Thursday, October 25, 2012

Lawrence O'Donnell: Vote 3rd party unless you live in a battleground state

HT: Molonlabe70

I rarely agree with O'Donnell about anything. But this was one of his twice a day moments. I too live in California. So my vote, at least for president, is meaningless. Who you vote for is of course a private matter, but on this one I totally agree with O'Donnell. Unless you live in one of the half dozen or so states where your vote could actually affect the election I would encourage you to consider voting your conscience for a change. Check out what the other parties are offering and vote for the one who is closest to your political convictions. No you aren't going to change anything. But if enough votes get cast for third party candidates it could make people sit up and take notice. He's not perfect but I will probably cast my vote for Gary Johnson.

As for those who have the misfortune of living in a state where your vote really will count... you have my sympathy. It's a weighty decision. Do you vote your conscience or, acknowledging that either Obama or Romney will be president for the next four years, do you swallow hard, hold your nose and pull the lever for the one you think will do the least damage? I can't answer that one. You will have to do what you think is right. To my mind it's a bit like when the warden comes by your cell and says it's time to choose... do you want the chair or the rope?


David Garner said...

I'm reminded of the episode of Sons of Anarchy where the guy left the club but didn't have his tattoos blacked out as the club requires.

When they brought him into the clubhouse to deal with it, the question posed to him was "knife or fire?"

He chose fire.

Michael said...

That's actually quite easy. Either vote your conscience, or de-legitimize the system by not voting at all.

If it helps ease anyone's decision making process, consider that all votes are cast electronically anyway. So, with no paper ballots, the "owners" of America can make the election results come out any way they want in any case.

Of course, given that there really is no substantive policy difference between the two, the "owners" may not even care enough to rig the election - why bother? No matter who wins, Guantanamo will stay open, the phony-baloney "War on Terror" will continue, banksters will continue to be bailed out, and TSA goons and militarized police in Darth Vader suits will continue to brutalize ordinary Americans. Oh, and I almost forgot. America will start World War III at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu. Both candidates have either implicitly or explicitly promised all of these things. So, what is there to vote about, anyway?

Me? I haven't voted in 15 years (even though I could cast a mail-in ballot if I wished to) and I don't intend to vote ever again. The process itself is illegitimate and fraudulent. The only way I see to make a difference is to withdraw your consent and make it plain that elections are a farce.

As Solzhenitsyn said: "The simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me."

Michael said...

Oh, one more thing. I keep talking about the "owners" of America. Here is a link that will put some names, faces and street addresses to this category:

These are at least some of the people and groups who run America. This doesnt include Congress and state and local races. What they pay for, they get. Your vote is meaningless.

A few other links for your perusal:

Follow the money, folks! You don't have a :choice". You have owners. You may as well know who your masters are.

Jason said...

While I support anyone who attempts to peel back the curtain on the political system, your linked organizations are a bit dubious.

For instance, it looks like the Capital Research group linked above is an offshoot of the Heritage Foundation - not exactly a trustworthy bunch. At least Capital Research lists their Board members, which Bridge Project does not - always a red flag. Bridge Project does show that they are subsidiary of the American Bridge 21st Century PAC, a liberal group that was founded by David Brock whose largest donor is George Soros. So these linked groups are hyper-partisan.

The article on Zero Hedge is interesting though.

A good source for tracing money in politics is, which is connected to the Center for Responsive Politics. It's not perfect, but it's one of the better organizations out there.

Michael said...

@Jason: thanks for the extra resource. I didn't know about that site. I'll look into it further.

Yes, I know that the above named organizations are hyper-partisan. However, I use them, based upon the criminological commonplace that you can often arrive at the truth by comparing and reconciling the conflicting testimonies of criminal accomplices.

Given my conviction that the American government has become a criminal enterprise, I figure that the best approach is that of a police detective.

Jason said...

I hear you Michael, and agree to a point about your tactic of gleaning information from polar extremes.

Regarding the criminality of government, I don't know if you've ever read about J. Edgar and his ties to organized crime, but I strongly recommend Hank Messick's books (one of which was "John Edgar Hoover," along with "Lansky"). Essentially Hoover provided cover for post-Prohibition gangsters by fighting "Commies" in public. The gangsters eventually became legitimate and moved themselves into strong influence over politics and government to the detriment of the country.