Positive rights vs negative rights & how that may or may not apply to our current situation

The premise can’t be a dichotomy between making a statement with your wallet and voting because you won’t win an argument with folks in the trenches doing both.


As evidence, I present the computer you are using.


Sigh, meanwhile…


I appreciate the link; I hadn’t noticed that article yet. Just keep two things in mind -

  • Make sure that you equally hate those Republicans and Democrats who voted against it.

  • Libertarians and Republicans are not the same thing.


Make sure that you equally hate those Republicans and Democrats who voted against it.

Check! Well, maybe not equally depending on their individual voting records, etc. - but I certainly despise anyone who screwed the pooch on this one no matter their party affiliation.

Libertarians and Republicans are not the same thing.

Agreed, although there is some overlap. At least by those who are attached to the most modern and commonly used definition of Libertarian anyway.

1 Like

your vote is worthless

That’s not what the evidence shows.

Imagine a horse race where all the thoroughbreds were taken out on a track the day before and the rich guys raced them and only the top 2 horses got to race in the Derby, for you to bet on.

If what you’re trying to say is Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same and affect society the same, then you’re mistaken. See links below for evidence:


The smartest thing to do is vote local, state and national. I’ve presented evidence throughout this thread and elsewhere that proves it.


And, here:

And, finally, please read here:

Democrats and Republicans aren’t the same in every way. Voting does matter.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I have never claimed that all we should do is vote. For more details, please read my posts.


Cow, you’ve distorted my arguments into something they are not. … But I will concede that I should not have said “your vote is worthless.”

I don’t think I distorted your arguments, I appears you misspoke as you’ve conceded.

I will concede that I should not have said “your vote is worthless.” Just as a penny is not worthless, a certain type of vote is not devoid of any value whatsoever. But, compared to dollars and hundreds, a penny is proportionately and figuratively worthless.

I still disagree with your premise that national voting is worth so little on that scale. While I agree with you that voting locally is vital, Presidential elections make many differences that affect all of us on a local level.

I don’t want to repeat myself as I’ve already provided evidence throughout this thread, other threads and I’ve already provided you links to posts in that vein. I suggest you read my posts and if you still can’t see how important national elections are, then I’d like to see your counter evidence to that effect.

Presidential elections make the difference between going to more wars (or not) that affect Americans (and the world, for that matter). National elections can hinder or help state law when it comes to civil rights, drug laws, health care laws, etc., etc. that have a drastic effect federally and locally.

For example, as someone who helped to get marijuana decriminalized in Colorado despite many unhelpful naysayer idiots from both the right and the left… I can tell you that none of this would have been remotely possible under Bush, McCain, Romney or nearly any other viable Republican for the presidency.

Obama sucks and has been worse than Bush on some aspects of the drug war with overzealous prosecution/persecution bullshit and that’s despicable, but there has been some critical flexibility that wasn’t there before. It’s that same critical flexibility that was crucial in having the US not entering an open war with Syria as well (or even just airstrikes without open boots on the ground).

Unfortunately, I’m just repeating myself from what I’ve already offered in previous posts within this thread, etc. - If you don’t have the time to read it, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ve made my suppositions and I’ve backed them up with facts and evidence.

Is voting locally vital? YES.
Is voting nationally vital? YES.

We need to do BOTH.

1 Like

You did distort by going off into “Democrats and Republicans are the same” which is something I did NOT say and you assumed.

You first said national voting didn’t matter and that’s what I responded to. Now you say it matters very little compared to local voting, which I also disagree with.

My point is that because Democrats and Republicans aren’t the same, national elections matter very much (along with local elections). I’ve supported this with evidence throughout this thread and other threads (and provided links to such) and now I’m awaiting your evidence to the contrary to support your counterargument.

Now, do you want to get back on the topic of the importance of national elections (or lack thereof) or just continue to bicker and focus like a laser on trite distractions and focus on yourself instead?

If it’s the latter, I’m losing interest fast.

1 Like

Now, do you want to get back on the topic of the importance of national elections (or lack thereof) or just continue to bicker and focus like a laser on trite distractions and focus on yourself instead?

If it’s the latter, I’m losing interest fast

Demeanor in a discussion is just as important as the discussion itself, if not moreso. Because without a positive interaction, there is no discussion happening at all.

I just explained to you that I didn’t distort anything you said, I was backing up my own point that national elections are important and why (with evidence).

You made a horse race analogy that implied we’re betting on two horses (candidates) that are going to equally appease rich guys (corporatists) no matter who we pick. And then you insultingly compared voting in national elections to “clinging” to dogma. The ironic thing is you’re dogmatically avoiding the evidence I’ve shown that’s contrary to your baseless beliefs you don’t back up with evidence. Instead, you’re focusing on trite distractions.

I think the problem is you’ve admittedly not bothered to read the thread and don’t understand the context in which you’ve made your post.

My interest in discussion with you is now lost. You want to talk about you and nothing more at this point. I’m over it. If you want to discuss the issues and back up your arguments with facts and evidence, then go for it. Otherwise, the point is avoiding the issues, derailing this fucking thread you won’t bother to read and focusing on your ego and… I’m decidely not interested.

Uh, you’re over-reacting and having a hissy fit.

Projection. Look into it, Mr. Distortion.

Demeanor in a discussion is just as important as the discussion itself, if not moreso.

This… coming from the person who jumps into a thread without reading it, says my vote is worthless (that you only later corrected) and compares my effort to voting in national elections with me clinging to a sacred dogma. All while ironically completely ignoring my evidence-based suppositions within this thread and countering with your own evidence-free beliefs.

And, you wonder where I may have gotten annoyed with you?

/thread for me

Good riddance.

I look forward to the day when one of you who dismisses the importance of voting in national elections (or otherwise) bothers to provide evidence to support your wild claims instead of focusing on insulting, trite derailments when all else fails you.


Because absolute declarations, false equivalence, and argument by assertion is positive? The thread is indeed long dead, and it died when dacree revealed his partisan agenda after playing coy for so long. Simply rehashing dacree’s points isn’t going to revive them.


Doesn’t that mean that the Democrats in office were actually responding to the desires of their constituents? And also, to complete the equivalence battle, how did Republicans vote who were up for election? The most concrete way currently to establish yourself as a Democratic voter vs. a Republican voter, and thus either one who has to be pandered to in an election year by voting against or for war, respectively, didn’t voting then still affect the outcome?

If your argument is that the Democrats up for election wouldn’t have necessarily voted against the war if it wasn’t already a foregone conclusion, I don’t see why that’s essentially less crystal-ball-y than Cowicide’s assertions.

In the end , it seems like we just need to let our representatives know that our memories are sharper and longer than they think, and that an immediate upcoming election shouldn’t be their only concern. Perhaps when we go in to vote, we need it to be more like a customer survey. “I’m NOT re-electing you because of the following reasons:”


Seeing as the big sharks start off as little minnows, we ought to nip 'em in the bud locally first, mind.

(ETA: and continue to do so as they grow)


It’s useless to cite the actual events where voter preference changed policy. The entire thesis of these new monarchists is that the voters are necessarily going to choose an option that is evil and stupid. That criteria is in the mind of the bias, not subject to the record. Such has always been the case with monarchy.

1 Like

He has no right or ability to force you, but you know he has every right to tell what he thinks ought to be done. You have the same right, and have done so in the past, advising people on the virtues of not voting. If that was all with a better demeanor, well – instead of just complaining about the reception, you should take a look at what you actually jumped into.

Cowicide had provided not just an opinion but what I would consider good evidence about the effects of voting on a national level; the rest has been defending it against someone waving it all aside, saying they don’t want any evidence except the axioms they select. A number of us are already quite done with evidence-free dismissals.

In that context just jumping in and casually skipping everything that was given and said, without bothering about backing up your contrary assertions, isn’t just voicing another opinion; it’s shoving over everyone above who provided evidence or argued for its importance. I expect it was inadvertent disregard, but now you’re caught up and know why it came off so badly.


Well, in case it hasn’t been said, let’s all remember here that we agree on some pretty fundamental shit.

1 Like

Of course in most elections it makes negligible difference if any one individual votes. It’s like recycling, or saving water, or boycotting something. My understanding was that the question is if the voting in aggregate had value – based, you know, on actually having followed the topic. How such matters split up into individual responsibilities is another thing.

I don’t see where I’ve said people shouldn’t have a choice on voting, or anything remotely jingoistic, or even that voting in local elections isn’t more important than in national ones. All I’ve said is the latter does make important differences in outcome, and expressed frustration with people dismissing that without evidence, and pointed out that since you came in seeming to do so you shouldn’t be surprised you got a bad reception.

But sure. I’ll settle for the second class troll certificate, valued according to the signature being someone who said he didn’t read the thread but still felt self-important enough to complain about its tone, but a good reminder about trying to talk when I can tell nobody’s listening.


They also tend to have a reasonable eye and ear for bullshit, and vote accordingly. Even when their ideas are wrong they tend to be a wrong that is less wrong than even random chance or even the “conventional wisdom” currently being plugged by the media. Your “mathematical” argument only holds true if your fifty-thousanth-point vote is the only vote out of fifty thousand that is “best for everyone”.

(and… cities often have over 50,000 active voters, so does your argument invalidate local elections too? are you really so clueless as to go back on your initial declaration?)

How else do you expect the direction of national decisions to be set?

And here we get around to the real bugaboo for monarchists: getting them to admit that their preferred form of government, after a short period of anarchy, is an enlightened daddy-oligarch with nothing so limiting as legislative or judicial checks on their economic power, political power, militia power, or power to censor.

begin zombie thread3…

1 Like

I’m back.

Your problem is that nobody has stood up to your ludicrous bullying.

Aside from the fact that’s hilarious considering how much I’m bullied, my real problem is you jumped into this thread without reading it, then insultingly blurted that my actions are worthless and then went on to compare my efforts to clinging to sacred dogma while proudly anouncing you couldn’t be bothered with reading the thread.

Let’s see, now I see you’ve gone on to refer to @chenille and myself as “numbskulls” along with “Colossal Trolls”, jingoistic (um, what?), inept at your obtuse math nonsense, etc.

Sometimes, my friend, the bully is you.

Also, “jingoistic” may sound like a cool word and all, but you should probably arm yourself with the knowledge of its proper definition before shooting it all over the place like an illiterate Rambo.

You have NO right to tell me who or who not to vote for, or whether or not to even vote, if I should so choose.

I wasn’t aware Kim Jong-un took over the United States and declared free speech rights dead.

I will refrain from providing further suppositions based upon evidence that hurts your fragile, limited, stunted sensibilities, my ruler.

I don’t need even one fact to back me up on that.

Well, I wouldn’t want you to break any trends for yourself…

You can take your opinions and shove them up your backside or your frontside or your Cowiside

Well, if it’s up to me, I choose all of the above… I want all my holes filled.

Still waiting for your evidence.

For sure, local voting is vital.