OT - Gas to hit 4.00 - Vote for Ron Paul - dropping out?
von at fugal.net
Thu Jun 19 10:24:46 MDT 2008
<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 10:10 -0600">
> Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:
> > You're right, it is too late for voting reform. It's NOT to late to vote
> > with purpose. The 'viable' candidates will always be determined largely
> > through incumbent powerhouses. So if you always vote for a 'viable' then
> > you always get more, bigger, and worse government eroding our liberties,
> > because those in power want nothing more than more power.
> > Here's the circle. You act a certain way _because_ the world is a
> > certain way _because_ people act that very way you're choosing to act
> > _because_ the world is that certain way _because_ people act that way.
> > Circular enough for ya??
> The whole rest of your email was pointless, because you're still stuck
> on this idea that voting means something aside from choosing who gets
> elected. I can't argue with you as long as you hold that illogical
> idea in your head. Change doesn't happen at election time, election
> happens at election time, and only the viable candidates (judging by
> public opinion in general, *not* taking strategic voting practices
> into account) have any chance of being elected.
And how the hell do you know how many people are or aren't doing
"strategic" voting?? Second guessing, I rest my case.
The point of voting is to elect. Exactly. If I don't want to elect
McCain then why the hell should I vote for him?!??! Same goes for Obama.
I DON'T WANT TO ELECT THEM. Yet you insist that I must choose one of
them because they're the only 'viable' ones. Worse yet, you have
convinced yourself that you must do so, far more detrimental because you
actually do it whereas I don't, whatever you might say. You ARE the
problem. You are the very embodiment of the reason we have so little
> Again, nobody's mind is going to change because of how *you* vote.
> And if nobody's mind changes, then there will be no change.
It is a voice, and for you to sit there and say my voice is useless
because of what I choose to say with it is arrogant, rude, poppycock
> Ron Paul went about things the right way. He decided to run in the
> context of a major party, since it's a lot easier to get elected
> there. He ran a strong grass-roots campaign, hoping that he'd be able
> to change minds at the outset and start winning from the local levels
> on up. It just didn't work out for him, because he didn't have that
> much popular support. By the time primary elections came around,
> people's minds were pretty much made up about him, and it was pretty
> clear he didn't have enough support to win.
And a lot of those minds were made up based on who was "viable". There's
the circular crap again. Nobody thought he was viable, why? because
nobody voted for him, why? because nobody thought he was viable. As I
said, I don't care if anyone votes Ron Paul anymore, he's not on the
ballot, I accept that. But that doesn't mean I concede you should chose
Obama or McCain!
> At that point, of course the way in which the primary voters chose to
> vote was entirely up to them, but it was in *no way* wrong or
> unethical for people who would have liked to see him elected choose to
> vote for someone else because they wanted to have direct influence on
> which of the viable candidates won. Your insistence that who you vote
> for matters here beyond choosing which of the viable candidates wins
> is just obstinate irrationalism.
Voting only for people you don't strongly agree with so your vote can
make a 'difference' is irrational. In the end you make no difference at
all because you just flow with the status quo.
> Once again, to make myself perfectly clear, viability is determined
> *before* the election by polling people to determine who they want to
> win. If your preferred candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in
> the oven to win based on the polls, then there's no point in voting
> for them, because the election's outcome isn't going to be *that*
> different from the polls and it's clear that popular opinion isn't in
> line with yours.
'Polls' for any purpose but for the actual election, in which nobody
knows who anybody voted for, are the bane of this political system. I
would erradicate them all right now if I were able.
> I hope you understand my point now, and stop claiming I'm making a
> circular argument.
Just because you fail to come full circle doesn't mean the circle isn't
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080619/4e16b589/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG