Humorless Politics Thread

[cavorting with nudists]

Let's get really humorless (not to say sanctimonious) for a moment.

If anyone reading this still really believes that by withholding their vote from Obama they are doing anything whatever that helps this country or leads to any constructive end, I would only ask that you read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-case-for-obama-and-against-liberal-despair/264465/

Or then there's this, on the very real differences between a compromised Obama and a monstrous Romney on civil-liberty and national-defense issues: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-case-for-obama-and-against-liberal-despair/264465/

Or then there's this, the one mea culpa of which I am aware written by someone who voted for Nader, in Florida, in 2000: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/10/01/one-in-1784/

Perusing the threads on this topic here and elsewhere, I was struck—as others were—by the resemblance to the arguments I myself advanced in 2000—back when I was the sanctimonious twit saying that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore. I was wrong. I learned my lesson. In my own defense, all I can say is that the consequences of my casting one of the 1,784 votes in Florida that was the official margin of difference between Bush and Gore were unimaginable at the time, at least to me.

And I’ve regretted it ever since and will until the day I die. Seriously. I number that vote among the worst things I’ve ever done as a human being on this planet, even though I’ve done more stupid and mean things than I care to remember, and despite the fact that my motives in that case were fairly pure.

But then if you're withholding your vote from Obama not because you think it will have any positive effect but because you are simply too pure a soul to defile yourself by voting for someone who doesn't come up 100% to your noble vision of an ideal saviour, then (and here I will cross from sanctimony to just plain old self-righteousness): Please go DIAF.

[dave from knoxville]

Was it OK for me to vote for Jill Stein because she most closely matched my beliefs, in my state where Mitt Romney has 100% chance of winning the state regardless of who I voted for? Should I have had it cleared first?

[Barry in Ireland]

Was it OK for me to vote for Jill Stein because she most closely matched my beliefs, in my state where Mitt Romney has 100% chance of winning the state regardless of who I voted for? Should I have had it cleared first?

My god, Dave! Voting for the candidate who most closely matches your political position? In an election year?!

[cavorting with nudists]

Was it OK for me to vote for Jill Stein because she most closely matched my beliefs, in my state where Mitt Romney has 100% chance of winning the state regardless of who I voted for? Should I have had it cleared first?

No, it really wasn't. You achieved nothing good for anybody, and Obama needs the mandate of as high a popular vote as he can get.

However, I note that you have the "Waaah, if you express an opinion you're trying to restrict my freedom!" attitude endemic to both right-wingers and lefter-than-thou types down pat. It bespeaks a certain defensiveness.

[JohnG]

It also seems pretty defensive to imagine that anyone not eager to vote for your dude because of, say, horrifying civillian drone executions must have been holding out for a "noble savior." That straw man belongs largely to people who write Republican campaign commercials, not actual voters.

[cavorting with nudists]

Yes, Greg, and it's obvious that contributing to a Romney victory will sure enough put a stop to those drone strikes! Probably because Mitt and his crew will just go straight for the nukes. Do you know who John Bolton is? Do you know what he advocated during the last Bush administration and what role he is on deck to play in Romney's? Go ahead, vote for a third party, and you'll quickly realize what a "straw man" we Obama advocates were attacking.

[cavorting with nudists]

Oh sorry, I thought that was Greg because of the avatar picture. i already knew "JohnG" was hopeless.

[Greggulator]

Oh sorry, I thought that was Greg because of the avatar picture. i already knew "JohnG" was hopeless.

You won't find me posting a damn thing here!

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

It also seems pretty defensive to imagine that anyone not eager to vote for your dude because of, say, horrifying civillian drone executions must have been holding out for a "noble savior." That straw man belongs largely to people who write Republican campaign commercials, not actual voters.

Hear hear.  And incidentally, I say this as a reformed Nader voter who will be voting for the Democratic candidate in a dark blue state for my third election running. 

[cavorting with nudists]

Just curious--I know that the posters on this board skew male, but, uh. any women out there who think the most important thing is to express your precious nobility at the ballot box even if it means an ascendent party that regards you as lying jezebels? a Supreme Court that will permanently, until the end of your lifetimes and possibly those of your children, treat you as childbearing vessels and not much more?

[cavorting with nudists]

But God knows, the most important thing is to cast a pacifist vote that de facto enables the more bellicose of the two parties that have any chance of winning. Take comfort from that when you are forced to have a child you don't want and can't afford. When we're off to war with Iran and you have no choice over the control of your body, at least you'll know those male voters preserved their delicate honor.

[not that clay]

Guys, be nice.

Voting is just a small part of the political process. Don't overthink it. All the good things the left has ever accomplished -- civil rights, environmental regulation, gay rights, etc -- didn't happen because of complicated reasoning about voting. It came from decades of hard work and lots of teamwork. So if you want something done, go join a dedicated and effective team, do some work, and don't hold your breath.

[cavorting with nudists]

See the thing is, Clay, that those righteous causes have an easier time, and require less exhausting effort,  when there are sympathetic leaders in Washington. Civil Rights advanced under JFK and LBJ. Women's and LGBT's under almost nobody's but Clinton's and Obama's. But if you are aware of any occasion, ever, where an elected leader has been influenced to do the right thing by being presented with the vote totals of the Green Party, this would be a good time to cite it.

[Gilly]

The only reason I could see myself voting for Obama on Tuesday is that the Green Party doesn't do enough to make a difference. They should be working from the city and state level to get a brand, but their only brand is running on great ideas and then disappearing for four more years. That's irresponsible and I have to decide if it's more irresponsible than two parties who have no clue how to work together. I also don't see Obama making things a whole lot better, but he probably won't make things worse either. I don't necessarily believe this is his fault, but his party has plenty to do with it. He ran on great ideas, and I still think he still believes in those things. I'm not willing to say Republicans caused this mess either because they are only half to blame. Blame both parties for a disfunctional government that holds the next election above the country more than ever.

I also think Romney has the higher potential to make things worse but I don't think it's doom and gloom if he wins. Democrats are still going to have the majority, and it's still going to be insanely difficult to get anything done because of the gridlock. I don't think anybody's going to be invading Iran while the economy's in the tank and while Romney would champion trickle down economy, I don't buy that Obama is going to do anything to change that either. Gay rights are still going to be decided at a state level and on ballots. That's up to the people to decide how fast we want to progress on that issue. Roe v. Wade isn't going to get overturned. If anybody would have overturned Roe v. Wade, Bush and his majority would have and they didn't. The only thing that really scares me about Romney is that he'll bring defense spending back up to Bush levels. That's something I think he'd be able to convince Congress to do. I also think it's positive to have a president that at least champions progressive social movements for awareness sake. But, while Romney has a lot of bad ideas, he's not Bush, he won't have the power Bush had and it wouldn't be doom and gloom if he won. That said, Obama's going to win by a comfortable margin.

[Keith Whitener]

I don't know why green party candidates don't run for lower offices. Could Ralph Nadar really not have been a representative or a senator for Connecticut? I hear a lot about "getting the message out" but I don't see that as a substitute for "getting things done".

Keep in mind, Gilly, Obama is likely to appoint at least one supreme court justice during his second term. That would have big impact on the country!

It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to vote for Obama, Gilly, but you're in your own way. He's closer to the vision of America that you seem to want. If Romney wins, that vision will become less focused.