Skip to main content

View Diary: HELP! Just off the son has decided not to vote in the presidential election.. (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He's not "making a point" by not voting. (16+ / 0-)

    His failure to vote accomplishes NOTHING. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

    But the consequence could mean a Romney administration that does everything he objects to in the Obama Administration and then some, plus Supreme Court appointments that will set women's rights and civil liberties back 50 years.

    His fit of pique against POTUS is the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum. If he really wants change, he should start with local, state, and Congressional races, where progressive coalitions can grow from the ground up. But when it comes to the 2012 Presidential candidates, there are only two choices: Obama or Romney.  Failing to choose Obama is tacit support for Romney.

    This is time for Mom guilt. Is he really going to pull a stupid stunt to no good end when that goes against everything you've taught him and every right you've fought for as a woman?  

    •  Bingo (5+ / 0-)

      Son is making a symbolic stand on something with real consequences.  His position is not a moral one.  Noam Chomsky says in a swing state he would vote for Obama:

      There are many opportunities to make more public, influential symbolic stands any day of the week.  

    •  yeah, tell him it's a temper tantrum (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that's sure to convince him.

      I have a question for other here. What do you tell someone who says voting for a 3rd party candidate is "playing a long game"? I think that's a snarky reference to what some here have claimed is the strategy of the President. But if someone thinks allowing the Republicans to win will push the Democrats left for 2016, what do you say?

      •  Look how well it worked in 2000 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, doroma, RomneydoubleTax

        Is Obama significantly to Gore's left?  And at what cost?

        Anyone in a swing state who would vote for a 3rd party candidate has not thought through the consequences of a Romney win.

        Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

        by Actuary4Change on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:49:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it can be argued that the 2008 candidate.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10, RomneydoubleTax

          seemed to be more on the left than he's turned out to be. It's a convoluted argument, probably. See if this makes sense.

          Voting for 3rd party in 2000 helped elect Bush. 8 years of Bush helped us nominate someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq.

          No, I'm working too hard on this. I'd have to squint to believe that voting for Nader made the actual Democratic Party move left. The voters, maybe (as a reaction to Bush). The Party, no.

          So voting 3rd party will almost assuredly have no effect on who runs, who gets nominated and what a future Democratic President does, once in office.

          •  But it did move the surpreme court right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            •  If only that was GWB's worst legacy. (0+ / 0-)

              Not that it isn't terrible, but he has (arguably) 9/11, and (definitely) the Iraq war, crippling deficits, complete inaction on global warming,  Guantanamo Bay and torture, the Patriot act (with an assist from craven Dems) and many other things to answer for.

              Numbers are like people . . . Torture them enough and they'll tell you anything.

              by Actuary4Change on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:50:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site