Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 10/25/24 06:45, Chris Buckley wrote:

On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:

I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
at all.
>

I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent,
and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.

 I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must
distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those
countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate
yourself.
 This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
 

In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through
the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
>
Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs,
not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
positions.

 D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society.  We're
unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
 There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
government should do. That's cancel culture.  Would you really not
vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
because of that, D?  Just about the only group who philosophically
should not vote are the anarchists.
 As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."
 Chris
 

All American Anarchists should always vote for the most competent candidate.  We should do that because as bad as
government is it is far better constrained by even imperfect
basic law than by men acting on whims and without information.
We see in nations where Government has collapsed and
anarchy prevales that misery excalates. We see in nations
ruled by dictatorships of the Left or of the Right that misery
ensues. So goverment by the Constitution is better but certain
branches of the Government have resigned their proper functions
and allowed one or more other branches to improperly
execute the duty of other branches. One branch has the duty
of comparing non-basic law to the basic law for conflict
but the so called justices have dragged the common law of
superstitious monarchies into the case. They presume to
place their interpretation of religion against modern science
and in addition prominent members have accepted large gifts
from parties who have interests in the presented cases.
bliss
.