I voted for Nader

[Agent provocateur]

And I hope Bush wins! Could the commmunist party triumph without the stupid czar and his minions as an opposition. If Kerry wins that would cause be more procrastination for the left. Vote Nader!

[h&s]

Or maybe don't vote at all? If you vote Nader you are voting for a capitalist, and at the same time are helping a group of mass-mudering neo-cons to maintain their grip on power.

[redstar2000]

I voted for Dilbert!

Fuck you too! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[refuse_resist]

Vote Nader!
No.

[Freedom Writer]

If I lived in US, I would surely vote for BUSH&#33;.. I want to see the world collapse and the 3rd world war.. and also the end me. <_<

No, I wouldnt vote at all. Maybe Kerry... hes a bastard, but as I said, I dont want to see 3rd world war. ;)

[ZeroPain]

Naw i agree with you vote nader, capitalist or not at least hes not an asshole. But kerry must not win bush is the best hope we have gotten had in a long time, and its clear thing have to get worse before they willl get better

[ComradeChris]

If the Republicans get voted into power again, I hope they screw things up beyond belief, so nobody will ever vote for a Republican again. But you know how conservatives some people are, they&#39;ll vote for any conservative who can work up a stammer. :lol:

[Ian]

I am listening to the song I voted for Nader by Thought Riot. Listening to it acheives more than voting ever will.

[gaf]

i think whom ever you vote for won&#39;t change a fuck.but bush would be the better factor to make a revolution (bloody one it will be) but yeah we are fucked anyway and people need to make choices ,so choose chaos ......who knows? at this point of hyst(e)(o)ry it doesn&#39;t seem important anymore.
fight back .fight for you rights&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[king Royale]

First off it would be stupid as hell to vote for Bush even if it does bring the revolution about a bit quicker. Second good job voting for Nader. He confronts all of the issues correctly and he is not a capitalist. He is a democratic socialist. I think right now he is the best choice for America without a revolution.

[DaCuBaN]

he is not a capitalist

He is a capitalist: He&#39;s a very wealthy man, who supports the current economic structure.

I do not doubt that the US would be a "better" place under him, but he&#39;s still a damned dirty capitalist.

[ZeroPain]

Post no longer relavant

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Lol, saw a dog tied in someone&#39;s yard, lying next to a sign that said vote for me. His economic policiy is definitely on target, Rover would get my vote, If i could vote.

[1949]

Is this "Agent provocateur" fellow saying he voted for Nader in 2000? He shouldn&#39;t be speaking of the 2004 election in the past tense, because it hasn&#39;t happened yet. I honestly don&#39;t know what the hell this topic is about. I consider it spam. But I&#39;ll play along.


Originally posted by redstar2000+Oct 22 2004, 06:51 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Oct 22 2004, 06:51 AM)I voted for Dilbert&#33;

Fuck you too&#33; :lol:[/b]
ROFL. I like Dilbert too.


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:35 PM
He is a capitalist: He&#39;s a very wealthy man, who supports the current economic structure.

I do not doubt that the US would be a "better" place under him, but he&#39;s still a damned dirty capitalist.
Agreed.


[email protected] 22 2004, 12:22 PM
I am listening to the song I voted for Nader by Thought Riot. Listening to it acheives more than voting ever will.
Your avatar is creepy.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Some states have already voted; such as Oregon which is mail-in only... I think.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:59 AM
Your avatar is creepy.
It&#39;s too real for ya.

[cathatonix]

I don&#39;t understand why USA has to have those crazy voting machines. The rest of the world uses small pieces of paper. OK, I guess there are companys making a lot of money on those machineries but now that we know that a lot of people are having trouble understanding them, and are actuallly voting on the wrong guy, why not use papers?
one paper marked "Bush" one marked "Kerry" one marked "Nader" und so weiter. You have to be a total illiterate (like Bush and Kerry) not to understand how to vote.

[Funky Monk]

What i love is the fact that some states are still using the dimple system. If i was being cynical i might think that some people wanted to preserve the ambiguity of the election process.

[refuse_resist]

Voting for Nader, Badnarik or any other third party candidate will not change anything in this country for the better.

[VukBZ2005]

Elections do not mean nothing to me whatsoever. It is&#39;nt helping me - it&#39;s a waste of my time
and not only that - it distracts people from seeing that revolution is the only option. But
too many of us are too mired into idea that elections change anything and everything.

[DaCuBaN]

Voting for Nader, Badnarik or any other third party candidate will not change anything in this country for the better.

Neither will voting for Kerry nor Bush&#33; I urge you to go out and vote anyway, even if it is an exercise in futility. You lose nothing when you do it, and you may (though probably not) actually make some kind of difference.

Just go into it with the thought in your mind that what you are about to do is of no relevance to the "real world" whatsoever.

[1949]

Andrei Mazenov on elections:


I personally oppose all bourgeois elections because I see them as buying into the system instead of working against it. Elections safeguard the system by channeling the energies of the masses away from more militant action. In fact it could be said that the system ultimately wants people like Nader out there- his role, whether he or his followers are conscious of it or not, is to channel the energies of progressive layers of the masses away from aiming their fire at the system and instead walk into the mousetrap that is the voting booth. The masses are led to believe that only by pulling a lever can they effect change despite tons of evidence to the contrary in this country&#39;s history.

When you encourage people to participate in election you also help reinforce the view that some kind of real change can be made at the ballot box. This is just leading people right into submitting. It&#39;s leading them right into the hands of the system. Once you do have them voting, their next step is to move toward voting for someone with &#39;a chance of winning&#39;. What good is that when so many people already realize that voting is worthless and makes no real difference&#33;? You would first have to convince many of them to even vote to start with&#33; That would be a step back not a step forward.

Also, as much as I love Lenin and uphold him, I disagree with a great deal of what he said in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. "Heresy&#33;" you may cry loudly. Big deal, I say; just because Lenin said it doesn&#39;t make it scripture, and besides, the U.S. electoral system is not the Russian Duma after the 1905 revolution -- and using the example that "Lenin supported running for office back then" is an example of genuine dogmatism and mechanical thinking. In 1905 and the years afterwards, Russia was emerging from a severe monarchist dictatorship -- there had never been elections and there were very few legal ways of conducting political activity and getting views out. Elections (and the elected posts in the Duma) allowed revolutionary communists to speak in public, hold meetings, have leading representatives get immunity from arrests, and travel around the country. Also the elections themselves were a consession, forced out of the Tsar by the revolutionary upsurge (even though the Duma itself was powerless.)

By contrast, the U.S. electoral system is neither new nor any viable "opening" for political work (that couldn&#39;t be done in other ways.) For many people, seeing revolutionaries running for office (Congress? Mayor? President?) would be seen correctly as selling out, as accepting this government, and all its myths and illusions. It would be seen (correctly) as giving up on a real and different vision. And if revolutionaries entered this electoral arena as candidates (whatever the rational) they would be stepping on the hopes of the advanced in a vain attempt to better reach the intermediate, not to mention sending a message to the masses that things can be changed through the system.

This is why I consider the RCP&#39;s summation of how we should deal with bourgeois elections to be correct; instead of wasting our time with them we should be working to build for revolution. The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA makes it quite clear:

"...these elections are really nothing more than rituals in which the masses are allowed to choose which political operative of the bourgeoisie will oppress and crush them. And the electoral process is used to "legitimize" that oppression. Rather than threaten or even impede the power of the imperialists, the bourgeois election ritual actually strengthens them. These elections put the masses in a passive and isolated position, training them to confine their political aspirations and activity to whatever their masters see fit to allow. Soon people either become disgusted with "politics" altogether, or they are forced to lower their sights and give up any higher aspirations. No matter which candidate gets elected in these farces, the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system always wins."
That basically sums up how I feel, too.


Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 22 2004, 08:33 PM
Some states have already voted; such as Oregon which is mail-in only... I think.
Oh.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 23 2004, 06:06 PM
Elections do not mean nothing to me whatsoever. It is&#39;nt helping me - it&#39;s a waste of my time
and not only that - it distracts people from seeing that revolution is the only option. But
too many of us are too mired into idea that elections change anything and everything.
As an alternative you could leave the country :unsure: but Kerry is too much like Bush and voting for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote. Top Tip: Come to NZ ( but leave your damn accents behind ) Hahaha&#33; My country isn&#39;t facing a major crisis.... WAHOOO&#33;&#33;&#33; I actually feel really grateful I live in NZ.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Latifa
I actually feel really grateful I live in NZ.

I can imagine&#33; :D

In a world of class societies, New Zealand may be the "best place to live" of them all.

I envy you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[antieverything]

I wouldn&#39;t mind giving up and moving to NZ sometimes.

What exactly do our accents sound like to you?

[Latifa]

What exactly do our accents sound like to you?
A motorcycle with the muffler off :lol: .
In a world of class societies, New Zealand may be the "best place to live" of them all.
I&#39;d say Sweden or Holland is the best, but we certainly sit atop most of the world in terms of quality of life ( Quality of life, not living standards. I&#39;ll explain the difference if needs be. )

[pedro san pedro]

ahhh nz, i miss home. what part are you from latifa? i&#39;m a dunedin bot orginally.

and a big fuck you to everyone that isnt voting. sure, it aint gonna change much, but its an hour outta your life every few years to change a small part. vote green as a protest vote.

a decent activist is active every day, and realises that they should take evry oppurtinity to make their voice heard. not voting is just standing SILENTLY on the sidelines.

and another big up yours to everyone that does vote but isnt activ ethe rest of the time.

you gotta be active everyday if you want a better place to play

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:55 AM

I&#39;d say Sweden or Holland is the best, but we certainly sit atop most of the world in terms of quality of life ( Quality of life, not living standards. I&#39;ll explain the difference if needs be. )
nope.holland is an illusion latifa,and for sweden i can not awnswer
so explain the differences.between middle class quality of life and new poor people crowling under debts(and thus enslave to the system).?

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:55 AM
What exactly do our accents sound like to you?
A motorcycle with the muffler off :lol: .
In a world of class societies, New Zealand may be the "best place to live" of them all.
I&#39;d say Sweden or Holland is the best, but we certainly sit atop most of the world in terms of quality of life ( Quality of life, not living standards. I&#39;ll explain the difference if needs be. )
the fact that you were not aware of redstars sarcasm makes this thread even funnier


good stuff mr star - keep the class struggle alive, bollox to any complacent joy about living under a benevolent bourgoiesie

[mentalbunny]

Read my signature, it says it all.