Skip to main content

View Diary: A question of worth. (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And, of course... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, output

    your poll is slanted, but you knew that.  I voted 'no, I have the means', though I'm not sure what 'means' are.  I'm unemployed for 8 months, never got a cent of unemployment benefits, and have taken home less than my mortgage this year to date.  Savings were already low, and are dwindling faster than spit on a hot sidewalk.  But that doesn't mean I'll compromise and cheer on legislation that hurts someone else to make my life better.

    It costs too damn much to stand for purity.  Seriously.  This all comes down to both a personal and a very real financial cost.  If we are to live under a law that says money is speech, then we also need to put money on the table regarding these things and see where it leads.

    And that's connected to being real, as opposed to being fake.

    To paraphrase, those who seek security over liberty deserve neither.  If you're unwilling to put 'it all' on the line, then you're just talking the talk, not walking the walk.

    What you seem to be saying there is that you don't want to pay the costs, but you want things better...

    Is that really what you mean?

    If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 05:53:50 PM PDT

    •  Actually, it's more complex than that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel, 3goldens

      I do not see the party responding to protest / alternative / fantasy votes in a favorable way.

      History does not support that proposition.

      Now, if the election is winnable, go for it!  Bernie is a good example of that.

      If not, then it's a net loss.

      Finally, the vote to choose who keeps the seat and who does not, doesn't mean we think what happened was ok.  It only means we think it's worth it for the ass to keep the seat.

      Subtle, but important distinction.  

      A lot of the framing on this stuff is about linking those votes to bad things being ok, or to demonstrate the viability, or correctness of policy positions.

      Not true.

      And that's how it works for me.  Voting my best interests doesn't mean anything other than voting my best interests, and those happen to be where the GOP gains as little as possible right now.

      That could change, but recognition of that is the lower cost option right now.

      I've diaried before about firing off PAC's to start to put serious influence on bad party members, fund raising off of bad votes, and grooming challengers from day one.

      We, as a movement, have a lot of options besides just casting that vote, and the more people see and participate in that, the more we raise the cost of fucking us over, and that is the only thing that our party --our Government in general appears to respond to.

      Simply voting no, yes, no in a cyclic fashion based on performance is being gamed big.  Time to break that, and open the door for new options to take hold, and change the game, how it's played, what the costs are.


      by potatohead on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:04:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course the poll is biased! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ezekial 23 20

      It's advocacy today, and I tagged it as such.


      by potatohead on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 06:06:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site