OT: Voting results in NH

Derek Martin invalid at pizzashack.org
Thu Jan 29 11:13:41 EST 2004


On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:10:41AM -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
> 
> In a message dated: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:28:29 +0900
> Derek Martin said:
> 
> >Democracy died a long, long time ago.
> 
> And Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with our form of government,
> which is a Constitutional Republic.  The two are very, very different!

Agreed.  However it has everything to do with the message to which I
was replying.

> >You're also overlooking the fact that this election was a PRIMARY,
> >and the participants were Democtrats.  The Republicans have an
> >incumbant, so they don't need a primary.  New Hampshire is still
> >predominantly a Republican state. Most of the voters in NH need not
> >cast a ballot.  They have no one to vote for.  If they are committed
> >to the Republican party, there is no choice in the matter for them.
> 
> Which is, IMO, the reason one should *never* permanently ally themselves
> with any given party.  

In principle I disagree whole-heartedly with that statement.  If one
were to find a partu which embodied their phiolsiphy rather
righorously, then one should ally themselves with it for as long as it
continues to do so, even if that means permanently.

In practice I again agree, because (practically speaking) we only have
2 parties, and they both suck.


> Always retain your independance, and register as such.  If a primary
> comes up, you have a vote.  I as an independant, were I a citizen of
> NH, could have voted in the primary, and would have probably voted
> for old Al.  Not because I like him, or because I even have the
> feintest notion he might win or make a decent president, but simply
> because it would be one more vote cast and _against_ someone whom
> I'd rather not see as President.

In my opinion, that's not a good enough reason to support a candidate.
And as I said, in the end, the candidates are not so different, so it
doesn't matter anyway.

> In other words, a vote can be used as much to vote *against* someone
> as to vote *for* someone.  It is our right *and* responsibility to vote.

That's what those in power want you to beleive, because it makes you
feel like you matter.  It makes you feel empowered.  But it's a load
of horse shyte.

Who counts the ballots?  I seem to recall an issue in the last
presidential election where there was some question about how many
votes which candidate received...  Some might argue that those who
really make the decisions in this country manipulated the system until
they got the result they wanted.  I leavbe you to your own
explanations (or delusions, as the case may be)...

> Do so.

I have better things to do with my time...  Like harrass you.  ;-)

> >> Democracy and your freedom are the casualty of a system that no
> >> longer can be called 'representative government'. 
> >
> >The only sense in which our government ever was such a thing is that
> >the decisions that are made represent the interests of those who make
> >them.  That's still true today. 
> 
> Again, our system is _NOT_ a Democracy.

But again, the message to which I replied asserted that it was.
You're right, it isn't.  But I wasn't correcting /you/...


> >Anyone who thinks their opinion is represented in our government is
> >deluding themselves.  If your elected leader's opinion truly
> >represents your own opinion, you are the victim of a happy
> >coincidence...
> 
> I think it largely unlikely that any person's views ever 100%
> co-incide with any other person's views.  However, our system is
> mostly a popularity contest.  You vote for that candidate whom you
> think most closely matches your views and whom you think will best
> lead our nation in the direction you'd like to see it go.

Maybe, but there's a question of whfether or not the candidates will
do what they say they will (and the answer to that wone is a
resounding "No!") and also how closely those candidates' actions
represent what you want.  If I manage to reply to another message I'm
interested in replying to, I may have more to say about that.  But
maybe I won't...  '-)

> >Their votes represent our desires only insomuch as they need to
> >in order to prevent sufficient discontent to incite open rioting and
> >other forms of political instability.  Beyond that, they represent the
> >people who have money and power, just as they always have.
> 
> I don't completely agree, though nor do I completely disagree.

It sounds to me like what you're really saying is, "I don't want to
admit (even to myself) that you might just be right about that."

> The votes cast by members of congress are usually in-line with the
> party they represent (usually Democrat or Republican, occasionally
> others).  

Come on Paul, that's just silly.  If it were true, then all Democrats
would always vote the same way, and likewise Republicans.  But that
virtually never happens.  Congress votes the way they're paid to.

> They will always vote the way their constituency prefers
> _IF_ their constituency makes that preference known, for it is that
> constituency and _only_ that constituency which places them in that
> office and which has the power to remove them from office.

That is also hogwash.  Who wanted the DMCA?  Who wanted the Patriot
act?  NO ONE, except for those who it directly benefited (law
enforcement, RIAA/MPAA cartel, whatever).  Those with enough money or
influence to see that they passed.  Was there public outcry about
these bills, beforea they were passed?  You bet your bippy there was.
Did they pass anyway?  Sure as... um, anything that's certain, they
did.

> (take the recent change of Governor of Cal. as a perfect example!)

This happened because if it didn't, the situation in CA was already so
bad that there would almost certainly have been rioting there.

> Absent a loud cry from their constituency, a member of congress will
> fall back on the position of their party to decide which way to vote.

You mean the positoin of their most weathy backers...

> >The candidates are virtually indistinguishable,
> 
> I disagree with this completely. I think there is a huge difference
> between the various candidates currently vying for the Office of POTUS.
> You can't possibly say there isn't a difference between Lieberman and
> Sharpton, or between Mosely-Braun (who has since dropped out) and Clark!
> 
> Even between the top 4 candidates there is measurable difference.
> If you are unable to see it, then I contend that either you haven't
> been paying attention, or you're blind.

It doesn't matter what they're saying NOW.  We know from experience
that anything they say during campaign times is BS to get ther butts
elected.  When it comes down to brass tacks, they all do what they're
todl to do by those with money and power.  Besides which, the
president isn't even all that useful as a policy maker (domestically).
It's congress that matters there...

> >no candidate ever keeps their promises.
> 
> I would re-phrase this to:
> 
>     No candidate is able to keep all of promises made
>     on the campaign trail.

Yet they all make them, knowing full well that they won't/can't.  You
vote for these people based on the lies they tell when they're trying
to get your vote.  Elections are all about who slings the best BNS.

> I don't think anyone alive realistically votes for a candidate based
> on the expectation that the promises made during the heat of a campaign
> will be kept.  In most cases, those campaigning are making promises
> they'd most like to keep, but once in office, discover it impossible
> to do so for a variety of reasons mostly beyond their control.

If you honestly think they only discuver their inability to keep their
promises once attaining office, you're incrediblly naive.  These
people are directly involved in the political process day-in and
day-out.  You don't get elected to the presidency if you're Fred the
barkeep in Arapahoe, Wyoming.  [I don't know if there's a barkeep
named Fred in Arapahoe, Wyoming, but if there is I guarantee he's not
going to be the next president of the USA.]  These people know how the
political process works, and they know they can't keep their promises,
and in fact they have no intention of doing so.

How anyone can bring themselves to vode for any of these clowns is
beyond me.  They're worse than used-car salesmen.

> By way of example, I'm thinking of Pres. Bush Sr.'s campaign promise
> of 'No New Taxes', which obviously wasn't kept.  Many automatically
> attribute this to an empty promise.  However, if one investigates what
> actually happened, it turns out that Congress all but forced him to
> sign the bill levying taxes, and even if he didn't, Congress would
> have simply over-ridden his veto anyway.  

If he didn't want new taxes, then he should have made them override.
That's a spurious argument.  Honestly I'm shcokked that you even tried
to purpetrate such nonsense on us...

>  The levying of taxes was and
> is completely beyond the control of any President.  

Not completely...  The president does have veto power.  You said it
yourself.

> But because he promised it, it is assumed he lied just because taxes
> were levied.

He signed the bill, didn't he?  If he wanted to keep his promise, he'd
have vetoed the pig.

> >I will not vote because I will not contribute to the
> >mass dilusion that my vote is valuable.  My vote is utterly worthless,
> >and so is yours.
> >
> >Yeah, maybe I'm a cynic. Or, maybe I'm just awake...
> 
> No, I think you're a cynic and no overly well informed.

Please point out a single case where my facts are wrong...

The rest of what you wrote is just boring repetition of government
progaganda machine empowerment BS that I will not take the time to
argue.  You either buy it or you don't.  I'm in the latter camp.

FWIW, soju and politics do not mix.  If you want to drink soju, try
fruit juice instead.  It's a much better mixer...  ;-)

-- 
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.
Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail.
Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20040130/52ffc6e0/attachment.bin


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list