Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

A Question for U.S. Comrades

POST REPLY

Do you plan on voting in the 2012 election?

Yes, I plan on voting for Obama.
2
10%
Yes, I plan on voting for Romney.
1
5%
Yes, I plan on voting for a third-party candidate. (Who?)
6
30%
No, I do not plan on voting.
8
40%
Other
3
15%
 
Total votes : 20
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 11 Jun 2012, 16:39
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two were identical, but the differences between the two are superficial at best. Obama's record on healthcare reform and Romney's record on reproductive rights hardly differentiate the two.

khlib wrote:
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.


You're exaggerating the difference between Republicans and Democrats way too much, and just dignifying the two-party system in the process. I'm not going to vote for one of the two wings of the Property Party just because one looks better than the other from a distance. Or are you suggesting that subsisting entirely on urinal cakes is preferable to starving to death?

khlib wrote:
Source?


Common sense. What exactly do you think Bush would've differently? They had the same Defense secretary even.

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


That's because, as I said before, that's a superficial difference between the two. And it certainly isn't a reason to prefer one over the other by itself.

khlib wrote:
True, but no need to have a neocon.


Tomato to-mah-to. That's just a differentiation of liberals from other liberals.

EDIT: 'Nother omission

Quote:
One of Obama's main campaign planks was ending the war in Iraq.


That was an element of his escalation in the war in Afghanistan. I think the actual plank was "Take the war to Al-Qaeda" or "Refocus on Al-Qaeda"; something like that.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Soviet cogitations: 455
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2010, 01:24
Komsomol
Post 11 Jun 2012, 17:20
I don't understand you people It is not like your vote actually mattered or gained some worth just because you have voted on the winning candidate ?
We need to make revolution so our kids wont grow up in corporate prostitution
Sky was the limit. Then the communists came!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 11 Jun 2012, 18:09
Indigo wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two were identical, but the differences between the two are superficial at best.

I agree completely.

Quote:
You're exaggerating the difference between Republicans and Democrats way too much, and just dignifying the two-party system in the process.

No, I am just not buying into the idea that change can come from within the system. A socialist will not be elected, and even if one is, it won't actually change the system. I am not a reformist.

Quote:
Or are you suggesting that subsisting entirely on urinal cakes is preferable to starving to death?

EDIT: no
(Just learned what urinal cakes are)

Quote:
That's because, as I said before, that's a superficial difference between the two. And it certainly isn't a reason to prefer one over the other by itself.

Maybe it's a superficial difference to you because your health isn't on the line. On his first day in office, Romney has vowed to eliminate Title X family planning programs, which provide federal funding for birth control and cancer screenings. Already "Obamacare" has benefited me extremely. If it didn't exist, I'd be without health insurance, but it has allowed me to stay on my parents' plan longer.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 11 Jun 2012, 18:35
khlib wrote:
No, I am just not buying into the idea that change can come from within the system. A socialist will not be elected, and even if one is, it won't actually change the system. I am not a reformist.


Neither am I, but putting actual leftists in office will go a long way to legitimizing socialism in the future. People need to know that there's an alternative to what the Democrats and Republicans have to offer.

khlib wrote:
Maybe it's a superficial difference to you because your health isn't on the line. On his first day in office, Romney has vowed to eliminate Title X family planning programs, which provide federal funding for birth control and cancer screenings. Already "Obamacare" has benefited me extremely. If it didn't exist, I'd be without health insurance, but it has allowed me to stay on my parents' plan longer.


It's not like I haven't benefited from Obamacare, but in the grand scheme of things it has changed very little. Plus, Obama never promised anything remotely close to "universal healthcare". That was just something people made up to convince us he was a socialist. Romney's stance on birth control doesn't change anything because:

a. I'm not a single issue voter. One difference between Obama and Romney doesn't make them different candidates.

b. Chances are he won't even do it, given his record as governor. What he says he'll do to appeal to paleoconservatives and what he'll actually do are two different things. Even if he does try, there's no way he'll follow through with it. Romney was chosen for the same reason that every other candidate of the two major parties is chosen: he's a moderate who won't do anything extreme out of fear.

Also, you never did answer this question

Indigo wrote:
What exactly do you think Bush would've differently?


In regards to his actions in the Middle East.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2012, 18:43
Quote:
Neither am I, but putting actual leftists in office will go a long way to legitimizing socialism in the future.

In what way and how exactly?
I mean i know that this has never happened in America but in Europe (and so on) it's still very common. Though it doesn't seem it did much to legitimize socialism, on the contrary.
:/
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Jun 2012, 02:27
Maybe it's not true for American politics, but one thing which bothers me is that often when the more conservative candidate wins the election it has a tendency to pull the leftish candidate in that direction as well as they try to make up the supposed ground they have lost and presumably appeal to the swinging voters who actually decide these things (when it comes down to it).

I haven't really noticed it working in the opposite direction though, so I'm not sure what the significance of this is.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Jun 2012, 17:59
I'd call it the Overton Window: the politics of the victor of any given election will define the acceptable politics of the following election cycle. Conservative victories means more moderate Democrats in the next election to win back those votes and liberal victories mean more moderate Republicans in the next election. I'm not sure what it's like in Australia, but it works both ways over here.

The rise of the Tea Party and such can be seen as a reaction by other Republicans to the moderation of other Republicans when the Democrats took over the executive and legislature. The Occupy movement in America can be seen as a reaction of Democrats to the moderation of other Democrats when the Republicans took over Congress. Of the two of them, the Tea Party seems to be the one who has been most successful at moving the window back to their direction.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 13 Jun 2012, 02:14
Oh Yeah... I forgot about that term "Overton window".

Unfortunately the "defeat" of Communism has seriously undermined any sort of symmetry that used to exist in that dynamic between the ideas of the left and the right.
Both sides are basically pushing in the same direction now.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 09:53
Quote:
Obama is much better than Bush was when it comes to peace.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Moving troops from one country to another, not closing GITMO, passing laws expanding powers to the wrong people, drone attacks, supporting war efforts in Libya, working with terrorists in Syria, pledging to protect Israel, threatening Iran, Posturing with China, ignoring the borders of Pakistan, the list goes on. You have the audacity to say im going 'all fox news' yet you think this guy is leaps ahead of Bush in *ANYTHING*? Some leftie you are.
Quote:
but to say he is no better than Bush or Romney is a complete joke.

Yeah, I mean it's not like Obama kept a good percentage of advisers Bush had, who kept a fair percentage of advisers Clinton had, etc.
Quote:
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.

Good old social issues, I see the same things right now in my election! When you start struggling to find the differences from your opponent you talk social and draw the line in the sand Social conservatives and ignorant liberals are both stupid enough to buy it unfortunately.
Quote:
I am not a reformist.

>Supporting Obama
>Not a reformist
Pick one.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2012, 15:55
First of all, take a deep breath. I am worried you're going to have a heart attack.

Quote:
Good old social issues, I see the same things right now in my election! When you start struggling to find the differences from your opponent you talk social and draw the line in the sand Social conservatives and ignorant liberals are both stupid enough to buy it unfortunately.

Yes, it's a social issue, but it's one that has a real impact on my life. I am not pretending that Obama is fundamentally different than Romney; I am just saying that surface differences do exist, and I might as well take a half an hour out of my day to maintain some of the rights I currently have.

Quote:
>Supporting Obama
>Not a reformist
Pick one.

Voting for Obama is much different than supporting Obama. I don't think that voting for Obama is going to change the system or replace a socialist revolution. I am actually failing to see your point here, I'm sorry.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 16:20
Quote:
Voting for Obama is much different than supporting Obama. I don't think that voting for Obama is going to change the system or replace a socialist revolution. I am actually failing to see your point here, I'm sorry.

When there's more than one choice, no it isnt. Have some convictions and vote for a reasonable political party that doesnt stomp all your rights in the ground just as much as the 'right wing one.'
"What am I going to do today? Well I think im going to vote for a party that doesnt support my point of view on economics, social issues, and international policy, so when they win they can enact the same things as the other guys on some things, and still screw me on other issues"

Yeah sounds like a logical voting position to me. At least have the conviction to say "im not voting for either of these twats and will either consider another party or not vote at all."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Jun 2012, 17:03
That's not really a fair equivocation when you consider that there are only two parties here that have any reasonable chance of winning the election. A vote for the Democrats isn't necessarily supportive of the Democrats, it's just oppositional to the Republicans. A fortress mentality just makes everything worse.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:49
Just thought I would mention that I saw on CNN that the "Military planning for Syria: contingency plan is ready"

Gotta love how people think Obama is more peaceful.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 15 Jun 2012, 01:32
Indigo wrote:
That's not really a fair equivocation when you consider that there are only two parties here that have any reasonable chance of winning the election. A vote for the Democrats isn't necessarily supportive of the Democrats, it's just oppositional to the Republicans. A fortress mentality just makes everything worse.

I will respond to this claim by asking this question. When was the last time you ever heard of a Whig politician, in the U.S.? Before the Republican Party took it's place, the other party were the Whigs. So why do people think that the Democratic Party could never be likewise replaced, if enough progressives were to leave them for the Greens? I sincerely feel that saying that a third party candidate can never win is a self fulfilled prophecy. Also, I will cite this quote.
Quote:
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.— John Quincy Adams
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Jun 2012, 16:48
Not that I don't agree with you, in fact I agree wholeheartedly, but how does that justify equivocating a vote for Democrats as support for the Democratic Party?
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 238
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 24 Jun 2012, 17:09
Indigo wrote:
Not that I don't agree with you, in fact I agree wholeheartedly, but how does that justify equivocating a vote for Democrats as support for the Democratic Party?

Because the Democratic Party, like all political parties in multi-partisan elected governments, exists to get candidates elected. They really do not care all that much what disagreements people might have with them, just as long as they still dutifully vote for their candidates, against the Republicans. Look, I support those of the Progressive Democrats of America. However, this does not translate to me unconditionally voting for all Democratic candidates. So voting for, and supporting my one senator, Sherrod Brown, yes, casting my vote for the establishment centrist Democrat, Barack Obama, no. I support progressive candidates, both within, and when necessary, outside the Democratic Party.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 27 Jun 2012, 22:32
Yes, but what she was referring to is nothing that resembles voting unconditionally for democratic candidates. There are particular issues for which she is voting for Obama in particular for this particular election. That's not support for the Democratic party.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 02:22
You're right, it isn't support for democrats but support for the concept that Obama is somehow different from Romney. I have noticed a decidedly more aggressive rhetoric coming from Obama lately though. But that's how it was in 2008 as well and look what that got us: expanded imperialism and more attacks on working class people. Or as it's known in America, Business as Usual.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:01
Obama IS different than Romney, albeit in small, superficial ways.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:20
Not in any way that effects the working class.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.