skirtcafe.org

This is a pick up from a thread that ran far off the tracks: After Action Report: in RE: a Meeting on Transgender Rights.

I'm one of those old school types who still believes what I was taught in high school civics. Votes matter. Democracy is such a precious, hard-won gift from our predecessors -- both sides of my heritage btw, my Dad's side are immigrants, my Mom's came over on, yes, the Mayflower -- we have a moral obligation to get informed about our candidates and the issues and then VOTE.

Anyone who thinks this years' elections don't matter, hasn't been paying attention.

There's my take and the old time religion, what's your opinion.

It has come up in other blogs that Dave and I are on opposite sides of the issue as far as candidates are concerned. We have each done our research and are making our choices based on what we feel is best. Who we choose is not the issue here. The important fact is that we are involved We are making our choices and are going to vote. We are all busy and have a million other things to do . You can't have anything to say about the outcome unless you participate. Please get out and vote

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Anyone who thinks this years' elections don't matter, hasn't been paying attention.

There's my take and the old time religion, what's your opinion.

Rather clearly, votes do not matter in the USA any longer else we'd have vastly better candidates than the slackers (there's a pun in there) currently on offer. The sad reality is that the entire system is front-end-loaded by the economic elite so no matter which candidate "wins" the elites get what they want and the electorate loses. By any definition that is not a republic nor a democracy (and recall that the USA is structured as a republic) -- it's an oligarchy, just like Russia at the moment. At least the Russians are honest about it; US citizens continue to get a lie shoved in our faces.

So, "Do votes (or elections, even) count?" In an electoral system with an educated electorate which is capable of making sometimes very nuanced decisions between candidates that have not been pre-selected by a ruling class, most definitely YES. However, take a look at the list of things above that actually matter and enumerate how many are actually present in the USA today. Maybe, just maybe, you'll get one of three; more than likely zero out of three -- and without those above hallmarks, "elections" become shams and all the trappings become nothing more than political circus, which is to say all smoke and no fire.

Does the US have an educated electorate? It depends on what your standards are. Does the US have an electorate capable of distinguishing nuanced statements and concepts that requires reason and critical thought? The number gets smaller. Are the candidates pre-selected before the "main event"? Take a good look and tell me; I already have my opinion.

So, do random votes cast by individuals who haven't studied the situation and the proposed policies count for anything beyond statistical noise? Likely not; statistical noise being what it is. Can they change the outcome of an election? Yes, but the net result will still be a candidate already blessed by the paymasters, hence the answer is, ultimately, "No."

Quite honestly I haven't made up my mind which of the scallywags to vote for -- mainly as an attempt to vote against all of them -- so a write-in is entirely possible. Benito Mussolini is not available to stand, and wouldn't be eligible anyhow, so "Vote Withheld" [0] is a decent contender if I decide to blank the thing. However, there are local questions on the ballot in the state (a Commonwealth, actually, save that the wealth is anything but "common") that are interesting and important, and I shall place my "X" (or "fill in the bubble") according to my thoughts and consideration. If I do opt to select one of the pre-chosen, it'll be with an eye of trying to do the least amount of damage to my fellow man in other nations on Earth, the United States already being lost.

[0] "This Space Intentionally Left Blank" has too many characters to fit in the little tiny space provided.

Ironic.....

Time magazine, Oct. 10 '16, has an article about Russia trying to hack USA's election process. To discredit "democracy".

A lot of what cr is saying may be true. but just a few points. Not to get into a political discussion if anyone is not the choice of the ruling elite its trump If you want to throw away your presidential vote and do a write in that's your business . but at least pay attention to your local candidates. While everybody is in it for themselves and what we the people need is an also ran. The control of the house and senate does have an overall effect on the president.
One very important point. I don't want to get into a discussion about the supposed independence of the supreme court. However who ever gets elected will pick two maybe three supreme court justices. who they are and what they stand for will have a major effect on the future of America.

oldsalt1 wrote:I don't want to get into a discussion about the supposed independence of the supreme court.

It hasn't been intellectually independent -- or intelligent -- in 35 years. It's packed with ideologues now, and that's likely the way it will remain.

However who ever gets elected will pick two maybe three supreme court justices. who they are and what they stand for will have a major effect on the future of America.

This facet scares me, and scares me all the worse because I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever candidate "wins" it may be a short reign, and the line of succession of both "major parties" leads directly to religious extremists in one shot.

The next eight years are going to be extraordinarily dangerous for the planet and will, in all likelihood, finish off the USA as a viable nation. Certainly the middle class will disappear. The question is whether the death-throes will manifest by the USA lashing out externally or internally. (Signs of the latter are already being seen.)

I so hate to discuss politics but I respectfully disagree with Carl. Which is very rare so mark the calendar. One of the candidates was picked by the elites as evidenced by the revelations from Wikileaks that the party shut out a credible popular candidate who had a chance at the nomination. On the other side, the choice of the elites was not nominated and in fact that party is very fractured right now. In that case, the people have spoken and got their choice.

Brad wrote:I so hate to discuss politics but I respectfully disagree with Carl. Which is very rare so mark the calendar.

And allow me to raise a pint in your direction in celebration!

On the other side, the choice of the elites was not nominated and in fact that party is very fractured right now. In that case, the people have spoken and got their choice.

I've been trying to reconcile the model I've been using to predict where things are going and have been hard-pressed to find an allowance for what happened to the Republican Party. The only thing I can conceive of is that while it was useful for a few decades to the elites it's "outlived its usefulness" and has been cast aside as refuse; that might explain its otherwise inexplicable behaviour. The Taleban were useful for a while, and got a lot of enabling-legislation shoved through that has produced the modern electorate, but once that was done, what's the point on hanging onto it. In this, I suspect the elites pulled the plug and the Party did something rather akin to what a chicken does when its head has been chopped off.

What utterly baffles me is why the Anointed One chose a religious extremist as her VP unless it was as a "life insurance policy" (like Dan Quayle to Bush Sr.) or why she was allowed to.

Most of my inner circle thinks I'm slightly mad, although they do admit that I'm better at calling things in advance than they are, and think that the system is completely out of control. However, I never saw what the Republican Party did coming, even though some of the machinations made sense in the overall context.

Bizarre.

We are indeed living that ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

crfriend wrote:The next eight years are going to be extraordinarily dangerous for the planet and will, in all likelihood, finish off the USA as a viable nation. Certainly the middle class will disappear. The question is whether the death-throes will manifest by the USA lashing out externally or internally. (Signs of the latter are already being seen.)

Or, possibly, somebody might lash out at us. Candidates: China, North Korea, Iran.

Grok wrote:Or, possibly, somebody might lash out at us. Candidates: China, North Korea, Iran.

Of the ones listed, only China can hit the USA in any meaningful way. North Korea almost has nukes, but no reliable delivery mechanism; Iran at the moment has neither, no matter how much Israel is foaming at the mouth, and is pursuing an obsolete technology anyway if they're trying to build a nuke.

If it comes down to "cyberwar" then the Chinese won years ago since they manufacture most of the communications gear and most of the computers that the USA now depends on. Two words: "Game Over".

crfriend wrote:

Grok wrote:Or, possibly, somebody might lash out at us. Candidates: China, North Korea, Iran.

Of the ones listed, only China can hit the USA in any meaningful way. North Korea almost has nukes, but no reliable delivery mechanism; Iran at the moment has neither, no matter how much Israel is foaming at the mouth, and is pursuing an obsolete technology anyway if they're trying to build a nuke.

If it comes down to "cyberwar" then the Chinese won years ago since they manufacture most of the communications gear and most of the computers that the USA now depends on. Two words: "Game Over".

China is likely to take over everything - economically. I believe it is only a matter of time (it's already started) before their internal consumer market influences the external pricing of goods. When the internal demand reaches critical mass, those consumer goods that we no longer manufacture because China did so more cheaply will become more expensive; we'll have no capability of mass manufacture simply because we've dismantled the facilities and eradicated the knowledge. We'll slowly become economically deprived.

It is doubtful Iran will do anything. They do a lot of posturing, but the people and régime are generally only anti-West (leaning) because of our historic meddlesome interference in their internal politics. Their culture is ancient reaching; remember, even Islam is "relatively new" to them. Other countries in the region pose more of a threat.

But North Korea is an entirely different prospect. They don't have a reliable delivery system, YET! It's a matter of time; not if, but when. Then be worried; the Chinese likely are. Kim Jong-un is an old style dictator - utterly ruthless with opponents, internal or external, and ever-so-slightly "unhinged". There are few countries I really worry about; N.K. tops the list. And I think Israel should join it.

Now, you might ask, why Israel? Well, simply because they are a relatively small nation who use quite belligerent attitudes towards their neighbours safe in the knowledge that they have a very big friend they are able to manipulate to their cause - sorry guys, but it's you in the U.S. Whilst we permit them to act like the "spoilt brat", negotiations for peace in the area are moribund. Negotiation is a process of tradeoffs; not a set of demands. It is known they have useable nuclear weapons, and they have form for preemptive action. [Please note, my concern is about the state, which differs from the religion, although they seem synonymous]

If any African state properly organises itself (think Zimbabwe or similar) there might be potential, but it's likely decades before they reach critical mass.

So, let the mayhem begin!

Do votes matter...?

A somewhat complicated question with a complicated answer, at least on the national and to some degree the state level.

Ever since I have been old enough to vote and follow politics to some degree, and the older I have gotten, I have realized that with each passing election, no candidate from either party represents enough of my core values to make me feel good about voting for them. Which is why I've voted third party for all but two major elections. In recent years I've learned that due to brainwashing, media bias, etc the culture of our nation is basically rigged against any third party candidate winning. With the matter of the electoral college, should both canidates enter into a tie vote, the congress decides the next president. If that should happen did our vote matter?

Consider the Gore/Bush campaign where Gore won the popular vote, yet Bush was our next president. That was a very tight vote, separated by a mere 543,893 voters, about the size of a medium city with Al Gore the popular victor. Did those votes matter? To me, it seems that logically those half a million voters could have just stayed home and Bush would have won anyway.

I'm of the opinion that national campaign votes matter to the extent that they take the political pulse of the U.S. as a nation, but serve no real purpose in electing a leader. Our leaders are hand picked long before the enter the campaign trail. Although I will admit, Trump has gone against the grain. I believe Trump genuinely wants what he believes is "best" for our nation. That being said, I don't think he knows what he's doing. He's used to getting his way, and not compromising. That's fine and dandy for a big time businessman, but not for an elected leader of a free state where the rights and privileges of ALL have to be protected, not just those in the majority. That's the true meaning behind our republic. While his heart may be in the right place, he'll have us in a Nuclear WWIII within a year. Between the two, Clinton is probably the safer bet, just don't expect her to do much for our demographic (that being men). She'll basically be Obama's third term. I expect healthcare will continue to crumble as from the debate she seems to be perfectly fine with "Obamacare" and our "employer based - for profit system" *SPIT* She'll silence the race wars and focus our attention on the issues of the next four years. I expect a raise in minimum wage, I expect a big push for "women's advantage" as the pendulum will take a good hard swing towards misandrist ideals, and it will probably suck to be a poor to low middle class man during her rein. If you've ever had homosexual thoughts, the next four years might be a good time to experiment if she wins. Avoid women. It might help "men in skirts" but only for the sake of promoting the feminist and possibly the LGBT agenda. Sorry Carl, better luck next go round...

Regarding the supreme court appointees. I don't want Republican justices, I don't want Democratic justices. I want justices that rule based on the letter of the constitution of our nation- point blank. I find it disgraceful that we have a partisan high court. That being said, I have an interest in justices that are more liberal minded, though I disagree with the notion on principle, it would be better than mandatory Protestantism imposed on everyone. Although I will admit that Trump may surprise us yet.

So once we weigh the historically proven fact that the popular vote doesn't matter, and when we consider how rigged our two party system is and the media that brainwashes the masses into thinking there is no other choice, then couple that with the issue that there really isn't anyone worth voting for this go round, than I am left to conclude that as far as this presidential election goes... no, It doesn't matter. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote. Hell I might even just go ahead and give one of the two circus masters my vote, but I won't think for a second that it would have made a bit of difference. Voting literally takes about 10 minutes by the time you stand in line and what not... and it gives me a bonafide license to complain for the next four years about everything. So yeah... I'll do it.

Congressional votes to me matter more. The only downside is they only play one very small part of the over all scheme of things on capital hill. Unfortunately, Morgan Griffith has this district completely tied up. The fact that he's a Salemite (a derogatory term for residents of Salem VA... Salem people are snooty.. nobody likes them) doesn't seem to sway the red voters of the coal fields. They view anyone bearing the "D" label as a direct threat on their quality of life. Rich Boucher was the exception, and held the post for about three decades. He, however was Abingdon born and raised and was a coal field "good old boy", in addition to a strong incumbent. Not even a republican could beat Boucher, and the only reason Griffith got it was because Boucher retired and didn't run again. There is a little bit of controversy there as Salem VA wasn't in district 9 until they redrew the lines. Those lines weren't redrawn until after the election I believe, resulting in a bit of a snafu. He swooped in and swindled the seat, and now we can't get rid of him.... Salem VA is NOT Virginia coal country, and is not "real" southwest VA. I don't care what wikipedia says.

But he did shake my hand once at the Pulaski polling station a few years ago. So that was nice. It proves to me that while we may not agree on everything, but somewhere in there lives a human being with a warm pulse.

Outside of that there is Virginia's Governor race, which I believe is a smaller version of the presidential race, just a smaller elite (state level) choosing those people. And we've had some interesting Governors! Virginia is known for some weird laws, and our Governors don't disappoint. From shutting down the state government, our rest stops, etc, to 2 billion dollars just suddenly "showing up" somewhere. Combined with the ethics issues, and conspiracies, they keep our newspapers full of content. Never a dull moment in Richmond.. no sir. The general assembly elections are a little more down home. Although I was disappointed to see Carrico running unopposed last election. I have followed some of his policy in the paper up until that point... I was NOT impressed. That man would have us burning witches again if we'd let him. And as far as any minority interest... LGBT... women, immigration, blacks... etc, FORGET IT. He's down home white Protestant, Republican, holier than thou, it's "Gods way or the highway" kind of man, makes Ted Cruz look like a Satanist. Total Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee material. My mouth soured with the idea of voting for that ass, and I gladly wrote someone in. They'll probably name a highway after him, and I'll be sure to deface the road marker and piss on it at every opportunity.

Then we move a notch inward to the county B.O.S. (board of supervisors), Sheriff, County Clerk, Commissioner of the Revenue. The people don't elect judges in Virginia. I believe the General Assembly elects them. I actually... kind of agree with that. By having our judges elected at the blanket state level by elected representatives, I believe it has helped the state from becoming a "Boss Hog" type of place locally. The last Sheriffs race was pretty hot, and there was a lot of big law enforcement issues on the table. The big issue was Sheriff Newman engaging in a (legal) program offered by the state to allow for Deputies to run radar on the interstate (I81) on overtime and Sheriffs office gets to keep the money raised from the tickets. Newman campaigned that this helped fund the department and reduce the amount of money needed from the county budget to offer better law enforcement protections. His opponent Andis, campaigned on the premise of less radar to fund the department (he was a hit with motorist and those who have a lead foot), and that all sounds fine and well, but I read the fine print in the paper, he plans to make up for that by means of civil forfeiture! WOAH! PUT ON THE BRAKES! Moon Shadow DON'T DO CIVIL FORFEITURE! The very notion of it makes my blood curdle. I'll save my feelings on civil forfeiture for another thread, but suffice it to say... I voted for Newman. And Newman won!

We then get down to the local city/town elections. And since I live just 20 feet outside of the town limit, I have no vote in Damascus town elections. But that's okay... I also am not subject to Damascus town taxes... which are the highest in Washington county. But if I lived in town, you betcha I'd be there voting for the leaders of the little 800 person town.

I believe local elections matter most!

Oh.... and yes I plan to vote in a skirt... a very feminine one. And I hope there are LOTS of Republican cheerleaders standing around when I do!

What would be really interesting is if the vote is so close that we have a repeat of 2000, only this time Clinton carries the electoral college and Trump carries the popular vote.

Clinton would win and "red America" erupts in a political firestorm!

All states have gone away from punch card chad's right?

Well, I started this last night on the other thread, and since this is here, I'll go ahead and post it.

From my readings it seems likely that many don't bother voting because it isn't worth voting for any of what I've seen called the Democans, the Republocrats, or even the Boot on Your Neck Party. The Libertarians seem to have practically zero chance of winning a major seat, and for President this election have apparently fielded the worst ticket in their history.

It may be that the choices in the coming US presidential election are something close to the path to Brave New World, and the path to violent revolution. For the world I'd like to live in, I think I'd rather risk the latter than the former. Though it seems those who have both willingness and the ability to pull off violent revolution are more distrustful of the former candidate than the latter. Moonshadow, interesting thought on the outcome. Don't expect my jaw to drop if it happens


I am also aware of some who hold voting on a similar moral level as shooting a gun. There's a layer or several of indirection in voting, but I haven't found a hole in their logic yet. If you want to try, you can build the chain yourself easily enough. Just take any law you like (it's clearest with the malum prohibitum laws), and do as my signature suggests until you reach an individual who intrinsically has the right.

You can look up the question (in a traditional English format, not my Unix command form), but I've intentionally not carried the logic through here because I first read it laid out, and I'm curious to see if folk who haven't read it like that reach the same conclusion.

Oh, I should note that those folks take no issue with voting in a voluntary organization of any kind where the members can walk out - and there better be somewhere to walk to. If those groups find voting a convenient option to handle internal affairs, that's perfectly fine.

[quote="moonshadow"]Do votes matter...?

Regarding the supreme court appointees. I don't want Republican justices, I don't want Democratic justices. I want justices that rule based on the letter of the constitution of our nation- point blank. I find it disgraceful that we have a partisan high court. That being said, I have an interest in justices that are more liberal minded, though I disagree with the notion on principle, it would be better than mandatory Protestantism imposed on everyone. Although I will admit that Trump may surprise us yet.

If you want justices that rule on the letter of the constitution the last thing you want is democratic appointees. If Hillary gets in and she appoints a liberal democrat to the court. In a very short time the constitution as we know will cease to exist. The job of the supreme court is to rule on cases based on what is written in the constitution not adjust the constitution to what is fits in the current social climate.
I do not like to foster conspiracy theories but no way do I believe that a certain recent death was self inflicted