Once again, if the American public had voted in more Democrats the Iraq Resolution would have failed.
That’s simply an assumption on your part. No evidence exists to back up this claim.
Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not. You keep pushing towards false equivalency based upon emotion, while I show the very real differences between the two parties with facts.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the player and the game, but I’m also a realist who doesn’t want to screw over hopes for a third party run down the road with embedded Republicans entrenched with voter suppression tactics, voter disenfranchisement down to a science along with a critical stranglehold on districts through rampant gerrymandering. You do realize the Republican party is doing this right now and not the Democratic party, correct?
I’ve yet to see any argument you’ve presented that truly challenges this very real situation you contribute to by not voting. Of course, there are cases when a Democrat has such a strong lead, one can gamble that she or he will still win, but you haven’t mentioned that tactic at all. Also, if a third party can beat both the Democrats and the Republicans that’d be great too, but that’s rarely the case for the reasons I’ve mentioned above (and that you, once again, contribute to by not voting and ushering in more fricken people that destroy a path for third parties).
I never claimed abstaining changed anything other than my participation in an immoral system.
I believe you when you say that’s what you wish for, but that’s not what you get in reality. Abstaining when you don’t have to do so also happens to lopsidedly benefit Republicans and changes things for the worse, in my opinion.
I’m not saying you’ve been doing so on purpose, but at this point if you continue to do so with the knowledge that low voter turnout benefits Republicans in modern, presidential elections and their ability to block progressive third parties - you are wittingly guilty of aiding and abetting a Republican agenda no matter how much you may try to wish that fact away.
You are only counting United States House of Representatives. In the United States Senate, 72% of democrats voted FOR the invasion. Before telling me I need more education, make sure yours is a good one.
You still need some further education in both the legislative process and mathematics. First of all, with more Democrats in the House of Representatives, they would have killed it before it ever got to the Senate considering the vast majority of the Democrats voted against it 126 to 82.
And, in the Senate it was 29 Democrats for it and 21 against. That means only 58% of the Democrats voted for it, not your much inflated 72% figure.
On the other hand, the Republican Senators voted for it at a whooping 98-99%. Literally only 1 Republican Senator voted against it.
That means in the Senate it only took 9 more Democrats to beat the bluedog Dems on the vote.
However, it would have taken a whopping 48 more RINOs to beat the majority of Republicans on the vote.
You still want to continue to equate these two parties as equal? That’s ridiculous.
That absolutely false equivalency.
No more than yours, Sir.
That’s nice and contrarian and all, but please show me where I’ve made a false equivalency of the two parties? I’ve noted their similarities and their differences and I’ve backed it up with facts, sources, actual history, some proper knowledge of our government process and better math than you as well.
You can say it all you want but all you are doing is making assertions with nothing to back up your claims.
Are you sure you’re reading my posts?
Voting is an act of violence
Voting for people that are less likely to start more wars in the present and much more compatible with allowing the votes of third parties down the road who won’t vote for wars at all is an act of compassion for humanity.
Not voting and ushering in more guaranteed Republican votes for more needless wars is the ultimate act of violence. And not voting and further entrenching the Republicans against third parties is inane and counterproductive towards there ever being peace in our times.
If you have evidence that Republicans don’t start more wars, show it. If you have evidence that Republicans don’t make it more difficult for peaceful third parties down the road, show it.
Otherwise, you really don’t have a leg to stand on here and you need to get your tail out there and vote. Keep in mind, if you followed my link at the end of my previous post, you’ll see where I don’t think voting alone is the answer by any stretch, but it IS vital for all the reasons and evidence I’ve provided.
You are simply a partisan who thinks if everyone voted along your lines then everything would be wonderful.
Where did you hallucinate that? I think we’re in for a hell ride because we’ve embraced false equivalency so long, we’ve still got to clean up all this damage from GW Bush along with every bluedog Democrat and DINO we’ve stupidly voted into office including Obama along the way. It’s going to take decades even if we start electing true liberal Democrats or Independents today especially after having voted in Obama who was too far right but acted like a charlatan and convinced the base he was much further left.
This may confuse you, but it shouldn’t. That’s why I continuously call them the lesser evil. They are evil. They are wrong for this country, but they are the current power structure. You can whine about it and throw away your vote for a greater evil to take hold or do something about it by voting and attacking the root of the problems:
The thing to do is find part of the current power structure that has the most weaknesses and put them in power to defeat them. Republicans are too powerful. Voting them in directly or by proxy by not voting is insanity if one ever wants to see a third party have a chance in hell down the road for the many reasons and evidence I’ve shown repeatedly in my posts.
This is The Art of War instead of pushing up a white flag and letting evil prevail all around you.
