However as bad as Obama is, a rejection of Obama means Mccain in power: (Bush clone)

[marxistsocialist]

Hello all: even though i attack Obama and critisize him, I will vote for him. I am a realist, not a dreamer. And voting for Ralph Nader is a throw away vote.

So we have 2 options: Obama or Bush third term

marxistsocialist

[#FF0000]

Or you could say we have one option: a future of oppression and barbarism under capitalism broken up into 4 year stints.

I think that's a more accurate assessment to be honest.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The domestic and foreign policies of the capitalists is not defined by individual leaders - Obama's recent capitulation to the Republican wing just shows where he stands. He is fine with exempting telecommunication companies from illegal wiretapping, he has voted for every Iraq War appropriation, he has distanced himself from proponents of 'gay marriage', and he is a Reagan Democrat.

He is not so much of a globalist as Clinton (or McCain) is, but he clearly presents a threat to the living standards and democratic rights of American workers.

[Sam_b]

And voting for Ralph Nader is a throw away vote

The problem here is you're using the logic of a bourgeois system and election. A socialists, we understand that the electoral college system and the idea of having a very minor say in affairs every four years isn't democracy. Voting for a ruling class candidate in a ruling class election, where there are progressive or worker's choices is a throwaway vote. Voting for a third party candidate, like a spoilt ballot, is a message of no confidence to the capitalist elite.

By calling a Nader vote as being 'throwaway', you are acknowledging that change can occour from bourgeois elections. This is wrong.

[marxistsocialist]

Your argument is indeed right, i agree with you completely on that. However according to national polls, Ralph Nader can only get single digits in the next elections, and all i am doing is being a realist, not a dreamer. I mean I myself would rather have Ralph Nader or the Green Party to rule the next 4 years, than democrats or republicans. However there are no objective conditions for a revolutionary situation yet in the USA.

The US economy is still stable, we have to have patience, there are no objective conditions for a socialist revolution yet. However i think that if the US economy continues like it is doing now, we will see the right conditions indeed for a socialist-revolution, right here in the belly of the beast

marxistsocialist



The problem here is you're using the logic of a bourgeois system and election. A socialists, we understand that the electoral college system and the idea of having a very minor say in affairs every four years isn't democracy. Voting for a ruling class candidate in a ruling class election, where there are progressive or worker's choices is a throwaway vote. Voting for a third party candidate, like a spoilt ballot, is a message of no confidence to the capitalist elite.

By calling a Nader vote as being 'throwaway', you are acknowledging that change can occour from bourgeois elections. This is wrong.

[Sam_b]

However according to national polls, Ralph Nader can only get single digits in the next elections,

That doesn't mean anything. Our strategy is not about backing those that can win in the Presidential elections, or else we all start calling for a democratic vote ie supporting one of the biggest capitalist institutions in America.


However i think that if the US economy continues like it is doing now, we will see the right conditions indeed for a socialist-revolution, right here in the belly of the beast

Our job is to build a class-conscious and mobilised working class, not about waiting for the economy to fail.

[marxistsocialist]

Indeed, i guess you are right. That's like saying that Jennifer Lopez's music is better than Mozart, because she sells more albums than Mozart.

marxistsocialist



That doesn't mean anything. Our strategy is not about backing those that can win in the Presidential elections, or else we all start calling for a democratic vote ie supporting one of the biggest capitalist institutions in America.



Our job is to build a class-conscious and mobilised working class, not about waiting for the economy to fail.

[Lost In Translation]

Hello all: even though i attack Obama and critisize him, I will vote for him. I am a realist, not a dreamer. And voting for Ralph Nader is a throw away vote.

So we have 2 options: Obama or Bush third term

marxistsocialist
It's not a throw away vote if you vote for Nader. Look what damage he did to the Democrats in 2000. It's not about backing the winning horse, it's doing the right thing (which, in this case, may be to not do anything, with the situation the US is in).

[Justin CF]

Alright, to start off here I'm going to assume two things:


Our goal is to make change while working within the current system.
An individual person voting can reasonably make a difference.


The reason I am assuming these two premises is simple; without doing so, I cannot address the question of who to vote for with simply saying "why vote?"... and while this may actually be the appropriate response, I'd still like to point out why, accepting these two premises (which marxistsocialist seems to have done in his original post), voting for a third party would be the logical move.



The two major parties (in the US) are trying to get as many votes as possible. Their motives for this should be obvious, but their means may not be; the candidates can basically count on certain blocks of people coming out no matter what. All the stoners are going to vote (if they vote) for the democrats, and the rednecks will be voting (see last set of parenthesis) for the republicans. The only real mass of undecided voters is right in the middle of the political spectrum, which means that any candidate who wants to make it to Washington will have to veer to the center of the lane as quickly as possible. Hell, Obama's doing it right now.

Your job is to force the main parties steer towards the left. To do this, you'll have to make it known that to get your vote, the candidates have to push for more liberal issues. You can't do this by voting for them... all you'll end up doing is increasing their certainty that you'll keep voting for them as long as they're just a little bit better than the opposition. No, the only way that you can make them pander towards your vote is to vote for somebody like Nader.

Now if you're voting for Nader because you think he has a shot in hell at stepping a foot inside the oval office, you're out of your mind. But if you think that voting for him could make the other candidates more likely to pander to your interests, you're spot on. And don't just take my word for it... look it up. There are plenty of historical examples of a third party making an indirect difference on the political battleground. One of my favorites is the Populist Party near the turn of the century; even though they failed to win the election, they managed to convince both the democrats and (to some extent) the republicans to take up parts of their platform.

[Decolonize The Left]

I almost can't believe what I'm reading. Let's simplify this for the sake of clarity.

1. The United States of America is a capitalist, imperialist, nation. It has one of the strongest state governments in the world.
2. The President of the USA is elected by the electoral college, a group of white males - all members of the bourgeoisie.
3. The President of the USA serves the interests of the bourgeoisie through mobilizing the institutions of the state to exploit the proletariat.
4. You care about who is President? Please re-read the above three points before responding.

I was under the impression that we were communists and anarchists - thereby opposed to the state... Should this be the case, and it is our work to elevate class consciousness, I do not see how voting for Obama/Nader qualifies as revolutionary activity. I also do not see how opposing the state and taking parting in electing state officials and thereby tacitly agreeing to the state's authority is coherent!

Furthermore, if you want to 'send a message' - don't vote. When the results come in for the most active political machine in years, and X% still haven't voted, folks will assume one of two things. 1) Folks are apathetic. 2) These representatives did not represent the interests of these citizens. The latter would be correct.

- August

[Comrade B]

My father voted for Nader in Bush v. the man with no emotion (Gore) and the conservative wearing a donkey pin (Lieberman). This is because we live in Washington. This system is so fucked up that in most states, your vote won't make a difference. Some states are always for the democrats, some always for the republicans. If you live somewhere where the democrats have a sure win, I say vote for Nader, If you live in a middle ground state, take the candidate less likely to completely fuck us all over. If you live in a red state, take your pick.

[Sendo]

^
|
|

word. that's how I feel 100%


(EDIT: in reference to August West's post)

[chimx]

Or you could say we have one option: a future of oppression and barbarism under capitalism broken up into 4 year stints.

I think that's a more accurate assessment to be honest.

I disagree. I think you are significantly over-simplifying your politically analysis. Democrats and Republicans are both capitalist political parties, yes, but there are important nuanced differences. In particular, Democrats receive a lot of their power base from America's still-strong union vote. Because of that, Democrats regularly make concessions to unions. Obama fits this pattern. He has spoken positively about the Employee Free Choice Act, and has even pushed for legislation which grants tax cuts to employers that don't block unionization campaigns. I think that if we are going to have a successful labor party in the United States it is important to exploit the Democrats union concessions to help build a strong labor base to run a 3rd party labor candidate in the future.

[marxistsocialist]

Hello all: I would like the Socialist Equality Party, or any socialist party to seize power in USA in next elections. However folks, we gotta use our brains, not our hearts in politics. What i am saying is that according to scientific polls of the US voting population behaviour Ralph Nader only has a single digit popularity in this country. Voting for Ralph Nader in the next elections is like starting a socialist popular revolution in USA with 100 people against the monster of the US corporate government. And we all know that in order for a socialist-revolution to take place in USA, there has to be millions of people united for a single objective of overthrowing the capitalist government and replacing it with a socialist-government.

But this is not the case, we gotta think in realist-terms, so starting a socialist-revolution in USA with about 50 to 100 of your friends will only get yourself killed, because of the fact that even the US-leftists in America are not rebellious and are not willing to militarily revolt against the US corporate government. So it wouldn't be wise right now to start a socialist-revolution because you wouldn't gather the necessary support for that endeavor.

The same happens if you vote for Nader. If you vote for Nader your single vote would mean nothing, because of the fact that according to the latest polls, most americans even leftist-americans will vote for Democrat Party, and not for Ralph Nader.

If the reality were to be different and Ralph Nader would gather about 40% of the US voting population in polls, then it would've been smart for US-leftists to cast their vote for Nader. But that's not the case. Right now the only tool we got to get the Republican Fascist Party out of power is Obama. As bad as Obama is, he is the lesser criminal of the 2 criminal parties.

marxistsocialist

[Decolonize The Left]

Bourgeois liberals can talk about the "lesser of two evils." Bourgeois liberals can debate over who has a better 'health-care' plan, and how to get the Republicans out of office. Obama, McCain, Nader mean nothing to the vast majority of the proletariat in terms of class consciousness. Nothing.

If you do vote for whatever reason, be it misunderstood notions of socialism and attempts to work within the system, or the lesser of two evils approach, you are validating the system. You are tacitly agreeing to the authority of the state. You are basically saying: "I may not completely agree, but I'll take these people as my rulers because they are better than those."

Chains are chains, my friends. It does not matter what color they come in, or how sparkly they are - they are still the chains of your servitude. Open your eyes.

- August

[Justin CF]

@ August West:
I don't know if your post was in response to mine. If it was, I suggest you reread the first part of it. I don't think that change can really come through working within the system, nor do I think that this is necessarily the best route to take.

@ marxistsocialist:
Please, read over my last post if you haven't yet. It should address everything you said in your last message.

[Cheung Mo]

Hello all: even though i attack Obama and critisize him, I will vote for him. I am a realist, not a dreamer. And voting for Ralph Nader is a throw away vote.

So we have 2 options: Obama or Bush third term

marxistsocialist

At least Obama doesn't embrace the looney-tunes Cult of Terri Schiavo like Nader does.

[Unicorn]

Write in Yuri Andropov.

[chimx]

If you do vote for whatever reason, be it misunderstood notions of socialism and attempts to work within the system, or the lesser of two evils approach, you are validating the system.

That is silly rhetoric. Communists have always advocated participating in bourgeois politics when it is possible to them. For example, Bolsheviks heavily participated in the Czarist Duma government and tried to push through minimal demands in regards to agrarian reform. The point should be pragmatic voting, not idealistic voting.

[Demogorgon]

Saying that there is no difference between bourgeoisie parties is naive, they all back capitalism obviously, but have different policies besides that. We had a change in Government in Scotland last year and to say that the fact that all prescription charges are being phased out (so that all prescription medicine is free) for instance means nothing to people that previously have had to choose between buying medicine and paying the bills (I've been there myself) is just idiotic.

I am not saying that you can get rid of capitalism through the ballot box (though under certain circumstances you can put it under severe pressure) but you can certainly extract concessions.

[chimx]

I am not saying that you can get rid of capitalism through the ballot box

Marx said exactly this incidentally.

[Decolonize The Left]

@ August West:
I don't know if your post was in response to mine. If it was, I suggest you reread the first part of it. I don't think that change can really come through working within the system, nor do I think that this is necessarily the best route to take.

Really, you "don't think that change can really come through working within the system"? Here's what you wrote:

Alright, to start off here I'm going to assume two things:
Our goal is to make change while working within the current system.
:confused:


That is silly rhetoric. Communists have always advocated participating in bourgeois politics when it is possible to them. For example, Bolsheviks heavily participated in the Czarist Duma government and tried to push through minimal demands in regards to agrarian reform. The point should be pragmatic voting, not idealistic voting.

It is not "silly rhetoric." Our 'democracy' is based around a representative system of government. Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents. Our interests, as revolutionaries, are not within the capitalist system of governance which is currently in place. Hence the representatives do not represent our interests. Hence voting for whomever is saying (in political language) "this person represents my interests and I therefore charge them with the authority to govern the state." What is rhetorical about this? This is simple, realistic, political theory....

"Pragmatic voting", what is this? What is pragmatic about further exploitation of the working class? Obama will not ease the chains of exploitation, only make them shinier and appear less heavy. This has been proven time and time again in American politics - look at Bill Clinton.


I am not saying that you can get rid of capitalism through the ballot box (though under certain circumstances you can put it under severe pressure) but you can certainly extract concessions.

"Concessions" are relative. "Universal health care," as it touted by the democratic party, is not for the benefit of the poor working class - if it was, we'd have communism already. It is merely another form of saving money for US imperialism. Go look at the plans yourself.

- August

[Justin CF]

Really, you "don't think that change can really come through working within the system"? Here's what you wrote:

Alright, to start off here I'm going to assume two things:
Our goal is to make change while working within the current system.

:confused:
Yes, and at first this seems like a contradiction... until you put that quote in context. Right after saying that, I went on to write this:

The reason I am assuming these two premises is simple; without doing so, I cannot address the question of who to vote for with simply saying "why vote?"... and while this may actually be the appropriate response, I'd still like to point out why, accepting these two premises (which marxistsocialist seems to have done in his original post), voting for a third party would be the logical move.

Note that I never said my two starting premises were correct. In fact, I openly admitted that they weren't correct. If the topic of this thread had been whether or not voting makes a difference, I would be saying that it doesn't. But the topic of this thread wasn't about whether or not to vote; it was about who to vote for. In order to even discuss this, however, you have to accept the two faulty premises which I proposed in my original post.

[chimx]

It is not "silly rhetoric." Our 'democracy' is based around a representative system of government. Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents. Our interests, as revolutionaries, are not within the capitalist system of governance which is currently in place. Hence the representatives do not represent our interests. Hence voting for whomever is saying (in political language) "this person represents my interests and I therefore charge them with the authority to govern the state." What is rhetorical about this? This is simple, realistic, political theory....

"Pragmatic voting", what is this? What is pragmatic about further exploitation of the working class? Obama will not ease the chains of exploitation, only make them shinier and appear less heavy. This has been proven time and time again in American politics - look at Bill Clinton.

Like I said earlier in this thread, a large part of Democrats' constituency is union voters. Because of this, Democrats are required to make some concessions to unions despite being ultimately opposed to the workers side of class struggle. These concessions should be exploited when possible. In my opinion, the situation with Obama is such an example.

[Decolonize The Left]

Note that I never said my two starting premises were correct. In fact, I openly admitted that they weren't correct. If the topic of this thread had been whether or not voting makes a difference, I would be saying that it doesn't. But the topic of this thread wasn't about whether or not to vote; it was about who to vote for. In order to even discuss this, however, you have to accept the two faulty premises which I proposed in my original post.

Thank you for clarifying. But to even address the topic of "who to vote for," as you mentioned requires assuming faulty premises - it is therefore necessary to explore the reasons for the premises failure to be accurate, expose them, and abandon them. I do not see how entertaining the notion of a worker's struggle through the system of representative democracy is worth our time, other than for the process of working through the problems therein (which is what I believe we are doing, at least on my part).


Like I said earlier in this thread, a large part of Democrats' constituency is union voters. Because of this, Democrats are required to make some concessions to unions despite being ultimately opposed to the workers side of class struggle. These concessions should be exploited when possible. In my opinion, the situation with Obama is such an example.
Alright, but prior to making such a claim you must first have taken the union situation within the US to be desirable, and hence in favor of the workers themselves. Is this the case?

-August

[Sendo]

This idea of voting means tacit approval of the state is pretty on. From my reading of journalists who write about foreign elections (americans on korean elections, or europeans on american elections, etc) mass abstention seems to be the most striking point to them and they draw the obvious parallel that no parties are able to get ordinary people interested in them. It's only the American mainstream news which begrudgingly admits that when Presidents "win" it is only through an electoral college majority of those who VOTED, it is only because common people are ignorant and lazy. But I've never heard anyone who wasn't a liberal intellectual-type (in the since Chomsky uses the word) or those bullshit masters in poli sci say that. Everyone says that either both parties suck or that a single vote doesn't matter. Of course, there's the older generations who somehow got brainwashed into thinking it's a civic DUTY to vote Dem or Repub.

As far as union voters go, it's important to at least have someone like Nader at least talking about the real issues. It doesn't "steal votes" as much as it pulls the Dems to the left by making the candidates mention the issues. Sadly, in practice, this doesn't happen all that much since the media is bought and paid for.

As far as improving the current system goes, do it with grassroots action, and perhaps the ballot box if it makes a difference (local elections or nations with proportional elections), but don't waste time (as August said) organizing around elections. Look at the 60s and early 70s. Who defined that time in terms of political change? It wasn't JFK, nor was it Nixon's big heart that birthed the EPA. The changes came from pressure from below.

The ballot box at the presidential level in the US is hopeless. Because of the "two" party system and lesser-evil-ism the parties will move as far to the right as they can as part of the ruling class. The only thing to check their power has been external pressure from other movements. No one has ever entered either party and "shook things up". At least not successfully...Kucinich has been completely removed from the Dem Party just short of ripping up his membership card.

[RHIZOMES]

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/obama-is-a-truly-democratic-expansionist/

Good article about why Obama wouldn't be any different to Bush, and is in fact WORSE on certain issues.

[chimx]

Alright, but prior to making such a claim you must first have taken the union situation within the US to be desirable, and hence in favor of the workers themselves. Is this the case?

-August

I think most trade unions in the US are stuck in the 1950s when a partnership between workers and owners was feasible due to a bursting economy. With the exportation of industry and the "decline" of the US economy, gains made by unions have been whittled away yet the mentality of a partnership still remains to some extent. I think that is very much backwards, but despite this they remain the most practical organs for workers struggle in the US and communists should work to participate with their trade unions and agitate for further struggle.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think most trade unions in the US are stuck in the 1950s when a partnership between workers and owners was feasible due to a bursting economy. With the exportation of industry and the "decline" of the US economy, gains made by unions have been whittled away yet the mentality of a partnership still remains to some extent. I think that is very much backwards, but despite this they remain the most practical organs for workers struggle in the US and communists should work to participate with their trade unions and agitate for further struggle.

They do, theoretically speaking. What I mean by this is that they are theoretically the prime form of worker organization and mobilization. So in this sense you are correct. But in reality they have been co-opted by a hierarchical system which does not advocate the class side of worker-capitalist relations. And since we are referring to unions from the perspective of voting for a certain candidate, I propose that the fact that one must go through a representative (governmental) to reach another representative (union) to actually reach the workers themselves, that this approach is foolish. It would seem much smarter to abandon the governmental system and move towards grass-roots local organization.

- August

[chimx]

It would seem much smarter to abandon the governmental system and move towards grass-roots local organization.

I think entryism is entirely feasible if you are dealing with union locals.

[Saorsa]

As far as union voters go, it's important to at least have someone like Nader at least talking about the real issues. It doesn't "steal votes" as much as it pulls the Dems to the left by making the candidates mention the issues. Sadly, in practice, this doesn't happen all that much since the media is bought and paid for.

Um, Nader talks about "the issues" from a middle-class liberal, greenie perspective. He does not adress them on the basis of a revolutionary socialist perspective, nor does put forward a revolutionary socialist line. The same is obviously true of Obama.

WE DO NOT ACCEPT LESSER EVILISM. Our goal is to win over workers to the ideas of socialism, and build a socialist movement rooted deeply in the working class. Our goal is not to endorse the bullshit politics of pro-capitalist politicians. Yes, there are minute difference between the capitalist candidates on an issue-by-issue basis. But all you're arguing about is who's going to shit on your head from a greater height. That's not what we're SUPPOSEDLY fighting for - we're fighting for universal human liberation, not for the capitalist hell with slightly better access to healthcare.

Our goal is to destroy workers illusions in the capitalist system and the bourgeois electoral process, while turning them to our own ideas. We're not supposed to be reinforcing their illusions.

On another note, isn't it interesting how the "no-vote" anarchist position when it comes to openly socialist candidates so often translates into a "yes-vote" position when it comes to openly capitalist candidates! :confused:

[Saorsa]

Incidentally, I dealt with this issue rather well in a previous post; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1191241&postcount=43

[Decolonize The Left]

On another note, isn't it interesting how the "no-vote" anarchist position when it comes to openly socialist candidates so often translates into a "yes-vote" position when it comes to openly capitalist candidates! :confused:

I fail to see how you identify every individual in this thread who has suggested voting as an anarchist....

- August

[Unicorn]

http://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png

[Saorsa]

I fail to see how you identify every individual in this thread who has suggested voting as an anarchist....

- August

I don't. I commenting specifically on chimx, and the tendency I have observed in other anarchists.

[RedAnarchist]

On another note, isn't it interesting how the "no-vote" anarchist position when it comes to openly socialist candidates so often translates into a "yes-vote" position when it comes to openly capitalist candidates! :confused:

I thought you were against "lesser-evilism"? Just because someone calls themselves socialist doesn't mean that they are. Some people consider the Labour Party to be "socialist", so should we all vote for them?

[Saorsa]

I thought you were against "lesser-evilism"? Just because someone calls themselves socialist doesn't mean that they are. Some people consider the Labour Party to be "socialist", so should we all vote for them?

Weak argument. :lol: The Labour Party are in no way OPENLY socialist, as my original post read, and you recognise this fact by you're statement that only "some people" misguidedly consider them to be socialist. Therefore, you're argument is moot.

And just in case there's any confusion, I certainly don't hold the ridiculous view that the Labour Party are IN ANY WAY socialist, openly or not. They're a liberal capitalist party.

[Justin CF]

Thank you for clarifying. But to even address the topic of "who to vote for," as you mentioned requires assuming faulty premises - it is therefore necessary to explore the reasons for the premises failure to be accurate, expose them, and abandon them. I do not see how entertaining the notion of a worker's struggle through the system of representative democracy is worth our time, other than for the process of working through the problems therein (which is what I believe we are doing, at least on my part).Simple. My goal here is to change marxistsocialist's mind. While he might not be willing to listen to those who simply say "don't vote", he may be willing to listen to someone who says to vote for an independent or third party candidate. I would much rather him do this than simply vote for Obama, which is what he'll so otherwise. By coming at marxistsocialist's posts from multiple angles, I believe that more can be accomplished than by coming at them from the same angle over and over.

-Justin

[Ramachandra]

First of all i'm not american but asian.:)
As far as I'm concern the theory of "one capitalist party is lesser evil than the other' cannot do anything favourable to the proleteriate revolution.Here (in our country) we did the same in 2005 but now the "lesser" evil capitalist candidate is doing the same thing what the"evil" candidate did previously.Obama is just another individual.I don't beleive He will do anything productive because he is still in the imperialist system.Will he prevent multinational companies exploiting resourses in other countries?Can he do the minimest thing to do so?Never.So what is the use of voting just another puppet in the hands of imperialists??If you say that a socialist candidate cannot win under the existing conditions well you must take the first step.Let me ask what will you do in the next election?Will vote again for the democracts saying that the socialist forces are "still" weak?Well in that sense you will never acheive the revolution.You are communists and revolutioneries right?Well then initiate.That is the message we-the under developed nations have to deliver.
(anyway here we are working thoroghly in developing an independent revolutionery movement.And relatively We have gained some progress doing so)

[Decolonize The Left]

Simple. My goal here is to change marxistsocialist's mind. While he might not be willing to listen to those who simply say "don't vote", he may be willing to listen to someone who says to vote for an independent or third party candidate. I would much rather him do this than simply vote for Obama, which is what he'll so otherwise. By coming at marxistsocialist's posts from multiple angles, I believe that more can be accomplished than by coming at them from the same angle over and over.

-Justin

Fair enough, and your approach is admirable. I would be happy to play the role of "don't vote," should you wish to play the role of "vote for a 3rd party," but I simply cannot endorse such a position myself. I believe that his mind can be changed from my position, but the approach must involve respect and acceptance - something some of our other comrades seem to ignore.

- August

[Justin CF]

Fair enough, and your approach is admirable. I would be happy to play the role of "don't vote," should you wish to play the role of "vote for a 3rd party," but I simply cannot endorse such a position myself. I believe that his mind can be changed from my position, but the approach must involve respect and acceptance - something some of our other comrades seem to ignore.

- AugustI'm glad we agree! I wouldn't be willing to argue this position either, if it weren't for my qualifiers. And best of luck changing his (marxistsocialist's) mind!

-Justin

EDIT: It seems marxistsocialist has been banned, so I doubt that either one of us is going to be changing his mind anytime soon.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

http://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png
:laugh: I died a little when I saw this.

Anyhow; I doubt I'll vote for el presidente; the last two elections I've voted for other positions and issues (esp. local issues), but abstained from the presidential race.

In 2004, I did vote for Obama (for senator.) Obama's health-care plan, his commitment to the entire state (and not just Chicago), and the fact Alan Keyes (a hypocritical, bible-thumping, homophobic man) ran against him encouraged me.

However those were different times, and that was a different situation; my vote matters more in local affairs, and Illinois was in the midst of change; the Gov. George Ryan (who's various scandals have landed him in jail) days were ending.

I also admit that at the time I felt "the lesser of two evils" really was somehow lesser (4 more years of Bush has shaken my confidence in American politics where I cannot see it mattering much.)

Doesn't matter anyway; no matter how I vote my state's electoral votes are going to Obama.

Illinois: voting for Obama since 1996! (take that, you Obama band-wagoners.)