voting for president is ridiculous in the united states

a rhizzone community article by — published
the following are reasons why voting for president is ridiculous in the united states

1) voting does not change anything. you will vote for a platform and the president will totally disregard the platform you voted for in service of outside interests. he or she will call this bipartisan or "above partisan politics" but this really means that the status quo is being maintained.

2) the status quo is what currently matters in the united states. maintaining the trajectory at all costs is what matters. this is because the united states government is perpetually operating on the cusp of financial crisis. a bad move or radical change in policy that deviates away from a pro-capital line will result in markets going crazy. meanwhile, markets will go crazy occasionally to ensure that the importance of the status quo (that being everything concessionary to capital) is reinforced in the minds of politicians and the population. politicians are heavily invested in the capitalist system that holds a knife to their throats at every chance. many of them work for that system when they are out of politics. the government and the markets are not separable and so we must naturally look at the government acting in the interest of the market with suspicion and not with "well, they just did what they had to do!"

3) voting for the "lesser of two evils" is repugnant, illogical and morally ridiculous. if I'm faced with two men, both with guns to my head, and one wants $100 or he will kill me and the other wants $75 and they will kill me, I am still getting robbed. also the two guys who are mugging me are in the same gang. they realize that by switching their demands occasionally I will still cough up money. if they want $100 the other guy will demand $150 and I'll feel like I'm getting a deal from the other guy, who has a gun to my head.

4) to those who say that the minority interest rests with a democrat in office, I would like to remind everyone that democrats are just as bad for everyone. NAFTA gutted the manufacturing industry, welfare was "reformed", and banks got trillion dollar bailouts all under presidents who were also democrats.

5) voting reinforces the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the system. already about half the voting population does not vote. they don't vote because they see it is clearly insignificant and not important. people fret when politically aware people say they will not vote because it shakes the legitimacy of the system. and don't kid yourself - the people who are invested in the system are not just the politicians. millions of americans are invested in the system, it is what they rest their tender realities on.

6) voting also admits that the system can be changed for the better under present conditions, that is, voting under capitalism in the united states. I hope we all know this is bullshit by now.

7) revolutionaries who seek to overthrow the system show their true colors when they also endorse major party political candidates. the people who are the most disenfranchised, the ones with actual revolutionary potential, probably do not or cannot vote and will see them for what they are when they call, on one hand, to overthrow capitalism, and on the other hand, vote for a capitalist who enables predatory, malicious and rampant capitalism.

8) who is to say what the lesser of two evils is anyway? romney is not president. obama is president and he's been pretty bad. anyway, they are serving one agenda so what does it matter?

Also by discipline on tHE r H i z z o n E:

Knowing your audience? Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino finally made a version of Inglorious Basterds for me.
A Nation of Lazy Bums and Unpaid Interns: Youth Unemployment in 21st Century USA
The youth unemployment debate generally ignores the rapidly changing nature of the US economy. Youth unemployment is the highest in recorded history.
the united states is a sham construct used to keep the people down
the answer is creating a shadow state that delivers community services and then kicking out the state legislatures and seceding from the union, or at least renegotiating the terms of being a part of it.
More articles by discipline.

Discussion of voting for president is ridiculous in the united states on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
[account deactivated]
#2
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +

discipline posted:

the following are reasons why voting for president is ridiculous in the united states

1) voting does not change anything. you will vote for a platform and the president will totally disregard the platform you voted for in service of outside interests. he or she will call this bipartisan or "above partisan politics" but this really means that the status quo is being maintained.

2) the status quo is what currently matters in the united states. maintaining the trajectory at all costs is what matters. this is because the united states government is perpetually operating on the cusp of financial crisis. a bad move or radical change in policy that deviates away from a pro-capital line will result in markets going crazy. meanwhile, markets will go crazy occasionally to ensure that the importance of the status quo (that being everything concessionary to capital) is reinforced in the minds of politicians and the population. politicians are heavily invested in the capitalist system that holds a knife to their throats at every chance. many of them work for that system when they are out of politics. the government and the markets are not separable and so we must naturally look at the government acting in the interest of the market with suspicion and not with "well, they just did what they had to do!"

3) voting for the "lesser of two evils" is repugnant, illogical and morally ridiculous. if I'm faced with two men, both with guns to my head, and one wants $100 or he will kill me and the other wants $75 and they will kill me, I am still getting robbed. also the two guys who are mugging me are in the same gang. they realize that by switching their demands occasionally I will still cough up money. if they want $100 the other guy will demand $150 and I'll feel like I'm getting a deal from the other guy, who has a gun to my head.

4) to those who say that the minority interest rests with a democrat in office, I would like to remind everyone that democrats are just as bad for everyone. NAFTA gutted the manufacturing industry, welfare was "reformed", and banks got trillion dollar bailouts all under presidents who were also democrats.

5) voting reinforces the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the system. already about half the voting population does not vote. they don't vote because they see it is clearly insignificant and not important. people fret when politically aware people say they will not vote because it shakes the legitimacy of the system. and don't kid yourself - the people who are invested in the system are not just the politicians. millions of americans are invested in the system, it is what they rest their tender realities on.

6) voting also admits that the system can be changed for the better under present conditions, that is, voting under capitalism in the united states. I hope we all know this is bullshit by now.

7) revolutionaries who seek to overthrow the system show their true colors when they also endorse major party political candidates. the people who are the most disenfranchised, the ones with actual revolutionary potential, probably do not or cannot vote and will see them for what they are when they call, on one hand, to overthrow capitalism, and on the other hand, vote for a capitalist who enables predatory, malicious and rampant capitalism.

8) who is to say what the lesser of two evils is anyway? romney is not president. obama is president and he's been pretty bad. anyway, they are serving one agenda so what does it matter?

#3
[account deactivated]
#4
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: -
voting clearly has material effects as a collective political act in many situations. for example, the wave of popular left governments across latin america has been largely through traditional democratic channels. voting can temporarily solve many important problems for some people. the problem is that it might not be able to solve all problems for all people. most people find this unrealistic, though, which is why the "true" radical left of people who want a fully planned economy any day soon is very small in most countries.
#5
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
im literally going to vote for mitt romney
#6
[account deactivated]
#7
Kurdt
Post rating: +
his hand?!
#8
[account deactivated]
#9
[account deactivated]
#10
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
#11
[account deactivated]
#12
[account deactivated]
#13
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +

tpaine posted:

"you can also add some extra christmas stuff like...sausages..."



#14
[account deactivated]
#15
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

made it to 40s



#16
Post rating: ~
henry you really needed arguments about whether or not to vote for someone who picked a lawyer for chiquita for attorney general? c'mon son
#17
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +

TROT_CUMLOVER posted:

henry you really needed arguments about whether or not to vote for someone who picked a lawyer for chiquita for attorney general? c'mon son



love them nanners

#18
[account deactivated]
#19
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
romney will not have an attorney general because the US prosecutor's system will be suspended in favour of giving police arbitrary execution power
#20
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +

getfiscal posted:

romney will not have an attorney general because the US prosecutor's system will be suspended in favour of giving police arbitrary execution power



hey guess what gutty fatscales. you dont have an attorney general, yeah. thats right. attorney general rights revoked. how do you like them nanners

#21
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
canada has a number of attorneys general.
#22
Post rating: ~
attorneys general. poets laureate.
#23
Post rating: ~
every crown i know is an obscene alcoholic
#24
Post rating: ~
emily dickinson wrote that hope is the thing with feathers. obama/parrot 2012
#25
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

shennong posted:

every crown i know is an obscene alcoholic

lol

#26
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
i just wanted to say "how do you like them nanners"
#27
[account deactivated]
#28
[account deactivated]
#29
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
Its not enough not to vote Henry Kringle, you need to proselytize against voting amongst your friendst, they are chuffawing & computering at the gop pretender to the throne all thruout the gawker media universe. think about how worthless you're gonna feel when you hear people actually celebrating this pageantry, you have to quash as much of that ahead of time as possible.
#30
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
#31
Post rating: +
#32
Post rating: ~

babyfinland posted:

tpaine posted:

"you can also add some extra christmas stuff like...sausages..."



why does every girl i fall in love with, turn out to be fictitious. konata...

#33
Post rating: ~
isnt it obvious that romney presidency would precipitate violent revolution much more quickly than bzrkx obama? isnt the question then 'why wouldnt you vote for romeny?'
#34
Post rating: ~
what if roseanne barr won the election?
#35
Goldgelbes Löwenäffchen
Post rating: +++++

KilledInADuel posted:

what if roseanne barr won the election?


#36
Post rating: ~
mods change my name to "for my jewish mother"
#37
Post rating: ~
Liberals and Conservatives think differently and their brains are actually structured differently. I'm not making a value judgement over which is superior to which, as I think each have their advantages and disadvantages and that our species honestly need both.

Also bear in mind that I'm talking about tendencies of thought in relatively broad general terms, not hard lines of demarcation. My understanding for instance is that while the data shows ~25% of the population as being authoritarian thinkers they don't break 100% to the Right (it's like 75% if memory serves) so there are rigid doctrinaire thinkers on both sides of the political divide.

The jury is also still out on how much of this is nature and how much socialization and environmental.

I also suspect that there is a relatively large more middle (moderate) group who do not have particularly strong tendencies one way or the other. The science here is of quite young and I'm by no means an expert so a lot of this just conjecture and inference on my part that could of course be entirely wrong.

But I digress.

The point I'm trying to make in answering your post regarding the lack of an ideological core on the Left, is that the specific doctrines on what has been "left" and "right" ideology through our history have been moving targets. Neo-conservatism was once neo-liberalism, federalism and libertarianism as well as Objectivism and Marxism were all at one time ideologies of what would be considered "the Left" hell at one point even feudalism would have been the "leftist" position.

Which is why I find attempts to try and define the Left or the Right for that matter, with a fixed ideological doctrine problematic. As the human species has developed socially what we collectively value as human beings has shifted as a result of our technology and understanding of our own nature and existence. It is only reasonable to conclude that as we continue to exist and our social structures adjust to our further technological development that our values will continue to change.

Consider the formation of this very Republic, in 1776 the liberals of that time had developed values that stressed the importance of autonomy and freedom of landed white men. The plight of poor white men, women or other races were not something they were concerned with and by today's standards they would be the worst sorts of regressives. But by the standards of their society they were the far left of their age.

This is not to say that the Left doesn't have an ideological core, it's just that the Left's ideological core tends to be very diverse and fluid. This is both a weakness and a strength of the Left that it can abandon failed ideas and accept new ones so that it can adapt to the changing circumstances of our world. It also makes it a hard target for the Right to nail down and permanently destroy. The weakness being that it also tends to be fractured and thus has a much harder time coordinating with itself to achieve success since it often can not reach consensus on what even qualifies as success.

One of my favorite sci-fi authors, Gordon R Dickson had a concept that ran through his Childe Cycle books. That human social evolution was the result of two diametrically opposed "historical forces" interacting, The outward looking change hungry "Creative" force and the inward looking urge towards safety and security oriented "Destructive" force.

In many ways I see the dynamics of human politics in that frame of the Left pushing forward for change and "progress" while the Right cautious, plodding, fearful of the monsters in the night resists movement into the unknown.

There is almost a rhythm to the oscillation of their influence over the human gestalt between progressive over-reach and conservative backlash. The period between the 30s and 80s was a turbulent time with massive cultural and technological change, Reagan and Thatcher and the modern Conservative movement was a reaction to that turmoil as many of our fellow humans wanted to crawl back into their safe little caves where everything made sense again and people knew their place in the world.

Currently I see the Left ascendent as the progressive forces of our gestalt have found the drive and ability to push forward again once again through technological advances. Of course the conservative aspect is doing what it has always done and will continue to do, fight to hold things back in order to maintain what it sees as stability and security.

I simplify a lot for the sake of explanation because I actually think that the interplay between these two dynamics of human behavior is far more granular in practice and the larger trends that result in what we see as human politics being the aggregate influence of all those smaller interactions and conflicts.

You claim that creativity is "just the meaningful recombination of ideas" I disagree, Creativity is a willingness to take risk, to try new things, to experiment and step out into the darkness to see what makes the bump in the night. That curiosity and urge to know what makes the word tick the drive to ask the uncomfortable questions, to push against boundaries and borders both physical and behavioral.

This is why scientists tend to be liberal, while engineers tend to be conservative. Engineers recombine ideas, scientists think of new ideas. Risk taking requires a certain degree of fearlessness which is very much counter what we know about how conservative brains function and frankly quite in keeping with the corollary.

Each is useful and necessary, without the scientists the engineers run out of ideas, without the engineers the scientists never really fully utilize their discoveries because they are out looking for new ones.

Risk takers also tend to ... well ... get culled, since sometimes the thing goes bump in the night is a hungry lion. So a society made up of nothing but risk takers would be one on a fast track to extinction.

Alternatively risk aversion tends to cause stagnation and rigidity, creating a society that would be incapable of adapting to change and thus be on a path of eventual decline and if not a fast track tract to extinction then a slow one.

The above informs and shapes my view on politics and is the prism through which I analyze events. Could it be utter bullshit, sure but thus far it's proven quite useful as an explanation and predictor of trends.

The Right in America has at it's core hardline authoritarians, that's the hard base I've mentioned before. The religious conservatives and all the ditto heads and racists who "cling" to their old ways and that imagined golden age when the world made "sense" to them. Fear is their core motivation and drives all their beliefs and opinions, fear of change, fear of the other, fear of pretty much everything that doesn't fit into their existing mental framework. Around that core are more moderate thinkers who while cautious are not as afraid of change but are conservative wanting to stick with change that is known, Like an engineer they want to apply those "solutions" they are already familiar with.

The Left on the other hand has at its core the risk takers and creative thinkers the ones who are ready to unshackle themselves from existing paradigms and limitations, who are ready and willing to try new things, to experiment and find new solutions to problems. Hope is their motivation, hope for a better world, hope for freedom, hope for prosperity for all. Around that core are also more moderate thinkers (notice a trend here?) who while still open to new ideas and willing experiment but are somewhat more cautious and in their approach.

Note how these fundamental cores play out in the messaging from the campaign and their utter lack of ability to find common cause. The Left focuses on "moving forward", "hope and change", "building a better tomorrow". While the Right focuses on "Restoring America", "Reinvigorating Capitalism", "Defending American Values". One forward looking creative hopeful, the other backward looking nostalgic and fearful.

Now I've described a relatively clean demarcation above, As I said earlier I don't see the demarcation quite so clean. there is over lap there are very "conservative" thinkers, who for what ever reason identify more with those on the left and very "progressive" thinkers who end up on the right and of course all the mushy middle that moves form one sphere of influence to the other depending on specific circumstances. There are probably at least 20-25% of minorities who would naturally ally with the Right if it weren't for how the Right has historically treated them, and it's going to be interesting to see how things sort themselves out and realign in the coming years.
#38
political car tune
Post rating: ~
"But i digress"

*continues to digress into an avalanche of paragraphs whilst screaming "ima fuckShIT!! Im A FUCKSHIT"*
#39
Post rating: ~
i cant believe i read more than half of that

but how could i stop after

hell at one point even feudalism would have been the "leftist" position."

#40
Kurdt
Post rating: +

TROT_CUMLOVER posted:

attorneys general. poets laureate.

whoppers jr.

Care to share your thoughts? Sign up for tHE r H i z z o n E and Post your heart out, baby!