Skip to main content

View Diary: I didn't come to start a class war, I came to end one (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Registering people to vote barely registers (3+ / 0-)

    on the list of things that will effect change unless it is accompanied by a cause to vote for.

    And if that cause is to continue putting the same people in office who over and over again fight for the 1%, then it's just more of the same, Jesse. "Not voting is a vote for Mitt Romney" is not only empty, partisan democratic party rhetoric, it's flat wrong.

    •  Oops - I recommended your comment by mistake. (4+ / 0-)

      I disagree, actually -- there is a system we are all forced at the present time to work in and deal with as citizens. Yes, it's corrupted and dysfunctional because of all the money in politics, etc., but you gotta work in the system while you work within it to eventually change it. It's a long range game. Not voting gets you nowhere, and is more about you taking a principled stand which I can of course sympathize with but which doesn't CHANGE a damn thing that you are pissed about. Who cares if you don't vote? You. That's it. But, if enough of you don't vote, the result can be another close election which can then be stolen (it's happened before!) just because you felt emotionally better by not voting because you're pissed. Well, we're all pissed, but let's not give help to those who are gaining more power by the day.

      I don't think it's party rhetoric - I think it's presenting a real consequence, as has happened before, to not exercising what little power we as individual citizens have left - besides our protesting in the streets....

      Sorry, but I think YOU are wrong.

      Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

      by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:21:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not voting is not voting. Period. It isn't a vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for one candidate or another. Cajoling people to vote for a democrat under the guise of "not voting is the same as voting for the other guy" is partisan party rhetoric and is demonstrably, empircally false besides. It isn't debatable. You, and Jesse, are both factually incorrect in a way that simply isn't up for discussion, no matter what other rationalizations, caveats or context you wrap around it.

        •  Not Voting (15+ / 0-)

          is what got us Rick Scott for Governor in Florida. Not Voting is what got us a minority in the House and an inability to get anything done in the Senate. Because the 1% and their minions and their brainwashed huddled 'masses' will vote. Not voting will get us exactly where it has already gotten us.

          Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

          "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

          by FloridaSNMOM on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:04:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is pretty rhetoric, but also demonstrably (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            false. In fact is manifestly false because in order to win people had to vote for the candidates that won. Fewer voted for the candidates who lost, by definition. Anybody who did not vote wasn't counted in any vote tally, and suggestions regarding how they may have voted are pure speculation at best.

            Just accept that you are wrong and move on.

            •  Wrong again, buddy. (8+ / 0-)

              You seem to missing the point.  Perhaps if someone speaks more slowly, you'll get it.

              When people choose to stay home and not vote, the person with the most votes wins.  For example, FloridaSNMOM states that rick scott got into office because many democrats chose not to vote.  This resulted in less votes for the democratic candidate and more for rick scott.  Thus, Rick Scott got elected.

              This might be too difficult for you to understand (my conclusion from your comments), but it really isn't that difficult.

              love the fetus, hate the child

              by Raggedy Ann on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:42:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Get over yourself, please.... (5+ / 0-)

              People can disagree with you, YOU can think they are wrong, but to ask them to "accept that they are wrong and move on" is just being a @#$*! for no good reason other than stroking your own ego. It's apparent you think highly of yourself and have no patience for dissenters of your opinion. Too bad.

              Yes, the votes that are counted are the ones that count. I get it. I'm not a moron. I understand the voting and counting PROCESS for those that show up. But to ignore the fact that many registered Democrats who could vote and are choosing to not vote for whatever reason (and that there are ways to increase the numbers that show up) is beyond logic.

              Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

              by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:53:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, the failure in logic (0+ / 0-)

                is assuming that those alleged Dems who did not vote, really would have voted for the Dem candidate.  You miss the obvious observation:  they did not vote for a reason, presumably because they did not want to vote for the Dem candidate and refused to vote for the republican.  The oftheard reason is:  it doesn't matter either way, we'll still get screwed.  That is not a vote for the republican.  That is vote lost by the Democrat for failing to offer that voter something that will motivate him/her to vote for the candidate.  

                And I don't understand your outrage at Florida.  S/he merely stated that your "not voting is a vote for the republican" is empirically false.  Rather than admitting this, you doubled-down and try to rationalize this false argument a second time.  It's not arrogance.  It's simply expecting that a discussion on  this site will be governed by the rules of logic and reason.  

                •  Yes, and more inconvenient truths... (2+ / 0-)

                  ... like the unpleasant fact that more Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than the total number of votes Nader got across all classes of voters. That year in my own state of Washington, a Democrat beat a Republican by only two thousand votes out of a couple million cast. It seems that some of the people who voted for Nader may also have voted for her, and helped put her over the top. Would they have still voted if Nader hadn't been on the ballot? Maybe, maybe not, but it seems likely that his presence on the ballot made a few more people vote than would have otherwise, and it helped out down-ballot in a tangible and measurable way.

                  The real takeaway from all of this seems to be, at least in part, "get better candidates." After that, "work like hell."

              •  People can disagree that gravity exists or that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                climate change occurs, too. Pointing out that they're wrong is a good quality, although occasionally pointless.

                In fact I'd argue you need to get over yourself. That you have an opinion, and that you are entitled to have it, doesn't mean it's a good opinion or based on anything resembling facts. Claiming that not voting is a vote for an opponent is simply not a fact-based claim. It's that simple.

                •  Not voting (0+ / 0-)

                  doesn't add a vote for the Republican, but it can prevent the Democrat from winning. And yes, this is exactly how we got stuck with Rick Scott. It was a VERY close race, he won by less then 2%. If more democrats had come out and voted, likely Alex Sink would have won, and then we'd have the already agreed on rail going forward, funds for the Disabled and Independent living and Vets likely wouldn't have been cut, we wouldn't be dealing with the stupid "drug test welfare recipients" law, and we wouldn't be arguing against ACA in court.
                  Can I say for certain that those who stayed home would have all voted for Sink? No, but given that Dems had a very low turn out, I think it very likely that we wouldn't now have a felon in the Governor's mansion in Tallahassee.

                  So while the statement of "not voting is a vote for an opponent" is not literally true, it is in essence figuratively true as it's one less vote for the person or party you support.

                  "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

                  by FloridaSNMOM on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:59:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  It isn't debatable? Really? Well, I've got news (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Iron Spider, SaveDemocracy

          for you -- everything is debatable, and you can think you're right and everyone is wrong, but I think I'm right and you're wrong and somehow us thinking that doesn't make either of us right in reality (opinions on issues are subjective, you see...and you aren't the only one alive who thinks and has opinions, so....). Ta-duh - -- we have a debate on somehing that is apparently not debatable; wow, how did that happen?

          Did you take statistics or just plain math in school? Well, if you have more numbers on one side than the other (i.e. registered voters) and a greater percentage of the smaller side shows up than the larger side, it is in fact a possibility that exists in reality that the smaller group can "win" by more of them showing up than the much larger group who many more of decided to just stay on the couch, be mad and watch TV.....

          That is a fact too.

          Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

          by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:35:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, the combination of post-modernism (0+ / 0-)

            and a failing educational system.  There are no real facts.  We all get to assert our own.  Whatever I believe is true is just as valid as what you believe is true, facts be daamned.

            You still have not explained how not voting is a vote for Romney.

            And everything is not debatable- in a rational world.  

            •  I don't entirely agree with you or Justin, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ... you make a fairly compelling point. Our degeneracy as a party seems pretty well advanced. We started out the last decade by saying "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Now we've gotten down to saying "not voting is a vote for Romney." Perhaps more people would vote for Democratic candidates if the party gave them something worth voting for, or actually called out Tea Party candidates like the numerous Ricks and Scotts on their bullshit when it mattered, back on the campaign trail. When a candidate (Al Gore) can't even carry his home state, or New Hampshire, or pulls out of Ohio just because the polls look bad, then on some level, I'm of the opinion that he had his loss coming to him. You can root for your team all you like, but if they play like shit, you can't deny that they deserved their loss, and saying the other team should have played just as badly is nuts.

              Also, agreed on the ridiculousness of post-modernism. I absolutely hate that shit. We can argue about points of view all we want, but some things are not just opinions. There is only one truth.

    •  I couldn't possibly disagree with you more ... (4+ / 0-)

      Our votes are the very essence of our collective power.

      "The thing they most fear is the principle of “one person — one vote”.

      You see despite their extreme wealth and power, they only have 1% of the vote; “the rest us” control the other 99% of the votes. So if we ever caught on and, I don’t know, maybe raised their taxes back to where it use to be (40-90% range), well maybe they couldn’t have a Yacht in every city, or a Mansion in a half dozen states.  Maybe they couldn’t “lose count” of how many homes they owned."

      Leaked Citibank 1% Memo

      Part of the reason we're in such dire straights at the moment is because so many of us put more time and energy into choosing our favorite "Dancing With The Stars" or "American Idol" contestants than the leaders who govern our lives, believing that "they're all the same" and it doesn't really matter.  We believe it doesn't matter until we're diagnosed with a disease that might have been cured through stem cell research, until we have an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy, until we loose our jobs and have trouble paying our mortgages or our medical bills, until we have to fill up our gas tanks, assume the care and feeding of an aging parent, or see our children off to war.  The list goes on and on ...

      If nothing else, the message of the Bush years should have been that few things matter more than who and what we vote for, and in some cases, who and what we vote against.  Contrary to your assertion, it is imperative that we vote, and each and every vote must be both informed and strategic.

      Your screen name is one of those that is familiar to me.  It unsettles me that someone who is clearly so intelligent and thoughtful could reject the realities that so directly impact you.  I understand you're a principled individual and i understand you believe yourself to be on the side of what is good and noble.  But if you think that sitting out this election, or casting some sort of protest vote is going to be anything other than music to the ears of those who represent everything you're supposedly against, think again.  You may think you're beating your own drum, but you're actually playing their tune.

      I'm encouraged to see an Occupy diary advocate voter registration, and i, for one, hope there's more of this in the weeks and months to come.

      •  Voter registration without followup is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kakumeiji maru, orestes1963

        pointless. That was one of my points. I think we'd be in agreement that the followup--actually casting a vote--is the important part of that process. The quality of the followup--what one votes for--is even more important, and my next point was to make an explicit call out that registering voters who are going to vote for more of the same is counterproductive to any movement with a purported purpose of supporting the 99% against the 1%.

        The other is that "not voting" is, quite simply, "not voting." Abstaining from voting is not a vote, implied or otherwise, for anybody or anything. It's just not voting. The suggestion that it is a vote for an opponent or anything else is purely partisan rhetoric/party propaganda.

      •  A vote for either of these candidates (0+ / 0-)

        is music to the ears of the 1%.  That is the point that is being made.  If it doesn't change circumstances down here on the ground, does it really make a difference?  The 1% will hum their song regardless.  They have a win-win scenario.

        NB- I always vote- and have never and would never vote for a republican.  However, I am not opposed to a protest vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site