You must log in or register to comment.

roanoke9 wrote

There is a big difference between neither party deserves to govern and no one ever deserves to govern.


lettuceLeafer wrote

No one deserves to govern except me. I'm gonna be the king of the pirates.


roanoke9 wrote

My next point was going to be, I have been trying to remove the concept of "deserve" from my head but they didn't reply yet. Good luck on your piracy.


NoPoint OP moderator wrote (edited )

Yep. Just thought it was interesting how dissatisfied the public writ large is with the US electoral system.

Edit: distinguishing this comment because it feels apropos.


Chairman_Meh wrote

No shit that's why they're in an arms race against us.


zephyr wrote

true, neither deserves to govern but there is a huge difference this time around between the two when looking from a realistic 'lesser of two evils' perspective.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

this time around

Can't help but notice that whenever it's time to vote, everyone on pro-voting end whips themselves into a frenzy over how important it is to empower "the lesser evil", because "the other guys winning will be a real doozy this time". Not at all like last time when the same thing was said.

There's always a sense of dread that someone's going to "lose their rights" once the other side wins and the only way the good side wins is if everyone votes (not remotely how it actually shakes out, but whatever).

There's always an existential crisis concerning "rights"; "the democrats are going to take away your rights to free speech", "the republicans are going to repeal the 13th amendment". The sensible answer to this is that "rights" are not so unalienable and that something so allegedly existentially important should not be put into the hands of a group of people that have "evil, but less so" (whatever that means; I don't speak utilitarian) as their sole redeeming quality.

But sure, let's continue with this dull cycle of pick the "lesser evil" because it's "realistic" requires no actual thought or action to do.


zephyr wrote

i don't recall personally or in the history i've learned that there has ever been a serious attempt to overthrow the government or the constitution in the u.s., at least before the arrival of trump. so this is simply not just another lesser of two evils choice. this is a choice between preserving what now exists or enabling a violent fascist takeover.


OdiousOutlaw wrote

this is a choice between preserving what now exists

Most people here would call that "evil" if they were forced to use a moralist term.

enabling a violent fascist takeover.

Same with this.

So it's another choice of the lesser of two evils. Same as it was with Clinton. Same as it was with Biden. Same as now. Literally the exact same choice as every other time. Trump or some Democrat ghoul.

Furthermore, you're implying that being outvoted would somehow stop a violent fascist takeover; which is absurd for a number of reasons. It would happen regardless of whether or not they won the popularity contest; it certainly didn't happen when they lost last time and these are the guys known for mass shootings. The thing you fear is either unaffected by your proposed solution (and is thus, not enabled by inaction) or the thing you fear isn't happening at all.

Finally, something that I haven't seen anyone on the pro-voting side address: The reason why Trump was ever the president in the first place was because he won the electoral vote. So it doesn't even matter if you fearmonger the increasingly apathetic populace into voting; they can still get their choice overturned.


Chairman_Meh wrote

Business Plot and Civil War are feeling a bit slighted.

Also by virtue of the system itself for the last ever years the 2 party bias for our electoral system and the virtually unrestricted protectionism, cronyism, and moneyed interest of those two parties (Of which there is very little real oversight or attention paid to, especially for non-presidential elections) we are presented with only the candidates approved by those groups, and not the people themselves. The dichotomies given the most attention are performative and false. Oh the people giving the speeches are very impassioned and may even themselves feel that they are making a difference, but their presence and influence is accounted for and counted as "acceptable protest".

The system itself is the problem, and no one at all is going to make the necessary changes from within that system. They can't and their very willingness to engage within it shows their limits of desire to. They're there to add an air of legitimacy and illusion of choice.


Chairman_Meh wrote

TL;DR, feel free to go pull the lever and get the sticker, but please avoid perpetuating the idea that we're doing anything more than taking some time to wander down and see how the old church hall, school gym, courthouse, etc is getting on.

Also most of the 'violent takeovers,' fascist in name or just in deed, historically did so in contravention of the local election results, didn't they?


zephyr wrote

i don't know the history of violent takeovers but it makes sense that if fascists won the election they would not have to engage in a violent takeover. hence violent takeovers would only occur when they lost. and if they lost and attempted a takeover, that would not necessarily mean they would succeed. historically how often has that happened? i'm not a historian and i don't know. but it seems much easier to come to power by being voted in than to have to resort to violence which would not necessarily succeed.


zephyr wrote

i don't know what the business plot is but the u.s. civil war wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government or the constitution. it was an attempt to secede.


Gardon00765 wrote

John brown wrote up a constitution and isnt even a niche figure so why lie or come here so uniformed?


CircleA wrote

You're right, we need to vote to protect our gun rights or communist revolution in the future will be impossible. The more evil party is constantly chipping away at our right to bear arms while raising taxes, passing twice as many laws and massively increasing the reach and size of the state. As anarchists, there's only one option.