hopefully barack won't be so damn gloomy

[rone]

If this doesn't make sense, i suggest reading Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman".  Please note that i found this and did not actually make it.

Comments

[motis.livejournal.com]

In any case, I wouldn't call myself a 'Paulite' although I do think he's the best candidate to show his face in this election. Like everyone else, I'm looking for the lesser of the evils, and that all depends on how you define 'evil'. I don't always agree with Ron Paul. He wouldn't be very interested in socialized medicine, for instance (which is irrelevant, since the Democrats aren't going to give it to you either). At least Paul actually says he doesn't like it, instead of pulling some bait-and-switch trick where "universal healthcare" means something else, like maybe you're forced to have an HMO plan and pay for it even if your employer won't, as with mandatory car insurance.

As for Libertarianism in general, Pratchett is certainly correct on that score, but of course it applies to all the -isms. I have a hard time with a lot of Libertarians myself. The more extreme Libs are wretched Randites who don't believe in altruism, and a large proportion of non-Randite mainstream Libertarians are just former Republicans who have a distaste for Christianity and have become Libertarians out of self-interest (they like the idea of being taxed less). Their priorities disturb me... these are people who see being taxed to pay for social programs as a greater evil than continuing the war in Iraq.

Me, I approach Libertarianism from the radical Left. I don't care much for Socialism, but I'd much rather see a more Socialist America than a further slide into Fascism. I WANT THE WAR TO STOP, I want the torture to stop, I want habeas corpus restored, I want checks and balances, I want the Constitution, and I want the federal government to fuck off just a bit and let individual States decide for themselves on issues like medical marijuana. All those are much bigger concerns for me than my tax bracket.

"Electing Ron Paul won't effect "some huge change"."

Let's say for the sake of argument that Ron Paul is even electable, and that you're right, electing Ron Paul wouldn't effect any great change. What makes you think that electing Obama, a candidate who advocates FAR less change than Paul, would make any noticeable difference?

"The only thing that will effect huge change in this country is armed revolution,"

I have been pretty much convinced of this for most of my life...

"and Americans are way too comfortable and wealthy for that."

...but unfortunately that seems to be the case, not to mention too politically disconnected. Revolution isn't going to happen, and with corruption and corporate influence so endemic to the entire system, assassination would bring no change at all. The option left is to try to identify the most honest people possible who aren't advocating change that takes us further away from the Constitution, and try to get them elected, or at least heard in the public discourse.

So I guess the difference between you and I is that you actually -- heh -- have some real hope that the Democratic Party nominee might, by some miracle, not be as total a Neocon Establishment turd as a Republican would be, and you think that'll be enough to put things back the way they were before Bush. I can only scoff sadly at that. I think -- hell, I KNOW -- the changes needed in America are much more radical than anything Obama is willing or able to provide. On the other hand, if the Republicans had backed Ron Paul, I guess I'd be in the same boat with you, just with a candidate who actually has a verifiable history of integrity.

Because my politics are driven by the pain and frustration of stubborn idealism rather than base self-interest, I'm not willing to just turn my back on America and American politics, and that is where your naïveties and mine meet. When you decide to stop voting and stop supporting one candidate over another, you'll be one up on me.

By the way, I live in California these days, with my Chinese wife Communist Spice 2.0.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I definitely have no illusions regarding any sort of socialized healthcare that either Obama or Clinton might be able to engender. I tend to roll my eyes when i hear people talking about it like it could happen AND not suck (although it could conceivably be better than the current state of affairs, but it's like Bush in that respect).

"too politically disconnected": more exactly, they haven't been educated correctly. Poor education is at the base of the majority of this country's problems.