Let me get this out of the way, Russel Brand can think what we wants. He has little bearing on the subject other than some air time the rest of us have not enjoyed.
I read your final post at House leaders gut NSA-curbing USA FREEDOM Act and I have to say I’m kinda sad that you still conflate statistics, supposition, and assumptions about an alternative timeline as evidence.
It doesn’t take rocket science or a competent mathematician to deduce that means if there was more Democrats in office, they would statistically vote in larger numbers against the Iraq War. I already explained to you that enough Democratic votes by the population existed. The problem was at that time, the voters previously choose the path of not voting at all along with embracing false equivalency and flip-flopping to vote in more Republicans.
This is the kind of naivety that makes these sort of discussions difficult. Long before the vote was actually taken, both the Dems and the Reps took test votes and knew the final outcome. We were invading Iraq. The split in the Democrat vote, which you see of some evidence of intent, was nothing more than political expediency. Democrats who were not up for re-election voted for the invasion since their positions where safe and those who voted against the invasion were by and large preparing for an upcoming election. The outcome was the same but tailored to allow some democrats a more tenable position in the opposition.
Let’s also not forget that it was a 60/40 slit. 40% of democrats voted to invade. Your position makes assumption based on weak statistics and supposition based on extrapolation where none is possible. You simply guess things would be as you believe. I grant that you are not to blame here. It is just this type of reasoning we have come to expect from those so invested in their illusions. These sort of assumptive arguments are all too common and are given more weight and consideration than is deserved.
What we are discussing is essentially philosophy. Logic is the coin in these sort of discussions. Evidence plays very weakly here. After all, what factual evidence is there of morality other than anecdote? As morality is central my my thesis, I feel a need to have some basic understanding introduced. While John Henry Newman proposed conscience as providing evidence of objective moral truths, John Locke demonstrated that morality cannot be established from conscience as differences in people’s consciences yields different results as it is influenced by “education, company, and customs of the country”, who was supported by J. L. Mackie, arguing that conscience is an “introjection” of other people into an agent’s mind.
With this we can move from morality as a godly given capacity to one of practical reason. It is in this vein I cast the idea of voting as immoral. My position is that voting serves no practical reason and actually serves the immoral role of an opiate fashioned from false participation by the masses. I contend that we are in a de facto oligarchy which has long ago gamed the political system and the national narrative through bribery, coercion, and vote buying of our pre-selected political choices as well as the subtle omission of truth and outright gas lighting of the public discourse.
It is with voting that people are given a false sense of choice and a passive sense of participation. We are kept from bringing about meaningful change that we see as fair or necessary by participating in the vote. While some believe that change can come from this system, the changes most necessary are out of reach. Unless the politicians decide to limit their terms, prevent large donations from corporate interest, and reject lobbyist written legislature, the chances of ending the oligarchy and returning to a republic are non-existent. The public does not vote on these issues. Only our politicians have that power and history has demonstrated a complete lack of motivation on their part to make the changes that need to be made - no matter what party is in power.
Then we have the problem of voting by the misinformed. When the people cast their ballot, most often what we are seeing is an extension of the public narrative presented by one media organization or another. Votes cast by the ignorant often bring more harm than good. After all, how can they be expected to make a good choice when they are told otherwise in 24 hour news cycles that continually beat the drum of partisanship?
My solution is to effect change via the only means left to me. My position is that my dollar has a greater impact on this nation than my vote. By not spending money with corporations that do things I disagree with and spending my money with businesses that act responsibly, I can slowly starve the worst offenders and bolster those I see as good. I would propose that if we spent the energy we now spend on politics and the cult of the vote then we could effect change within the system that actually exists right now rather than the illusion of the system we think still exists.
Since this is a country which is now governed by oligarchical corporatism, we should work within that system according to the real rules of the system… money. Voting is left as something those in power want you to do. It won’t effect them and it keeps you in line. Withholding your dollars, now that’s something the oligarchs and corporatists find unconscionable. So much so, they have even cast consumerism as patriotism. Well, if it is patriotism, then be patriotic and spend your money only with those you feel represent your ideals and viewpoints.
edited for spelling errors