.
.
.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: It should be noted that the most violent and brutal responses to the Occupy Wall Street movement have all occurred under the leadership of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, a “progressive” Democrat, who lately has resorted to blaming unarmed protesters for making the police under her command shoot rubber bullets at their faces.
I’m sorry, but I can’t help but find some degree of amusement in knowing that there are people out there, including quite a few who actively participate in the Occupy Wall Street movement here in Orange County, who actually believe in this delusional, psychotic rubbish that the Democrats are “better” than the Republicans.
Anybody who bothers to pay close attention to the constant feed of articles trickling from Google News can’t help but notice that it is the so-called “lesser evil” Democrats–not the “evil” Republicans–who have literally been at the forefront of smashing this nascent rebellion against corporate capitalism to smithereens.
Recently, Rahm Emmanuel, the Democratic mayor of Chicago, with the full backing of a City Council dominated by Democrats, passed a series of draconian ordinances aimed squarely at the Occupy movement which impose harsh restrictions on free speech and assembly–moves that were criticized by the ACLU.
The same thing also occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the Democratic-controlled City Council enacted sweeping laws aimed at cracking down on Occupy-like actions when the Democratic National Convention comes to town, a silly dog-and-pony show, which, in the past has been directly funded by corporations.
Last December, Ed Lee, the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, sent an army of cops to forcibly evict the Occupy encampment in that town, partly because the Hyatt Regency hotel, owned by the Pritzker family of Chicago—billionaires who backed Barack Obama for president–didn’t want “vagrants and delinquents” nearby.
And it should be noted that the most violent and brutal responses to the Occupy movement have all occurred under the leadership of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, a “progressive” Democrat, who lately has resorted to blaming unarmed protesters for making the police under her command shoot rubber bullets at their faces.
So what are Occupy movement supporters like myself to do? Well, it’s easy. When those whiny Democratic apologists, lamebrain Obamabots, and like-minded zombies come knocking on my door to urge me to vote for their party’s slate of crappy candidates in November, my response will be three simple words: GO TO HELL.
Duane, you are probably accurate with these facts. Let’s not forget though that the hotbeds of activism are always going to occur in urban cities with progressives or democrats at the helm. Take Orange County for example. Would this type of occurrence be more likely to take place in Aliso Viejo or Santa Ana?
Yes, but what you wrote doesn’t change the fact Democrats across the country–including so-called “progressives”–are doing everything they possibly can to smash the Occupy Wall Street movement to bits.
One of the main purposes of my article was to criticize people in the Occupy movement who promote this delusional, psychotic rubbish that the Democrats are somehow “better” than the Republicans.
Better in what way? Better at crushing dissent? Better at sending the cops to beat the crap out of protesters? Better at shooting rubber bullets in their face? Then they say the Republicans are worse? Really?
Duane: I can’t help but feel somewhat sorry for you. It’s a fucking drag, isn’t it, to be surrounded by people with such poor analytical skills? you are light ears ahead of the others on this forum, but the tragedy is they’ll never learn anything from either your large reservoir of knowledge, nor your excellent critical thinking skills– they’ll just stay locked into their own faulty, ill-informed arguments. (Bush STOLE the election!) I know how you feel because I’ve experienced the same for so many years. At least you’re not alone!
Your sarcasm is spot on.
Whatever. I never would have asked you to vote for Rahm Emanuel or Jean Quan anyway, and wouldn’ve have myself.
Julio Perez, though – that’s another story! Big Occupy supporter, right in your town, and look – he’s a Democrat! And Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, I could go on and on. There’s no stopping your favorite habit of tarring a whole huge party because half of it is bad, so I won’t try. Just thought there had to be some kind of response here.
I notice you left out LA Major Villaraigosa, who kept the friendliest relations with the protestors – agreeing with most of their goals – until just too many crazies took over the movement there. What’s he, Republican?
Just to note: Bernie Sanders is an independent democratic socialist.
I was waiting for someone to say that, but – he caucuses with the Democrats, and supports President Obama! What would Duane and John say!!!???
I would say that he supports the idea of Obama having to face a primary challenger.
Yeah, I remember tossing around that idea too. I think it woulda been healthy – and taught Obama a lesson.
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat
Duh. See above.
Duane:
Don’t vote for Obama because of Jean Quan, then. If you hear me asking people to vote for Obama, please consider yourself excluded from audience.
Greg
Oh, don’t get him started on Obama. He’s got better reasons than Jean Quan not to vote for him.
Still I’m voting lesser evil in the Presidential election, having learned my lesson in 2000!
What lesson? Nader didn’t cost Gore the election back then. That’s a Liberal myth.
Speaking of 2000, I especially “enjoyed” the DNC/LAPD repression that was wrought on fellow protestors back then on a hot August summer day. It taught me an invaluable lesson at 18 years of age.
Obamney 2012!
I’ve heard all the arguments on both sides, all I know is –
1. I didn’t want Bush to beat Gore.
2. I voted for Nader because he was my preference even though I knew he wouldn’t win.
3. We ended up with Bush, which was the greatest disaster to befall this nation. Ever.
And I won’t ever do anything like that again.
no the greatest disaster is the guy we have in there now . hopefully not too much longer . nov cant get here fast enough
Clever reversal, Grater!
yes diamond see how short n sweet it was
Where is Newbie and the Non-Seqitur Police to call out The Grating Juan when you need them?
Vern Nelson wrote:
> 3. We ended up with Bush, which was the greatest disaster to
> befall this nation. Ever.
Until the current jerk replaced him.
You voted your conscience. That was not a mistake.
A Liberal myth? Not quite;
From Wikipedia;
“In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.”[21] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore’s loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the “quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.”
Mmmm, yeah Ralph…Tennessee would have swung the election. Also from Wikipedia;
“Harry G. Levine, in his essay Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber states that Tarek Milleron, Ralph Nader’s nephew and advisor, when asked why Nader wouldn’t agree to avoid swing states where his chances of getting votes were less, answered, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”
Mission accomplished, Ralph!
The Nader/spoiler myth is just that. Vern apparently didn’t read my recent blog entry, but that’s ok. Hardly anyone does.
(1) Unless you live in a swing state, you are perfectly free to vote however you like for President without any chance at all of affecting the outcome.
(2) Without Nader on the ballot, providing the big, scary, “spoiler” threat to motivate them, fewer Dems would have shown up to vote in 2000. This effect would have been many times that of any Dems votes drawn off for Nader. With fewer Dems voting, there would have been fewer votes for Dems all the way down the ballot. You can thank Nader that the Dems did as well as they did in 2000.
Everything in #2 is speculation, not fact.
Anything about what would have happened if something else hadn’t happened is speculation. The Nader/spoiler fanatics have been beating their speculation as if it were gospel for 12 years. Enough.
Well, for myself, I’m always going to vote for the least bad person who actually has a chance of winning. If one of you zealots want to tell me Bush was no worse than Gore would have been, you deserve nothing but derisive laughter.
I’m quite glad Ralph Nader did everything he possibly could to damage Al Gore’s chances of winning the election. The problem is, however, the overwhelming body of evidence does not support the assertion he caused his defeat.
You can sit here all day long and type of all kinds of nasty comments about Nader, but it is an undeniable fact that Gore beat George W. Bush by more than 543,895 votes nationwide in the the November 2000 presidential election.
From the Federal Election Commission Website:
Al Gore ………………. 50,999,897 48.38%
George W. Bush ……. 50,456,002 47.87%
Ralph Nader …………. 2,882,955 2.74%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
I have no qualms in saying I cast my ballot for Nader in 2000 and would do so again even if I knew it would mean that a Republican ended up in the White House. I don’t give a damn about the Democratic Party or its crappy candidates.
Vern, remember what anon and I seem to agree about toward historical speculation. Historical what-ifs are very shaky. A good case could be made that, in an effort to resist a “soft-on-terror” image, a Dem would have been much more repressive than Bush, just as Obama has been.
That’s fine, Duane. Good luck washing the blood off of your hands.
As for Gore having gotten more votes — yes he did, but that’s not how U.S. Presidential elections are decided. It’s one thing not to know the rules, if you don’t; it’s another to be smug about it.
I remember that there are some World Series where the team that won 4 games to 3 actually scores fewer runs overall than the team that they beat. Your statement is exactly as absurd as arguing that well, the team that lost should have won because it scored more runs overall. This presumes that you had any point at all in posting the raw vote totals, which is giving you the benefit of a serious doubt.
FWIW, I lived in New York in 2000 while attending school, but was registered in Pennsylvania. Had I lived in New York, I would have voted for Nader to push the party to the left. Living in Pennsylvania, I voted for Gore because there was a chance he could lose. I’m happy with anyone on the broad left voting for Nader in 2000 in states where it didn’t make a difference. In any case where their state was competitive, though, they were playing with fire — and we all got burned as a result.
Most of the ones I hear from who voted for Nader in Florida have the good sense to regret it now. You pretty much have to sequester yourself in an echo chamber not to, give how the Bush Administration turned out.
Greg, what do you consider the innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan and those via drone attacks in Pakistan (and elsewhere) under Obama, if not “blood on his hands?”
Also, I’m surprised that Liberal myths persist and popular anger from them is still directed toward the Nader campaign instead of the Supreme Court and disenfranchising of Blacks in Florida.
Well, actually, I’m not that surprised.
Um – actually – I and most liberals I know are even MORE angry about the Supreme Court and disenfanchisement than we are at Nader.
In fact that all ties in together. We have the Supreme Court we do because of Republican Presidents. (I know, like Duane will remind us, a couple of GOP-appointed Supes accidentally turned out reasonable. But the five corporate fascists who gave us Citizens United, and who chose Bush over Gore, were all Republican appointees.)
So, same conclusion – I won’t do anything that risks another Republican President in my lifetime.
I wasn’t addressing the topic of blood on Obama’s hands, GSR, although I think that one makes one’s moral life too easily if one totals only the blood that comes from actions and not the blood that comes from inaction.
I’m not angry at the Nader 2000 campaign, though I thought that it was stupid and destructive of them to compete in Florida and other battleground states. I do get pissed off when an intelligent person who saw the outcome and lived through the Naughts says “yeah, and I’d do it again.”
As for the notion that I and other left/liberal Democrats are NOT still pissed off about the Supreme Court and the disenfranchising of Blacks (and other likely Democratic voters) in Florida 2000 (and this year even more so) — would you like to admit that you have no basis for that assertion and retract it or would you like it hurled back at you with great force?
Greg Diamond wrote
> That’s fine, Duane. Good luck washing the blood off of your hands.
Nope, there is not a drop of blood on my hands for me to wash off. I sleep soundly at night knowing that I didn’t waste my vote on warmongering capitalist pigs like Barack Obama, John McCain, George Bush, or Al Gore.
As for blood, the Clinton/Gore White House spilled lots of it. Not only did they bomb Iraq every 12 days during their 8-year term, but they imposed draconian economic sanctions on Iraq that killed more than one million civilians, mostly children.
They also attacked Serbia in direct violation of international law (exactly like what Bush did to Iraq) on the phony pretext of “humanitarian intervention” and sent arms to Israel to wage genocide against the Palestinian population.
That blood is on your hands, not mine.
I don’t support mass murder.
> As for Gore having gotten more votes — yes he did, but that’s
> not how U.S. Presidential elections are decided. It’s one thing
> not to know the rules, if you don’t; it’s another to be smug about it.
So Ralph Nader is directly responsible for the obsolete and antiquated electoral college system that allowed George W. Bush to “win” the November 2000 presidential election? I know Nader’s pretty old, but was he around when this rotten, anti-democratic scheme was adopted more than two centuries ago by the white, racist slaveholders who were in power?
By the way Greg, have you done anything lately that would change this system so that a loser like Bush never becomes president again? Or is it easier for you to just keep whining about Nader?
> I remember that there are some World Series where the team
> that won 4 games to 3 actually scores fewer runs overall than
> the team that they beat. Your statement is exactly as absurd
> as arguing that well, the team that lost should have won
> because it scored more runs overall. This presumes that you
> had any point at all in posting the raw vote totals, which is giving
> you the benefit of a serious doubt.
No, the final vote tally is extremely important in this situation because it demonstrates that the reason why Gore did not become president was because of fundamental structural flaws in the electoral system.
Sorry, but Nader bears absolutely no responsibility for what happened to Gore. And he doesn’t have to. Since when is a candidate in an election under any obligation to help another candidate win? To be quite frank, one of the reasons why I supported Nader is because he waged an aggressive campaign against Gore in all 50 states, including swing states. That Gore lost a few of them is his problem, not Nader’s. (That Gore didn’t win some of these states outright showed how weak he was)
In addition to this, many people who cast their ballots for Nader most likely would not have voted for Gore. The irony is, there is evidence to show a few of them would have voted for Bush. As for myself, I do not support the Democratic Party and its crappy candidates. If Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in 2000, my vote would not have gone to Gore. (or Bush, for that matter)
And besides, even if Nader hadn’t run, it is very possible that Gore would not have won anyways.
> WIW, I lived in New York in 2000 while attending school, but
> was registered in Pennsylvania. Had I lived in New York, I
> would have voted for Nader to push the party to the left.
> Living in Pennsylvania, I voted for Gore because there
> was a chance he could lose. I’m happy with anyone on
> the broad left voting for Nader in 2000 in states where it
> didn’t make a difference. In any case where their state
> was competitive, though, they were playing with fire —
> and we all got burned as a result.
Yes, we really got burned. Look what happened after “Dubya”? We now have an asshole in the White House by the name of Barack Obama who is even worse than Bush. But that’s O.K. He is a Democrat, right? That makes all the horrible and rotten things he does just peachy keen, doesn’t it?
And yes, it was horrible for Ralph Nader to make an effort to campaign in all 50 states and win as many votes as possible. Who the hell did he think he was? A candidate? Candidates aren’t supposed to do that! They’re not supposed to win votes! They’re supposed to sit at home and watch television!
Besides, the only viable candidates in an election are those that are financed lock, stock, and barrel by Wall Street and the Military-Industrial complex. We all know that the only billionaires can pick the candidates we vote for. And the Democrats and Republicans own our votes; it’s a sin to think otherwise.
> Most of the ones I hear from who voted for Nader in Florida
> have the good sense to regret it now. You pretty much
> have to sequester yourself in an echo chamber not to, give
> how the Bush Administration turned out.
If you’re so upset about this, why don’t you go talk to the estimated 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida who crossed party lines and cast their ballots for Bush in the November 2000 presidential election? It’s laughable that you waste your time blaming Nader for costing Gore the election in that state when about five times more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader?
Duane,
You are, by choice, part of the American electoral process. While you can certainly support third parties (as I had done often until 2000, not since), you can’t pretend that it doesn’t have an impact on the final choice that the electorate will make between the top two. It often doesn’t have an impact at all, but when it does the impact of left-wing third parties is to elect Republicans and the effect of right-wing third parties is to elect Democrats. That’s why people like Karl Rove and James Carville plot to get third parties that will sap strength from the other side onto the ballot.
So, if you help to elect Republicans, and they implement the Full Cheney policies of post 9/11 BushCo, you absolutely do have blood on your hands. You may sleep soundly anyway, but it’s delusions that are rocking you to sleep.
If you’re proud that, had you had your way, the massive rape-and-slaughter campaign in the Balkans would have continued, that’s all I need to know. I know very well that there are dangers to both action and to inaction in foreign policy; you seem to have deluded yourself that the danger is all on one side. You are too smart for that.
I support elimination of the Electoral College. (You know about the proposals for a multistate compact to support the popular vote winner, or are you just blowing more smoke?) I also endorse Single Transferable Voting and other reforms that would strengthen the ability of people to make a point with their vote without having to be neutral on the question of whether, when push comes to shove, we should choose Gore over Bush. I also support proportional representation and abolition of the U.S. Senate as currently set forth. I’m happy to talk about these sometime — at length, of course.
Gabriel San Roman wrote:
> Also, I’m surprised that Liberal myths persist and popular anger from them is
> still directed toward the Nader campaign instead of the Supreme Court
> and disenfranchising of Blacks in Florida.
>
> Well, actually, I’m not that surprised.
Its much easier for whiny liberals like Greg Diamond to scapegoat Nader than to address another crucial fact in the 2000 presidential election: that the Democratic Party was unable to motivate their base to come out and vote for Al Gore.
The reality is, Gore beat George W. Bush nationwide by more than 500,000 votes. But thanks to the obsolete and antiquated electoral college system (which Nader bears absolutely no responsibility for), the loser ended up winning.
But as I’ve said in a previous posting, an estimated 250,000 registered Democrats in the state of Florida crossed party lines and cast their ballots for George W. Bush. About five times more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.
And although I don’t remember the exact statistic, far more registered Democrats in that state stayed home on election day. Had they gone to the polls and cast their ballots for Gore, the Florida fiasco wouldn’t have occurred.
As a candidate, Gore was very weak. He was so unpopular he even lost his own home state of Tennessee to Bush. Nader didn’t earn enough votes to make a difference. So had it swung to Gore, he would have defeated Bush in the electoral college.
Presidential elections are messy things. A multitude of different variables affect the way which people cast their ballots–if they bother to do so at all. That Greg continues to whine about Nader demonstrates to me he isn’ t very smart, politically.
Nader did what Nader does. I’m not whining about it — I’m taking the same position now as I did before the election, when like many others I supported the system where people in swing states would agree to vote for Gore in exchange for someone in a safe state voting for Nader. As I said, had I been registered in New York, I’d have voted for Nader to move the party to the left. And yes, Gore’s campaign was weak and I don’t exculpate him for that — although I don’t blame him for losing conservative Tennessee in 2000 any more than I blame George McGovern for losing conservative South Dakota in 1972. (Sometimes one’s home state just isn’t that great, you know?)
My complaint, Duane, is with you — with your saying that, even with the benefit of hindsight, you would do it all over again the same way. With Gore as President, we would likely not have had 9/11 — he would have listened to Richard Clarke rather than to try to distance himself from Clinton’s anti-terrorism policy, and we would have been spared to repression that followed 9/11.
I can’t blame you much for not understanding this back in 2000, but I sure can blame you for not understanding it now.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> I’m not angry at the Nader 2000 campaign, though I thought
> that it was stupid and destructive of them to compete in
> Florida and other battleground states. I do get pissed off
> when an intelligent person who saw the outcome and lived
> through the Naughts says “yeah, and I’d do it again.”
Yeah, I’d vote for Ralph Nader anytime over a warmongering capitalist pig like Al Gore.
Pissed off now?
Screw him, the Democratic Party, and its crappy candidates.
> As for the notion that I and other left/liberal Democrats are
> NOT still pissed off about the Supreme Court and the
> disenfranchising of Blacks (and other likely Democratic
> voters) in Florida 2000 (and this year even more so)
> — would you like to admit that you have no basis for
> that assertion and retract it or would you like it hurled
> back at you with great force?
Why don’t you explain the fact that the Democratic Party was unable to mobilize its base in sufficient numbers to go to the polls and vote for Gore in the November 2000 presidential election?
Hell, an estimated 10 million registered Democrats nationwide crossed party lines and voted for George W. Bush. Gore was so awful that you couldn’t get a big chunk of your own bloody base to vote for him.
But scapegoating Nader serves the useful purpose of obfuscating the fact not only did the Democrats have a crappy candidate running for president, but that it was unable to get its base to rally around him.
Gore “lost” because of a multitude of different variables that had nothing to do with Nader. The evidence does not support any of your assertions. Get over it, Greg. Move on to something else.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> My complaint, Duane, is with you — with your saying that, even
> with the benefit of hindsight, you would do it all over again the
> same way. With Gore as President, we would likely not have
> had 9/11 — he would have listened to Richard Clarke rather
> than to try to distance himself from Clinton’s anti-terrorism
> policy, and we would have been spared to repression that
> followed 9/11.
You are so full of crap.
Well, Duane, those comments are hard to argue with, but not in a good way.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> You are, by choice, part of the American electoral process.
> While you can certainly support third parties (as I had done
> often until 2000, not since), you can’t pretend that it doesn’t
> have an impact on the final choice that the electorate will
> make between the top two. It often doesn’t have an impact at
> all, but when it does the impact of left-wing third parties is to
> elect Republicans and the effect of right-wing third parties is
> to elect Democrats. That’s why people like Karl Rove and
> James Carville plot to get third parties that will sap strength
> from the other side onto the ballot.
The claim that people like myself who support left-wing populist third parties are stooges for the Republican Party is a baldfaced lie–if not outright slander. But this is the kind of horseshit one comes to expect from Democratic Party liberals.
> So, if you help to elect Republicans, and they implement the
> Full Cheney policies of post 9/11 BushCo, you absolutely
> do have blood on your hands. You may sleep soundly anyway,
> but it’s delusions that are rocking you to sleep.
I do sleep soundly. I don’t vote Republican.
> If you’re proud that, had you had your way, the massive
> rape-and-slaughter campaign in the Balkans would have
> continued, that’s all I need to know. I know very well
> that there are dangers to both action and to inaction in
> foreign policy; you seem to have deluded yourself that
> the danger is all on one side. You are too smart for that.
My, my, you are a complete fool, aren’t you? The Clinton/Gore White House didn’t give a damn about anybody being raped and killed in the Balkans. They used that as a phony pretext to militarily intervene in Serbia to expand American influence in Europe.
And while were “saving lives” in the Balkans, the Clinton/Gore White House was supporting policies that were killing thousands of more people in Iraq. In addition to that, they were shipping arms to the Israelis who are actively involved in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
The Clinton/Gore White House were atrocious violators of human rights. They backed U.S. state terrorism all over the globe, including backing repressive regimes in Colombia, Indonesia, and Turkey who were involved in genocide themselves.
But since they are Democrats, it’s O.K. they engage in policies that lead to the mass murder of thousands of people, yes?
And you are calling me delusional?
> I support elimination of the Electoral College. (You know about
> the proposals for a multistate compact to support the popular
> vote winner, or are you just blowing more smoke?) I also
> endorse Single Transferable Voting and other reforms that
> would strengthen the ability of people to make a point with their
> vote without having to be neutral on the question of whether,
> when push comes to shove, we should choose Gore over Bush.
> I also support proportional representation and abolition of the
> U.S. Senate as currently set forth. I’m happy to talk about these
> sometime — at length, of course.
Blah, blah, blah. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> Well, Duane, those comments are hard to argue with, but not in a
> good way.
The reason why I said you’re full of crap is because what you wrote was completely speculative and is all based on what an ex-National Security Adviser wrote in hindsight. We have no idea what would have happened if Gore had been president. Given the atrocious record of the Clinton administration, I’m not inclined to believe things would be better.
And the fact is, the incredibly brutal, nasty foreign policy that the Clinton/Gore team pursued in the Middle East during its 8 years in office was partly responsible for 9/11 occurring in the first place. Go look at Osama bin Laden’s writings. He says 9/11 happened in retaliation for U.S. backing of Israeli genocide of the Palestinians and economic sanctions against Iraq that killed upwards of a million people.
Don’t get me wrong. The Bush administration was responsible, too. But what happened on 9/11 wasn’t just because the Bush/Cheney team were incompetent in regards to National Security matters. It was going to happen. And if didn’t occur in New York or Washington, D.C., it would have happened somewhere else.
You can hallucinate all you want about how awful and evil the Republicans are, but the Democrats are just a bad–if not much worse.The evidence is there if you open your eyes to it. I’m not holding my breath, however.
Duane you are the one full of shit (and full of yourself) for arguing that 250,000 Dems voted for Bush.
The Florida numbers were so screwed up with Diebold machines at one point counting a negative 16,000 votes for Gore, in one county. How can you believe any of those results from a company that is rotten and corrupt top to bottom? Even the SEC is charging them with fraud.
We like to argue with facts here, and yours aren’t believable.
I see. So let’s get this straight:
Yes, I do think that you are delusional.
As for this:
Yes, I also think that you are a stooge for the Republicans. I certainly don’t think that of all lefties or Greens or whatever you fancy yourself, but you — yep. There is plenty about which one can criticize Clinton and (especially the pre-2002 or so) Gore. But your statement is so over the top and unsupportable that you should cringe at re-reading it.
Republicans and even some conservative Democrats like to accuse critics like me of being “reflexively anti-American” — which is a load of crap that they use to defend their own selfish, thoughtless, and cynical policies. But if they were to throw that phrase at you, would you even deny it — or embrace it? Oh, let me guess — you’d say that you’re pro-American people but anti-American government, imagining that the false consciousness that keeps them from rallying behind the flag of Duane Roberts will surely fall away any day now.
I’ll just try to concentrate on those areas where we agree, where possible. Meanwhile, go complain about me to Pedroza and Willis; they’ll listen to you.
Demagogue wrote:
> Duane you are the one full of shit (and full of yourself) for
> arguing that 250,000 Dems voted for Bush.
I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing with whatever I post on the Orange Juice Blog. In fact, I warmly welcome your challenge. But if you’re going to say that “I’m full of shit,” then I strongly suggest you use your real name instead of hiding behind a pseudonym like “Demagogue.” I usually don’t debate cowards online, but I’ll make an exception here only in this instance.
There were quite a few exit polls taken of Florida voters after they left the voting booth which showed that anywhere between 11% to 13% of registered Democrats voted for George W. Bush. That meant about 250,000 of them crossed party lines to vote for a candidate outside their party. Cross-voting is fairly common in elections, by the way. This isn’t an unusual phenomena.
Although they are not available online, there are quite a few studies and reports written by political scientists and journalists that concluded that Democrat crossover votes to Bush probably did play a role in Gore’s so-called “defeat” in 2000.
Below is a link to a blog article online that summarizes some–but not all–of the data that has been compiled:
http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html
> The Florida numbers were so screwed up with Diebold machines
> at one point counting a negative 16,000 votes for Gore, in
> one county. How can you believe any of those results
> from a company that is rotten and corrupt top to bottom?
> Even the SEC is charging them with fraud.
In respect to the issue you raise about the “Florida numbers” being screwed up, you’re absolutely right. I don’t recall many E-Voting machines being used in Florida during the presidential election in 2000. But was there was an effort by the Republican Secretary of State to suppress vote turnout? Yes. And there was other fraud, too? Absolutely.
> We like to argue with facts here, and yours aren’t believable.
I’m arguing fact, not fiction. Because somebody is Democrat, Republican, or Green doesn’t mean they’re going to stick with their party’s candidates when they enter the voting booth. Cross-voting plays a significant role in elections. If you doubt that, go talk to a political scientist. Or better yet, go to a university library and read all the books that have been written about it.
Have a good weekend!
Greg Diamond wrote:
> I see. So let’s get this straight:
>
> Non-credible: all Democrats, Richard Clarke, explicit
> explanations from Clarke about the steps the Bush
> Administration could have taken (and the Gore Administration
> would have taken) that would likely have presented 9/11..
>
> Credible: Milosevic, Saddam, bin Laden.
>
> Yes, I do think that you are delusional.
This is absolutely hilarious!?!?! Did I yank your chain a bit, Greg? Poor, poor baby. You’re losing every argument that you’re having with me, so you resort to more slander. Tsk, tsk. Typical of whiny Democratic Party liberals. Anyways, I’ll spend some time responding to your drivel. You’re becoming more fun to joust with!
First, what Richard Clarke said is speculative. We really don’t know how a Gore/Lieberman team would have dealt with issues pertaining to “9/11.” Clarke may have talked to Gore, but that isn’t necessarily indicative of how he would have handled things as president. People say one thing and do the exact opposite. And personally, I’m not of the opinion Gore would have been “better” than “Dubya” given how horrendous Clinton was.
Second, I never said Clarke was a liar. I’m not completely familiar with everything he wrote, but I would not go so far as to say that “9/11” would have never occurred if Gore had been president. It’s possible that scheme might have been foiled by different policies, true. But with the number of people angry over U.S. sponsored state terrorism in the Middle East, I’m sure a major terrorist attack would have happened here eventually. It’s just that Al Qaeda did it first.
Third, where did I say I was a supporter of Osama Bin Laden? I’ve read some of Bin Laden’s writings to help me understand why “9/11” occurred. So what? When someone commits a crime, you go back to the perpetrator to find out motive.You look for clues in their writings, comments–everything. If you look at Bin Laden’s writings, you find out he’s angry over U.S.-sanctioned mass murder of the Iraqis and our support of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Israel, among other things. Although I don’t condone what happened on September 11th, reading these writings helped me better understand why young men were angry enough to hijack airplanes and slam them into buildings. It was done in retaliation for U.S.-sanctioned mass murder in the Middle East. That you don’t want to understand the reason why “9/11” happened is your problem, not mine. I choose not to be ignorant.
Fourth, where did I say I supported Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein? Boy, I really yanked your chain, didn’t I? Oh, I’m sorry. I get it now. I’m not supposed to talk about the fact that the Clinton/Gore White House enacted policies which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and backed butchers who waged genocide. Shhhh. I’m only supposed to say that Republicans are evil, vicious, bloodthirsty killers. The Democrats? Why they are saints! Angels! Heroes! Patriots! Statesmen! Quick, Greg, pass me some of that magic Kool-aid you’ve been imbibing in! I want to see the light!
> Yes, I also think that you are a stooge for the Republicans.
> I certainly don’t think that of all lefties or Greens or
> whatever you fancy yourself, but you — yep. There
> is plenty about which one can criticize Clinton and
> (especially the pre-2002 or so) Gore. But your statement is
> so over the top and unsupportable that you should cringe at
> re-reading it.
Ha, ha, ha.
First, I take great satisfaction in you characterizing me as a “stooge for the Republicans.” I’ll just add it to the list of names that whiny Democratic Party liberals, right-wing Minuteman types, Racists, and other assorted buffoons have called me over the years.
Second, you demonstrated to me your true colors. You are a reactionary, knee-jerk, whiny Democratic Party liberal. You see the world in black and white: Democrats good, Republicans bad. You are almost an inverse mirror image of a right-wing Tea Party ideologue.
Third, everything I said about Clinton/Gore team’s atrocious U.S. foreign policy is true. The problem here is that you don’t want to face it. That’s why you’re upset with me. You have so much invested emotionally in the Democrats and you get pissed when I speak the truth.
> Republicans and even some conservative Democrats like to
> accuse critics like me of being “reflexively anti-American” —
> which is a load of crap that they use to defend their own
> selfish, thoughtless, and cynical policies. But if they were
> to throw that phrase at you, would you even deny it — or
> embrace it?
“The world is my country and my religion is to do good.”
— Thomas Paine
> Oh, let me guess — you’d say that you’re pro-American people
> but anti-American government, imagining that the
> false consciousness that keeps them from rallying behind the
> flag of Duane Roberts will surely fall away any day now.
Blah, blah, blah. Is your rant finished yet? Nope, I guess not. There is some more text below. I’ll scroll down further.
> I’ll just try to concentrate on those areas where we agree,
> where possible. Meanwhile, go complain about me to Pedroza
> and Willis; they’ll listen to you.
I really don’t know what to say about Art Pedroza, but you and Geoff Willis have more in common with each other than I do with him.
Have a great weekend, Greg!
P.S. Don’t drink too much of that magic Kool-aide now, ya hear?
Do you yank my chain? No, but you evade my question.
You grant bin Laden — who was as conservative as Dick Cheney times James Dobson — complete credibility as to why 9/11 happened. It’s too bad that you can’t keep your credulity knob calibrated from person to person.
Why don’t you condone 9/11, by your logic? Are the U.S. and presumably its allies the only ones out to do harm, in your world? Which bothers you more, 9/11 or our actions against Serbia? For that matter, 9/11 or our participation last year in the overthrow of the government of Libya? Apparently, you simply cannot envision a world in which we are not the greater villain. All I need to know, to know which side of a foreign policy issue you’re on over the past 100 years, is “what side was the U.S. on?” and “was the other side literally Hitler” — I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt there — and I could win a lot of money betting that you see justice as being on the other side. This is boring in its lack of nuance and analysis. All you’re seeking is expiation from complicity in wrongdoing — but you won’t find it because you continue to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship.
I see the Democratic Party in much the way I see the United States itself: flawed, but salvageable, and the best available means for someone in my position to effect positive change in the world. I see the Republican party as, for the most part, an intentional or unwitting obstacle to that change. From your perspective, that’s black and white — no matter how much criticism I have of Obama or Clinton or Correa or Solorio — because any support for the party is complicity and you can’t stand to be accused of complicity. It’s childish.
And this is where you say “ha-ha-ha” — and where I hear the unstated syllable, making sound “hollow, hollow, hollow.”
Declaring victory ain’t the same as victory. Good weekend to you too, Duane.
Duane…Don’t you remember “hanging chads” in the Florida election results, and “voter intention” being discussed ? Those conversations were all about e-voting, the machines that read those cards, as well as the machines that had no paper trail at all.
You should familiarize yourself with the movie “Hacking Democracy” which takes a look at how third world our election results are.
So your assertion that 250,000 crossed party lines is based upon numbers that have little validity about totals for candidates, let alone voters party affiliation. In one county Bush got three times the votes of registered Republicans. Your premise is fictional.
I choose to use a pseudonym in order to protect my business interests. I do not discuss religion or politics in the course of my business dealings. I don’t know if any of my clients read this blog.
I am not like you, who is trying to make a name for himself in the Green Party.
And as far as your moral equivalency of Bush and Obama….hard to fathom.
I have to go with Duane on this one, amigo; those machines were tabulating punched cards rather than bits — electric, perhaps, but not electronic.
Of course, your larger point about “hacking democracy” is correct.
Some of the machines were definitely reading mechanically punched cards.
Then the results were stored electronically, and that is where they were susceptible to the hack. When the results were electronically tabulated and sent in, is when and where they could be manipulated.
They also had trouble with the touch screens not responding to the voters choices properly, right in front of the voter. There were many avenues for fraud, and I think that they were all exploited.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> Do you yank my chain? No, but you evade my question.
>
> You grant bin Laden — who was as conservative as Dick
> Cheney times James Dobson — complete credibility as to
> why 9/11 happened. It’s too bad that you can’t keep your
> credulity knob calibrated from person to person.
As any trained criminal investigator will tell you, when someone commits a crime, you go back to the perpetrator to find out why they did what they did. One way of determining motive is to interview them or look for clues in writings and comments they made. Will you always find our what there real motives are? Not always. People do lie. But the truth does come out at times.
Now in respect to “9/11,” the late Osama Bin Laden was alleged to be the mastermind of the crime. Am I going to go to you to find out why “9/11” occurred given the fact you didn’t play a role in it? No, I’m going to go to the source. Now if I examine Bin Laden’s writings, does that mean he’s telling the complete truth? Not necessarily. But there is plenty of written stuff lying around to establish motive.
Regarding Bin Laden’s right-wing Muslim fundamentalist views, so what? What does that have to do with trying to establish motive? I presume your Jewish, yes? I’m an atheist/agnostic hybrid. So what does your religion, my religion, and Bin Laden’s religion have to do with any of this? It is true our worldview is colored by our beliefs. And if Bin Laden had a chance, he’d kill you and me for being unbelievers or infidels.
But what do you want to know? Do I find Bin Laden’s writings useful in helping me understand why “9/11” occurred. Sure do. So what? I don’t agree with all of his views or his right-wing Muslim fundamentalist beliefs. And I certainly don’t agree with the strategy of hijacking airplanes and slamming them into buildings to kill thousands of innocent people.
> Why don’t you condone 9/11, by your logic? Are the U.S.
> and presumably its allies the only ones out to do harm,
> in your world? Which bothers you more, 9/11 or our
> actions against Serbia? For that matter, 9/11 or our
> participation last year in the overthrow of the government
> of Libya?
Well, I don’t support terrorism waged against innocent people whether it’s in the form of hijacking airplanes and slamming them into buildings, sending Israel tanks and guns to violently remove Palestinians from their lands, or imposing draconian economic sanctions on entire countries that deprive millions the means by which to sustain life. And I was opposed to U.S. military intervention in Serbia and Libya. (for a number of reasons which I’m not going to waste my time explaining here right now)
> Apparently, you simply cannot envision a world in which we are
> not the greater villain.
Greg, it’s no secret that I think that the United States is the biggest supporter of state-sponsored mass murder in the world. Look at all the millions of innocent people that presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have been responsible for killing through policies they’ve pursued? From Iraq to Vietnam to Cambodia to Afghanistan? Look at all the brutal dictators, death squads, and genocidal manics that they’ve armed and backed? From Guatemala to El Salvador to Chile to Colombia to Indonesia–to name a few? And all of this has been done to make money for billionaires on Wall Street and the Military-Industrial Complex.
> to know, to know which side of a foreign policy issue
> you’re on over the past 100 years, is “what side was
> the U.S. on?” and “was the other side literally Hitler”
> — I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt there —
> and I could win a lot of money betting that you see
> justice as being on the other side. This is boring
> in its lack of nuance and analysis.
Justice on the other side? Yes, I have sympathy for the several million people that died in the Vietnam War. Yes, I have sympathy for the Palestinian mothers whose sons or daughters were killed by an American-made Cluster bomb dropped by an American-made Israeli jet. Yes, I have sympathy for the Guatemalans who were killed by a death squads trained at the U.S. School of the Americas. Yes, I have sympathy for the victims of U.S. military intervention and aggression. They deserve justice.
> All you’re seeking is expiation from complicity in
> wrongdoing — but you won’t find it because you continue
> to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship.
Sorry, but I sleep soundly at night knowing that I don’t participate in legitimizing this rotten system by voting for candidates who continue to perpetuate it. That’s why I do everything I possibly can to pick away at it, including attack the Democratic Party–the so-called “lesser evil.” If you don’t like it, that’s tough. Go fly a kite.
> I see the Democratic Party in much the way I see the United
> States itself: flawed, but salvageable, and the best available
> means for someone in my position to effect positive change
> in the world. I see the Republican party as, for the most
> part, an intentional or unwitting obstacle to that change.
> From your perspective, that’s black and white — no
> matter how much criticism I have of Obama or Clinton
> or Correa or Solorio — because any support for the party
> is complicity and you can’t stand to be accused of complicity.
> It’s childish.
So you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that the Democratic Party is “better” than the Republican Party by ignoring all the rotten and horrible things the former really stands for. And what am I supposed to do now? Stand up and clap my hands? Hold your hands and sing a song? Sorry Greg, but I’m not interested in being a part of the Democratic Party. Call me childish, but I’m quite satisfied with who I am politically.
> And this is where you say “ha-ha-ha” — and where I hear
> the unstated syllable, making sound “hollow, hollow, hollow.”
Geesh, you really need to lighten up. This is just a blog post.
> Declaring victory ain’t the same as victory. Good weekend to
> you too, Duane.
Bye, bye!
P.S. And this is my final response to any of the messages you post under this article.
Demagogue wrote:
> Duane…Don’t you remember “hanging chads” in the Florida
> election results, and “voter intention” being discussed ?
I do, but I believe mechanical machines were used in Florida.
> Those conversations were all about e-voting, the machines that
> read those cards, as well as the machines that had no paper trail
> at all.
>
> You should familiarize yourself with the movie “Hacking
> Democracy” which takes a look at how third world our election
> results are.
Just to let you know, I don’t trust E-Vote machines. I have always voted via absentee ballot ever since E-Vote machines were introduced in Orange County. But even absentee ballots can be tampered with.
> So your assertion that 250,000 crossed party lines is based
> upon numbers that have little validity about totals for
> candidates, let alone voters party affiliation. In one
> county Bush got three times the votes of registered
> Republicans. Your premise is fictional.
I agree there was quite a bit of fraud going on in Florida, although that might be an understatement. But cross-voting is a fact in any election that takes place in the United States and Democrats do vote for Republican candidates. My suggestion is if you ever have time, conduct further research into this matter. It help you better understand voter behavior.
> I choose to use a pseudonym in order to protect my business
> interests. I do not discuss religion or politics in the course of my
> business dealings. I don’t know if any of my clients read this blog.
>
> I am not like you, who is trying to make a name for himself in
> the Green Party.
Ha, ha.
Given that I’ve attended only one Green Party meeting during the past year, I don’t know exactly how I’m trying to make a name for myself in that body.
> And as far as your moral equivalency of Bush and Obama….hard
> to fathom.
I don’t deny there are some differences.
But to some extent, I see elections as as simply being an effort by a gang of thieves that is out of power to oust the gang of thieves that is in power. To hell with them both, I say.
Anyways, this is my last response. I won’t be back on this page. Have a good weekend.
You have someone that has the same name and same nutty writing style trying to make a name for themselves in the Green Party.
http://voteforduane.wordpress.com/
Is that you comrade ?
Demagogue wrote
> You have someone that has the same name and same nutty
> writing style trying to make a name for themselves in the Green
> Party.
>
> http://voteforduane.wordpress.com/
>
> Is that you comrade ?
Yes, but its old news. Its a blog website I set up when I pulled papers to run as the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in California in 2010. I just never bothered to take it down, that’s all.
By the way, I found exit poll data that ABC News compiled from all 50 states in the 2000 presidential election showing the numbers of registered Democrats that voted for George W. Bush.
It shows that about 11% of all Democrats who showed up at the polls nationwide voted for “Dubya,” where as only 2% voted for Ralph Nader. Five times more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.
See the following link:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html
As I said before, a chunk of Democrats that year–like they do in every election–crossed party lines and backed Bush. Although you’d like to believe this isn’t so, the fact is the evidence supports this premise.
Hey Duane – no giving clues to an anonymous commenter’s identity. We have a policy here allowing anonymous commenters, and Demagogue explained why he needs to be anonymous. So follow that policy if you’re going to blog here.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Hey Duane – no giving clues to an anonymous commenter’s
> identity. We have a policy here allowing anonymous commenters,
> and Demagogue explained why he needs to be anonymous. So
> follow that policy if you’re going to blog here.
Ummmm … where exactly did I post any clues that revealed “Demagogue’s” true identity? I really don’t give a crap about him. Anybody who makes personal attacks against another person using a pseudonym is a coward and an idiot. He’s already demonstrated that to me.
You addressed him by what appeared to be his first name, which Vern has edited out.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> You addressed him by what appeared to be his first name, which
> Vern has edited out.
If I did that, I apologize.
The G8 summit is to be held in Chicago in May 2012.
Discussion among local business owners, beat cops, and everyday citizens show that most are worried about domestic and international terrorism, extreme civil unrest, and crime waves in the neighborhoods during the event window as the police will likely be otherwise occupied.
Do you think that Rahm and the other Chicago dems will lighten up on the Occupiers after the G8? I think so.
No, Skallywag, why would he? Rahm hates liberals, let alone progressives, let alone Occupiers! He’s as rightwing corporatist as you get in the Democratic Party.
I know from your vantage point we all look the same shade of left, but … from Rahm to Duane there is a whole world, and somewhere within there sanity dwells.
The ordinances they passed were permanent.
Vern: Villaraigosa, kicked the occupy out non-the-less and doesn’t agree with any of their goals at all no matter what bullshit words come out of his mouth. Just open your eyes for once instead of looking so hard to find all the excuses you can to support your favorite political fairy tales, and look at his record as a Marxist youth who grew up to be a corporate whore like most, NOT half, of the leaders in the Democratic Party. And when I say most, I mean like 98 percent; no, make that 99 percent–I like that number better. The worst thing about the Occupy Movement and the reason it will, ultimately, fail (I think it already has) is because of all the democrats in it who suffer from the inability to differentiate between what they want to believe and what is true and don’t really want to have that revolution that the Occupy Movement, at at least in Oakland, alludes to. Vern, don’t get me wrong, you’re a nice person, great performer and even an excellent writer (when your not writing bullshit like what you wrote above), but Duane is the only sane writer on your blog, that I can see.
I too was seduced by Nader in 2000, thinking that the greening of America could ever pick up traction enough to pull us to a kinder, gentler future…tilt away at your windmills Mr. Roberts! Not the sanest position, but admirable in your quest for truth.
My three words are: Register Green Party.
We now have a top two primary system, so in the end for most districts you’re going to have a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. I don’t like that system — in part because I think it’s unfair to third parties — but the voters fell for it so those are now the rules.
So, by all means, register Green if you want to — but in November you’ll have a choice between voting for the better candidate, the worse candidate (if you want to topple society and bring on the revolution or whatever), no candidate, or casting a spoiled ballot — about which no one cares.
And I won’t be voting for a single Democrat or Republican.
Yep the top two is all about wiping out the other parties in favor of the bi party power system.
The republicans blame the Perot party for their lost in 92 and the democrats blame Nader for their lost in 2000.
What need to happen is the two party system be banned for being a controlled cartel.
It seems like we have this whole argument regularly, over and over. So don’t support any Democrats or Republicans, you lefty purists.
Duane’s original story was really about how certain local governments, run by alleged Democrats, have been oppressing Occupiers. I will agree that Occupiers should be pissed at those particular Democrats and work to unseat them. That’s how far I go.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Duane’s original story was really about how certain local governments, run
> by alleged Democrats, have been oppressing Occupiers.
No, these folks aren’t “alleged” Democrats.
They *ARE* Democrats.
So, you will agree to get pissed at them, but you will still vote for them. So there’s nothing they can do that will shake your loyalty, no matter how bad they are, unless they make the relatively minor mistake of becoming Republicans (in name, because they already are in act). Then, you will react with great outrage and vote for the Democrats, as always. And the world keeps spinning, soon off its axis.
My reply was to Vern, not Duane.
No, John. I would NOT vote for Rahm Emanuel, or Jean Quan, or Jose Solorio, or Lou Correa, or any number of other Democrats who don’t share my values even in the slightest.
If someone shares, not all, but most of my values, I would consider voting for them, whether they’re a Democrats or not. Usually they are. (The ones who have half a chance of winning anyway.)
President’s a big deal. Like I said, I want to make sure we don’t have a Republican Presidency again (at least until that party changes a lot.)
Mindless drivel. I’m sure people will buy the assertion that Republicans support the movement. Get real!
Duane is just juvenile and naive, with his purist stand of “both sides are evil so I won’t support either” crap, he discounts the fact that life could get a whole lot worse, a whole lot faster under the republicans.
Yeah, the democrats aren’t perfect, but at least there’s some hope, just wait till he’s living under the republican brand of corporate fascism.
The republicans have not gone after voting rights for nothing. Citizens United puts huge amounts of corporate money in to play (brought to you by Chief Justice Roberts), voter ID’s, voter suppression, unverifiable voting machines, new voter registration rules and going after unions are all ways the republicans are trying to disenfranchise voters, I wonder if Duane can point to a similar effort by the democrats?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830
To a starving man, half a loaf of bread is better than none, I guess Duane is still feelin’ a little too fat and happy.
Yes, we all know that the Democratic Party brand of war, fascism, and starvation is much better.
Yes — Libya was a better war than Iraq, for example.
Remember, you can’t respond to me:
“P.S. And this is my final response to any of the messages you post under this article.”
The Repugnicants are your murderous in-law; the Dimocraps are your abusive spouse. Voting for Dimocraps is like enabling your abuser.
Even though it will cost you your home, your financial support, and your pride in the short term, getting out of this dysfunctional relationship could save all of those things — and your life — in the long-term.
Sometimes things have to get really bad before they get better, and that’s what’s happening here in the USA, with each successive administration, Dimocrap or Repugnicant. Voting for them only lets this losing spiral continue unabated. Let the Repugs back in, let them overstock the Court. It sucks, but that’s the only way the lazy ignoramuses in this nation MIGHT rise up and call an end to this insanity. If they don’t, that’ll only confirm that we are indeed a neoo-fascist corporatocracy ruled by interchangeable figureheads named Pluto and Ollie (as in Plutocracy & Oligarchy). Which will mean we got what we deserve (those of us who choose to stay, that is). Putting off the inevitable — be it enlightenment or further repression — by voting for the less psychotic of two despots won’t get us anywhere any sooner; we’ll just be treading polluted water till we all drown, one by one. I’d rather get tsunami-ed quickly, if that’s what it comes down to.
Meanwhile, I vote my conscience and push for Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, splitting the parties up (all the Progressive Caucus of Dims should agree to leave their party en masse, and all Tea Party Repugs should form THE TEA PARTY — that would be a start), ending the Electoral College, etc.
I hate the insouciant Leninism of the comfortable. Are you one of those who are likely to die if things get worse? If not, don’t call for things to get worse based on the hope that we have a 50%+1 (or greater if necessary) majority out there if we can just arrange for people to get miserable enough. This is the sort of thing that Republicans love for you to say; in fact, they rely on it.
So you just don’t understand the abusive spouse metaphor? You don’t (or won’t) concede that we’re on a downward slope, and Democrats are just making the slide less severe — but the bottoming out no less inevitable?
I may be one who dies at the hands of repressive agents of the states. So be it, as long as too many others refuse to join the more truly progressive amongst us.
I don’t even think that you understand that metaphor, except that you enjoy comparing Democrats to abusive spouses.
If your goal in life is to die nobly, get on with it. But, from my experience, people who speak as you do usually turn out to be poseurs. “Oh, if only everyone would follow my example and my lead, bottoming out would be less inevitable!” How convenient it is for you that that’s untestable. Here’s a suggestion: pick an issue and do something useful about it.
(And with that huge wind-up, you just end up calling yourself “more truly progressive”? I was expecting to hear something a bit more militant.)