The idea that "the system is rigged" or voting is pointless is a bullshit right-wing defense meme.

[TheWraith]

And nothing but a means to spread around blame. The reality is that Democrats produce good legislation, Republicans block it. 95% of Democrats support the things that need to be done, while 100% of Republicans oppose them. If you want to believe something else, go ahead, but it won't be based on reality. "They're all the same" is the same bullshit that gave us 8 years of Bush instead of 8 years of Gore--you really want to make that comparison? You really want to say that "there's not a dime's worth of difference"?

[Bonobo]

1. Many people disagree with you.

I am one of many that disagrees.

Let's see if this OP gets over 300 recs.

[TheWraith]

3. That might be relevant if recs were a measure of rightness. They're not.

My statement is right; you are wrong. No amount of recs or unrecs changes that fact.

[SkyDaddy7]

43. I totally AGREE with you!

We Democrats have not yet figured out that we can't get everything we want in one 4yr term. We killed Carter when Democrats decided running a primary challenger was a good idea in 1980 & look where that got us and the country...The same applies in 2000 when we decided a "Protest Vote" for Nader was more important than sticking together & fighting.

We Democrats know how to commit political suicide & the Republicans LOVE us for that! SAD!

[MADem]

60. +1. nt

[GliderGuider]

68. Think of recs/unrecs as voting.

We have done as you asked. We voted. The count is automatic.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. And exactly what do those of you who disagree intend to do to solve the problem? Maybe a few more..

demonstrations will magically solve the problem.

Even better would be to work to get the house back next year.

(Or did that never occur to those of you who disagree?)

[MADem]

24. They don't think that makes any difference. They'll be crying when

Romney's Supreme Court rules that we will have to pay money to exercise First Amendment Rights. Hell, if money equals speech, isn't that the logical next step?

Simplistic views and attitudes just aren't helpful when we're dealing with complex subjects. There is a real difference between the legislation proposed and passed by Democrats and that of Republicans. Anyone who can't see it, and claims that there's "no difference" between the parties, is full of it.

[Bonobo]

26. Actually I am already crying because Obama was a poor choice to represent me.

And I regret wasting my efforts.

[MADem]

56. So what you are telling me is that you think you have been wrong before.

You very well could be wrong again.

Harry Truman was not contemporaneously popular. Nor was LBJ. A war helped FDR's standing immensely; the people who looked at him as Jesus Christ with a Scottie Dog (not in a wheelchair, many didn't even know about that before 24/7 media coverage) during the Great Depression tired of him as the corner was turned.

I have some unfortunate news for you. Like Obama, or not, we're not going to do any better than him in 2012, and if you continue to play Debbie Downer and encourage your friends to do likewise, we could very well do one hell of a lot worse.

I think a Supreme Court whose shape endures long after the appointment of justices (think Thomas and Scalia, to say nothing of Roberts and Alito) is something that only the very obtuse don't worry about. It IS a big deal, who lands on the Court.

You think your rights are being eroded now? Go on and help elect Romney, even if you do it through negativity and inaction. Or Perry. Or Huntsman.

You want better candidates? Better representation? Get OWS on the asses of Congress. They are the ones who MAKE law. They all have district offices (State offices for the Senators) and those offices are in busy locations. Focus your ire.

Presidents are not Kings. They don't rule by decree. Obama can't make you happy with a wave of his magic wand. He needs a Congress behind him--and it would help if people started showing up in the off-years to vote.

[treestar]

78. Represent YOU?

Even your congressperson doesn't represent JUST YOU.

[BzaDem]

44. That just means that they are incorrect.

The voting record of the 111th meeting of the House, as compared to the voting record of the 112th meeting of the House, speaks for itself.

[woo me with science]

2. The problem in your logic is that we KNOW what we'll get.

We lived under Bush. And we've lived three years under this administration already, remember?

That's a pretty good basis on which to form a prediction about what we'll get when we vote for more of the same.

[TheWraith]

5. Actually, your statement has no logic.

Having lived under Bush, and three years under Obama, has no connection to the point of my message. You seem to intend to say that they're the same, but the problem is that that claim holds no water for anyone with a reality-based viewpoint. It is plainly obvious to anyone with a grasp on reason that Bush and Obama would be hard pressed to be farther apart in governing style.

[woo me with science]

8. "...plainly obvious to anyone with a grasp on reason..."

First, this is another post that consists of a screed and an insult rather than any substance about his alleged marvelous record of standing steadfastly for liberal Democratic values and principles. That is understandable, since in virtually every major policy area this Third Way President has pushed a Bush III agenda.

Second, I would suggest you look up the difference between fact and opinion, because your response to Bonobo above is just silly.

[Magoo48]

37. We are not "silly"

If our views don,t mesh; we are human. Each of us builds reason as information filters thru our individual life's experience. My reasoning here tells me that whether one side is right and one side is wrong is moot at this point in time. The system is busted, ground to a halt. What I think should be done will probably not jive with your views, but we are not "silly" because our reasoning brought us to our respective positions.

[cliffordu]

14. Yeppers, that's right.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. You don't remember the first year, do you? Too bad that...

after a year or so of Obama not righting all the wrongs of the world a Republican House majority was voted in with barely enough of a Democratic Senate to stop the worst of what the teabagging House wanted to do.

Got a lot done in that first year or so, but it's never enough.

Obama is not perfect. No President has been or ever will be perfect. Deal with it.

Stop whining and help get the House back next year or get out of the way.

[MADem]

25. +1. nt

[MADem]

69. Go on then--vote for something different. You'll get President Romney and a Supreme

Court from hell for your trouble!

[treestar]

79. We don't live "under" any one

We live in a Republic. We are not under Bush or under Obama.

We elect Congress and the President (and governors and state legislators).

[msongs]

4. the perpetuation of the bush agenda 3 years after he left office is amazing ent it! nt

[TheWraith]

6. The only thing that's amazing is your knee-jerk single-line wrongness. nt

[NBachers]

7. I'm thankful every day that Obama was elected instead of McCain / Palin

with Joe the Not Plumber as press secretary.

The thought of a McCain / Palin presidency literally makes my stomach queasy.

Every single fucking vote counts.

Every single fucking non-vote counts, too.

I don't know why people would un-rec voting.

Unless they'd rather discourage voting on a Democratic-oriented website.

[GoCubsGo]

34. Well said, NBachers. n/t

[sufrommich]

55. +1. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Spell it out-- precisely what agenda would that be? Remember that...

talk is cheap-- come up with some workable solutions or prepared to be shoved aside by those who might actually be working to make things better.

[woo me with science]

18. Here is your answer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2353574

Thank you for giving one more example of the contempt of the status quo. The contrast is stunning.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Lemme know just how this worldwide movement plans to...

fix the roads, create some decent jobs, or anything else worthwile.

Movements don't do shit-- it's the change in the power structure that makes for change, and the power structure NEVER changes just because a few people are marching or squatting-- we're back to influencing those lawmakers again.

We are not Libya, Egypt, or Greece-- we're the richest,smartest and most powerful nation in history with the structure to fix things, but that structure is sitting around doing nothing. It's a good system-- get it working.

[MADem]

80. And good thing we're not Egypt.

They're on the road to "Meet The New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" or a Fundy Islamist government that will crush the rights of half their population and put women behind walls and hijab, and abrogate the rights of religious minorities.

It's very concerning.

I think our system's fine, too, it has survived FAR worse than this--we just need a little fresh blood to tinker with some of the bullshit that's gunking it up.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Seems more like an excuse to give up.

[Quantess]

13. That's naiive.

I still believe in voting, and I will still vote for Democrats, but it feels like a poor consolation prize.

[cliffordu]

15. And so is speling (sic)

But there you are.

[Quantess]

16. Oh, okay. It's a French word anyway.

It's a naive OP any way you would like to spell it.

[Owlet]

29. Heh

:thumbsup:

[inademv]

20. A vote for a Conservative Democrat is a vote for a Republican

The only reason that there is a place at all for the so called "blue dog" Democrats is because of how extreme the Republican party has become of late. Normally these conservative Dems wouldn't even make it past the primary much less win a general in places where you could expect a Democrat to ever win.

It would be much better to support a candidate that embodies the positions and goals of the Democratic party regardless of their party affiliation (like Bernie Sanders).

[MilesColtrane]

17. K&R

[MADem]

19. You are correct. I can't believe how many people are falling for that BS. NT

[Marr]

21. "If you want to believe something else, go ahead, but it won't be based on reality."

Wow-- keen skills of logic and debate you've got there. :eyes:

[Fumesucker]

22. All I need is one word to prove you wrong..

Marijuana..

The administration is lying about pot, we know they're lying and they know we know they are lying.

And yet they continue to lie about a remarkably harmful policy that is explicitly aimed at minorities and they young.

[Devil_Fish]

23. If you are implying that the system os not rigged, please prove it.

Oh, thats right, you can't because Die Boldt uses proprietary software, and the central tabulator is easily manipulated by the user who counts the votes in private.

I came to this site in 04. The Bush narrative was "Prove I cheated." My reply was "Prove you won." Un fortunately My name is not John Cary.

To you second point, the lesser of two evils is still evil. The whole system is maintained only to give you the illusion that you have a choice. Would you like to chose the sock puppet on the left hand, or the sock puppet on the right hand?

The 1% don't care which you chose, and in reality, I don't think they even bother to count the votes. No one really cares who wins so why waste the time counting??

D_F

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. voting can contribute to REAL change ONLY if you change the political discussion

The New Deal ONLY became possible after agitation in the streets created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of labor and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. The civil rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives. Voter registrations drives ONLY became relevant after mass action created a political culture where it became possible to elect politicians who would carry forward the demands of the civil rights movement - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed. And most certainly the gay rights movement did not begin with voter registration drives - Voting ONLY became relevant after agitation and resistance created a political climate in which politicians paid attention to the demands of the gay rights movement and it became possible to vote into office politicians who would would carry through those demands - something respectable politicians would not do at an earlier time before the political culture had changed.

Both political parties are now utterly dependent on the financial support of Wall Street interest. Yes the Democratic Party too. To deny this is to live in a fantasy land of absurdity. You can argue and I would argue that the Republicans are worse and lately, much worse. That is true. But if one is actually serious about wanting to break this stranglehold the financial industrial holds over both political parties - it is ABSOLUTELY not going to happen and respectable politicians are not going to willingly cut-off their own supply of dependable financial support that they really do need in order to get elected - until the political culture changes and public demand forces a situation where respectable politicians have no choice but to break from the stranglehold the financial industry holds over both political parties.

Already only a few weeks into this great new movement something is happening - The issues of Wall Street's stranglehold over government as well as the issue of vast income disparity has moved from the fringes only voiced by the ravings of leftist and malcontents into the mainstream of political discussion. This is truly incredible. But to break the stranglehold that Wall Street holds - and to make it EVEN POSSIBLE to vote for politicians who will address income disparity, economic injustice and corporate control - will require more than voting for politicians with their latest slick sound bites, platitudes and talking points. What is happening now may very well be the beginning of something that can change the political culture and MAKE IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to vote for politicians who will actually address the issues of income disparity, corporate control and the stranglehold of the financial industry.

[OneGrassRoot]

30. Well said. :) n/t

[Robb]

39. And "not voting" will effect no positive change until the system is altered.

Progressive change in this country is like driving a wagon up a hill. You cannot unhitch the animal without having a replacement ready or you will roll backwards.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. I certainly don't recommend "not voting" even if it means voting for the lesser reactionary

and the lesser dangerous. But I cannot and will not lie, trick and deceive people into thinking that the Democratic Party is something that it is not - progressive on economic and foreign policy issues or that it is not also controlled by the banks and financial institutions. That is ludicrous and patently dishonest to the point of insulting peoples' intelligence. One of the reasons why there are so many people who have lost all interest in voting is because a lot of people were bamboozled and actually had no idea that this "change we can believe in" nonsense was a cynical and manipulative marketing scam. I knew that at the time and choose to support the lesser reactionary and lesser dangerous. Because the alternative was obviously worse. But a lot of naive and gullible people didn't realized that they were voting for the lesser evil. Some actually were innocent enough to actually think they were voting for "change we can believe in" and are thus now deeply disappointed and now many are cynical about voting at all.

I can support the Democratic candidates because the alternative is way beyond simply Wall Street stooges like most Democratic candidates- The only available alternative happens to be ignorant and dangerous right-wing lunatics. That is the choice we have to live with for the time being. But I'm not going to lie about it to myself or anyone else. Deceiving people is still counterproductive in the long run. Honesty is still the best policy.

[Robb]

50. You most certainly *are* doing just that.

"I'm not telling people to stay out of the water, but it's polluted and going to give you a rash."

"I'm not telling people not to vote for Democrats, but they're liars. Plus, if you vote for them you're naive and gullible."

Please.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. I always advise people to vote Democratic because the alternative is worse

that is what I know to be true. I'm not going to lie about it - not matter how convenient that may seem

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. +1

Both Parties are utterly corrupted by Wall Street. Anyone who does not see that has been blinded by partisan politics.

[JoePhilly]

31. The right wing's goal is to depress turn out.

They know that they can get the Gays, God and Guns crazies out to vote.

But they need everyone else to stay home.

That's also why the GOP passes legislation to make it harder to vote. Depress turn out.

[MADem]

63. They're getting plenty of help from a few people here on DU who either don't get it or

are willful with regard to the goal.

[SidDithers]

74. +1...nt

Sid

[MADem]

64. I have no idea what happened--I only clicked once!

[MADem]

65. Hopefully it will not happen again!

[MADem]

66. Apologies for the multiple posts. nt

[blindpig]

32. So criticism from the left is actually 'bullshit right-wing defense ....

meme'?

Gee, thanks for straightening me out on that.......

What delusional horse shit.

[Robb]

38. Saying there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans is delusional horseshit.

That's not "criticism from the left." It's a position that wholly lacks any "critical" component whatsoever.

I don't give a damn if you personally choose not to vote. But if you encourage people on a progressive board not to vote, you're enabling the GOP and I'll speak up.

[blindpig]

42. Are both parties not firm supporters of capitalism?

All other differences pall in comparison, because it is capitalism that ails us.

Just pointing out the obvious from working class perspective.

[Robb]

51. Then vote third party. Or don't vote.

Knock yourself out.

[sufrommich]

67. What are you doing on a Democratic board? nt

[SidDithers]

33. Good post...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. unrec

[whatchamacallit]

76. Lol!

:thumbsup:

[HughBeaumont]

35. Economically, there isn't.

As far as social and foreign policy goes, yes, they are different, but only barely. I vote to keep the US from becoming ChurchMerica. Get rid of those goddamned horribly damaging Bewsh II tax cuts, renounce Supply Side Reaganomics and tell Corporate America and their lobbyists "I'M the boss, NOT you" and then we'll talk.

[2pooped2pop]

36. there is a difference

but it does seem like only a dimes worth sometimes. I see the dems talk big when not in power, but once in power, do nothing. (Conyers comes to mind) It appears to be just appeasement talk. Most it would seem, are on the same payroll. Most it would seem, have done very very well for themselves financially, while in office. Most it would seem, are by and for the 1%.

As long as the machines are rigged, the system is rigged. Both sided know it's rigged but appear to prefer it that way.

Yet, I still vote dem or I, always with hope that something will actually change.

OCCUPY

[mmonk]

40. I can asssure you the Democratic Party has changed and your generalization

is a little short sighted. This is my opinion. But it is an opinion due to my post secondary study as well as my age and memory. That does not mean they are the same as Republicans or I would not be voting. But it does mean the party has changed enough that this country is currently run on an ideology that is different than that which I grew up under. And under that previous way of thinking, the government was primary run on ideas that came from the Democratic Party and its coalition at the time.

[Zorra]

41. Partially disagree, but I'm certainly never going to stop voting.

The reason I disagree is because I think electronic voting, and the use of wealth to pick candidates, actually does rig the system to a great degree.

I'll put up with this until we (OWS) bring about the changes necessary to repair the system, because I can't change the electoral system through the electoral system at this time.

Nevertheless, Democrats are always better than republicans, and those are my choices for now.

Not voting is like taking your ball and going home.

Anything that can at least do some good is better than not doing anything good at all.

[datasuspect]

45. 30 years of conservatism and right wing democrats got us where we are today

duh

[Tatiana]

46. Democrats have produced a lot of financial and banking legislation that sucks.

But this is because they, too, are owned by the banks (as Senator Durbin himself admitted).

[baldguy]

48. As is the idea that "both parties are the same".

If Snidely Whiplash can convince enough of the supporters of his opponent, Tess Trueheart, that she's just as slimy & corrupt as he is, then he wins. Every time.

[GliderGuider]

53. The realization that has dawned on people is that the entire system is broken.

And that he system probably cannot be reformed from within because the corporate forces that control its operation have consolidated their hold across the spectrum of party affiliations. This presents an enormous dilemma, because there is no obvious way to to reform the system from outside either.

As the students of UC Davis showed us however, the politics of refusal - the respectful refusal to behave as the powers that be wish us to - is enormously powerful. Politicians like to reframe (spin) all political action to make it appear that its motivation springs from within the rules of the system itself. This time it doesn't. Those same politicians would like us to believe that any refusal to participate in the existing system is prima facie evidence of belonging to "the other side". This time it is not. Promoting that point of view is a vote for the retention of the current corrupt system, a vote for stasis - or at least business as usual.

I might be better for our children if we vote instead for a renewal of governance in the world. That, IMO, starts with refusing the odious and corrupt false choices we are being offered.

[sufrommich]

54. There seems to be an "all day ,every day" effort on DU

by some to convince DUers that voting is useless. Personally, I think that discouraging voting should be a bannable offence.

[banned from Kos]

57. Good idea. I've been banned from another site simply for defending the President

Voting is essential to initiate positive change.

[MADem]

61. I assume your name is reflective of your circumstance.

I'd wear that as a badge of pride. That place is very orange, very cliquish, and impossible to navigate.

I used to "read" over there, but never joined up or in. It was horribly tangled, and seemed a bit lockstepish/Group-Thinkish.

Too much effort to detangle, without sufficient return.

[MADem]

58. Yes, and what's funny is, some of 'em were the ones who were claiming that

the present Secretary of State was the antichrist.

You just can't please all of the people, all of the time, I guess.

I suppose the good news here is, the very people who are constantly doing this are creating a record for themselves. By their words we shall know them.

You can't force people to do their civic duty, but you can sure as hell think ill of them for being a complainer, a whiner, a Debbie Downer, a Negative Norton, without doing anything to participate in and improve the political process. Sending a donation to a candidate isn't enough, particularly if one is not happy. Banging a drum on the street is not sufficient, either.

One has to start "growing one's own" -- and that means helping candidates to their liking to stand for office in those crappy little LOCAL elections--the ones that don't get much if any notice on DU.

Everyone likes the glamour of the Big 'Uns, though--Presidential elections, House or Senate--sure, they're in there with opinions and arguments. City or town council, alderman, those kinds of dinky contests? Not so much. These national candidates don't fall out of Rainbow Bright's ass, though--they're grown in local soil.

If you don't grow your own, you get what you get.

[bhikkhu]

59. The RW will use any argument to keep you from voting

I don't see why an OP about it gets rec'd to nothing here, or why so many here who are supposed to be democrats and support changing the system would rather see you sitting at home on election day.

That worked like a charm in 2010, and the GOP took congress - (oh, but that was Obama's fault too!)

[Fumesucker]

62. Obama started the very day of his inauguration alienating liberals..

When known homophobe Rick Warren was placed in a position of honor in Obama's inaugural.

There were plenty of other ministers that could have been found to speak who were not the polarizing influence Warren is.

[bhikkhu]

70. So one homophobe spoke. Obama's actions since then on gay issues speak louder.

I think "beyond expectations" should be a realistic LGBT review of the first three years.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/05/hrc-endorses-obama-for-re-election-cites-record-accomplishments-on-lgbt-issues/

[Fumesucker]

72. People respond strongly to symbols..

If they didn't then flag burning wouldn't be an issue, it's just a piece of cloth.

The symbolism of having a homophobe on the stage at Obama's inaugural is clear.

[LoZoccolo]

73. K&R

:kick:

[whatchamacallit]

75. Panic. It's What's For Dinner

Most DUers are aware enough to make informed choices. If they've come to the conclusion that the system is a sham, it's through observation not coercion. But don't let that stop *your* propaganda.

[treestar]

77. +1

The system is pretty much functional. The trouble people have with it is that those who think differently get to vote, and that gums up with works of what each individual wants.