.
OTM
― set me on fire RAAAAH (DJP), Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:48 (eleven years ago) link
Dear Allies,Forgive me if I briefly take my eyes off the prize to brush away some flies, but the buzzing has gone on for some time.
Forgive me if I briefly take my eyes off the prize to brush away some flies, but the buzzing has gone on for some time.
i have a feeling i'm not going to like this article
― Thanks WEBSITE!! (Z S), Thursday, 27 September 2012 20:35 (eleven years ago) link
here i thought the allies had already won WW2
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 27 September 2012 21:26 (eleven years ago) link
President Romney would reconsider the efficacy of torture:
In one of his first acts, President Obama issued an executive order restricting interrogators to a list of nonabusive tactics approved in the Army Field Manual. Even as he embraced a hawkish approach to other counterterrorism issues — like drone strikes, military commissions, indefinite detention and the Patriot Act — Mr. Obama has stuck to that strict no-torture policy.
By contrast, Mr. Romney’s advisers have privately urged him to “rescind and replace President Obama’s executive order” and permit secret “enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives,” according to an internal Romney campaign memorandum.
While the memo is a policy proposal drafted by Mr. Romney’s advisers in September 2011, and not a final decision by him, its detailed analysis dovetails with his rare and limited public comments about interrogation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/us/politics/election-will-decide-future-of-interrogation-methods-for-terrorism-suspects.html?ref=politics
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 28 September 2012 00:30 (eleven years ago) link
has this been posted yet? http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/hey_left_wing_quit_griping/
― Mordy, Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:57 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
http://www.jamiedole.com/gifs/ThumbsUp.gif
― la goonies (k3vin k.), Friday, 28 September 2012 12:56 (eleven years ago) link
do you really read these stupid articles all day?
these pieces of shit with their "enhanced interrogation" terminology how can they look at themselves in the fucking mirror in the morning? honestly cannot understand it
― Inconceivable (to the entire world) (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 28 September 2012 13:00 (eleven years ago) link
the crooked timber article makes the mistake of assuming that not voting is a neutral action. it's actually the same thing as a vote for 'whoever was gonna win'.
― iatee, Friday, 28 September 2012 13:25 (eleven years ago) link
xxp ppl here like Solnit!
― Mordy, Friday, 28 September 2012 13:28 (eleven years ago) link
i remembered her mansplaining article got a big response
http://www.sam-shepard.com/deadhorse10x.jpg
― Inconceivable (to the entire world) (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 28 September 2012 13:32 (eleven years ago) link
I hope Baldwin beats Thompson In Wisconsin for Senator, and Warren can win in Massachusetts. They could quickly become 2 of the most progressive Dems there
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 September 2012 16:08 (eleven years ago) link
2-5 they both sell out
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 September 2012 16:18 (eleven years ago) link
I knew you'd burst my bubble
― curmudgeon, Friday, 28 September 2012 16:30 (eleven years ago) link
2-5 the first hint they give of not being flawless socialist robots is eagerly seized on by left-wing curmudgeons as proof of their 'selling out.'
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 17:38 (eleven years ago) link
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
didja think Feingold was a flawless socialist robot?
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 September 2012 17:41 (eleven years ago) link
i just mean let's at least give them the benefit of the doubt unless we're given reason to think otherwise.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:04 (eleven years ago) link
ah youth
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:25 (eleven years ago) link
Running for office these days pretty much is selling out.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:28 (eleven years ago) link
no it isn't
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:29 (eleven years ago) link
lol yes it is, people of principle with differing opinions can at least agree that if you run for office you're a sellout, c'mon now man
― Inconceivable (to the entire world) (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:31 (eleven years ago) link
I was being glib. But if you're a progressive sort, working in the private sector for some progressive cause, you're going to have to compromise significantly once you get elected. And even the stuff you don't compromise on you won't get through the DC morass. And really, what prominent politician aside from Carter has left office to go onto something other than a corporate think tank or lobbying firm or something like that?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:32 (eleven years ago) link
Like, you can mean well, but public office undercuts idealism/independence like nobody's business.
where'd you read that
― da croupier, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:35 (eleven years ago) link
there are hundreds of thousands of people who have run for office without ever having to make a compromise on a single thing they believe in
― iatee, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:35 (eleven years ago) link
Name one.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:35 (eleven years ago) link
well it's hard, cause they never win
― iatee, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:36 (eleven years ago) link
my view has nothing to do w/ those truisms but the conviction that the Donkey Party is 100% DEAD as a vehicle for meaningful change.
xxxxp
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:36 (eleven years ago) link
i think there's a difference between "the current system has made it very difficult to get elected if you're a principled person" and "being elected invariably involves becoming a corrupt pol."
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:37 (eleven years ago) link
Who said anything about corruption?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:37 (eleven years ago) link
why would you believe that any political party could be capable of producing meaningful change in america? xp
― iatee, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:38 (eleven years ago) link
it's hard to name examples without getting into a debate over specific ppl, but morbs mentioned feingold -- fine example.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:38 (eleven years ago) link
I should be clear - this isn't a recent development, that being elected and becoming compromised are inseparably linked - plenty of Roman poetry on this very subject, and Greek plays before them, it's in the nature of the process. Still worth complaining about
― Inconceivable (to the entire world) (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:39 (eleven years ago) link
why would you believe that any political party could be capable of producing meaningful change in america?
because JESUS CHRIST IATEE, they have before.
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
oh my god fucking ilx politics compulsiveness. stop arguing w/ morbz about shit he will never change his mind he just likes to argue on the internet.
― Mordy, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:41 (eleven years ago) link
I was joking about naming names. And I do think you can remain a principled person in office, but I sometimes doubt the efficacy of the position. Working in a soup kitchen, feeding people vs. trying to get Federal laws passed to benefit those in soup kitchens. Obviously things often work out for the best, but it doesn't always seem the most efficient means of producing results/change that I believe in.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:42 (eleven years ago) link
this is a stupid binary
― da croupier, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:42 (eleven years ago) link
For sure! Life is a perpetual compromise.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:47 (eleven years ago) link
Not that Morbs would ever admit that time he sat through "Vertigo" in pan and scan.
'meaningful change' meaning some large scale, drastic social progress completely due to party politics has - at most - happened a handful of times in american history. and even then you can't isolate it from the social dynamics of the eras, which don't exist today. the overwhelming majority of positive changes have been hard earned incremental gains.
― iatee, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:47 (eleven years ago) link
look at Pericles
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:48 (eleven years ago) link
Pericles was a sell out.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:50 (eleven years ago) link
If, by "selling out" you mean recognizing that you must select a variety of compromise positions for which you will contribute your one vote, out of the MANY votes that will be required for ANY position to become law, then yeah, you're right.
Just becoming a representative or a senator means joining a big group of disparate people with conflicting ideas, who have to figure out a way of agreeing on what to do. That's the system. You have to accept that on the way in, or you're cooked before you even arrive.
― Aimless, Friday, 28 September 2012 18:51 (eleven years ago) link
politicians are the ppl who actually pass laws and get things done. change doesn't happen if you give up on electoral politics.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 28 September 2012 18:58 (eleven years ago) link
Well, yes and no. It is a representative democracy, with voters and constituents. People who pass laws generally aren't doing so without specific pushes and nudges at the ground level. The question is which is more effective: the people doing to pushing, or the people doing the actual voting at their behest.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 19:06 (eleven years ago) link
doing the pushing, sorry.
speaking of "working in the private sector for some progressive cause" - here's what good nebbocrat evan bayh has been up to!
http://pac.progressivesunited.org/blog/caught-in-the-revolving-door
― la goonies (k3vin k.), Friday, 28 September 2012 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
Fightin' the good fight.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 28 September 2012 20:04 (eleven years ago) link
He doesn't argue
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 28 September 2012 20:18 (eleven years ago) link