Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Update on discarded Love ballots idea

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 21, 2012, 4:13 p.m. EST by alterorabolish1 (569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Someone pointed out that having your ballot discarded would mean that your vote for local candidates, (possibly important), also would not count.

If this is the case, simply vote for the candidates you know you want to vote for, and leave the vote for president, (and any others you don't know or care about), blank. Your vote would not be discarded as it would if you wrote Love or NO WAR on the ballot.

The "blank" votes for candidates could also be calculated.

The post, "On Voting For The Lesser Of Evils" by jk1234 should be read by everyone

96 Comments

96 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't remember Martin Luther King telling people to not vote.

Again I must insist the idea you've come up with is not a solution. It just puts gas on the fire.

Why not just vote for someone like Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson, or another option in the president field?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I recall each victorious politician claiming to follow the voters mandate

and then defining what that mandate is

.

The people should be able to express what they want out of government without deferring to a candidate

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure MLK never told people not to vote. I would much prefer Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson but it's 100% certain that our next president will be Obama or Romney. Corporate candidates A and B.

Come on, vote radically.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah because of apathy which you're contributing too. Worse you're telling people they should be apathetic.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Damn, I really need to improve my communication skills.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Me too. In the previous comment I typed an unnecessary o in the word "to"

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The edit button is your friend.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sometimes my only friend

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you don't vote then your government will never be responsive to your concerns, and you won't have a leg to stand on to complain about it.

That's aside from the fact that it's reprehensible to disrespect all of the Americans who fought and died so that you could have the right to vote and not be governed by some dictator.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Your first paragraph is correct but that won't include me because I will be voting. Just in a radical way.

Disrespecting Americans who fought and died so that I could have the right to vote is a discussion I would be interested in. To me it's reprehensible to finally wake up to the fact that our government is now controlled by corporations, all of it. Yet we continue to live as if there's hope for the democratic party to make things better. Others strongly feel that the approach of the republicans is best. Neither matters.

There may be democratic senators, (and republican), that are hoping we the people demand money out of politics and would be relieved from constantly begging for money from corporations and wealthy people. They can't speak yet because it would end their career under the present circumstances.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

So instead of not voting by writing "LOVE" on your ballot, now you're proposing not voting by handing in a ballot with no vote on it. But you want to pretend that you're voting.

I don't think that you really deserve to have a government that's responsive to your concerns, with that attitude. So I guess this will all work out like it should in the end.

Maybe as you get older and you grow more mature, you might want to consider participating in our democracy to make it better instead of boycotting it.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I'm 56. I believe you deserve a government that protects the weak.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Wow, that's sad. Here, this might make some sense to you: http://occupywallst.org/forum/at-the-core-of-our-government-is-a-corruption/

You and I basically agree about the problem, but your idea of a solution would be hopelessly ineffective. You would simply be ignored.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when did americans fight for the right to vote?

[-] 3 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I don't know whether they actually fought for the right to vote, but they did fight so that government of the people, for the people, and by the people, should not perish from the earth.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Fighting for democracy is fighting for the right to vote.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

when did Americans fight for democracy?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're pretty close to crossing the line into being reprehensibly offensive. Is your next post going to piss on the graves of millions of dead American soldiers?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no the private companies that profited off the wars do that

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Your inability to answer the question, and resorting to namecalling and emotional platitudes shows the truth of the issue. Your inability to even consider the facts shows your conscious mind to be built on a falsehood, and your emotions are reacting to prevent the house of cards from being exposed.

The sooner you give up a fake reality, the better.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

"democracy passes into despotism" as Plato said.

Are you smarter than Plato? Or do you feel like we aren't sliding into a dictatorship?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Government passes into a despotism - any and all governments - when they stop representing their populations - The People - How much faster the process when the People Opt OUT(?) - You want to see any government go to hell in an instant(?) then keep up with your BS about the people should not get involved.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

lol. bow to your masters.

I think people should be involved in their own lives, and treating each other as equals. Pretty radical BS, huh? You think we should have kings, and all the peasants should bow to their words. Lysander Spooner blew your argument away 150 years ago. He said

"Because a slave can choose a new master every few years doesn't make him any less a slave."

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The People getting involved and staying involved is people working with and caring for each other as equals and they do not bow down to their elected officials - NO - They tell those elected officials what is gonna get done and why it is gonna get done.

You thorough42 are a thorough idiot - if you believe that walking away from getting involved will help the people. You are just advocating that people just give up and accept what others will decide for them.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

No, I am advocating that nobody should decide anything for anyone else.

You think that there should be masters and slaves? You think that some people should be kings? People didn't want the bailouts, yet the politicians did it anyway. People didn't want the patriot act, yet they did it anyway. Slaves don't tell the masters anything... They only do as little as they have to to maintain the ILLUSION of freedom. Why would citizens in a free society have to beg congress for table scraps? Is that your vision of a free society??? Land of the Free??

Unplug yourself from the matrix, homie!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You go ahead and unplug dummie. Decisions have always been made - in a family in a village town city country world. And when the decision making is done by all that is the fairest decision making. If a corporation ( fake/dead/person ) owned by a real person or group of people makes a decision on it's own - then it's employees are bound to the decision - and if the community in which that dead entity exists does not have a say in what that dead entity is doing - well then the community/society/country/world then has to live with the consequences of that dead entities decisions = such as major pollution and destruction of the environment for the purpose of making money from say mining or manufacturing or from fossil fuel extraction and use.

You Are A Fool If You Don't See That. I do not believe you to be a fool - NOPE - just another shill - trying to get people to continue opting out.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Actually... no. You say "When the decision making is done by all that is the fairest decision making". So if I live in a house with 3 other people, and we all decide what I am going to wear today, and the 3 other people vote that I should go naked, that's the fairest decision? The fairest decision making is when YOU can make YOUR OWN decisions and when I can make MY OWN decisions. You're just being silly now.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Now you are just being purposely stupid.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It's interesting to get some input from Occupy's nihilist anarchist faction.

But yes that's stupid.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Because people are not perfect neither is society and so our individual lives as well. Until perfection is achieved there will be things needed to be done that will infringe on our wishes. That should be the impetus of continuous process improvement - the freedom and well being of all in a world in which you can freely follow your dreams. Is it possible? Perhaps - definitely NOT - if the goal is not sought - worked for.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Whoa - that was a completely disgusting thought. What kind of monster would that be?


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2775) from Miami Beach, FL 11 minutes ago

Have you ever read the Black Bloc Bilbe, Days of War, Nights of Love? Look it up sometime. It provides a lot of insight into this guy's thinking. It's like if Ayn Rand and Lao Tsu got together and had a baby. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Well, we're both in the process of having a conversation with him.

It's a fun book actually. I'm a Taoist and I can sympathize with a lot of it. I do feel like I squander my days for a paycheck and health insurance, like it accuses me of. I was a lot more of a nihilist anarchist in my youth, but now I have a family to feed.

http://www.daysofwarnightsoflove.com

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Well which is it? Is the fairest decision "done by all" or is the fairest decision when each person can choose for themselves?

If it's "done by all" as you say, then politics makes sense.

If it's each person deciding for themselves, then why should anyone rule over anyone else? The very concept is unfair.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Apparently U R Bain Dramaged. Where choices freely made will affect others safety well being - there must be oversight and control by society to see that the actions taken do not endanger injure or kill. So there is a limit to personal freedom - unless you are all alone - with no possible contact with others - in which case you could do what you damn well pleased. Society needs cohesion cooperation the well-being of all to be considered. That demands certain rules - made and enforced by society. Until the day that each and every individual achieves perfection. In perfection there will be no need for one to look out for what another is doing because all will be perfect. But we as a species as individuals are nowhere near perfection.


[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (660) 0 minutes ago

hahaha. It's a funny world we live in, where "Freedom" is now known as "chaos". The founding fathers would be pleased.

You're right! People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not impair the freedoms of others! Governments only give the illusion of freedom, but there is no freedom when they go around pointing guns at everyone making everyone obey rules that they, and their banker friends, made up. In a free society, one without institutionalized violence, THE PEOPLE (as you say) WOULD BE THE ONES REGULATING EACH OTHER.

If you want to live in that kind of world, you have to deny government monopolies. And that means to stop voting for your masters. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

But if people are going to violate other's safety, what's to stop the people who are overseeing and controlling from violating others??? I'm brain damaged, but you aren't capable of producing coherent logic.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26697) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You would seem to be advocating for chaos. People should have as much personal freedom of choice as is allowable - in that they should be able to do anything they want as long as it does not endanger the safety and well being of any other individual. Actions taken that can and will affect others must be regulated - by society - you know - THE PEOPLE.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Have you ever read the Black Bloc Bilbe, Days of War, Nights of Love? Look it up sometime. It provides a lot of insight into this guy's thinking. It's like if Ayn Rand and Lao Tsu got together and had a baby.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

hahaha. It's a funny world we live in, where "Freedom" is now known as "chaos". The founding fathers would be pleased.

You're right! People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not impair the freedoms of others! Governments only give the illusion of freedom, but there is no freedom when they go around pointing guns at everyone making everyone obey rules that they, and their banker friends, made up. In a free society, one without institutionalized violence, THE PEOPLE (as you say) WOULD BE THE ONES REGULATING EACH OTHER.

If you want to live in that kind of world, you have to deny government monopolies. And that means to stop voting for your masters.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Plato also thought that government should be run by the intellectual elite. "Philosopher kings". I hope that your entire political ideology isn't 2,500 years old.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You didn't address either of my questions, nor the main argument.

You attempted to divert what I was saying by pointing out something else that Plato said.

Your inability to look the truth in the face and address it shows your true character. Nice dodge.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Sure, because the question, "Are you smarter than Plato?", was so deep and meaningful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

You missed the real one! Keep reading! You're getting SOOOO close!!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You must be related to this guy.

If not? The result will be the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

That's the same video you linked last time we chatted. Do you believe the corporations have gained control of Washington or not?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the elite were upset with the King of England not addressing laws made in the colonies

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

They still installed all people are equal and a form of government that allowed people to govern themselves through democracy. Including the right to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Men are equal were the words

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Yes and taken for granted was white men. Red men and black men were not considered equal nor women.

They still recognized that individuals with too much power had proven to be a bad idea. They were essentially acting in their own best interest, while forming the most ideal form of government.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Have you ever read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States? If you haven't then I think that you would really enjoy it.

Edmund Morgan sums up the class nature of the Revolution this way: "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established." Looking at the situation after the Revolution, Richard Morris comments: "Everywhere one finds inequality." He finds "the people" of "We the people of the United States" (a phrase coined by the very rich Gouverneur Morris) did not mean Indians or blacks or women or white servants. In fact, there were more indentured servants than ever, and the Revolution "did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage."

Carl Degler says (Out of Our Past): "No new social class came to power through the door of the American revolution. The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class." George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer. And so on.

On the other hand, town mechanics, laborers, and seamen, as well as small farmers, were swept into "the people" by the rhetoric of the Revolution, by the camaraderie of military service, by the distribution of some land. Thus was created a substantial body of support, a national consensus, something that, even with the exclusion of ignored and oppressed people, could be called "America."

...

So the real problem, according to Madison, was a majority faction, and here the solution was offered by the Constitution, to have "an extensive republic," that is, a large nation ranging over thirteen states, for then "it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.... The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."

Madison's argument can be seen as a sensible argument for having a government which can maintain peace and avoid continuous disorder. But is it the aim of government simply to maintain order, as a referee, between two equally matched fighters? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants? In that case, the disorder they might worry about is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth. This interpretation makes sense when one looks at the economic interests, the social backgrounds, of the makers of the Constitution.

As part of his argument for a large republic to keep the peace, James Madison tells quite clearly, in Federalist #10, whose peace he wants to keep: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it."

When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

At that time it was only white men who owned property that were considered "equal" All our history has been attempting to expand who that term "all men" applies to.

We're gettin there. Right now we have a huge effort to suppress the vote of many people, but otherwise we are still progressing forward.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I agree with all of that and I'd like to just chip in that it's important to remember that progressivism is not the sole domain of the left. As illustrated by Republicans like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

...the impression that Progressives are "far left" arises largely because the elitist mass media simplistically, and falsely, portrays American politics as being a one-dimensional split between "liberals" and "conservatives." In fact, American politics are far more complex, and can't be properly understood unless we add (at least) one more dimension: elitism vs. populism. When we do add this additional dimension, it becomes clearer that many self-styled "conservatives" are in fact ultrawealthy economic elitists who have little in common with cultural conservatives or cultural liberals, and that their distance from the political center is much greater by far than the distance of Progressives, whose views, when accurately represented, are far more mainstream than those of virtually any elitist. (See the linked diagram for the true political spectrum.) Indeed, polls have shown that many of the most important Progressive goals are endorsed by large majorities of the American populace on both the left and the right (as high as 95%).

http://www.progressiveliving.org/progressivism.htm

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Republican party is pretty much opposite of Lincolns & Teddys time.

And are you saying right is left, & left is right? huh?

Ok great. You wanna elaborate?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

No I'm saying that the political spectrum is not just one-dimensional. A person can't be classified simply as "left" or "right", and progressivism never was and still is not solely owned by the left or by Democrats.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Seems like a useless discussion.

Perhaps you can acknowledge that progressive principles do exist? Say in tax policy. Progressive ideas would say that the more you make the more you pay. In this way the poorest pay the least and the tax burden gets progressively heavier on those that make more.

I support pols who support policies that encourage that.

C'mon. One progressive republican, or one progressive policy republicans support. Just one.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Now you're confusing the word "progressive" in the term "progressive taxation" (as opposed to "regressive taxation") with the term "progressivism".

That's a little like imagining that a "nuclear family" glows in the dark because they have a fission reactor in their basement instead of a furnace.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thanks. modern liberalism, progressivism, 1%, $70.000.000, You told me so. Simplified, Government incentives.

Your the best.

What tax policy would you support?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you serious? You pushed and pushed to get me to give you a specific economic reform that I would personally advocate, I told you tax code simplification, and then you ask me that? Is your brain operating at full capacity today? Normally total disregard for anything that the other person types is something that shooz and ZenDog do, not you. You're a walking ball of contradictions but at least you normally can read.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't like the results of complexity you mention. most of all I'm against the unfairness of the code.

But if you say your plan would have the wealthy pay more and the rest of us pay less I could support it.

Peace

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I just didn't see that you said that was the tax plan you supported.

Doesn't really seem simpler but if you say so.

Would you say your plan would havethe wealthy pay more and therest of us less? That was MY goal if you remember?

You didn't say if you agree with my goal.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, that's called progressive taxation. I feel obligated to explain to you yet again that the word "progressive" in the term "progressive taxation" refers to a statistical distribution that progresses higher as income increases. NOT to the word "progressivism".

And the example tax plan that I outlined is far simpler than our current tax code. Obviously. The difference between the plan that I outlined (which was just an example and not an actual proposal) is that it lacks the thousands and thousands of tax loopholes, credits, and incentives that our government uses to incentivize "good" behavior. I'm not opposed to the "good" behaviors that our modern liberal government wants to incentivize. I'm opposed to the negative effects of a complex tax code. Namely, that it leads to political corruption by encouraging people with money to lobby politicians and to make campaign donations, which makes out government beholden to money instead of to constituents.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

modern liberalism, classic, tax code, simple, business. mechanism,lobby.

I'm for simplification of the tax code but that is less important to me than taxing the wealthy more, and cutting taxes for the lower/middle class.

What do you think?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Why would modern liberalism be in favor of a simplified tax code that creates less options for the government to incentivize certain behaviors?

A simplified tax code is not incompatible with a progressive tax code. Simple example: let's say that your effective taxation rate is legislated to be 1% of your income for every $10,000 that you earn, up to 70%. Just a random example. A person who makes $10,000 would pay 1%, or $100, and a person who makes $100,000 would pay $10,000, which would be 10%. But a person who makes $100,000,000 would pay $70,000,000 or 70%.

This is a progressive tax code (the word "progressive" referring to a progressive statistical distribution, not to the term "progressivism", as I've already explained to you today) but it is counter to the ideals of modern liberalism because would eliminate tax incentives for environmental protection or whatever.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

FDR was the beginning of the change into this Dem party.

1948 saw Strom Thurmond run on the States rights dem party (dixiecrats) which was a split from Dems who had come out in favbor of civil rights.

History lessons are not preference on this site. Issues, policy for today is most valuable.

You can look up these things on history sites. Don't take my word for it.

What do you think is progressive economic policy?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I see simplification of the tax code as an example of progressive economic reform because the complex tax code is what creates the mechanism where corporations lobby politicians for exemptions and incentives. But that would lead to less government influence and control, and is therefore not in line with modern liberalism.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't say McCain was a progressive. I think he claims he is conservative & not progressive. Regardless of his efforts on campaign finance reform I will let his own self description stand.

You said progressivism is synonymous with liberalism. Not me.

Teddy called himself a progressive. He formed the progressive Bull moose party!. His contemporaries called him a progressive. Teddy was progressive because of his stand on big business & workers rights.

Teddys republican party was the opposite of todays repub party. So it is irrelevant.

How about a progressive issue that the current repub party office holders support.?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"I didn't say McCain was a progressive. I think he claims he is conservative & not progressive."

"Conservative" and "progressive" are not mutually exclusive. Look at Andrew Sullivan. You're treating the two words as opposites along a one-dimensional political spectrum, and you're treating all ideological labels like "liberal", "left", "right", "racist" as though they all fit onto that one-dimensional continuum. If that's how it worked then Teddy Roosevelt could not be considered a progressive because he was a raging racist. Today's GOP is not the "opposite" of Teddy Roosevelt's GOP, any more than today's Democratic Party is the "opposite" of the Democratic Party that immediately renounced the Emancipation Proclamation.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You mentioned McCain and I did not say that he was not progressive.

So you are wrong. I said that the current republican party would not support McCain Feingold. I asked how does this repub party treat him.

You ignored that. because you know the repubs have move even too far right for McCain. LMFAO.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you didn't say he was a progressive (on at least some issues) then why do you keep asking me for examples of progressive Republicans as if no such thing exists?

And if progressivism is synonymous with liberalism then how can it be anything other than a contradiction to refer to Teddy Roosevelt as a progressive if he was a raging racist?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just one example of current republican progressive. just one progressive policy that a republican supports.

Forget your criticism of me. Put aside my misunderstanding of progressivism.

just give an example based on YOUR correct interpretation of progressivism.

Please. I beg you. Just one example.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I already did when I mentioned McCain-Feingold. Your response will be to say that McCain isn't a progressive because you'll point to some socially conservative position of his. Just like when Flip told you that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a progressive because he was a racist.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Buddy Roemer

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah nothing like that at all.

Progressive taxation is a good illustration of what a progressive believes regarding taxes.

Sorry. We disagree on this.

And a progressive would be against nuclear power, and weapons.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The word "progressive" in "progressive taxation" has nothing to do with the word "progressive" in "progressivism". The word "progressive" in "progressive taxation" means that the tax rate progresses upward as the income level increases, as opposed to regressing downward.

What does being against nuclear power and weapons have to do with social, political or economic reform? I've pretty much confirmed now what I suspected: that you believe that "progressive" is a synonym for "liberal". But the political spectrum is not one-dimensional.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We disagree. Todays Dem party is opposite of post civil wa dems. The switch took place between 1950-70. I already said that.

I can't waste my time discusssing the pedantic definition of this word or that label. I will discuss issues/policies and we can give our opinion on whether we assign one label or the other, but you aren't discussing issues.

You are preoccupied with the labels, my definition of the labels, the parties as they stood a century ago.

Take a stand on some issue (besldes the agreed upon money in politics) and we can have a useful discussion.

Otherwise your preferred topic of the labels, and the past parties does not interest me.

Peace, and good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

FDR's Democratic Party was the "opposite" of today's Democratic Party?!?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I believe that corporations were corrupted first and with their vast fortunes they corrupted anything they could, to further their personal profits.

Therefore.

OccupyWallStreet!

The roots are in the corporations and the people who run them. Not the government itself.

What you are proposing will do nothing but perpetuate that corruption.

Trust me, it's the Kochs that don't want you vote, and/or throw your vote at an ideal as opposed to a candidate. As I said the result will be the same. What Weyrich said is a reality.

You really want to change direction?

Field candidates that answer directly to the GAs.

Don't be fooled by candidates like Johnson either.

http://www.alternet.org/dont-be-fooled-pot-loving-libertarian-gary-johnson-he-works-1

Vote your heart, but DO vote.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

You seem to continue to believe that we have government itself. We don't, we have corporate workers occupying our Congress. I agree that the roots are in the corporations, and their greed will not relent.

I will vote.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We also have 50 States. These States keep getting ignored in all the hoopla.

Teaching of BS like creationism doesn't happen at the national level.....yet, and yet all these things are interrelated.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

And we want things to evolve in a progressive way for everyone. Big corporations have created competition between states for their presence and have the profits and tax breaks to show for it. Small businesses, (responsible for 2/3 of jobs), have been reduced to outlets, only allowed to struggle to survive.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

And writing in an "uncounted" vote is going to aid this situation how?

It basically says you don't give a fuck.

It basically says you're OK with letting corporations have a "free" hand in all that feel like doing.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, definitely. It also says that any politician can feel free to ignore your opinion.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We don't agree on much, my old nemesis, but this ones a no brainer.

Get out there and vote! And actually make a choice and check the box.

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

My "uncounted" vote might aid this situation, it certainly would if mass numbers also did the same thing. Primarily because it will in fact be counted! Please explain how your vote is going to aid the situation from your heart not by linking 900 reasons the dems are better than the repubs.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you don't care, then you don't care.

Please don't propagandize your not caring in a way so as to influence others not to care.

Not caring isn't the way to accomplish positive things. It just isn't.

As far as your last statement, I refer you once again to the Weyrich video.

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Claiming I don't care is a weak response and accusing me of influencing others not to care is a lie.

The question I asked of you from your heart was how your vote was going to aid the situation. Aren't you going to vote for Obama?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's not a weak response at all.

It's true.

You will be endorsing the Weyrichs of the nation by not voting, or writing in anything that will be ignored.

You're final question is irrelevant to this conversation and feels like an attempt at entrapment.

Isn't that what this whole thing is actually about for you?

You MAY, and I stress MAY care, but your caring isn't about the positive future of this movement, nor the people involved in it.

I will not accept a role in your soap opera.

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

You already have a role.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Good to know.

You can be assured that I will be going off script.

It also tells me, by your level of response, that the rest of what I said is true.

Also good to know.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Yes, because voting has changed SO MUCH!

You realize that corporations are a government created entity, right? They only exist because government guns keep them in place? Same thing with the Federal Reserve? And the currency monopoly?

But yes, be sure to get out there and vote. Changing the hood ornament on the car that is slowly running you over will set you free.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Hmmmm. It seems by your interpretation changing the ornament DOES work.

How else do you explain the "forced" teaching of creationism?

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

The car running people over is the government's monopoly of violence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ&feature=related

Changing dictators doesn't change the fact that you are being owned by a dictator. Get it?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Actually no, I don't "get it".

Whatever does that have to do with explaining the "forced" teaching of creationism?

That was just some kind hack produced propaganda.

Afraid to admit who it is that's pushing that type of legislation down peoples throats?

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

It has nothing to do with that legislation. If the government couldn't FORCE people to do something, NO LEGISLATION WOULD MATTER. Creationists could teach creation. You could teach whatever you wanted. But since the government can FORCE people into doing things, everyone is trying to use government force on somebody else, so they don't have it used on them.

If you agree that other people should make rules for you, you are agreeing to being a slave. Then you have to fight all the other slaves to see who is going to get to use the violence of the state on the other slaves.

If you think everyone should be free to make their own choices, then no violence is necessary. You can try to interact peacefully with your neighbors.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why in the World would you want anyone to teach creationism as reality?

Much less "force" teachers who know better to do so.

You've still not explained that.

Besides, this shit is being pushed by C(R)__ at the State level.

Get a fuckin' grip dood.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I never assumed my ballot would be discarded because I wrote in NO WAR for president

that would clearly be voter suppression

and in the US, votes count

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

If we could motivate the millions that won't bother to vote to get excited and proud to have their voted discarded, that would send a message. The number of discarded votes will count.