Obama vs. Romney

[Aaron Haynes]

On its face, that statement isn't even really about voting. I said it's dumb not to participate. Obviously the discussion was about voting, so I am sort of making a judgment of people who don't vote, but the sentiment was about people who don't participate in the democracy. This is why I added the caveat about actually doing something to try and change the system making the act of not voting out of principle at least internally consistent, and somewhat understandable.

But I wasn't saying everyone should be activists, just that we should be engaged at least in this most basic way. I see it as the one thing we have definitive control over within the democratic system, so no matter how toxic it is, we should at least exercise that right. We should try to change and improve the system, obviously, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you believe the system doesn't serve the principles of the country or the society we should have, its outcome does have consequences. So while you don't like the narrative that non-voters are lazy, smug slacktivists, I don't like the narrative that national elections aren't worth participating in. Because both narratives can have unintended effects.

Voter disenfranchisement/non-participation is a symptom, not the root of the problem, I agree. But I don't agree that it's the end of the infection. Entire demographics becoming anemic in voter turnout has an amplifying effect as Democrats start to ignore them and Republicans deploy voter suppression efforts. The system by which we elect candidates may be broken, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between Obama and Romney, and the subsequent impact their administrations would have on the country.

I totally agree that third-parties get railroaded, the system is rigged and gerrymandered to maintain existing party structures and voting blocs, and that it's not a simple dichotomy, but I was never saying it was. My point is that despite how imperfect (which is a really charitable description) the system is, the results still have consequences. It's not theoretical when Romney is basically promising war with Iran. I'm not belittling anyone's choices about what we should be doing, I'm arguing against self-defeating purism and self-rationalizing fatalism. Voting won't solve the problems with American democracy, and it is literally the least we can do, but the idea that it means nothing or should be belittled/discouraged is what I don't like.

Originally Posted by Zaquis

i think we need to look outside the sphere of voting, and consider voting in itself our last priority. voting is the end, not the means.

I can totally get behind this.

i don't see the point in partaking in something that is uselessly broken

I just don't think it means this.

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally Posted by Zaquis

i guess i've been interpreting the "you" you throw out as me specifically, and not in the general 'you' referring to the population in general. my bad.

Also this is partly my fault, I catch myself using them practically interchangeably. I'm really bad about it.

[Pizza The Hut]

I would say I pretty much don't participate...but I've already admitted I was dumb in another thread.

[Bobby Swisha]

I'll vote for Mitt Romney if he registers and makes a post on 3dmm.com

[Bobby Swisha]

On a diff note this list almost kind of makes me want to vote for Obama

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09...ith-citations/

[Pizza The Hut]

Originally Posted by BR

I'll vote for Mitt Romney if he registers and makes a post on 3dmm.com

same

actually any presidential candidate who registers and posts here

[Phil Williamson]

I bet we could get Gary Johnson to do it

[Pizza The Hut]

that would rule

[Lord Blazer]

Originally Posted by Zaquis

why? there is no 'abstain' option in america when you vote, unlike a lot of other countries, so the only way to protest is by not voting. also, what's the point of voting in a national election when your vote means squat anyway. what's the point of voting when it has no meaning? so you can feel smug or claim you 'tried' by doing the absolute bare minimum of empty gestures?

e: I like that cap better but I guess it doesn't make sense if you haven't seen the film so have this one as well

[Zaquis]

what's that from

[Lord Blazer]

Brewster's Millions

movie is rad as hell

you should go watch it

[Andres]

what the hell does it even mean for your vote to be meaningful?

does it have to be the tie-breaking vote in the election or what?

or does it have to go to the winning party?

[Andres]

i'm also annoyed by the narrative that voting is simultaneously meaningless and too important to justify voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate

[Zaquis]

are you being purposely obtuse

[Zaquis]

i mean i know you like being aggressive and arguing for the sake of it but lol you're being really simplistic here bucko

[Kevitus]

We should face it: voting changes nothing - there is no opposition, no representation, no dedication in politics anymore. Democratic capitalism has become a farce in which the voter-mass is being manipulated, lied to and systematically taken for fools.

It is time to rethink society structures in general. We are all on the same trainride into the abyss and yet there is still such a massive denial and opposition against the profound radical changes that we need.

We don't need another election, another president or another party. We urgently need awareness that we are moving in a dead end and every day that we move further, it takes longer to reverse and walk back.

[Andres]

thank you for this useful post on the subject on the american election

[Phil Williamson]

haha I like how Kevitus actually made a thread looking for information on a subject here rather than just spouting off conspiracy theories or "pfff it's all just MEANINGLESS ANYWAY" drivel but then apparently just ignored everyone but Evan and went back to his stupid preconceived notions. c'mon kev, you're looking at things through a lens that is just as simplistic, inflexible, and just wrong as the hardcore partisans who think their party can just solve everything.

yes, it's not as simple as "good guys and bad guys." but no, it's also not as simple as "all bad guys" or "everything is just hopeless anyway."

[Bobby Swisha]

Originally Posted by Andres

what the hell does it even mean for your vote to be meaningful?

does it have to be the tie-breaking vote in the election or what?

or does it have to go to the winning party?

tie-breaking

[Kevitus]

Originally Posted by Phil Williamson

haha I like how Kevitus actually made a thread looking for information on a subject here rather than just spouting off conspiracy theories or "pfff it's all just MEANINGLESS ANYWAY" drivel but then apparently just ignored everyone but Evan and went back to his stupid preconceived notions. c'mon kev, you're looking at things through a lens that is just as simplistic, inflexible, and just wrong as the hardcore partisans who think their party can just solve everything.

Well I asked that question to see what people here would answer and I read the responses carefully. Also I didn't respond to Evan as well so what was that about?

Originally Posted by Phil Williamson

yes, it's not as simple as "good guys and bad guys." but no, it's also not as simple as "all bad guys" or "everything is just hopeless anyway."

Never said something like "all bad guys" where do you read such things? There are good guys with devotion for the better but they will never pull through the capitalistic selection process that we have to become influential enough. That is to be changed and there are ways, if only people would finally get that they have power to change something.

If you think that is simplistic than I can accept that, but this is how I see things. I know it's radical, but we live in a radical world as well. I am posting about models in deep detail answering all questions and you just say it is simplistic and inflexible, I just don't get it.

[Anthropophagus]

I'm not voting because the options are between some nigger and a guy who loves money.

[Air Rick]

this thread isn't even about Obama and Romney.





Honestly, I don't care about politics. I really don't. And the whole RNC or DNC conventions on tv means nothing to me, it just interrupts my nightly schedule of tv-watching-at-the-gym and makes me listen to my ipod.

While I like reading the whole "Obama's accomplishments" thing back a page I really can't be bothered because there's just too much shit to sift through. Give me a checklist of who's for what, or a newspaper article that is the narrative equivalent of a Dick and Jane book. I don't want speculation, or people spinning or over-analyzing what is heard. I just want the facts, and I want them presented in the most unbiased, least wordiest way.

I want something that appeals to me because it uses few words and isn't shrouded in bullshit. I can watch a 15-second video on youtube that gives me three facts about each candidate rather than 2 hours of journalism-turned-tabloids.

This is my opinion though. I could be wrong.

[Zaquis]

Originally Posted by Anthropophagus

I'm not voting because the options are between some nigger and a guy who loves money.

- jon 'not racist' sapone

[Happyjuice]

-

[Bobby Swisha]

clips or it didnt happen