U.S election

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
Shebangs
Offline
Joined: 30-09-12
Nov 2 2012 17:03
U.S election

So the U.S. election coming up. Who are you voting for and why?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 2 2012 17:12

Is this Spam?

Shebangs
Offline
Joined: 30-09-12
Nov 2 2012 17:37

No Its not. I mean, i know some of you are anarchists But this is such an important election that will affect the whole world if the wrong person gets elected. I mean have you seen what Romney wants to do with womens right for example? You must think about all the people he Will hurt not only in the US But the whole world and vote for them i think. Out of solidarity and not principles. Otherwise the whole planet might be at risk IMO.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 2 2012 18:10
Shebangs wrote:
But this is such an important election that will affect the whole world if the wrong person gets elected..

true, if obama is elected innocents all over the world will continue to have their brains blown out by drones.

omen
Offline
Joined: 20-09-12
Nov 2 2012 18:13

Well, I'm not an American so I can't vote for anyone in the US, however I'd much prefer it if the US election was settled in a similar fashion to the Australian system of Thunderdome.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Nov 2 2012 18:20
Indigo's picture
Indigo
Offline
Joined: 12-01-11
Nov 2 2012 19:16
Quote:
have you seen what Romney wants to do with womens right for example?

Have you seen what Obama's done/doing to womens rights? Fuck them both. Fuck voting.

R. Spourgitis
Offline
Joined: 27-03-12
Nov 2 2012 19:57

Putting aside knee-jerk one liners and snarky video posts, Shebangs you might be interested in a recent forum post where a related question was recently covered and I think has a decent around discussion electoralism/parliamentarism and how it relates to the issues you name:

http://www.libcom.org/forums/general/referendums-06102012

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Nov 2 2012 20:56

Voters, desperate and otherwise, are always quick to declare a current election to be "the most important one," while those of us who understand and see through all the silly reasons electoralists come up with already know that the current election is as uninteresting as the last one. Most policy decisions are too important to let "the people" have any say...

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Nov 2 2012 21:37

In some ways I would say this election is more interesting in terms of what's happening to the ruling class (ie signs that it is more and more losing its grip), but otherwise I agree entirely with Black Badger. The ruling class does not offer us any fundamental choice, nor any power to shape what happens to the planet. Whichever faction wins, the planet (or rather, our survival on it) will remain in danger.

Belated solidarity to those whose streets are flooded or are without electricity etc. Am i right in hearing commentators say that the Hurricane was 'good' for Obama not only because he came across as more responsible and committed than Romney, and was endorsed by local Republican bigwigs, but also because the issue of climate change has been belatedly brought into the election debate by the shock of the 'superstorm', and the Republican position on this ranges from denial on the basis of pseudo-scientific 'climate scepticism' to denial on the basis of the outright crazy (hurricanes caused by homosexuality, etc)

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 2 2012 21:43

Hi again, Shebangs. I've realised I may have created a bit of negative tone with my first post. However, your OP did read a bit like a SPAM post and as you're an unfamiliar poster with a non-anarcho name (I really like your name, I should add) I legitimately thought it might be SPAM.

In any case, I would suggest reading the link R. Spourgìtis posted above. The voting debates comes up on libcom every couple of months and that thread is one of the more productive and coherent.

FWIW, I don't really care if people want to vote. Personally, I'm concerned with fundamentally transforming society and I think voting legitimises the state, saps energy from productive work, and creates and illusion that anything other than grassroots movements (and the exercise of power) can improve the lives of the working class, women, minorities,oppressed groups, etc.

That said, I don't really care if folks want to vote. But I don't really think it's worth the time of individual anarchists (note I didn't say individualist anarchist) and definitely don't think it's worth the organisational time of anarchist groups to convince people of that.

I don't really give a shit if someone votes. What I want is to band together with my workmates, fellow tenants, and community members to fight for our class interests. If they vote, fine, but I'm far more concerned with getting them organised and participating in direct action.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Nov 3 2012 09:24

Many US states has the facility for write-in candidates rather than go for those listed. I believe Jesus Christ has over a million and a half votes pledged for him. If he wins it may result in the second coming as he takes his office in the White House!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
http://www.ehow.com/how_5962394_write-candidate-presidential-elections.h...

Wiggleston's picture
Wiggleston
Offline
Joined: 8-10-12
Nov 3 2012 14:55

Am I correct in thinking Nebraska has a "none of the above" option?

Shebangs
Offline
Joined: 30-09-12
Nov 4 2012 22:21

Yeah But if Romney is elected he might start a war with Iran. And what about his aggressive tone towards china? Obama is not perfect But if Romney gets elected who knows what will happen.

But what have Obama done towards women? I think he has done alot on social issues like gay rights for example. Im a socialist too But im really freaking out about this election and the possibility that Romney could win!!?!? I dunno what to do about that But im glad that some of you are voting. I still think this migh be one of our most important election in our lifetime. If Romney wins i really dont know what will happen with the country....

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 4 2012 22:28

lol as if obama wouldn't start a war if it made strategic sense with americas goals

you seem to really over estimate how much control the president has

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Nov 4 2012 23:02

Shebangs, if you think that the figurehead of the Commander in Chief is actually the person who decides when/where the next military adventure will take place, then you have a truly shallow critique of American politics. The transnational corporate interests already took the ability to deploy the US military out of the hands of Congress (where it had officially resided for almost 200 years) in 1965. They only need the President to make the speeches and give the orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff; he is the corporate mouthpiece, lapdog, puppet... whatever you want to call it. Nobody gets to vote for the really important policies.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Nov 4 2012 23:35

Black Agenda Report, for example, who are not anarchists, have put forward numerous cogent essays in recent days for the thesis that the policies of the Democrats and Republicans are basically the same. This is especially true in regard to foreign policy and management of the empire.

The high concentration of power in the hands of the president under the US Constitution is helpful to keeping the state's foreign activity geared to the defense of the capitalist system because of the great power & independence of action of the executive branch. It would not be quite accurate to say that it is only interested in the interests of the US-based section of capital, tho. The markets & investment relations have become so intertwined that there really is no potential for a revival of the old capitalist inter-imperialist rivalries of the pre-World War 2 era. The American federal state is critical to the whole international capitalist class because for historical reasons socialist tendencies in the working class were weaker here than elsewhere, and its vast internal market and financial systems are a major support for capital elsewhere.

The military butt-kicking role is actually a burden for the economy of USA. But it's a burden undertaken, along with the role of US Treasury Dept, which controls World Bank and IMF, to sustain world capitalism as a whole, while sometimes acting to benefit particular US-based firms. Within this scheme the American state & ruling class also have to maintain various relations with their junior partners in Europe and elsewhere. The Democratic and Republican parties in the USA are equally committed to the defense of this world wide arrangement.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 4 2012 23:54
Quote:
But what have Obama done towards women? I think he has done alot on social issues like gay rights for example.

Shebangs, I'm not really sure you're engaging with a lot of points folks are making.

Women achieved everything from the right to vote (as flawed as anarchists may view that as a goal) to abortion rights not by voting but because a movement which demanded it. The same for gay rights. It wasn't like one day some enlightened liberal politicians decided to give us these sorts of things (in the case of gay rights, Obama has been soft at best in any case).

We gain further rights and defend existing rights, not by voting but by being active as a class, building movements, and being out in the streets. Not by voting for politicians.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 4 2012 23:55

Also, Black Badger, no need to be a jerk.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 5 2012 01:07
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Also, Black Badger, no need to be a jerk.

Wasted advice, since Black Badger is not being a jerk. He is speaking plainly, directly, bluntly, and....accurately.

Shebangs is reproducing nothing but the CPUSA line, the line they've been practicing for.... almost forever. "We must unite with the 'liberals' to defeat the larger threat of the fascists"-- blah blah blah, this is as close as the CPUSA can get to a popular front, since they are so weak, partly the product of their numerous capitulations to the bourgeoisie.

Romney might start a war? Really? As opposed to whom? Obama and continuing the war in Afghanistan? Expanding the war in Afghanistan? Maintaining occupation forces in Iraq? Arming Israel? Arming Egypt? Arming Saudi Arabia? Arming Turkey? Assassinating scientists in Iran. Using drones and missiles in Yemen?

Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.

That's all there is to this. And please don't trot out the junk about "Supreme Court" justices. If you pay attention to current events, you'll see that the states have effectively eliminated abortions in most of the US. For example only 1 doctor remains in Nebraska who provides such medical care to women. Another single doctor in Kansas. Hospitals do not teach the procedure in most locales anymore, so frightened are they of protests, and having funds cut off.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Nov 5 2012 03:18
Shebangs wrote:
Yeah But if Romney is elected he might start a war with Iran.

Just in case you're genuine and not just a CPUSA troll, here's Obama on Iran:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/obama-cites-window-fo...

Obama wrote:
When I say all options are on the table, I mean it.

Here's Romney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiU8mfAoet8

Romney wrote:
[The President]...should have communicated instead that we are prepared, that we are considering military action. They're not just on the table, they are in our hands

Even Romney realizes that their positions are so alike that he has to make small rhetorical changes. So, what's the difference between these two, again (aside from difference in the amount of melanin)?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 5 2012 10:29

Jesus Christ. Without trying to sound patronizing to Shebangs, I'm pretty sure s/he is fairly new to politics. I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists? Or, is it in fact more likely, they're a younger person navigating that line between lliberalism and more radical politics?

More flies with honey and all that.

Seriously now, stop being dicks.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Nov 5 2012 10:38

We had a political party in NZ that wanted the weekend to go from Sunday to Saturday instead of Saturday to Sunday. They also wanted to determine foreign policy by pillow fights. They got a lot of votes, but sadly at the time we had a First Past the Post system. They also had an armed wing.

Simon

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Nov 5 2012 10:57

in denmark, one guy was elected in 1994 on a similar platform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Haugaard

Quote:
Haugaard ran for every election as a joke from 1979 onwards until he won in 1994. After his term expired, he decided not to seek re-election. Among his outrageous campaign promises were: 8 hours of free time, 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of sleep, more tailwind on bicycle paths, promises of better weather, right to impotency, Nutella in field rations (was actually implemented) and shorter queues in supermarkets

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Nov 5 2012 13:09
S. Artesian wrote:
Wasted advice, since Black Badger is not being a jerk. He is speaking plainly, directly, bluntly, and....accurately.

Except the lapdog, mouthpiece etc stuff, that's maybe blunt but not accurate in the sense that politicians aren't purely robotic 'political agents of capital'. They usually do what's 'in the framework' out of structural necessity but not because they are capital's NWO puppets. That's quite a difference.

S. Artesian wrote:
Here's the deal in the US: When capitalism is entering a contraction-- the bourgeoisie vote in the Republicans to turn the screws. When the bourgeoisie are afraid that somebody might actually notice the screwing going on, they vote in Democrats to offer retraining in jobs that do not require the use of the thumbs.

Aw, come on... not this conspiracy stuff again (we've been over this before if I recall right but I think even then you dodged the issue a bit). I think the burden lies on you to prove there is massive election fraud going on. And I don't mean that one dodgy Bush Jr. thing but a permanent conspiracy of the bourgeoisie, hidden coup d'etats dressed up as 'the voters' will'.

If you don't mean it that way, I guess you should be a bit clearer on that.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 5 2012 15:23

Good post from R.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Nov 5 2012 17:00
Chili Sauce wrote:
I mean, do any of you have any evidence that Shebangs is some secret agent of the CPUSA here on libcom to, what, trot out the party line to predominantly British anarchists?

You're on point here. There is no reason to believe or insinuate that Shebangs is an agent of the CPUSA. As for the bit in bold, the post is about the U.S. election and it was made in the U.S. area of the forum. Do you honestly believe that Shebangs was asking British anarchists who they were voting for in the U.S. election?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 5 2012 17:12

Actually, it's in the News section. And even if it wasn't, libcom's users are still predominantly British.

Now I suppose SheBangs probably doesn't know that, but if this was some sort of CP stalwart trying to start a row with US anarchos, they probably wouldn't come to libcom to do it.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 5 2012 17:10

On US foreign policy, ie, the needs of US imperialism, there's been complete and seamless continuity between Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. And there will be continuing continuity in the defence of US interests if Romney is elected.

To see Obama as the "lesser evil" is extremely dangerous, as is the idea that workers going into polling booths as isolated citizens is a harmless pursuit.

The war in Iraq is not finished with; witness the continued devastations, the tens of thousands of US mercenaries, "trainers" and special forces still there and active and the massive American fortresses built and being built in this country.
As troops are wound down in Afghanistan, the US is presently "negotiating" with its "allies" about the continued presence of the US military.

It could be said that US/UN sanctions against Iran are an act of war - but that's a technicality. The Persian Gulf is packed is packed with US warships carrying heavy ordnance and Iran is surrounded by US forces on all sides. The US has facilitated the provision of arms and a political set up in Turkey against Iran's main ally Syria and it looks like they will soon begin to provide arms to some opposition forces directly.

The drone attacks continue (only a 2% success rate according to a recent report), the US military is also moving into the Sahel and we have state's massive attack on civil liberties in the USA under the Obama administration.

And the main enemy for the US is China.

None of any of this will change whoever wins the election/

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 5 2012 17:20
Alf wrote:
Am i right in hearing commentators say that the Hurricane was 'good' for Obama not only because he came across as more responsible and committed than Romney, and was endorsed by local Republican bigwigs, but also because the issue of climate change has been belatedly brought into the election debate by the shock of the 'superstorm', and the Republican position on this ranges from denial on the basis of pseudo-scientific 'climate scepticism' to denial on the basis of the outright crazy (hurricanes caused by homosexuality, etc)

yes

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Nov 5 2012 17:38
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Actually, it's in the News section.

Oh, my mistake I misread the title of the post (when I was writing my reply) as the section the post was in.

Quote:
And even if it wasn't, libcom's users are still predominantly British.

Yeah, as I said, the post is about voting in the U.S. election. Could be that Shebangs was maybe, probably, possibly, perhaps asking those few U.S. anarchists on here who they were voting for.

Quote:
Now I suppose SheBangs probably doesn't know that, but if this was some sort of CP stalwart trying to start a row with US anarchos, they probably wouldn't come to libcom to do it.

Why not? I found out about libcom through comments in anarchistnews and indybay (which I assume are visited by predominantly U.S. American users), so why wouldn't someone looking rile up anarchists eventually end up at libcom? This site isn't hidden in the interwebz, y'know. wink (In fact it pops up as the second site if I google "anarchist communism").

Let me make it clear that I do think it sounds like Shebangs is genuine in his/her posts (which is why I bothered to provide evidence when addressing the candidates positions on Iran, rather than dismissing his/her post out of hand). We should just keep in mind that the post was made a couple of days from the election, with full knowledge that "...some of you are anarchists" (which implies knowledge that anarchist don't tend to vote) and espousing the importance of this election. I mean, if I was trying to concern-troll some anarchists, that's what I would do.

Poe's law, I guess...