4588686 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Just another guy without the GUTS to tell people to vote third party. Just listen to his ringing endorsement of Obama! Yeah, hope and change will fizzle out and he won't represent you or the majority of the people, but hey, over time it trends a little better when you let this segment of the elite rule you instead of that segment of the elite. "Always [i]vote[/i] for [i]principle[/i], though you may [i]vote[/i] alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your [i]vote[/i] is never lost." -John Quincy Adams As to his point about Madison and the system being set up for the wealthy and for property owners and such, well, it's generally true but it's a lot less sleazy than that. The system was not set up for mob rule and contains inherent protections against mob rule that most certainly benefit the wealthy and ownership classes, by design.... but fundamentally part of the principal of a Republic such as ours is to protect minority opinions not only of the wealthy but all minority opinions generally against the tyranny of mob rule, the tyranny of the 51%. Especially in this age of information, the systems are set up to be avenues for people that care enough to devote their time and energy to their causes to do more than just pull a lever during election season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351992740' post='2503660'] Just another guy without the GUTS to tell people to vote third party. Just listen to his ringing endorsement of Obama! Yeah, hope and change will fizzle out and he won't represent you or the majority of the people, but hey, over time it trends a little better when you let this segment of the elite rule you instead of that segment of the elite. "Always [i]vote[/i] for [i]principle[/i], though you may [i]vote[/i] alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your [i]vote[/i] is never lost." -John Quincy Adams As to his point about Madison and the system being set up for the wealthy and for property owners and such, well, it's generally true but it's a lot less sleazy than that. The system was not set up for mob rule and contains inherent protections against mob rule that most certainly benefit the wealthy and ownership classes, by design.... but fundamentally part of the principal of a Republic such as ours is to protect minority opinions not only of the wealthy but all minority opinions generally against the tyranny of mob rule, the tyranny of the 51%. Especially in this age of information, the systems are set up to be avenues for people that care enough to devote their time and energy to their causes to do more than just pull a lever during election season. [/quote]As you keep repeating this (at this time, idiocy) about 3rd party in the presidential election, I start liking you less. Even your own words condemn you. The effective principle of a third party is a different political plan based around WHAT PRINCIPLE? Your so vague, it could mean anything. Pro-Life, Anit-Abortion, Military Isolationism, Flat-Tax, Home Schooling, WHAT? We all have different opinions in a large society. We won't all agree. There will be minority opinion and majority opinion about EVERYTHING, including the nature of GOD. So what the f? It's not a third party, it's joining together with like minded people to voice your opinion and get it heard. You talk about minority/majority opinion and tyranny. What's your opinion on Abortion? Do you think it should be legal? Do you think it should be funded with taxes? Let's pretend you think it shouldn't be legal. Why should your opinion over-rule the majority who thinks it should be free and legal? What about them being tyrannized by the minority? Does it make going against majority public opinion any less tyrannical if it's done by 1 person, a Junta, or 33% of the population? Pancakes don't balance on their sides. One side is always on top, the other side is the victim of tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Did you watch the Noam Chomsky video or did you just come in here to perpetuate the same freaking argument? My talk about minorities opinions having possible affects within the system was a response to Chomsky's point about the system being set up to favor the wealthy (and how Madison was relatively explicit about that during the Constitutional Convention) and I pointed out that the system allows for minority opinions to have an effect on things, that it's not just mob rule, that it's not just whatever the 51% believe, there are avenues for people to affect real change if they work hard at it. And my point about Chomsky was that he was basically saying he didn't like Obama, the people he was talking to didn't like Obama, he doesn't think Obama represents a majority of the people's interests but that he represents one side of the elite, but he thinks they should vote for him anyway. I think that's wrong, I think that if you don't feel represented by someone then you shouldn't vote for that person. All of that applies to people of all different ideologies, even those that disagree with me. They should all feel free to use the system to promote what they think should be done, realizing that it is not the mob rule of the majority of voters that is supposed to rule us but instead the systems of representation wherein dedicated and passionate groups can devote time and energy towards promoting their causes, whatever those causes might be. They should all be willing to vote for the people that they feel best represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 It's your slavish promotion of 3rd party voting that defies all the rest of the logic. I get the minority grouping to provide power and political clout to their voice. I get the idea about organizing. You toss all that logic and reasoning away and tell people to vote 3rd party as if that is saying or supporting some principle? What principle is the freaking 3rd pary supporting that you want them to vote for? The principle of giving voice to the minority? Seriously? Love it or hate it, or deny reality, American politics are reactionary to public opinion. That's why they do studies and polls and spend B-B-Billions on trying to figure out what people care about and will vote for or against. You want a minority opinion heard? Support a 'special issue group' and see which political party will ____* you for your groups vote. That's why Catholic voters are such a joke. They have a twisted sense of morality and personal indingnation and 50% give the political power derived from their vote to the political party that is the most Pro-Abortion in thought, deed, and goal. The other half cry about the other party not being Anti-Abortion enough and won't support them. Catholic Pro-Life Policy is all bluster and has no demonstrable effect in politics. If it easy on your conscience, it's good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 My only point here was that Professor Chomsky was wrong to tell people to vote for Obama when they don't feel represented by him. He should have told them to pick some other option. It's not even about this election necessarily; heck, this video was actually about the 2008 election. I'm not telling people not to vote for Romney in this thread, I'm telling Professor Chomsky that he should have the guts to say not to vote for Obama when he doesn't feel represented by him, that everyone should promote the idea of only voting for the person they feel represented by. Just listen to Professor Chomsky talk about how hope and change is a load of croutons (the illusions an Obama voter shouldn't have), how the whole thing will fizzle out and Obama doesn't really represent the majority of people or the majority of people's interests, that he just represents one side of the elite... it all sounds like a great set up for "and therefore you shouldn't vote for Obama"... but it's not a set up for that, is it? Because you'll be slightly better off with him than with John McCain, Chomsky says, then if you're in a swing state you should vote for Barack Obama. And to that I say Chomsky doesn't have the guts to tell people to vote third party. His whole line of reasoning is a perfect set-up, he basically said McCain and Obama represent two sides of the elite and that neither side has your best interest at heart, for Pete's sake if you cut off part of it I bet you could use it in a Ralph Nader ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) I've got the guts and grasp of real effects to point out that voting third party in the Presidential election has no effect on limiting the power and accomplishments of people who are directly opposed to your prinary principle and effectively compromises the ability of potential allies and empowers your enemy. Edited November 4, 2012 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1352036587' post='2503839'] My only point here was that Professor Chomsky was wrong to tell people to vote for Obama when they don't feel represented by him. He should have told them to pick some other option. It's not even about this election necessarily; heck, this video was actually about the 2008 election. I'm not telling people not to vote for Romney in this thread, I'm telling Professor Chomsky that he should have the guts to say not to vote for Obama when he doesn't feel represented by him, that everyone should promote the idea of only voting for the person they feel represented by. Just listen to Professor Chomsky talk about how hope and change is a load of croutons (the illusions an Obama voter shouldn't have), how the whole thing will fizzle out and Obama doesn't really represent the majority of people or the majority of people's interests, that he just represents one side of the elite... it all sounds like a great set up for "and therefore you shouldn't vote for Obama"... but it's not a set up for that, is it? Because you'll be slightly better off with him than with John McCain, Chomsky says, then if you're in a swing state you should vote for Barack Obama. And to that I say Chomsky doesn't have the guts to tell people to vote third party. His whole line of reasoning is a perfect set-up, he basically said McCain and Obama represent two sides of the elite and that neither side has your best interest at heart, for Pete's sake if you cut off part of it I bet you could use it in a Ralph Nader ad. [/quote] I think it's a little ridiculous that you're framing this as an issue of courage. Chomsky is obviously not afraid to say things that are controversial or on the political fringes. And it does not take any courage or 'guts' to say that people should vote for a third party. Not to say that it is wrong. It's not. But it's not a brave things to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Anomaly, so are you saying that Professor Chomsky is correct to advise people to vote for Obama, then? The discussion of whether people who might otherwise vote for Romney should vote for Romney or for some third party is taking place on enough threads, this thread was a statement from Chomsky wherein he advised people to vote for Obama; I took issue with it saying that I think he should have advised them to vote for someone else instead, that people that would otherwise support Obama should, based upon Chomsky's observation that their interests aren't represented, instead be advised to vote third party. do you disagree and think that Chomsky's advise to those people is correct? Hasan, perhaps guts/courage is not exactly the right term... I was basically just trying to make the point that the logical conclusion of his actual observation should have been that people should vote for third parties, but that he undercuts the whole point by refusing to take the step to challenge the status quo thinking. it's not brave as in you'd get in trouble for saying it or something, I was being less literal in my use of 'guts' and courage and such, I guess, as a way to express that he is failing to take that extra step to tell people to support someone they might actually be represented by. he acknowledges they're not represented, he should go one step further and say "therefore don't vote for him, he doesn't represent you." But yeah, I know Chomsky is not afraid to be controversial, it's not like it's fear that keeps him from taking that extra step... maybe to a certain degree he had some fear of McCain factor into it; ie, it's not fear that he'll appear fringe, not that he doesn't have the guts to appear fringe, but that he doesn't have the guts to risk a McCain victory on a plea for third party support. But I dunno, the framework of fear/guts/courage might not be the exact right way to word it, but the point is that based upon his position, he should argue that people should vote third party rather than arguing they should vote for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I've been consistent about the in-effectiveness of causing principle change solely by voting third party in the Presidential election. At that level it's about which Party will have the political power. In the mist negative perspective, its either the strong entrenched enemy, or the weak ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If folks need a video with Chomsky in it with a bit more levity, I present MIT Gangnam Style: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lJtHNEDnrnY[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1352046301' post='2503872'] If folks need a video with Chomsky in it with a bit more levity, I present MIT Gangnam Style: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lJtHNEDnrnY[/media] [/quote] Ohhhhhhhhh....mye gawd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 A leftist endorses Obama! Who woulda thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1352046681' post='2503873'] Ohhhhhhhhh....mye gawd [/quote] I knew you would approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now