A Question for U.S. Comrades

Do you plan on voting in the 2012 election? Why or why not?

No.

I couldn't care less about the inner workings of this republic. In fact, the only thing I'm concerned about is how some com parties are using it.

Conscript wrote:

I couldn't care less about the inner workings of this republic. In fact, the only thing I'm concerned about is how some com parties are using it.

Huh? Can you explain this further?

I'll probably do what I always do. Vote for local Green or SPUSA party candidates and the PSL presidential candidate. But looks like it'll be all Green this year, since the SPUSA lost ballot status in my state.

khlib wrote:

Do you plan on voting in the 2012 election? Why or why not?

I plan on voting, in the election, for all the good it will do, mostly just to take a stand, and stick it to the establishment. The candidate I plan to vote for is Jill Stein, of the Green Party. I favour her, because I feel that among the broadly left-wing candidates, she's the strongest. The more explicitly socialist parties are too fractured, and many, if not most, will not have full ballot access. Also Noam Chomsky has endorsed Jill Stein. http://www.jillstein.org/chomsky So anyway, that's my take. No offense to anyone whom might think differently.

Indigo wrote:

I'll probably do what I always do. Vote for local Green or SPUSA party candidates and the PSL presidential candidate. But looks like it'll be all Green this year, since the SPUSA lost ballot status in my state.

I've been trying to decide whether to do this or to vote for Obama. For me, it basically comes down to long-term vs. short-term goals. In order to break out of the two-party system, it is necessary for a third-party candidate to get enough votes so that in a future election, people don't feel as if they are "throwing away" their votes by voting for him or her. On the other hand, that's not going to happen in this election, and we really cannot afford to have another neo-con in office.

Therefore, I think I'm going to vote for Obama. I am really interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this.

Foreign national, can't vote. However if I could, Id probably do a protest vote for Eugene Debs

In Oklahoma you cannot vote for anyone but Republicans or Democrats and being Oklahoma a vote for Obama is less meaningful than not voting at all. So no I won't.

Voting PSL. I'll probably vote for whoever my union endorses for the non-presidential part of the election.

Quote:

khlib-I've been trying to decide whether to do this or to vote for Obama. For me, it basically comes down to long-term vs. short-term goals. In order to break out of the two-party system, it is necessary for a third-party candidate to get enough votes so that in a future election, people don't feel as if they are "throwing away" their votes by voting for him or her. On the other hand, that's not going to happen in this election, and we really cannot afford to have another neo-con in office. Therefore, I think I'm going to vote for Obama. I am really interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this.

The best response I can give you is this quote from the late Eugene V. Debs.

Quote:

"It's a whole lot better to vote for what you want and not get it than it is to vote for what you don't want and get it."

I sincerely feel that Pres, Obama is little better than the neocon Republicans. For example this article illustrates why Obama is no better than Pres. George W. Bush was, in regards to human rights, and peace. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

lol, how is that a good quote? It's like saying, I want chocolate cake, and I'd rather starve to death than eat that sandwich.

Obama is much better than Bush was when it comes to peace. He is far from what I'd like to see in terms of foreign policy and economics, but to say he is no better than Bush or Romney is a complete joke.

I also suppose you don't care much about the health care and reproductive choices of your female comrades because Obama is undeniably better than Romney on those issues. Many of us cannot afford to be "principled" about the thing and not vote because our ~perfect~ candidate is not on the ballot. We have too much on the line to allow Romney into office.

khlib wrote:

We have too much on the line to allow Romney into office.

Yes... I'm not really sure how any American comrades can be indifferent to the prospect of Romney getting into power.

Actually... given the way the US conducts itself in world affairs, it is far from a matter of indifference to non-American comrades. In point of fact, it would almost seem appropriate if they extended the vote to nationals of any country which is affected by American foreign policy.

Romney operates from precisely the same political position as Obama. And he would follow an identical course. Although there is the likely probability that Romney would be a one-term president as well which would lead to a more viotile social climate here.

khlib wrote:

lol, how is that a good quote? It's like saying, I want chocolate cake, and I'd rather starve to death than eat that sandwich.

It's more like saying it's better to try and fail to get a chocolate cake than to try the significantly easier task of getting a urinal cake.

khlib wrote:

Obama is much better than Bush was when it comes to peace. He is far from what I'd like to see in terms of foreign policy and economics, but to say he is no better than Bush or Romney is a complete joke.

One of Obama's main campaign planks was the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and to crack down on Iran. Not to mention he handled the situation in the Middle East identically to how Bush would have done it. The idea that Obama's a peace president has no basis in fact, and he never pretended otherwise.

I'm not about to vote against the Republicans by voting for Obama. There'll be a neo-liberal in office regardless of who wins.

BTW what happened to all those pro-Ron Paul folks here?
I haven't heard anything about him for quite some time... did he quit or something?

He dropped out of the race a while ago.

Indigo wrote:

One of Obama's main campaign planks was the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and to crack down on Iran. Not to mention he handled the situation in the Middle East identically to how Bush would have done it. The idea that Obama's a peace president has no basis in fact, and he never pretended otherwise.

I remember back when they went to Iraq and everyone said "No Iraq's got nothing to do with it, Afghanistan is where the terrorists are coming from". So now they go to Afghanistan instead and look at the fuss over that.

It seems to me that the difference between Obama and Romney is probably more pronounced in domestic matters than it is in foreign policy.

Indigo wrote:

I'm not about to vote against the Republicans by voting for Obama. There'll be a neo-liberal in office regardless of who wins.

Now, I'm not sure sure if I misunderstand things and you are literally claiming there will be no difference whatsoever between the two; or are you claiming that the differences are so minimal that it isn't even worth the time it takes to vote.

If you think there is any difference between the two (other than new stationery) then the only way this makes sense to me is if you suppose that having Romney as president will push the workers towards developing a true revolutionary consciousness.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Romney operates from precisely the same political position as Obama. And he would follow an identical course.

Really? Identical?

Indigo wrote:

It's more like saying it's better to try and fail to get a chocolate cake than to try the significantly easier task of getting a urinal cake.

No, it's more like trying to get a chocolate cake when there is a .001% of getting it, and failing, when you could have just had a urinal, so instead you end up with a feces-covered, clogged urinal full of used syringes.

khlib wrote:

One of Obama's main campaign planks was the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and to crack down on Iran.

One of Obama's main campaign planks was ending the war in Iraq. But I agree, he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to foreign policy.

Quote:

Not to mention he handled the situation in the Middle East identically to how Bush would have done it.

Source?

Quote:

There'll be a neo-liberal in office regardless of who wins.

True, but no need to have a neocon.

I also noticed that your response to this was conspicuously absent:

khlib wrote:

I also suppose you don't care much about the health care and reproductive choices of your female comrades because Obama is undeniably better than Romney on those issues.

Shigalyov wrote:

It seems to me that the difference between Obama and Romney is probably more pronounced in domestic matters than it is in foreign policy.
Now, I'm not sure sure if I misunderstand things and you are literally claiming there will be no difference whatsoever between the two; or are you claiming that the differences are so minimal that it isn't even worth the time it takes to vote.
If you think there is any difference between the two (other than new stationery) then the only way this makes sense to me is if you suppose that having Romney as president will push the workers towards developing a true revolutionary consciousness.

Yes! Extremely well-put.

Yes identical. The only difference will be in the rhetoric and which party plays at opposition.

I agree that that the biggest difference is in terms of rhetoric, but there are key differences in their stances on reproductive rights, health care reform, and education. I don't know how you can deny that.