It’s depressing that these things need to be even stated.
Reader Interactions
84Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
I did not have this on my fuck 2024 bingo card.
We’re not going back!
Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.
Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.
“Joe Biden deserved better than he got from some folks in his own party.”
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.
Fear or fury? The choice is ours.
Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.
Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.
I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.
I’m more Christian than these people and I’m an atheist.
A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.
Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.
We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.
If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.
Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.
Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.
“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.
Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?
Not all heroes wear capes.
If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!
And we’re all out of bubblegum.
I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.
Bark louder, little dog.
Cap'n Magic
Too bad that the preznit choices are between making the wrong decision (fixing healthcare before fixing the financial system (Obama)) and a Bush II-like quality of wanting to succeed where daddy failed (Romney).
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Uh huh. And John Roberts has spent the last few years showing folks that there’s a big fucking difference between Republicans and Democrats, and this young man is a marble-headed fuckwit
Calouste
@Cap’n Magic:
Well, if you’re not happy with your choices for President, as ABL said, you should run yourself.
Baud
Some people are just lost causes. It’s just something we have to accept.
Linda Featheringill
In defense of OWS, I think they built their nonviolent protest structure on the teachings of Gandhi.
In his book, Non-Violent Resistance [Satyagraha], Gandhi taught that the oppressed needed to separate themselves from The Establishment. They should not participate in the establishment, they should not benefit from the establishment, and they should not depend on the establishment. When they accomplish all of this, said establishment becomes redundant.
Gandhi understood that this separation would take time and had to be accomplished in steps. For example, it was his effort to rid his people of dependence on the establishment that caused him to lead them to the sea to gather salt. There is nothing magic about marching to the sea and he didn’t say there was.
Whether these steps toward separation would actually cause any real change in the US is debatable. The Amish have pretty well separated from the establishment and have done so for a long time and yet have not noticeably changed the US.
You might be quite right in saying that voting and working from within the system is the only way to make big changes. But I think that the Gandhi approach is honorable and deserves respect.
I also think that the OWS deserves respect.
Tommybones
I think many feel the system is corrupt beyond help and voting in a corrupt system will no doubt result in short term differences, but long term it merely continues to legitimize a rigged system which has moved us to the right for 4+ decades straight now.
Now, I’m not saying it’s correct to not vote, but instead pointing out that it’s not as simple as “there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats,” which is merely ham-fisted shorthand for the above-stated opinion. I can fully understand feeling like voting in a rigged and corrupt system is potentially doing nothing more than kicking the can down the road to oblivion, while also being fully aware of the enormous damage which can be caused by dropping out of the process.
What this really means is we really have no good options.
JGabriel
ABL:
Or possess an overwhelming advantage in arms and weapons.
Since they/we don’t possess that advantage, we’d best work from within. Especially since most people, outside of the GOP, really prefer to live in a society where local and federal policy are not decided by superior firepower.
Seriously, if they don’t work from within the system, how do they expect to effect change?
.
Baud
@Tommybones:
I don’t disrespect people who are apathetic about politics because the system can be damn frustrating.
I have little respect for people who claim to care about politics but then who urge people not to vote.
JGabriel
Baud:
Depends on who they’re urging. At resent, I have no problem with people who urge Republicans not to vote.
.
Tommybones
@Baud: @Baud:
But you’re missing the point. They firmly believe the system is rigged beyond repair and to vote may result in a short-term finger in the dam, but long term does nothing to change the rigged system. Instead it legitimizes the illusion of democracy. The fact of the matter is, we’ve moved steadily to the right, regardless of which party is voted in, for 40+ years straight. There is little evidence of working within the system stopping this rightward trend, let alone reversing it. What’s the answer? I have no idea.
Baud
@JGabriel:
Except that doesn’t happen. Say what you want about the tea party or the 27%, they’re not that stupid.
Patricia Kayden
@Tommybones: I have a good option. Obama.
I see clear differences between Republicans and Democrats. Think women’s access to contraceptives and abortion, Supreme Court appointments/judicial appointees, global warming, gay rights, etc.
OWS hasn’t accomplished anything. At least the TBaggers elected representatives who are doing crazy things in Congress/state governments for their side.
gwangung
How about doing the very basic step of creating a system that does work? That means either co-opting the system yourself and bringing it down in armed revolution. No other way—no one’s going to do it for you.
And be very careful about bringing down the system…be prepared for hardship, not only for yourself, but for the people you are supposed to be doing it for.
Tommybones
@Patricia Kayden:
To say OWS hasn’t accomplished anything is ridiculous. Because of OWS, income inequality became a national topic for discussion. That is an enormous achievement. Especially considering equitable economic policy is the backbone for a true democracy.
amk
@Cap’n Magic:
Mean like what the ‘senator par inquisitors’ did to jamie boy today ?
Talk about fucking clueless.
gwangung
@Tommybones: Either you tear the system down, i.e., armed revolution, or change from within. And that means gathering the political will and money to combat the moneyed interest, who have more focus because they’re smaller in number.
gwangung
@Tommybones: Yes. And?
gbear
@Tommybones:
Well we do have one good option: Take one day off from feeling conflicted and go pick the people that will represent you. It’s 100% likely that someone will be your representative. Pick the one that you think will do less evil. Then you’ve got 729 days to fret about it until you have to (you get to – voting is a fucking honor) do it again.
Baud
@Tommybones:
Bullshit. The Democrats have controlled the White House and Congress for 2 two-year periods almost two decades apart since 1980. Go back to 1969, and the Dems controlled the government for one additional 4-year period during the Carter years, at the end of which Kennedy decided to primary the sitting president. Elect Dems and keep them in power, and this country will start moving back towards the left.
mark
I can’t believe ABL didn’t post this here. cross post it. whatever. she put it on her site, not an exclusive on her paid gig site. I was/am one of those that always loved ABL, so it’s not without a bit of pain I type this, but here it is:
major FPer fail.
Cole, you need to corral your flock! seriously dude
Tommybones
@gbear:
You missed the point. Again, I’m not saying not voting is the correct option. I just don’t think it’s as simplistic as it’s being presented here.
Genghis
I have a pretty good idea about how many minds will be changed by ABL’s admonition to “pull your head out of your ass.”
And yes. It’s depressing to have to mention it.
Best…H
Mnemosyne
@Linda Featheringill:
That makes perfect sense when The Establishment is an occupying power like Great Britain that can be persuaded to leave and turn power over to the people. But it makes no sense when you’re pushing against your own government to refuse to participate in that government.
Unless, I guess, the object is to start a full-on revolution complete with overthrowing Congress and imprisoning the president. In which case, as a wise man once said, you can count me out.
Cap'n Magic
@Calouste:
I would, but I’d need a party behind me to get my agenda passed. Besides, I carry so much baggage that I’m unelectable.
Assuming I was to run, my platform is simple:
(1) Repeal Dodd-Frank.
(2) Repeal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2003
(3) Repeal Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999.
(4) Reinstate Glass-Stegall.
(5) Investment Banks must be 100% private owned, and cannot have access to the FRB’s Discount Window.
(6) Private Citizens can borrow up to $1 million at current term rates paid by corporations from the Federal Reserve.
(6) Marijuana and all DEA Class IV drugs will be decriminalized-DWI enforcement still is paramount.
(7) Universal healthcare will be provided with 100% price transparency on all services-insurance companies will compete on how efficient they are on claims processing. Drug importation will no longer be illegal as its an artificial restraint on free trade, and we freely export labor and capital.
(8) Any AUMF’s taken by Legislative and Executive requires that it be put to a general popular vote within 90 days of its passing. If a popular vote fails to reach 2/3rds majority, the AUMF is withdrawn. If an AUMF is not withdrawn, its payment to cover expenses will be borne by the industries the government has contracted said services to. These costs are accounted for separately and cannot be passed on to the general population. Any attempt to do so will result in (10) below.
(9) Resource Extracation which require Federal approval mandates that those executives live in the area where such extractions take place and use the public infrastructure for their substenence. Failure to relocate or using post-processing of public resources results in a irrevocable ban from supplying any services where the government is a direct participant (see (10) below)
(10) A criminal conviction of a corporation for any form of fraud results in a irrevocable ban against further participation in any government business-i.e., “Death Penalty”.
See?
Tommybones
@Baud:
If only it were as simple as “elect more democrats and see the move to the left!” The system, the moneyed interests who own the system, will not allow enough progressives to win elections to allow such a thing. There are built in firewalls, particularly in the Senate. Obama sold out to monied interests. Why? Because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have been elected. Why do you think the democratic party has rarely had true power in the past 40+ years? It’s no accident. And when they DO have power, there is always a Ben Nelson around to protect the powerful interests from losing any of their economic dominance. The evidence is all around us.
Baud
@Linda Featheringill:
Are you suggesting that Gandhi would have urged Indians not to vote to get rid of the British if that were an option?
And I have honestly never heard an rational explanation of why people think voting and other forms of political are mutually exclusive avenues of change.
gbear
@Tommybones: But you know what? it IS as simplistic as is being presented here. Quit overthinking it. Quit taking it so personally. Quit thinking it’s all about you and your causes.
People in other countries think it’s completely insane that so few voter show up in the USA. They can’t believe how we don’t give a shit about who our leaders are. The people that they’re voting for are most likely as corrupt as ours are, but they know enough that they have to get off their asses to participate in the selection process. Voting really is an honor that you don’t have the luxury of taking for granted.
Tommybones
In any case, the discussion I’m having in here is a good example of two groups which have completely different viewpoints. Both viewpoints have legitimate points. Problem is, there is a fundamental difference in opinion between the two in regard to the system itself and whether fixing it is even a possibility. If you think it can be fixed through voting, then you will certainly believe everyone should vote. If you truly believe the system is rigged and broken beyond repair, then voting would seem pretty pointless, and even counter-productive long term.
Baud
@Tommybones:
Because too many people on the Democratic side have bought into the don’t-vote theory.
That, and racism.
Mnemosyne
@Tommybones:
It would be nice to give it a try. Despite the drumbeat of propaganda, we got some pretty good stuff from the 111th Congress, and even more was attempted by the House that was blocked by the Senate.
Can we at least get a Democratic majority in the House AND a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate before we declare that it’s doomed to failure?
shortstop
I thought this was going to be about urging the Commonwealth of Virginia not to put George Allen back in the Senate. Sure hope it shows enough sense not to do so.
Tommybones
@gbear: Seems you’re the one taking it personally. I know I’m not. And you may believe it’s just that simple, but others don’t.
Tommybones
@Mnemosyne:
“Can we at least get a Democratic majority in the House AND a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate before we declare that it’s doomed to failure?”
Last time I checked, we had that after the 2008 elections.
Cacti
I wish the BJ commentariat was immune to this particular strain of virulent stupidity.
However, a fellow commenter once told me that “politics isn’t a zero sum game”.
WTF?
Whoever gets 50% + 1 of the votes wins 100% of the contested political office. Doesn’t get much more zero sum game than that.
Baud
@shortstop:
Haven’t you heard? — it doesn’t matter one whit whether Allen wins or not.
Mnemosyne
@Tommybones:
If the system is rigged and broken beyond repair, your only possible action is armed revolution to overthrow the current government.
That’s it. Either you repair what we have, or you arm yourself and the people who think like you and you march on Washington DC to slaughter Congress and the president.
If you think there’s a middle ground between participating in the system and violently overthrowing it, please explain. Otherwise, as I said in #23, you can count me out. I choose to repair our broken system over violent revolution.
Baud
@Tommybones:
No, we had that for about 60-70 days after the 2008 elections. It took a while for Franken to get seated, then Specter switched and we got 60. Then Scott Brown won in Mass, and we lost it again.
Tommybones
@Baud:
“Because too many people on the Democratic side have bought into the don’t-vote theory.”
This is actually ridiculous, considering the record-breaking voter turnout in 2008, resulting in the Democratic sweep… which led to a further move to the right economically.
gbear
@Tommybones: I take the right and the duty to vote personally. I’m done reading your whines.
Cap'n Magic
@Tommybones:
Maybe 20 years ago, I’d concur. But with the GOP chipping away at the foundation, coupled with regulatory capture, I do indeed see no hope for this country. By the 2016 election, we’ll either be on our way to what a 21st century civilization SHOULD be, or we’ll be just repeating the late 1800s/early 1900s-that’s assuming, of course, that we don’t get dragged into some pointless war with some kind of false flag scenario.
FlipYrWhig
@Tommybones:
Not voting guarantees that the “moneyed interests” get their way. Voting, OTOH, opens the possibility that they get something less than their way. If voting didn’t matter, Republicans wouldn’t try so goddamn hard to stop us from trying.
Cacti
@Tommybones:
Yeah, a “filibuster proof majority” that depended on the votes of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu etc. A veritable liberal all star team there.
Tommybones
@Baud:
Okay, so we did have a filibuster proof majority, but it didn’t count. Meanwhile, Harry Reid could have changed the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. Why didn’t he? Good manners?
Baud
@Tommybones:
You’re delusional if you think 2009-10 moved us further to the right economically.
FlipYrWhig
@Tommybones: “Further move to the right” how? I think we’re stuck with ’90s-vintage Democrats who believe altogether too strongly in balanced budgets (having learned the wrong lesson from the Clinton years), which has led us to a bad juncture in fiscal policy. But even that wasn’t “further to the right” compared to Bush or compared to Democrats under/during Bush, IMHO.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Tommybones: actually, no. Arlen Specter switched parties in April, Al Franken wasn’t seated till July, then Ted Kennedy died.
Tommybones
@Cacti: “Yeah, a “filibuster proof majority” that depended on the votes of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu etc. A veritable liberal all star team there.”
Exactly my point. Firewalls. Those Senators aren’t there by accident. Oh, and Obama went to the mat to help Lincoln beat Halter, even though Halter was a true progressive and Lincoln stood against Obama every step of the way. Weird, eh?
FlipYrWhig
@Tommybones:
Ask progressive lion Russ Feingold, who didn’t support it. Senators don’t cotton to attempts to curtail their special senatorial powers and prerogatives, irrespective of who happens to be president at the time.
Baud
@Tommybones:
Wish he did. But trying to turn Dem missteps into a reason for ignoring real differences between the parties is really weak.
Tommybones
@Baud: No, I’m not delusional at all.
Ben Franklin
What this really means is we really have no good options.
The good news is it has always been this way. Bad news?=====
it’s always been this way.
Tommybones
@Baud: Since I already stated about ten times that there are real differences between the two parties on this thread alone, perhaps we can avoid throwing out that strawman argument?
Baud
@Tommybones: Like I said in my first comment, some people are lost causes.
It’s your right not to vote. Take care.
Tommybones
@Baud: And I also stated about ten times that I wasn’t claiming it was correct to avoid voting… did you actually read anything I wrote?
Tommybones
@Ben Franklin: No, it hasn’t always been this way.
Roger Moore
@Linda Featheringill:
I disagree, strongly. They may have followed Gandhi as far as nonviolent protest, but that’s where they separated. Gandhi had a simple, straightforward political goal of ending British rule in India, and everything he did was done in support of that political goal. The goal came first, with tactics that were carefully chosen to advance the long term goal. He was able to achieve his goal at least in part because he had a coherent movement with leaders and followers, with leaders providing direction and followers providing the force (moral as well as practical) to implement it.
OWS has failed largely because they didn’t follow that structure. They consciously abandoned the concept of leadership. That denied them the ability to have simple, easily articulated goals and in turn the ability to have tactics carefully chosen to achieve their goals.
amk
@FlipYrWhig:
Stop pricking the bubble of doom and gloom by talking sense.
Or may be it’s a troll bent on voter suppression. Who the fuck knows in intertubes.
Mnemosyne
@Tommybones:
You should probably check again — Specter didn’t switch parties until April of 2009, Franken wasn’t sworn in until July of 2009, by which point Ted Kennedy was already on his deathbed. So, at best, Democrats had about 6 weeks of their filibuster-proof majority between the appointment of Kennedy’s temporary seat-filler and Scott Brown’s victory.
Baud
@Tommybones:
Your first comment:
You didn’t express an opinion on whether to vote or not. If you care to, go ahead.
You said it’s not as “simple” as there is no difference between the two parties and that “we have no good options.”
When it comes to voting, I see a huge difference between the two parties, and I have a good option.
Tommybones
Okay, on that note….
Have a nice night everyone.
Roger Moore
@Tommybones:
Maybe that’s because that’s the direction the electorate has been moving. If you want the country to stop moving to the right, you have to convince voters not to vote that way. Democracy, how the fuck does it work?
FlipYrWhig
@Tommybones: I wanted Halter to beat Lincoln, but I’m not surprised Obama stood with Lincoln — and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that Lincoln asked for campaign support from Obama as a condition of her voting his way on bills she didn’t much like, and which, in terms of her career in the Senate, she would probably have been better off rejecting. Game it out: if Lincoln thinks Obama is going to stab her in the back, why should she vote for anything he wants, especially when it’s unpopular in her home state?
Mnemosyne
@Tommybones:
He couldn’t change the rules single-handedly. He could call a vote, which he did, and the motion was voted down 84-12.
amk
Don’t even have to go that far. Let the fucking whiny left vote first consistently and across the board like the right does every time.
Linda Featheringill
@Baud:
I don’t know what he would have recommended.
I’m not even sure that his way would even work in the US.
[I’ve worked may way through about 2/3 of his book and still have more questions than answers.]
Linda Featheringill
@Roger Moore: #56
Ghandi was working on his tactics in South Africa before he returned to India.
Baud
@Linda Featheringill:
FWIW, I’m not anti-OWS. I heard Van Jones on Chris Hayes’ show a while back singing OWS’s praises and talking about the importance of reelecting Obama.
It’s the “don’t vote” elements of OWS (or any other group) that irritate me.
Davis X. Machina
It’s as if there never were such a thing as the Indian National Congress…
ABL
FYI, I didn’t write the post. Leo Soderman did.
amk
@ABL: Now you tell us.
Lojasmo
@Tommybones:
So you’re saying Lieberman was a reliable democratic vote.
Mr Stagger Lee
Lieberman ran as an independent, the Democratic nominee was Ned Lamont, who was crushed by Republican money and power funneled to Lieberman, anyway I would love to throw chaos into these elections, call for a constitutional amendment to allow “None Of The Above” into all elections, simply put if the None of the Above wins, the candidates are thrown out,m and the parties must try again, yes there is a lot of details, and politicians would sell their daughters to Arab Slavers before they would agree to that. But it would be fun if that was implemented.(A rebellion without guns)
Downpuppy
Leo assumes that the twitterer is a well meaning kid caught up in crazed purity.
I smell a ratfucker.
Linda
@Baud:
Some people actually prefer lost causes. It gives them an excuse to avoid hard work changing things, and gives people who are inclined to do so a license to sit on their asses and bitch. Because some people really prefer it to getting off their asses.
NR
@Mnemosyne:
We had that. They passed the Heritage Foundation’s health care bill and a whitewash for the banks.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@amk: It says “By Leo Soderman” directly under the post’s title on ABL’s site.
Carl Nyberg
I encourage people to vote. As I explain it, if you don’t vote you are counted as lazy, satisfied or without an opinion. If you can’t stand the options in a particular race, skip it.
But it’s not a totally wrong perspective to see the choice between Democrats and Republicans as a choice between two bad economic policies.
Yes, the Republicans go in the wrong direction more quickly. But the Democrats are mostly going in the same wrong direction.
The financial sector, the Military-Industrial Complex and a few other sectors control the economy and the government.
We get shitty policy after shitty policy. The 1% and their lackeys stuff money in their pockets and leave the public holding a bunch of debt, public and private.
They want us to be like the Greeks where the creditors take over and set public policy. And we have to give our resources, our labor and our sovereignty to banks and the capital class.
I would encourage Occupy supporters to vote, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to their criticism of the system.
Oh, and there’s the Electoral College thing. If you don’t live in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio or Virginia, your vote for POTUS is probably irrelevant anyways.
If you live in the other 44 states or DC, if the vote in your state is close, the Electoral College won’t be.
FlipYrWhig
@Carl Nyberg: _Some_ Democrats go in the wrong direction, and others go in the right direction. At least with Democrats there’s a CHANCE that something might go right economically. Michael Bennet and Mark Warner can be reasoned with, even if their instincts are terrible. BTW, this counts as encouragement.
The Original Raven
I think that electoral politics is not going to give us much useful until we turn away from the world we are drifting towards “where there are people in the House and in the Senate who have had their political existences made or broken by a single entity, one single donor.” But vote, vote, spend the hour or so necessary to make the decisions. Just don’t make it your only political act. I like Andy Kroll’s comments on Wisconsin:
So vote, but don’t just vote.
Raven on the Hill
@Linda Featheringill: Gandhi.
Gandhi was a nationalist leader and a stern lawgiver. He made ahimsa his political method, but never doubt that he was political.
(Let’s try this name and see if stays distinctive. If I’d known how many ravens there were on the net, I might have chosen a different pseud.)
NR
@FlipYrWhig:
But there are always just enough Democrats who go in the wrong direction to ensure that progressive change will never happen. And the party leadership always lets them get away with it.
A Humble Lurker
@NR:
No we didn’t. Read the rest of the damn thread.
jefft452
“I came across some tweets from a well-meaning, very passionate young man. He was talking about the Occupy movement, and explaining how they would under no circumstances be corralled into helping get out the vote efforts”
Who died and made this guy king of ows?
NR
@A Humble Lurker: Yes we did. I was there.