It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The politics of self-responsibility

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

I am glad you clarified this. I was afraid you were saying that it didnt matter at all who won, so we should just give up and go on with our lives regardless.

I do agree that we should go on with our lives and not sit around crying regardless who wins.

I do think the answer is move decisively, whether you are guaranteed that your candidate will win or not, into voting outside the 2 party system. (as you clarified here) Encourage others to vote their conscience, regardless who that is, and try to break the cycle of "your vote only counts if you vote x or y." I agree that voting the lesser of two evils is a wasted vote. Have hope, be brave, vote for the person who you really feel is best. Dont worry about being on the winning team, be willing to take a stand for what YOU think is right.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am sure you know that there are those (Republicans) who would ask that you prove this.

Yes. And all I can say is that I'm not interested in proving that to anyone. I'm kind of saying what's in MY head, what I believe, and looking at my alternatives. I have no interest in arguing with the Republicans who think George Bush was elected fair and square. They can think that if they want.

Could there be collusion at high levels with the illusion of a two party system maintained but with there in fact being ONE agenda that is being furthered by both parties playing a "good cop/bad cop" game with us?

Absolutely! That is definitely possible. There is some evidence of this (Nancy Pelosi, for one). But that's not proof. It's also possible that people in Congress have been threatened with the lives of their loved ones unless they toe a certain line. Another possibility, There are MANY possibilities. But to settle on one simply because "it seems like maybe" isn't good enough for me.

When the Democrats gain power are the supposedly distasteful Republican policies done away with? (Patriot Act) Or new policies implemented that prevent this sort of fraud? (Or reform campaign finance in a meaningful way, or switch us to another form of electoral system, of which there are many that are thought to be more representative of the will of people, (run off voting, etc)

Not so far. But I do believe a checks and balances system is in place. The Democrats have only had Congress for a couple years. And without a president to back them and support them, they can't really do much. Bush is a criminal and above the law right now. If not, he'd be in jail. Other possibilities are that Congress is being PAID to maintain the status quo. Once BushCo (and I mean McCain, Cheney, Rove, et al) are OUT, then MAYBE some progress can be made. Like I said in my "Change" thread. I don't expect the boat to be turned around immediately. That takes time. But I expect progress. And if Bush wasn't breaking the law, I think we might have seen some change.

IF the two main candidates indeed are hand selected to support the same basic agenda with only minor variations to maintain the illusion of difference and choice, you have really wasted your vote.

IF. That's a big IF. What if they're not? And what if I vote for Ron Paul to send a message and Obama loses, and McBush has another 8 years, during which, the government becomes more and more corrupt?

Then I have screwed up.

Even if you "throw your vote away" on Ron Paul, and he only gets a marginally higher percentage of the votes but does not win, it sends a message that we are on to the game.

If your scenario above is true, then do you think they'll care about the message we send? If the two people are preselected to support a particular agenda, do you really think they're going to be shaken by what the people are saying? If your scenario is true, any incremental change made by us voting for Ron Paul is NOT going to matter in the future. It's only going to get worse. If your scenario is true, they already have us by the short and curlies. By the next election, 2012, it won't matter WHAT the people want. Or who voted for whom.

If your scenario is true, there's only ONE way that the people are going to change it. And it's not by voting.

Our country hasnt been stolen in one swift move, that would have been illegal and failed, it has been done incrementally. We arent going to get it back in one decisive move, THAT would require action that is also illegal at present, we have to do it incrementally if we are to stay within the law.

I hear you. I really do. I just think an incremental move on our part would simply instruct them that they have to do something differently. They would course-correct. Illegal or not. They have the power. Unless we take it back.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

yes of course. I´ll sign that. Deny Apathy, go vote.

I´ll have to return to the core statement/claim of this thread though:

What happens in your personal life is mostly up to you

And yet we act and behave as if its mostly up to politics.

I live in Europe with an American Passport and experienced the 10% that is not up to me but up to politics.

When the leftist government got voted I suddenly got a permanent staying permit without having to have it renewed every 6 months. But they also increased taxes for the self-employed (which I am) which drove me nuts.

Then the right-wing government came back into power and my tax-payments were cut and I suddenly had a lot of extra cash...but the laws surrounding my staying permit where changed again!!!!!

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They would be thrilled if we all stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul.

Actually, no they wouldnt. They would be horrified if we all suddenly decided to stop choosing between the two choices they handed us and voted for a third unsupported by the "power that be" candidate. If we ALL wrote in Ron Paul, he would win, wouldnt he?

Yes, he would win. The fact that many people here do not want to face up to is that the real power is still in our hands.

Why didn't Ron Paul have a successful campaign? After all, he raised record amounts of money. What did he do with all that money?

People will blame the MSM, when the fact is, RP spent his time giving interviews to fringe elements like Alex Jones. They will blame corruption, when the truth is Ron Paul accepted money from white supremacists. They will blame Republican vote fraud in the last two elections, and naively say that the Democrats didn't play the same game. Sour grapes, is all.

Ron Paul was never a viable candidate. He was unable to sell his policies to the American people.

The reason a third party candidate has such a slim chance? Voter apathy. Just watch how few people vote. Obama and McCain were not elected their party's candidate by huge masses. The party faithful, about 15% of the eligible voters, decided your fate for you.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I will reply briefly because apparently it is off topic from the original premise that the election will have no "personal" difference in your life, even though I'm sure the families and friends of our troops, and countless Iraqi civilians would think differently.

I agree that the real reason for the war was about oil, and it was also about security for Israel as stated in the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton, but that doesn't mean we would have invaded regardless of who was in office. Clinton sought to remove Saddam from power, but would not have sent in troops on the ground. In the Iraq Liberation Act, he funded internal uprisings as well as bombing WMD sites in Desert Fox to try to destabilize his power. In my opinion, this approach was better because it did not involve invasion, which everyone knew would result in the quagmire that it did. It is good that Saddam and his regime are gone, but the cost was too high.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

You and I probably do not agree politically, but I do have to commend you for some very fine and well thought out points.

Edit to add;

For Hal9000, you are right that it doesnt mean we would have for certain invaded Iraq. However we cannot ever know what Clinton would have chosen as his approach had he had the opportunity (as horrible as it is to call it that) that 9-11 provided those who wanted an excuse to unilaterally attack. It may very well be that he would have under those conditions. Even with 9-11 the greater world community was in an uproar over our decision to go in and do what we did/are doing. Clinton was not stupid, he was far, far cleverer than poor George, and he would have had to have known that to make such a move without some very good reason would have been a tragic mistake. We cannot presume his caution was caused by compassion.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

If you recall, the original test that I pointed out as to whether it makes a difference who is in power, was if Gore had won the election in 2000, and not what Clinton would do, but I agree that they both would probably have followed similar approaches. The reason why I say that even after 9/11 Gore would not have invaded Iraq, was because he would not have mislead us like the Bush administration did. He would not have lied and said things like Iraq was involved in the attack. Even to this day some people still believe that myth. The only drawback is that I can't say that Saddam would have eventually been removed with that approach, but even if he had remained in power, he was not the threat that we were told he was. Most of the WMD's were destroyed in the first Gulf war and Clinton took care of any that were still remaining in 1998. There was no reason to invade the country.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Hal9000

I certainly cant disagree with you, and say that "yes Gore would have." Nor can I agree with you and say, "no he would not have." The fact of the matter is that he was never President. We dont have any history of his presidential behavior by which to make an educated guess about what he would and would not have done.

I think he is a more intelligent and compassionate man by nature than George W. is, but it is hard to say what he would have done under the pressure of all the people pushing that agenda down his throat. It wasnt Georgie's idea, after all. There is/was a huge weight of opinion and power behind that decision, multiple people, multiple interests. We cant ever know what another president would have done, but you certainly MIGHT be right that Gore would not have.

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in