Super Tuesday voting: Your views

[RSS News]

Nearly half all US states go to the polls to help select the candidates for the Presidential election. What does the vote mean to you?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Dros]

Nothing.

Someone ban the bot and close this thread.

[Red October]

Nothing.

Someone ban the bot and close this thread.

That's the official revleft news bot, not a spambot.

[More Fire for the People]

I wasn't able to register in time. Mum voted Clinton. I wanted to puke. She said he was too 'uppity' and 'cocky'.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well the primary doesn't mean much to me. I think people's (false) hopes will be raised if Obama beats Clinton. People are pretty cynical about Clinton - even her supporters, but young Obama supporters actually see to think that Obama will stop the war and do something about racism. It will be good if people's hopes are raised at this time and then they might actaully become more militant thinking that "Obama" will listen to them and their desires.

When he doesn't I think there will be and opening to talk to people about the more systematic problems of the system that cause the war and racism and economic problem because they'll have tried the shallow "quick-fix" of replacing Bush.

[Cheung Mo]

I want Hillary to go down... Hey...Now they're talking about that fascist sheriff from Arizona. Now there's a fuck I'd even what Hillary to beat.

Anyone else like Mike Malloy?

[R_P_A_S]

i liked it because i got to see all these "revolutionaries", "socialist" and "communist" go pick their favorite capitalist. I got to see who's all talk and who actually has some sort of fate and fascination about this system.

[Volderbeek]

I boycotted today's election. I don't think any of the remaining candidates would even qualify as reformist social democrats. They're all center-left or worse.

[More Fire for the People]

Well I'm glad the prolier-than-thou crowd seems to think that the bourgeois superstructure doesn't affect the class struggle... oh wait...


In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.

That at the same time old memories, personal enmities, fears and hopes, prejudices and illusions, sympathies and antipathies, convictions, articles of faith and principles bound them to one or the other royal house, who denies this? Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life.

[Pawn Power]

how does the newsbot decide when to post outside of the newswire? And why would it post this trivial piece?

[YKTMX]

I'd support Obama on the basis of his opposition to the war and the neo-conservative doctrine more generally.

Other than that, it's all the same shit.

[#FF0000]

I'm not happy with any of the candidates. SURPRISE. Yeah, I'd prefer some over others like I'd prefer a concussion to a bullet in the face, but I won't be supporting anyone outright. Not even Obama, much to the dismay of my moderate friends. He is a cutie-pie, however.

And what's with the newsbot posting outside of the news forum? Does this mean it's becoming sentient? How much longer will it be until it figures out love?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd support Obama on the basis of his opposition to the war and the neo-conservative doctrine more generally.

Other than that, it's all the same shit.

Notice how Obama always says he was against initially going into the war. His plans for "withdrawal" from Iraq include keeping soldiers in Iraq to "train" the Iraqis - isn't that what the US was doing in Vietnam?

But Obama is trying to play it both ways - he's reassuring policy people that the US will stay in Iraq while talking about his opposition in his stump speeches and debates. However, if he win, I think people will expect him to stop the war and might possibly pressure him and bring about a re-boot of the anti-war movement.

[SouthernBelle82]

I listen to him off and on but with college and being busy this term I haven't really had a chance. I mostly just listen to Stephanie Miller. I did vote yesterday since my state has an open primary and voted for Obama. He's still way more conservative than me but I think he's the one who can at least get started cleaning up the ultra right's mess so in this regard I agree with Sam Webb on the issue. Oh and with Malloy he's still a liberal even though he's the closet thing we have to listen to sadly. I wish there was a communist radio station.


I want Hillary to go down... Hey...Now they're talking about that fascist sheriff from Arizona. Now there's a fuck I'd even what Hillary to beat.

Anyone else like Mike Malloy?

[bobroberts]

I like Obama, as he is probably the most left-wing candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

[Pawn Power]

I like Obama, as he is probably the most left-wing candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

one could make the argument that he is "left" of the other canidates. But he is not left on broader political spectrum, he is right of center.

[YSR]

I would have voted for Clinton, probably, had I voted. A McCain/Clinton match-up is the best thing that the revolutionary movement could ask for right now.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I like Obama, as he is probably the most left-wing candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

Buddy, are you lost?

Obama receives over 54.4% of his campaign contributions from corporations, with the biggest financiers of his campaign coming from Wall Street -- Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Kirkland and Ellis, Citigroup Inc, and other powers from the business elite.

If he truly is 'the most left-wing candidate', then why is he dining with these guys?

Whoever is elected, they will wish to cure the sore of "Bush debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan," all in the while, preparing for more campaigns to secure oil fields in Central Asia and the Middle East. It might require a draft, which is something that Democrats will fall in line to if their beloved 'liberal' sweetheart leads us into it.

[Dros]

Well I'm glad the prolier-than-thou crowd seems to think that the bourgeois superstructure doesn't affect the class struggle... oh wait...

Okay. Economism is bad.

How is not voting economist? I think the action of voting represents the (incredibly false) belief that Bourgeois democracy will be an effective method for liberating the masses. That attitude does not deny the existance or importance of the superstructure and is in no way an economist position.

[Dros]

I like Obama, as he is probably the most left-wing candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

I'm sorry. This is a forum for the revolutionary left.

You were trying to go here.http://www.dennis4president.com/home/.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

I'd support Obama on the basis of his opposition to the war and the neo-conservative doctrine more generally.

Other than that, it's all the same shit.

I must agree with this. I voted for Obama but I really don't see that much difference between them. They are all just different faces of the same capitalist beast.

[Ultra-Violence]

I voted that day not for anyone just on the issues that were on the ballot with the indian gaming etc..........



NOW to the point of this thread wich is super tuesday!:scared:


Ok we as the left have to be very careful with Fucking obama/hillary Ok Their purpose right now is TO DEMOBILIZE PEOPLE with these sham elections if look at Obamas comercails he talking about ending the war in iraq etc...... The purpose of obama is to make people have faith in govement thier trying to avoid the "VIETNAM SYDROME" wich is deadly to the ruling class. Lets go back a bit and look and the congresional elections and the people voted for the Democrats to have majority vote etc.. YET! they contintue to fund the war and havent filubusterd shit and now thinking about making some provisions in the patriot act PERMANENT! so this is were Obama/hillary shit come. Thier sole PURPOSE IS TO DEMOBALIZE PEOPLE AND KEEP THEM FROM GETTING ACTIVE IN THE STRUGGLE! so when the people go vote their going thier with their best intentions TO "CHANGE" america but its just politics and class warfare and we know whos wining. ON the other hand Hilary/Obam also represent something even worse than demobilzing people but also thier trying to shape how they think if you listen to thier speeches their NOT for ending the war but let me qoute " the war in iraq is distracing us from are real goal wich is to fight terrorism" etc.... also remeber these people are were they are becuase the ruling class needs them if look at "conservative" writers THEY WANT OBAMA TO WIN! why? not because of "CHANGE" but because the'll hold the socail FAbric wich will keep people from taking the streets

thats my 2 cents

[Orange Juche]

I'm registered Green, so I couldn't vote.

I don't see reform and electoral politics as the end-all to our problems. I don't see it as the solution, or the answer, or what will end the biggest oppressive entities in society.

But - I'm willing to vote. I'd consider Obama, and will PROBABLY go McKinney. I don't expect much to change, but you can't deny there will be some positive change for the working and oppressed peoples through voting, no matter how small. It does nothing to just NOT vote, coming on here and whining doesn't change anything. Voting may change barely anything, and is certainly not the ultimate solution, but its worth doing.

[MarxSchmarx]

It does nothing to just NOT vote

If enough people don't, it delegitimizes the whole nasty affair.

[ironguy]

If enough people don't, it delegitimizes the whole nasty affair.

well... sadly enough, if a enough people don't vote and we still have a democracy ran BY the people. than most likely the few will control the many. i can easily see corporations voting for candidates that will help them. really, i think America would be setting itself up for another 4 more years of bush rule. i my self find it a good thing if we use a right to vote.

The government is ran by the people. regardless of what you say, it was made by the people and is ran by the people. some will argue that it is ran by corporations. no this is not so. corporations do not pick the American leaders, the people do. The people choose who they think will best represent them. i think the only reason why we have bush as president is because he was an absentee president. meaning few people bothered to vote at all in the 2000 elections. in the 2004 elections more voted, but few didn't see it right to get rid of a president that started and is still fighting a war.

Really, you can't say democracy is a right winged way of thinking. if anything i feel its more of a center line of thinking. it moves to either end of the left and right political spectrum as the people see fit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

well... sadly enough, if a enough people don't vote and we still have a democracy ran BY the people. than most likely the few will control the many. i can easily see corporations voting for candidates that will help them. really, i think America would be setting itself up for another 4 more years of bush rule. i my self find it a good thing if we use a right to vote.

The government is ran by the people. regardless of what you say, it was made by the people and is ran by the people. some will argue that it is ran by corporations. no this is not so. corporations do not pick the American leaders, the people do. The people choose who they think will best represent them. i think the only reason why we have bush as president is because he was an absentee president. meaning few people bothered to vote at all in the 2000 elections. in the 2004 elections more voted, but few didn't see it right to get rid of a president that started and is still fighting a war.

Really, you can't say democracy is a right winged way of thinking. if anything i feel its more of a center line of thinking. it moves to either end of the left and right political spectrum as the people see fit.

You're right - democracy isn't a right wing thing. But in the US we don't have democracy; it isn't "one person, one-vote" - it's a crazy system of "balanced powers" so that the status-quo doesn't change that much. I think voting matters in some ways, but it's also the lowest form of political expression; a chance to weigh-in anonymously once every few years on a bunch of issues already picked for you and with the national parties and media determining the boundaries of what is the acceptable political discourse.

Voting can bring reforms, but it can't change the basic system. We can't vote socialism into being and even if a reformist socialist candidate actually won, the US would end up like Argentina after Allende won, or - worse - European countries in the 30s that had social-democratic governments before capital sided with the fascists and allowed them into the governments.

Just think about when Lincoln was elected - the southern rulers revolted!

[RNK]

i can easily see corporations voting for candidates that will help them.

Corporate reps are relatively small in number compared to the masses. Whether or not they vote is irrelevent. It is the hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts, bribes, campaign donations and other expenditures which wins elections - and yes, those are provided by corporate america's favorite candidates.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I'm not voting. I have never registered for any election, never voted, never will.

We need revolution NOT reform. Most importantly, proletarian revolution - which cannot be achieved through electing bourgeois reactionary politicians.

[MarxSchmarx]

most likely the few will control the many.

435 congresspeople + 1 president + 1000 (approx.) federal judges < 300 million Americans.


i can easily see corporations voting for candidates that will help them.

They already do, in the form of campaign contributions, media hoopla, lobbying, etc...


The people choose who they think will best represent them. i think the only reason why we have bush as president is because he was an absentee president.

"You can fool all of the people, some of the time..."


you can't say democracy is a right winged way of thinking. if anything i feel its more of a center line of thinking. it moves to either end of the left and right political spectrum as the people see fit.

You are confusing democracy with representative government at best and electioneering at worse.


The government is ran by the people. regardless of what you say, it was made by the people and is ran by the people.

No, it was and is not. The government was made by a handful of white protestant male merchants and slave-owners. It is run by a massive bureaucracy that is largely unsympathetic to what "the people" want. "The people" are repeatedly lied to in school, in the news, in the street, that their voice and opinions determine the direction the country takes - a process called "manufacturing consent".

[midnight marauder]

If enough people don't, it delegitimizes the whole nasty affair.What is "legitimacy"?

How does not voting "delegitimize" capitalism and the bourgeois state?

Why is this important? Do you really think that the government cares about whether not it's "legitimate"? Hell, the majority of Americans already abstain.

[ironguy]

well, really now. i feel that voting can only help. we choose those in power in order to help the people. now i do feel that if America wanted to move to socialism, than it still has the ability to do so. it would be kinda hard though. i personally think we need to reform our voting system and simply do it by popular vote. electoral vote goes against the whole idea that we are all created equal. if we are all equal than why do the votes of the few, carry more weight than the votes of the many?

this could also allow room for a 3rd party to enter the system. many actually. it won't be a horrible 2 party system like we have now. we can actually see more change and variety taking place. America diversifying itself more and more. encouraging people to be involved with there government.

PEACE ALL!

[Lenin II]

It does nothing to just NOT vote,
YES IT DOES.
This kind of revolutionary masochism can only be caused by buying into the bourgeoisie reaction party line, "Well, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain!" :rolleyes:

How about this - if you DO vote, you have no right to complain, because if you do, you are giving power and contributing to the existing system, and therefore you are 100% responsible for anything that happens thanks to that same ruling class you voted for!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Doesn't have much to do with legitimacy. Mostly it has to do with not supporting the imperialist, right-wing, bourgeois Democratic Party.

[Sentinel]

The only time I have ever voted was in the referendum over the European currency (the Euro) here in Sweden. We, the no-side, did win -- and the centralisation of the management of economic power in Europe was halted at least slightly.

No matter who wins the American election imperialist politics will continue, and all the candidates are socially conservative by international standards, so it doesn't concern the revolutionary left much. Obama is interesting though, I'll give that much.

[renegadoe]

sadly enough, if a enough people don't vote and we still have a democracy ran BY the people.

See, as a Marxist, I know there wouldn't be a difference. It's called "bourgeois democracy" for a reason - because the people it's "ran by" are the bourgeoisie.

Someone on the first page was right though: they topic has been very useful for lengthening my Ignore list.

[Raúl Duke]

k we as the left have to be very careful with Fucking obama/hillary Ok Their purpose right now is TO DEMOBILIZE PEOPLE with these sham elections if look at Obamas comercails he talking about ending the war in iraq etc...... The purpose of obama is to make people have faith in govement thier trying to avoid the "VIETNAM SYDROME" wich is deadly to the ruling class. Lets go back a bit and look and the congresional elections and the people voted for the Democrats to have majority vote etc.. YET! they contintue to fund the war and havent filubusterd shit and now thinking about making some provisions in the patriot act PERMANENT! so this is were Obama/hillary shit come. Thier sole PURPOSE IS TO DEMOBALIZE PEOPLE AND KEEP THEM FROM GETTING ACTIVE IN THE STRUGGLE! so when the people go vote their going thier with their best intentions TO "CHANGE" america but its just politics and class warfare and we know whos wining. ON the other hand Hilary/Obam also represent something even worse than demobilzing people but also thier trying to shape how they think if you listen to thier speeches their NOT for ending the war but let me qoute " the war in iraq is distracing us from are real goal wich is to fight terrorism" etc.... also remeber these people are were they are becuase the ruling class needs them if look at "conservative" writers THEY WANT OBAMA TO WIN! why? not because of "CHANGE" but because the'll hold the socail FAbric wich will keep people from taking the streets

I think the opposite is true...

See, back in 1964 people who wanted peace rallied up their numbers to vote for the "peace candidate" LBJ. We all know that LBJ actually increased the number of troops and the war continued for some more years. To me, from that point onward, the anti-war movement began to distance themselves from electioneering, etc and it grew more militant.

SO, if the democrats are going to pull a "1964" we might as well see "VIETNAM SYNDROME" truly coming back. If the dems are elected in and don't do what the people believed they're were going to do (end the war) it would probably anger them and put less faith/trust in the government.

[Marsella]

How can you boycott a vote which is not mandatory anyway? :unsure:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How can you boycott a vote which is not mandatory anyway?


You don't just boycott mandatory things. I boycott nestle, but no one is compelling me to buy them.

Anyway, my vote would be with Obama, purely because he is young and black, and will help politicise people who are normally cynical. The policies are shit, but what do you expect, t'is the nature of the beast.

-Alex

[Colonello Buendia]

Even if I was in the US, I wouldn't vote.All the candidates are pro-patriot act or at least don't want to abolish it, as if the US government could get any more oppressive anyway. I personally think that all leftists should stay out of the election fervor and generally boycott the US governments votes.

[Herman]

I'd probably vote for Obama, for the sake of the lesser evil.

[MarxSchmarx]

What is "legitimacy"?

How does not voting "delegitimize" capitalism and the bourgeois state?

In practice, no state is "legitimate". But the closest they come is a state where those that govern, govern with the consent of the governed.



Why is this important? Do you really think that the government cares about whether not it's "legitimate"? Hell, the majority of Americans already abstain.

It doesn't matter what the government thinks. What matters is the perception held by an overwhelming majority of people that the government is illegitimate, and has no right to rule over them. When people realize this, they start to realize how the whole thing is a sham.

[Ultra-Violence]

Obama? A lesser evil? WTF!? is going on if you look at obama and hillary their polices are almost the SAME SHIT! theirs really no difference Obama is getting shit loads of money from corparation etc.. THEIR WORKING FOR THE RULING CLASS PEOPLE! HELLO! is any body home? and those who are voting in the presidential race just know nothing is goana be able to wash away the blood of dead innocent iraqis off from you hands!

[bezdomni]

I'd support Obama on the basis of his opposition to the war

What opposition to the war?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

he wants a plan for withdrawal sometime in the future
lol

[Guerrilla22]

Michigan had its delegates stripped by the the DNC for breaking party rules (moving the primary up to January) so it would have been pointless to vote for a democratic candidate here, not that I would have bothered anyways.