IMT
New member
Dear evince:
Do you register any difference between the descriptive and the prescriptive? Do you see how this applies here? Unless substantive policies redressing social conditions stand behind candidates, what point could elections have? I’m not attacking elections; I’m attacking their meaninglessness. I declare for the investment of political power in the same communities that must live with the consequence of political decision. If you truly believe that I support an ANTI-social position, there really is little that I can do for you. Your line is starting to look like, 'if we all vote for my party, everything will be hunky-dory.
Crises are not self-resolving; they require solutions, which require effective policy addressing the circumstances and conditions that create crises. If you can't or won't see that, there is little I or anyone else can do for you.
Say the Obama administration initiated a drive to make defined-benefit pensions a thing of the past for all US workers; suppose that it began slashing legally-protected pension benefits of retirees. Say the WH, major trade unions and multinational corporations collaborated to do it. Impossible? Don’t be so sure!
Say that Democratic Senate President John Cullerton and billionaire Republican Governor Bruce Rauner collaborated to cut pensions for Illinois state workers. Never happen, right! Don’t speak too soon!
Suppose that countless cities and towns across the US [i.e., Republican AND Democratic mayors] suffered lead poisoning. No way! Except for this!
At the federal, state and local levels of government, both parties stand equally complicit in the ongoing devastation of society. Neither is ready to address this. Both 'blame the other' while social devolution continues unabated. Neither is willing to defend this society. Both defend the use of militarized power to coerce class-wide endurance of these conditions.
Before censuring me for withdrawing my consent to be governed by electing not to vote, please explain for what conceivable reason people ought to reward politicians for such behavior as I just described.
In response to your apparent 'voting fixes all ills,' theorem, consider one – just one – of many international situations.
Do you know how much money your country owes China? Do you? Wouldn’t you think that much debt is a powerful incentive for ANY administration to find an excuse to renege on that obligation? Do you know how provocative is our policy in the South China Sea? Does it occur to you that your government may be seeking a 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to rationalize reneging on our debt?
Just why are we to believe that this situation will end simply we have a proper election? Are there any compelling reason for which we ought to believe a nation obligated to follow those who, however ‘duly elected,’ would pursue policies intending to spark a third World War?
To have any political significance, what truly concerns the existence and welfare of humanity at large must at some point be admitted into discussion. If it can’t or won’t, it becomes necessary to recognize at some point that the people have been abandoned to their own destiny by their leadership. These sainted forefathers you reference did little more than to formalize this recognition by acting reciprocally. If you truly believe they were right, wouldn’t you do the same today?
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/forum.php?referrerid=6197
IMT
Do you register any difference between the descriptive and the prescriptive? Do you see how this applies here? Unless substantive policies redressing social conditions stand behind candidates, what point could elections have? I’m not attacking elections; I’m attacking their meaninglessness. I declare for the investment of political power in the same communities that must live with the consequence of political decision. If you truly believe that I support an ANTI-social position, there really is little that I can do for you. Your line is starting to look like, 'if we all vote for my party, everything will be hunky-dory.
Crises are not self-resolving; they require solutions, which require effective policy addressing the circumstances and conditions that create crises. If you can't or won't see that, there is little I or anyone else can do for you.
Say the Obama administration initiated a drive to make defined-benefit pensions a thing of the past for all US workers; suppose that it began slashing legally-protected pension benefits of retirees. Say the WH, major trade unions and multinational corporations collaborated to do it. Impossible? Don’t be so sure!
Say that Democratic Senate President John Cullerton and billionaire Republican Governor Bruce Rauner collaborated to cut pensions for Illinois state workers. Never happen, right! Don’t speak too soon!
Suppose that countless cities and towns across the US [i.e., Republican AND Democratic mayors] suffered lead poisoning. No way! Except for this!
At the federal, state and local levels of government, both parties stand equally complicit in the ongoing devastation of society. Neither is ready to address this. Both 'blame the other' while social devolution continues unabated. Neither is willing to defend this society. Both defend the use of militarized power to coerce class-wide endurance of these conditions.
Before censuring me for withdrawing my consent to be governed by electing not to vote, please explain for what conceivable reason people ought to reward politicians for such behavior as I just described.
In response to your apparent 'voting fixes all ills,' theorem, consider one – just one – of many international situations.
Do you know how much money your country owes China? Do you? Wouldn’t you think that much debt is a powerful incentive for ANY administration to find an excuse to renege on that obligation? Do you know how provocative is our policy in the South China Sea? Does it occur to you that your government may be seeking a 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to rationalize reneging on our debt?
Just why are we to believe that this situation will end simply we have a proper election? Are there any compelling reason for which we ought to believe a nation obligated to follow those who, however ‘duly elected,’ would pursue policies intending to spark a third World War?
To have any political significance, what truly concerns the existence and welfare of humanity at large must at some point be admitted into discussion. If it can’t or won’t, it becomes necessary to recognize at some point that the people have been abandoned to their own destiny by their leadership. These sainted forefathers you reference did little more than to formalize this recognition by acting reciprocally. If you truly believe they were right, wouldn’t you do the same today?
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/forum.php?referrerid=6197
IMT
Last edited:
