To all the Americans, are you guys going to vote in 2004 ?

[Urban Rubble]

I have never voted in a presidential election. Maybe it's the nihlist in me, but I feel like, there are no good outcomes, anyone worth voting for won't win. I vote in state elesctions for initiatives that matter, but I feel like it's pointless to vote for president, like your damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.

The reason I posted to Americans is because in different countries there may be someone worth voting for, who knows, stranger things have happened.

[Umoja]

Just because who I vote for doesn't win, doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. If I knew the government was going to war, and I could do nothing about it, shouldn't I still protest?

[WUOrevolt]

I'm too young to vot but if I could I would vote.

[Urban Rubble]

Umoja, I've thought about that alot, my point is, there isn't a cantidate that I really think is going to change anything. The U.S is for the lack of a better term, is set in it's ways, it's going to keep rolling along the way it is, regardless of who is in power. Unless something MAJOR happens that is.

Like I said, maybe I'm too nihilistic, but I feel like it doesn't matter who wins the election, it's not going to change anything.

Also, to anyone who might reply in the future, if you are voting, who are you voting for ?

[Hampton]

I plan on voting and I don't know if he's going to, but if Nader ran again I'd vote for him again. I think to many people have gone through to much for me not to vote. I don't really care if who I voted for didn't win, I think it's about showing support and standing for something.

[praxis1966]

I think Nader is running again, but this time I think on an Independent card. I'm not sure why, I guess maybe he thinks that he has a better chance of getting into the debates this way.

As far as the voting or not issue goes, I'm sure that Al Whore wouldn't have been the great liberator or anything, but I'd much rather be dealing with him than George Shrub right now.

I'm registered as a member of the SPF right now, but wouldn't it be great to switch to the Dem. Party just to vote for Al Sharpton? I love that guy.

[Umoja]

Bush has been a miracle for the Left. He highlights everything we hate.

[redstar2000]

Urban Rubble, I don't think it's "nihilistic" to refuse to vote for any of those turds...any more than it's "nihilistic" to refuse to play in a crooked card game.

Who, with any self-respect, wishes to knowingly play the part of a sucker?

Capitalist elections are a con...a spectacle that purports to "really matter" and does not, in fact, really matter at all.

Voting in a capitalist election has approximately the same political significance as going to see Hollywood's latest blockbuster movie...stand in line, pay too much to get in, eat crappy over-priced snacks, and leave feeling ripped off.

You'd feel better if you just took a nap.

:cool:

[Soul Rebel]

I am definitely going to vote. I feel that if i dont vote i have no right to complain about anything (unless of course i couldnt due to like my nationality or age).

[Fever]

vote for nader!

[Charlie]

Hypothetically, if i lived in the USA and were old enough to vote, i surely would. Only for the sadistic satisfaction of seeing Bush booted out of office. :)

[Exploited Class]

You vote for who you want to win, and bet on who you think will win.

Friend told that to me.

I vote in the Presidential elections, I vote in all elections and in Oregon we vote by mail so there is little excuse for me not to. Considering how easy it is, plus with a lot of our measures there has to be a 50% est. voter turn out for it to pass. So I do what I can.

I enjoy it because if enough people voted for our socialist candidates that ran here, they could get 5% of the vote and get federal money assistance for running which would help the organizations a lot. We could spend on other things and let tax dollars do the elections.

I vote for the Presidential election, because it is the only thing they have yet to take away from me.

[Jesus Christ]

im too young to vote
but i would if i could
and this may sound wierd... but my family are republicans
and i would tend to vote for republicans
democrats stand for a lot of things i hate
i cant stand people who badmouth republicans when they know nothing about them
but im still a commie at heart

[Urban Rubble]

Senora Che, no offense, but that old line about "if you don't vote you have no room to protest" is bullshit. I hear that again and again and every time it makes me laugh, do you really think that by voting for President you're making a difference ? No, the voting system in this country sees to that.

RedStar, that was my point, why vote when there is noone worth voting for, or least no one who will change anything.

[Umoja]

A person needs a democratic mindset to bring democracy. Just because I can't get my demands and know it, doesn't mean I'm not going to be an idealist. For the most part, voting isn't causing anyone physical harm.

[dopediana]

i'll be of legal age to vote by 2004. so i'll probably vote for nader if he runs again...

"don't vote, don't *****" is absolutely right. there's nothing to do but keep trying. who knows? someday you might make a difference...

[truthaddict11]

there is an old saying

"If Voting Did Anything It Would Be Illegal"

i think that is a perfect example of the "democratic" system we have in the United States.

If Bush were to be booted (highly unlikely IMPO)
how much would you be able to stomach is succeder? I remember many people voted for Gore because he was the "lesser evil" even though realisticly there was almost no difference between them.
I personaly am not voting for anyone who is a "lesser evil"

So None of the above is who i am voting for in 2004

[Exploited Class]

I keep thinking however, that if the whole voting fiasco hadn't occured, and Gore would have taken position, would there be some kids not orphaned, parents losing children, innocent people dead if Gore had been put into position instead.

Sometimes I wonder if we didn't let the rest of the world down with our votes.

And this lesser evil stuff works fine and all, but if you could have stopped Hitler with votes for a lesser evil, I think you would.

And Yes I do consider Bush up there on the scale of Hitler, maybe not a complete Genocide on any particular race but that was just 1 of the 10 things Hitler did. There was a whole conquering europe with bombs and such.

[ChiTown Lady]

If I were to vote in the US election of 2004 it would be by absentee ballot, but I’m not sure it’s worth all that trouble since both of the major parties are basically being controlled by the same corporate money-holders. None of the other parties are even allowed to participate in the major televised debates here (for the same reason, they are not backed by the Corporate Conglomerate money).

Besides, I have no allegiance to this country any more and never will. Based on all of the above - why bother? This whole damned country can go to Hell for all I care.

[Umoja]

Why is it that people here seem to have lost a democratic attitude? If you were going to be blocked out, does that mean you shouldn't talk? Wow, it's unjust amazing, but voting for what you want in the system to change, is helping. It helps just as much as going to a protest for the anti-war movement.

I disagree with you, ExploitedClass, our situation may have seemed better off, but in the scheme of things the Democrats are only more subtle with their actions. Which would largely have pulled people away from the left, if I understand the democrats correctly.

[truthaddict11]

when i was talking "lesser evil" i was talking about people who knew the Bush and Gore basicaly agreed on everything and still voted for Gore because he was an "lesser evil"

[Sabocat]

Quote: from ChiTown Lady on 11:11 am on May 20, 2003
If I were to vote in the US election of 2004 it would be by absentee ballot, but I’m not sure it’s worth all that trouble since both of the major parties are basically being controlled by the same corporate money-holders. None of the other parties are even allowed to participate in the major televised debates here (for the same reason, they are not backed by the Corporate Conglomerate money).

Besides, I have no allegiance to this country any more and never will. Based on all of the above - why bother? This whole damned country can go to Hell for all I care.



I'm with you on this one. I feel the same way.

If I'm still here in 2004 (and I sincerely hope I'm not) I will be voting for Kucinch. (If he makes it out of the primaries, which is highly unlikely). The guy's a socialist in disguise :biggrin:

He would make a great pres. Unfortunately, the republican right wing will probably do to him what they did to Wellstone.

Primus32302, Republican? Are you kidding? What are you doing here? A Republican but a commie at heart? Believe me, all of us here bash Republicans cause we know what they really are. If Democrats stand for things you hate, then you really need to figure out what communism is and how it could ever even remotely align itself with Republicans...

[redstar2000]

I keep thinking however, that if the whole voting fiasco hadn't occured, and Gore would have taken position, would there be some kids not orphaned, parents losing children, innocent people dead if Gore had been put into position instead.

Sometimes I wonder if we didn't let the rest of the world down with our votes.

There is no way to tell. Whenever a Republican Party president does something horrendous, it is a natural temptation to think that the Democrat wouldn't have done as bad.

But with regard to Vietnam, Kennedy(D) was worse than Eisenhower®; Johnson(D) was worse than Kennedy; and Nixon® was worse than Johnson. What useful predictive conclusion can you draw from this?

The general historical trend in the United States is for each president to be a little worse or a lot worse than their predecessor...which suggests that there are material conditions operating in the background that make personality mostly irrelevant. The American Empire itself is getting worse, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

if you could have stopped Hitler with votes for a lesser evil, I think you would.

But it is always possible that the "alternatives" to Hitler would have been just as bad or worse...it wasn't just the Nazis in Germany who hated Jews and had ambitions for a "Greater German Reich".

If it were possible to determine with 100% certainty who the lesser evil really was, perhaps voting in capitalist elections could be justified. But since everyone is just guessing that the Democrat will be "not as bad" as the Republican. I frankly don't see the point.

If you wish to cast a "protest vote" against the two capitalist parties, a vote for Nader would be reasonable.

A vote for Homer Simpson would be just as reasonable.

:cool:

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Umoja on 12:27 pm on May 20, 2003

I disagree with you, ExploitedClass, our situation may have seemed better off, but in the scheme of things the Democrats are only more subtle with their actions. Which would largely have pulled people away from the left, if I understand the democrats correctly.

It isn't so much that I am saying the Democrats are so much different that the republicans, it is that Gore is so much more different than Bush.

Because we let Bush into the house, we've changed a regime, killed Afghanistans and Iraqis all innocent people, dropped huge unbelievably big bombs on populated areas. The enviroment is getting whacked for sure. These are big things, things that are pretty hard to return to normal. Deystroyed wildlife preserves for oil, is forever deystroyed wildlife preserve.

I doubt that the US would have done these things with Gore. I really doubt that we would have gone against the UN like we did as well. I don't pretend that Gore would have been great, or even close to what I want in a leader, but there are a lot of people out there that would still be alive if he had.

Gore does not have the buddy network tie-ins with Arms manufacturing, military command and big oil. Most importantly big oil which we seems to be after the most of late.

I don't think the world would be drafting war crimes against his administration.

[Urban Rubble]

Umoja, what you have to understand is this, we haven't lost the democratic attitude, there simply is no one to vote for. None if these cantidates are worth voting for, I don't want any of them in office, so why vote ?

[NeedForRevolution]

I am not from the USA but VOOOOOOOTEEEEEEE
VOTE BUSH OUT

when exactly are elections?
maybe i am there i leave in august (student exchange)

[Umoja]

There are numerous canidates. Most don't make it onto the ballots.

[Exploited Class]

Third party will really fuck things up for us however.

Like with the green party it takes away from the democrats giving the republican party total control, which just bad no matter what. I mean right now, it isn't so much about who runs the white house but the fact that one party controls legislative, Judical and Executive, all branches are controlled by the same party.

Make a law, pass it through house and senate, give it the president and it is a law. Try to take it to court and the supreme court sides with conservatives, scary times indeed.

Same thing goes for if a strong third part conservative group comes in, something is going suffer votes.

You'd need 2 new parties to come in at the same time to make it equal. Or else it just becomes a lopsided win for the other side.

I'd like to see a parliment type structure here, # of votes or percentage equals number of seats that party has in the Parliment. Seems that there is a better chance for change with a system like that, through democratic means. At least from viewing other countries that have some socialists and communist parties representing them.

[Sensitive]

Quote: from exploitedclass on 10:13 am on May 20, 2003

Because we let Bush into the house, we've changed a regime, killed Afghanistans and Iraqis all innocent people, dropped huge unbelievably big bombs on populated areas. The enviroment is getting whacked for sure. These are big things, things that are pretty hard to return to normal. Deystroyed wildlife preserves for oil, is forever deystroyed wildlife preserve.We did not do those things, our ruling-class did!

It doesn't matter which capitalist politician controls the White House. The ruling class will ALWAYS get its way, because they own whoever wins the election.

Also there are some good benefits to having a president with a "R" beside his name - read this excellent piece about "partisan protests". (http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey05082003.html)

[Umoja]

The democrats are losing, because they can't get people to vote for them. The republicans are the better party of the two. The "Vote for Nader, was a vote for Bush" philosophy was only pushed by Democrats who can't except that people don't like their platform.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Umoja on 9:48 pm on May 21, 2003
The democrats are losing, because they can't get people to vote for them. The republicans are the better party of the two. The "Vote for Nader, was a vote for Bush" philosophy was only pushed by Democrats who can't except that people don't like their platform.

Sure, I agree but what if 50% of the registered Democrats in the country did decided to vote for Nader? What would that have accomplished? You then get 2,000,000 votes for Nader, 2,000,000 votes for Gore and 4,000,000 votes for Bush.

That is the bad part about 2 party systems. If a decent 3rd part shows up to play it doesn't help the system it just makes one party appear stronger.

If the 3rd party is liberal or left, then it makes the conservative party stronger, if the 3rd party is conservative then it makes the lonely liberal party stronger.

And when I say we let it happen, it is our fault. It is, I didn't see us stand up and have national strikes, I didn't see us gather and head to washington to stop a Coup. I didn't see us do anything but watch TV and read rumors.

Look at Venezuala when their President was removed because of a Coup, they got out and got him put back where he belongs. We did none of this. I didn't even hear us argue for removing the ancient electoral college system.But I guess we are submisive like they want us to be, how many of us were trained to be. But I hold us responsible for not doing anything about it.

Sure we can have full out race riots in this country when the police got off for the beating of Rodney King, but do we have anything when a person literally steals an election?

[Urban Rubble]

You're are completely right.

[Umoja]

If your losing to a unified conservative front, it just proves the conservatives have the better point, or better name that catches peoples attention. So you then have to look at what the left is doing wrong.

[SonofRage]

Rock the vote or something.

[ChiTown Lady]

Quote: from Sensitive on 11:46 pm on May 20, 2003

Quote: from exploitedclass on 10:13 am on May 20, 2003

Because we let Bush into the house, we've changed a regime, killed Afghanistans and Iraqis all innocent people, dropped huge unbelievably big bombs on populated areas. The enviroment is getting whacked for sure. These are big things, things that are pretty hard to return to normal. Deystroyed wildlife preserves for oil, is forever deystroyed wildlife preserve.We did not do those things, our ruling-class did!

It doesn't matter which capitalist politician controls the White House. The ruling class will ALWAYS get its way, because they own whoever wins the election.


Sensitive - That was also an excellent article that you posted the link to. For those of you who have not yet read this article, please take the time to read it. Here is the link again - followed by the article text:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey05082003.html

Partisan Protests?
Questions to Ponder
by MICKEY Z.

Why did Operation Iraqi Freedom (sic) provoke such a massive anti-war outcry? Hold on, that's not the question I'd really like to ask. Let me rephrase: Why did Operation Iraqi Freedom (sic) provoke so much more protest than 78 days of U.S./NATO bombing over Yugoslavia in 1999?

There is an assortment of possible answers to that question...but the one I dread involves America's alleged two-party system. So let me rephrase one more time: Did the recent anti-war protests occur because Bush is a Republican and has surrounded himself with the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice, and Ashcroft while Clinton, a purported liberal, enjoyed more freedom to commit war crimes?

Bush demonized Hussein as the "next Hitler" in order to attack him. The Left demonized Bush with Hitler comparisons. I've written many articles criticizing U.S. policy towards Iraq and have received dozens of e-mails in support. During Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, I published one anti-war article and was called a Nazi for supporting ethnic cleansing. Who called Clinton a Nazi then? Who made Hitler analogies when he ordered revenge on those "two-bit pricks" (Clinton's words) in Somalia? Who drew a square black mustache on Clinton posters when civilians died in Yugoslavia during an illegal bombing or a pharmaceutical plant was blown up in The Sudan to distract us from Monica?

All these questions bring us back to the 2000 election when Nader voters urged Gore supporters to go Green because Gore was essentially no different than Bush. While this argument http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188...ounterpunchmaga (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887128786/counterpunchmaga)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188...terpunchmagamay (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887128786/counterpunchmagamay) appear foolish post- 9/11, I don't think the events of the past three years change this fundamental reality: The primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they tell different lies to get elected.

Would Al Gore have responded in a drastically different manner to 9/11? We might want to believe so. It might comfort us to think that Bush is an anomaly and once he's removed, everything will be better. But during the Clinton/Gore years, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was signed into law (April 24, 1996). This USA PATRIOT Act prequel contained provisions that Clinton himself admitted "makes a number of ill-advised changes in our immigration laws, having nothing to do with fighting terrorism." This unconstitutional salvo did little to address so-called terrorism but plenty to limit the civil liberties of anyone-immigrant or resident-who disagrees with U.S. policies, foreign or domestic.

Should we believe President Gore would not have clamped down like Dubya's boys did after September 11? If he did, would he have faced the same cries of fascism Bush does now? What if Gore got around to giving Iraq the same medicine Clinton gave Yugoslavia...would we have seen tens of millions marching across the globe? Would publications like The Nation be so motivated in their dissent? Will outrage over Iraq manifest itself in nothing more than co-opted support for whichever Democrat raises the $100 million necessary to run for American CEO?

Is there really a sharp distinction between the two parties or is Gore Vidal correct when he says: "Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic"?

It might help to recognize that this concept of a single corporate-controlled party isn't exactly new. By the late eighteenth century, the U.S. government was, as Zinn put it, "behaving as Karl Marx described a capitalist state: pretending neutrality to maintain order, but serving the interests of the rich."

When Grover Cleveland (Democrat) was elected president in 1884, Robber Baron Jay Gould wired him: "I feel...that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." For anyone wondering if Gould was right, bear in mind that one of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire corporate lawyer who married into the Standard Oil fortune. Cleveland was succeeded by Benjamin Harrison (Republican), a man whose main qualification was working for the railroads as a lawyer and soldier. Prior to his election, Harrison prosecuted railroad strikers in federal courts. Still, he was bumped out of the White House in 1892 when Grover Cleveland (still a Democrat) reclaimed his throne. In light of this development, Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie received a letter from the manager of steel plants, Henry Clay Frick. "I am sorry for President Harrison," Frick wrote, "but I cannot see that our interests are going to be affected one way or the other by the change in administration." Right on cue, President Cleveland used U.S. troops to break up "Coxey's Army," a demonstration of unemployed men who had come to Washington to protest (so, all you out-of-work loafers, don't get any ideas).

More than one hundred years later, who recognizes that the Democratic Clinton/Gore administration's callous policies on Haiti, Somalia, Cuba, Bosnia, Iraq, gays in the military, David Gergen, NAFTA, GATT, labor, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, "anti-terrorism," telecommunications monopolies, etc. reflected little variation from their Republican rivals?

During 1993 and 1994, when Clinton had the "advantage" of a Democratically-controlled Congress, Emperor Bill abandoned his pledge to consider offering asylum to Haitian refugees, he reneged on his promise to "take a firm stand" against the armed forces' ban on gays and lesbians, and he backed away from his most high-profile campaign issue: health care. While "enjoying" a Democratic House and Senate, Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT, increased the Pentagon budget by $25 billion, fired Jocelyn Elders, dumped Lani Guinier, bombed Iraq and the Balkans, renewed the murderous sanctions on Iraq, and passed a crime bill that gave us more cops, more prisons, and 58 more offenses punishable by death.

After presiding over the much-hyped Republican "revolution" in 1994, Slick Willie continued to march in lockstep with his corporate owners. The next two years of foreign policy provided us with more bombs and more sanctions over Iraq; covert support for war criminals in Haiti; a tightening of sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Libya; and the overt support of a corrupt Boris Yelstin. Domestically, Clinton continued his assault on the working class by delivering a telecommunications bill further narrowing the already laughable parameters of public debate. As a final slap in the face of the "liberal" wing of his party, Clinton signed the welfare repeal bill.

What about the environment...allegedly Gore's domain? In 1996, David Brower, former president of the Sierra Club, penned a Los Angeles Times op-ed entitled, "Why I Won't Vote for Clinton." In this piece, Brower offered a litany of Clinton-sponsored moves, which utterly smashed the public image of Bill or Al Gore as "pro-environment." Some of these crimes include the passage of the salvage logging rider, the signing of the Panama Declaration, the continuation of the use of methyl bromide, the weakening of the Endangered Species Act, the lowering of grazing fees on land, subsidizing Florida's sugar industry, weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act, reversing the ban on the production and importation of PCBs, and allowing the export of Alaskan oil. These, and other proud Clinton/Gore accomplishments, have led Brower to declare that the dynamic Democratic duo had "done more harm to the environment in three years than Presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years." Today, if Dubya looks cockeyed at a tree he's labeled a reactionary.

The supposed two-party system is like a giant corporate puppeteer wearing a Democrat puppet on his left hand and a Republican puppet on his right hand. The puppets themselves look different so we appear to have a choice. Nonetheless, this so-called choice is neatly framed within the bounds of the economic status quo. We can choose, but only from a pre-determined range of choices. The puppets look different but both hands are controlled by one economic brain. We are merely choosing sides in a false conflict and allowing those is power to determine our freedom of choice.

Like the bull in a bullfight, the voter chases the elusive red cape. We are distracted from the real targets through an attractive image or illusion. Our energies are so poorly focused that we offer no threat to the status quo. In fact, we willingly contribute by assuming our predetermined role as a consumer. Media-hyped millionaires with blow-dried hair are sold to the public like any other commodity. Ideologies are neatly packaged and marketed with the same intensity and deception as a cell phone or SUV. Once in office, we trust these men (and women) with our moral decisions and are satisfied with the illusion of having elected them, never comprehending the reality that if voting could really change anything, it might be made illegal.

Why did this illegal war inspire such outrage and disapproval while 78 days of carpet-bombing over Yugoslavia did not? We must hope it's more than partisan protest based on the faulty premise of a two-party system because a movement based on that foundation is certainly doomed.


(Edited by ChiTown Lady at 1:17 am on May 22, 2003)