You think you guys are impotent? Imagine how us non-US citizens feel.

I dunno I tried to vote my choice in 2000 and that resulted (maybe, who knows) in a fuckwad hell show. So yeah not throwing my vote away in 2012, not that there's anyone running I'd even touch. Not helping any of the lunatic religious hate mongers get any closer to the White House.

I think we agree that if Bernie was running it would be a different bag. I want new Norman Thomas.

I'm curious about how the non-USAians would view a significant left protest vote. I'm tempted to because I think the Democratic Party needs to get pulled to the left, HARD, so there can be some balance in our political system again, but for that to happen a protest vote needs to genuinely scare them and risk Obama's chances in 2012. At the same time, I, in common with the rest of the thinking world, would rather suck it up and deal with the disappointment than see any of the Republican candidates in the White House. Right now the Democrats are banking on inertia among Democrat voters and apathy among Republicans.

I'm glad the Occupy movement isn't fielding a candidate; I think that way lies impotence for the Occupations. Their strength right now lies outside party politics.

Whether I use my protest vote depends on who the Republican nominee is and whether they have a hope of winning California.

From my extreme left-wing point of view, Obama is better than any of the Republicans running. 

He isn't, however, better than, say, Nixon was in 1968 or 1972.  And he isn't any sort of liberal.

Which I think is part of the point of the Occupy movement, and the larger anti-capitalist/anti-corruption/anti-elite movements worldwide.  If government is so corrupt that people can't enact progressive change through their voting behavior, they'll work for the progressive change they can where they can, including on the local level and in their personal lives.  And protest to make clear to the powers that be -- and their fellow citizens -- that they're not happy with the existing situation.  And try to educate people.  And so forth.

If you can't count on government to enact the reforms you want and need, and you can't count on Obama to be a good Daddy and the Democrats to be good progressives, start making those changes for yourself, to the extent you can, individually and collectively.  Attend a protest.  Move your money from a bank to a credit union.  Try to move the dialogue from austerity to inequality.

I have to admit, I never thought I'd see the rise of a progressive, grassroots anarchist movement in my lifetime.  And I think this spring (when it gets warm again) and summer (when students are off from school) will be very, very interesting. 

I wonder how it will interact and intersect with the Presidential election.

XK...did you vote for Nader, too?

I'm really not excited about voting for Obama, but none of the third-party candidates seem like they could really make any difference as long as we have a two-party congress/senate. I kind of wish Dennis Kucinich would leave the Democratic party and run as a third party candidate. I'de vote for him in a heartbeat.

There's no functional left in this country, let alone far left.

Yeah, Jaynova, I used my shiny bright eyed hope lever at the slot machines and got Bush in the office for 9/11. WHEEE!

One of the things that I've been starting to believe is that who the POTUS is only sort of matters—I used to think the POTUS steers the ship, but it's more like they randomly bump the wheel every couple of hours. No matter who gets into office they can either fuck things up royally or fuck things up marginally, and the way our system is designed (and run by corporations) it's very hard for them to only fuck things up marginally—that would require bumping the wheel in such a way that the bumps average out to a roughly non-disastrous heading.

Looking at the clutch of insaniacs in the Republican camp, if I had the vote I'd do anything to keep all of them out of office.

@Grotto Yeah I think we need to re elect Obama and then spend the next 4 years getting a left of center uprising.

Works for me.

While we're at it, I want an actual pro Science pro Education party.

I get email from both parties.

Here's an interesting comparison of today's:

GOP says:

"As we enter a critical election year, the eyes of the nation will soon turn to the battleground state of New Hampshire.  You
can help the NH GOP advance conservative solutions to cut spending, fix
our broken tax code, and stop excessive government regulations with an
immediate contribution of $500, $250, $100 or $50 today. "


The DCCC says:



"With just 48
hours to go, we’re $122,211 away from our year-end goal of $1 million in
grassroots donations to hold Republicans accountable.

Will you join me and commit to 2012? A group of committed Democrats will triple-match your gift.


The Tea Party had their chance to lead, and they have proved they are incapable of moving our country forward.


In 2012, the American people will have the chance to put Democrats back
in charge. We must report a strong showing to prove that Democrats are
in a position to re-elect President Obama and win the Majority.

Join the movement: Commit to 2012 >>"

so basically everybody just wants our money.  as if they didn't already have enough. 

also, i see i have been an idiot and posted in the wrong thread.  xk, can you move my post on the NDAA to the blood boiling thread? please and thank you.

i too voted for nader in 2000.  i still think bush would have won no matter who i voted for, but at least i voted my conscience.

i'm torn between the cynical me that thinks voting doesn't do anything anyways and the optimist me that wants to believe it can.

Epona said: i'm torn between the cynical me that thinks voting doesn't do anything anyways and the optimist me that wants to believe it can.

Depends on what you want your vote to do. If you want radical change, then I don't know that voting will do that. As other's have pointed out, there aren't two parties, there's only the one, the great, the Corporate Party. It's the same here in the UK and in most countries in Europe. There are different solutions to this in different places - but common to these is the need for a popular change of heart accompanied by mass action. I'm not talking civil war, I'm talking about people voting not just with ballots, but with feet, wallets, computers and every other asset they have. I'm not optimistic that this is gonna happen. People fear the unknown even if the status quo is miserable. That leads to justification and defense of the system - it's a mess, but it's our mess. Which leads to popular apathy, or worse.

I should add that I've made the choice to not vote (except in referendums, but there's only been one of those in my lifetime in my home country). Not because I don't believe that voting can't change anything - it can, within the narrow parameters inherent to the current power configuration - but because it won't change the system. And the system needs changing.

Epona said: also, i see i have been an idiot and posted in the wrong thread. xk, can you move my post on the NDAA to the blood boiling thread? please and thank you.

Er, not sure if I can without breaking things? Do you want me to delete this one and you can repost elsewhere? That would work.

XK said: Do you want me to delete this one and you can repost elsewhere? That would work.

yes please to not look like a fool in front of the smart meats!

more bits of badness from paul, this time from a book he wrote.

I just got told on another website that if I believe in equality I should vote for Ron Paul because after all he said all that bad stuff a long time ago and everyone is, I guess, equally deserving of forgiveness and therefore... equally deserving of my vote for President.

RonPaulines, if I hold my nose and vote for Obama again it will be BECAUSE OF YOU. Probably.

after allowing myself to get too personally upset after heated discussions on the internets, which caused me to drop off the face of the planet for a few weeks, i've decided i can only handle discussing politics with select people i know, and here.

Evan- Nixon > Obama... ouch dude. Ouch... and you ain't wrong.

Well, as much as Obama is not the shining knight on the unicorn everyone hoped for, he's still a better option than anything else. Especially any more of this Tea Party stupidity festival.


I mean shit yo, it's bad enough my neo con parental unit left the GOP to be a registered Independent.  That's CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER stuff right there.

So yeah, since Evan approved my master plan upthread I'm sticking to it. Obama buys us 4 more years and we work on getting a functional left, actual left, party on the dance floor. Occupy needs to mobilize a leftest equality voting block.

That would involve getting lefties to agree on anything.  Right-wingers have the advantage of totally disposable principles. They'll compromise on literally anything if it gets them into power.  Left-wingers end up spending months hopelessly deadlocked over whether fairtrade chocolate is more or less acceptable than carob.

Isaac Bonewits used to advocate mass magical workings to keep the GOP out of power and to push the Dems left. Of course, I happened across all this outside of an election year and the last time the page claims it was updated was almost 3 years ago (the original text dates from 1994), but it's still an interesting idea.

Well, Bonewits passed on last August, so it wouldn't be upgraded for the latest election cycle, no. :/

-E-

A sad loss.  I've become pretty disenchanted with magic as a political tool over the years, but I totally want to do something this year as a sort of memorial.

i know i am sort of new here, so maybe you have tried this before, but has there been a liminal nation group ritual?   i for one would be willing to get up at some ungodly GMT hour to ensure our country pushes left.  is there interest in this?

>gets popcorn<

GL had a thread going in which peeps listed what rituals they were doing for 2008 race themselves, but no, we've never done a thing together.


Unless you count what we do drinking in London during LN Meetups. We could all pile over there again for in person-ness.

You might want to take a look at that previous discussion here.

As I previously said, it seems to me that the most effective magical actions one could take to affect the election aren't necessarily traditional magical workings.

Twitterfeed link to Feministing article about Obama and NDAA. I think it is relevant to the 2012 election.

::nods::  evan i agree with you, and i do what i can on all fronts, so why not this one?  i was wondering how powerful it might be if all the brilliant people on this list were to focus their wills simultaneously.

It would be like the Hellfire Club, only with proper DJ's, healthy food, and a weight lifting room across from the dojo. Magicians' duels would involve fast thumbing through crates of vintage albums and getting the best table at the local pub. Also regular craft nights and wild foraging excursions. Would need a lot of hammocks and ice cube trays.

Don't forget cocktails.  Unless they're included in healthy food and ice cube trays.

Yes, was intended in the ice cube tray ref. Nap time would be a National Holiday. Special viewing rooms for sharing new shows, new releases of comicbooks, and anime/manga.

I have no idea where we would find the time to run the World, really.

That's what you build an egregore for.

also, i really can't wait for this election to be over, so i can stop getting sucked in to arguments with randian paulites and internet libertarians.

XK said: I have no idea where we would find the time to run the World, really.

eleraama said: That's what you build an egregore for.

Wouldn't an egregore be too busy taking care of *us*?

Maybe a collection of well-programmed servitors would be more practical? We can send them around to control the heads of state like those shadow monsters in Babylon 5, only nicer.

-E-

Epona said: so i can stop getting sucked in to arguments with randian paulites and internet libertarians.

I have fallen back on asking 'Do you think everyone in America should have access to free basic food, shelter, medical care, and education' waiting for them to agree and then saying 'I'm glad we agree'. If they don't agree with this than I stop talking to them online. Anyone who doesn't already think basic human necessities should be freely accessible requires more of a long term exposure to compassion than the internet allows. It's like a flow chart, get beyond that and we can talk about charity outreach versus State care etc, but if it lands on 'no' it's pretty much over.

If someone responded "no" to that I'd just have the hardest time thinking of them as reachable or educable, even with face-to-face contact and unlimited resources of time and patience.  I think a lack of compassion doesn't even cover it -- you'd need actual malice towards others to want to withhold those things. 

I've met a fair number of 'Mericans who have been taught the bootstrap myth of equality to the extent that they don't think it is possible for a non lazy person to be in need of those things from others. One has to hand hold them through the list of IRL examples of elderly, disabled, orphaned, and 'shit happens to good people'.  It's not malice as much as under the yoke of a scarcity model that paints everyone else as freeloaders.

I was reading Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' before giving it to one of my Ron Paul lovin' friends (good disability and race stuff for the time, icky sexist heteronormative ickies) and he uses his TANSTAAFL thing all over the place. Which, logically, someone has to use resources to pay for lunch yes, but ethically we should be all willing to share some amount of resources with other humans in need. Not sharing out of fear of not having enough is different from out right malice.

What kills me is all these people who are afraid of the 'feral underclass' but not picking up pitchforks about the 'vampiric overlords'.  Pay for a military = of course, but pay for the old lady down the street's heart pills,  heavens no! People worry that a parasitic dependent will graft onto them.

For being a dodgy old cryptofascist, Heinlein is pretty d. about some things.

Yeah, I'd like to think he's a bridge between certain flavors of left and right ideologies. Maybe step 4 or 5 on the transition scale.

I've been finding him very helpful myself, when building bridges with more conservative folks than myself.

XK said: I've met a fair number of 'Mericans who have been taught the bootstrap myth of equality to the extent that they don't think it is possible for a non lazy person to be in need of those things from others.

Alas, this is very much my experience as well. To the point where I really just wouldn't expect anyone I was talking to to automatically agree with the statement that everyone deserves

free access to basic needs. My immediate thought was "Well, I agree with that, but it's certainly highly debatable..." which tells me I know too many people like XK is describing - even well-educated people, but thoroughly Libertarian people who aren't really grokking how money is a privilege, not a guaranteed right, and thus requiring money is requiring privilege.

-E-

Eeurgh. I actually used to be one of those people, which makes me wince. * shamefaced *

I have much Malice towards the human race in general, and individual humans in specific and I still think they should have access to basics.

I've too much time clocked on Buddhist compassion training now not to think first about how people's default setting is their own lack of what they desire. Hungry ghosts of the past howling in the ears of frightened children posturing at each other. It's hard to stay angry when you see that.

One of my dear friends does mental health social work across most  social classes of the local area. Very smart kind man. He tells me they only time he's ever been in the presence of human evil is the narcissistic complex diagnosis patients and says they absolutely do not have any awareness of other beings' suffering. Pretty rare to run into, thankfully.

I guess it's a knife's edge. Social services cost money. "Free"=Taxes, and people don't want to pay those, especially the people who actually have money... From an outsider's point of view, it seems like "libertarians" are mainly people with money who are terrified of a government with the audacity to ask them to share...

Take the notion of basic "rights": Food, Shelter, access to health care. These should be rights, and they should be free (imho). However, our mentality of ownership and privilege get in the way of providing these rights to the masses.

I consider myself to be well read, and in my readings i've learned that the concept of a food-shortage is largely artificial: Trade-laws, quotas, patents, etc... ensure that those in control of food production create a false scarcity in order to maximize profits. To fairly distribute food so that the hungry are fed boils down to wealth vs. needs, with the poor getting the short end of the stick. Countries that try to nationalize food production are demonized by Western Powers who act in favor large corporations like Monsanto and Haliburton who are trying to monopolize production as a means for power and control (I'll stop before I slip into conspiracy territory...)

Shelter boils down to property and land ownership - If the land is all snatched up, the rich become Land Lords (basic feudalism) and the poor are forced into indebted servitude. Even home "owners" can be co-opted out of their property if it stands between larger institutions and their profits...

Healthcare and Medicine is a (huge) business, and the American drive towards protecting "intellectual property" ensures that R&D is done more for profit with the concept of actual healthcare being placed on the back-burner, only to be provided to those with the wealth to afford it. (Currently my thinking is being coloured by the documentary "RIP - A Remix Manifesto", where the artist Girltalk talks about how patents which are owned and protected prevent the sharing of ideas which could conceivably lead to medical breakthroughs...) For basic healthcare to be free means raising taxes as well as putting the onus on the medical companies to kick in their share, and that seems to go against the grain of current political thought. And unfortunately, charitable organizations seem to be too huge; lumbering beasts bogged down by bureaucracy to be *truly* effective, although there are certainly *some* who manage to do some good.

I apologize for taking a simplistic view of these things, for framing all the problems into have/have-not perspective, but it's how I tend to see these problems. Money ends up being the decider.

Am I wrong in seeing "Libertarianism" as just being a vehicle to ensure that those who already have wealth and power keep their wealth and power? I mean, from the outside looking in, there are some things that these people seem to have right, like getting rid of the Federal Reserve (imo), but in the end, it seems that they will end up strengthening a fascist system: by reducing the power of the Government to limit the power of large corporations. (not that non-libertarian governments don't actively attempt to strengthen said corporations)

I still like Obama, but feel like he's made serious mistakes in his appointments, and that ever since he's obtained his office he's been hamstrung by both the Republicans and his own party.

And heaven help America if Santorum gained power...

Here in Canada I see our social systems eroding - Healthcare is sliding, food costs are going up, people in need are having a more difficult time getting assistance... Under our current conservative government we are becoming more in-step with American corporatism, and your election will be a huge indicator of where we are heading.

Again, I apologize for being simplistic; I know I tend to write more on the emotional side of my world-view rather than the logical - I would love for someone to point out to me where I am clouded and outright wrong in my thinking on American politics and the rise of the right, and libertarianism in particular. Maybe I'm also preaching to the choir.

Do you Americans see an obvious choice in the coming election? A way out of the morass?

freektemple said: Do you Americans see an obvious choice in the coming election? A way out of the morass?

No, not really.


At this juncture, I think the 2012 election is going to be Obama/someone other than Biden (Clinton?) vs Romney/Santorum.


Romney's definitely going to pick someone on the wingnut end as a running mate, I think. Same as McCain/Palin. And he'll probably learn from McCain that HE has to be the charismatic one, not the veep, or else disaster will follow.

I simply cannot contemplate the rightward slide of Canada... it's just too much.

 

Also buddhist compassion pisses me right the fuck off. I know it's well meant sometimes, but when it's done with just the right amount of smug I wanna uppercut the perpetrator to check to see if they really aren't identifying with the self I just knocked the fuckout.

All of it? Shit, you're knee deep in New Age Bullies then. None of my ex junkie ex bruiser ex loser sangha  waxes smug (except for their baking results, I have spotted smug over cheesecake and cupcakes reactions before) about other people's suffering.

Smug Buddhists must be like Wealthy Christians in that 'DOING IT WRONG' way, then.