To The Yanks: Do You Plan To Vote?

[non-vio-resist]

just curious. my philosophy has changed drastically. i used to vote for the individual mostly aligned with my own beliefs (usually ralph nader) even though i know, as everyone does, that he has no chance in hell of winning an election(plus i feel i'm to the left of nader-- and after the ron paul endorsement i think nader may be lost). i live in a state that has gone for democrats and republicans in the past, so i'll vote for the democrat candidate, with utter disdain of course.

the reason i do this is quite simple: first, i believe a revolution must come from the bottom up, ie, from the people-the president is almost irrelevant. however, democrats seem to be mildly stronger on social issues, eg, welfare, healthcare, abortion, the poor in general etc. as well as the environment. this is what is referred to as strategic voting, ie, if you live in a swing state, then vote for the lesser of two evils. while this means sucking it up and voting for a war-hawk corporatist, you could also be doing poor people, women, the environment, the lgbt community et al a favor by electing a slightly stronger candidate than someone who could appoint more cavemen to the supreme court, even though both will make dissatisfying elects for leftists. if you vote for "left" candidate of the day, then you will be aiding the republican candidate (even if it is some lost leftist's pick ron paul).

however, if you live in a "liberal" blue state, vote with your heart; your vote won't matter here because the electoral college is the determining factor and a republican can't win in, say, massachusets.

in the primary, since eugene debs isn't running this year:) i'll be voting for dennis kucinich since he's at least close to fitting my core beliefs. i'm curious to see how other leftists will be voting, or at all. any thoughts?

[bootleg42]

Nope. It makes no difference anyway.

Communication with the working people and poor makes a difference.

[AlanMaki]

Left out of this discussion on the presidential election is the fact that the Democratic Party has the identical ultra-right, racist, anti-woman, anti-youth, anti-worker, imperialist, neo-liberal agenda as the Republicans... both parties are defending the same corporate interests and and the same corporate profits; scrutiny of campaign contributions proves this.

One only has to do a little research on Brownstein/Hyatt/Farber/Schreck or any of the other big lawfirms turned lobbyists in relation to the 2008 elections.

It is an outright false-hood that the Democratic and Republican Parties represent different sections of capital. The facts are there for anyone to see if they take the time to look. In fact, it requires an intent not to see this truth.

The Democratic Party is part of the two-party trap set to catch working people and disorient them.

With a Democratic Party loyal to an anti-worker, imperialist agenda the U.S. ruling class doesn't need the Republicans; the 2008 Elections are proving this.

Even most of the "left" is caught in the Democratic Party trap debating the pro's and con's of Clinton vs Obama... both put forward essentially the exact same neo-liberal agenda, albeit formulated by different linguists "framed" in a way to make them sound different so they appeal to one of three main constituencies.

I would challenge anyone to bring forward one single issue from any Democratic candidate aimed at solving one single problem working people are experiencing.

Please do not refer to "Card Check" or HR 676 (single-payer universal health care). The Democrats aren't any more sincere about either than they were about impeachment or ending the war.

The Democratic Party leadership is playing the U.S. "left" for suckers and fools.

Obama does for the ruling class with people of color just what Hillary does with women.

And Edwards does the same with workers.

The aim is to keep everyone in the same capitalist/imperialist camp, preferably in one big tent.

This is class collaborationism fine-tuned and well-honed to serve the interests of the ultra-right, reactionary sections of the military-financial-industrial complex which dominate everything via a complex web spun by state-monopoly capitalism which U.S. imperialsm requires.

Consider this: John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO held a big conference in the American southwest dedicated to making sure labor remains subservient to capital. Sweeney pledged his continued loyalty to, and support for, capitalism at this conference.

For anyone to suggest that one candidate will be easier to move than any other simply is not true.

Powerful, militant, united mass movements with the working class at the core can move any candidate--- Democrat or Republican--- on any specific issue.

It does little good to talk about which candidate can be moved easier without building the needed mass movements around real solutions to the problems working people and our society is experiencing.

This cannot be accomplished without vibrant Communist Party Clubs... no ruling class in our modern world has ever been moved away from its capitalist/imperialist agenda without a poweful peoples' movement led by strong Communist Parties pushing for change.

Would Hillary Clinton provide the opportunity for Communists to work more openly and easier? Well, consider her own words: "The anti-communists of the 1950's should receive Freedom Medals."

Let a starving child try to live off of Obama's words of "vision" and "hope."

As for Edwards and working people? The guy sits on one of the wealthiest "investment" funds vested primarilly with union pension funds--- including the grand-daddy of them all, the mobbed up teacher pension fund--- all presided over by outright mobsters.

Figure it out, if these main constituencies now each being played to individually by Clinton, Obama and Edwards who will eventually be told they have to close ranks behind the "victor;" if any of these constituencies were to bolt the constraints of this two-party trap that has so carefully and shrewdly been set, the other constituencies will soon follow--- something we should keep in mind.

The best way to expose these Democrats for what they are is to mobilize people around real progressive agendas putting forward real solutions to working peoples' problems.

[Forward Union]

If you vote forsomeone you consent for them to rule you.

Why the fuck would you do that? The point is that whoever wins, we loose! I've been legal to vote for a little while and I never have and never plan to. I actually want to influence politics not thow paper down a drain.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not voting for one of the Presidential candidates. I'm writing-in "Eugene V. Debs' Big Stinkin' Red Corpse" as a protest against the war, the prison system, and political repression.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the past I also voted for Nader as a protest of the 2-parties. In 2000, his candidacy helped show that the politics of the Washington consensus was not the only politics possible - in the US this helps create an atmosphere where people are more open to talking about political alternatives and are more interested in talking about socialism even though Nader is simply a liberal-populist.

When Kerry ran, liberals actually got mad at me when I asked them what their ideal candidate would be or what kind of society they would like to live in because they were beat down and pessimistic as a result of having to convince themselves that voting for a conservative pro-war Kerry was the only thing possible.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm....

Not voting.

:cool:

[#FF0000]

I'm not voting for one of the Presidential candidates. I'm writing-in "Eugene V. Debs' Big Stinkin' Red Corpse" as a protest against the war, the prison system, and political repression.

Damn. I just wasn't going to vote but I'll drive myself all the way to the polls just to do this.

[Organic Revolution]

Voting reinforces a system that leaves out the poor, and the working class. No I wont vote, and no, I wont choose a candidate that best suits my politics, because none do, all these bastards are is the same bourgeoisie bastards in different clothing.

Our dreams will never fit in their ballot boxes.

[cb9's_unity]

You can stick your nose in the air and come up with different philosophical reasons why voting's wrong and hurts revolution or all that but lets face it. Do you want the right for an abortion taken away? Or how about the further repression of homosexual rights. Or a few more wars like John McCain has recently promised? Well I don't want any of those things either and thats why i'll be voting for a democrat and since I live in Massachusetts I may go other places to help that cause.

Remember that as socialists/leftists we don't owe our allegiance to one of our sectarian beliefs or even revolution as a whole. We must always stand for what is immediately best for the proletariat. Their are a million reasons for voting like their can be a million reasons for doing anything. I could vote for someone because I believe they are the best for the job but I could also vote for someone because I don't want the other guy to get in. And if you are someone who believes that voting a strictly a way of saying 'I totally support everything you do' then good. don't vote. Just don't let your overtly sectarian theology stop me from doing what I can for the proletariat.

[RedDawn]

I would suggest this article by the ISO
8 years of Clinton-Gore: The price of lesser evilism
http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/clinton-gore.shtml

It is pretty disturbing to see the amount that gays, blacks, and working people took abuse.

Also, see if you can pickup the SWP pamphlet called Lenin as Election Campaign Manager.

It totally fucks with that ultra-left position that we should not stand in elections. Rather, Lenin's argument is that we should use elections to expose why the system is so corrupt.

[Neutrino]

I do. Obviously, no candidate matches my views even closely (if so, I wouldn't be here :p) But thence it really doesn't follow that the difference between two candidates is minuscule enough to be negligible.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No, I get too many pressure from high school to do so, but hell no I won't vote.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You can stick your nose in the air and come up with different philosophical reasons why voting's wrong and hurts revolution or all that but lets face it. Do you want the right for an abortion taken away? Or how about the further repression of homosexual rights. Or a few more wars like John McCain has recently promised? Well I don't want any of those things either and thats why i'll be voting for a democrat and since I live in Massachusetts I may go other places to help that cause.

Do I want any of the things you listed? No and that's why I reject voting as the way to really make change!

Q: When was Roe v. Wade passed?
A: Under NIXON!

Q: Which party entered WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam?
A: the DEMOCRATS!

Q: Who bombed Kosovo, bombed Iraq on a weekly basis, invaded Haiti?
A: Bill Clinton

Q: Who said, when asked about a possible nuclear strike, "when it comes to Iran, no options are off the table"
A: Hillary Clinton

Q: Who said that troops would not leave Iraq under the first term of their presidency?
A: Sen Clinton, Sen Obama, and John Edwards.

The reason Bush didn't invade Iran wasn't the democrats who VOTED TO GIVE HIM THAT POWER, it was massive public opinion and anger at the war in Iraq. Clinton was able to attack many more countries than Bush because liberals gave him a free pass. So what really matters is if we as radicals and anti-imperialists can build an opposition that DOESN'T ALLOW EITHER PARTY to invade countries or slash welfare (like Bill Clinton did).

Want proof? Under Nixon, abortion was legalized, integration of schools was enforced in the north (like in Boston), women gained more rights, and this happened despite Nixon's presidency because there were strong movements for women and black and gay liberation. Under Clinton, however, welfare and affirmative action were destroyed, countries were invaded, abortion clinics were closed like never before, and bills like "the effective death penalty and anti-terrorism act" and the "defense of marriage act" were passed. Why? Because liberal organizations like NOW and gay-rights organizations stopped putting pressure on the government because they had a "friend" in the White House.

[RedDawn]

Word, Gravedigga.


Remember that as socialists/leftists we don't owe our allegiance to one of our sectarian beliefs or even revolution as a whole. We must always stand for what is immediately best for the proletariat. Their are a million reasons for voting like their can be a million reasons for doing anything. I could vote for someone because I believe they are the best for the job but I could also vote for someone because I don't want the other guy to get in. And if you are someone who believes that voting a strictly a way of saying 'I totally support everything you do' then good. don't vote. Just don't let your overtly sectarian theology stop me from doing what I can for the proletariat.

No, we can't stand for "what is immediately best for the proletariat." That just sounds like reformism/evolutionary socialism. The capitalist system will try to shovel us bullshit no matter if they are Dems or Republicans. Our job is to propagandize and show that there is an alternative. Eventually we'll be proved right, we just need to get on the offensive.

[fidel59]

I'll be voting for The Party for Socialism & Liberation candidates, La Riva and Puryear.

[Organic Revolution]

I'll be voting for The Party for Socialism & Liberation candidates, La Riva and Puryear.

Waste of paper... Plain and simple.

Do you assume that they are going to give you (key phrase) liberation through party politics? Abolish the same government buildings that they sit in? Fuck reformism.

[Comrade Rage]

I usually vote in local elections, I really dislike m mayor and county executive, but it isn't really going to change anything on the federal level. I suppose I could vote for someone who will fuck up the economy further, though.

[KurtFF8]

There are substantial differences between the GOP and the Democrats (for example a women's right to choose is pretty important). So most leftists would of course prefer the Dems over the GOP of course.

That said, if a candidate like Clinton gets the nomination, I just see no reason to vote for the Dems and will likely vote for either a socialist party or Nader (who may run this year)

[Jazzratt]

I suppose I could vote for someone who will fuck up the economy further, though.

Isn't propaganda of the deed "EVIL ANARCHIST REACTIONARY(ISM)?"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, I don't vote for capitalist politicians in capitalist elections.

[Revulero]

No im not voting
Im not a revisionist like the CPUSA