Do you honestly believe that I'm without cynicism, or that I shy away from questioning authority? There's a pretty big of difference between having an awareness of the issues facing your world, and perpetrating some dumbass fraud that your apathy is borne out of principle.

I understand and appreciate, SWIMfriend, that war and oppression are bad. I get that the system is meant to be rigged for the guy with the deepest resources. But this time around, the better funded candidate came up short, and had he been elected, a lot of policies I find abhorrent would have been put in effect. Does this make me a blind supporter of the guy who won? I don't believe so, but I am enormously glad and relieved that it came out the way it did.

Well, that brings up another issue: You point out there are large differences between the two in their POSITIONS--but experiences tells us quite well that most presidents (and Obama has ALREADY thoroughly demonstrated this) move heavily towards the center, anyhow. Of course there are exceptions, but between what any president claims to offer, and what they deliver are TWO buffer zones:

1) The tendency to move toward the middle.
2) The rather SUBSTANTIAL limitations of what presidents can actually ACCOMPLISH unilaterally. Generally, with a president of one party and a congress (or especially a House) of the other--the result is gridlock, with little action (which, actually, suits me quite well).

Do I vote? Hell no! and never will. I do not believe in the US Government system, I have fought it for 20 years. I believe in my country just not the government as it has evolved. And the policies go out the door the day after election day. I have seen them break their election promises every time. And yes I am quite aware of the policies of both parties as I spend a great deal of time looking over the bills that would suppress freedom, free speech, and Fundamental Human Rights.

You really think I look like Che Guevarra in that photo? I don't see it, even remotely. I think your are looking to project hate because you disagree with my perception of society. I have not come on here much but the times I have most of my posts are followed by you spouting hate and insults at me.

You are most welcome to completely disagree with me, but I will not get into a war of insults on a message board. I would ask you to be a little more open minded and intellectually diplomatic. There is a very big difference between a debate and an argument. If emotions are directing your logic, your arguing. Believe it or not there are many here who agree at least in part with what I am saying. Others disagree and from them I tend to learn the most.

'No vovin, your wrong about that. It actually works like this.....'
or
'No vovin you moron, your just a extremist wanting a revolution etc....'

Both statements lead to the same discussion, one obviously is a little more open minded and less aggressive and as such will lead to a possible productive debate and some learning on both sides. The other will result in a bandying back and forth of insults and raw unbridled hatred.

Which do you think is more productive if only to get your point across?

Viva Vovin Guevara! La revolution est el aquí y ahora!

Btw, my grandad was overseas once in an election. He wasn't going to be bothered voting but at the last minute did a postal vote. After a recount the candidate he voted for got in by One vote. I'm not making this story up.
So if one side is even fractionally less insidious than the other it may be worth voting.

Obama has provided a sobering example of the inevitable drift toward the middle, this is true. Also true that his presidency has been hampered by partisan gridlock, and this is likely to be an ongoing issue in his second term as well. I think he's shown in a lot of ways just how broken the system is. It's been disheartening, and yet I believe that he's done some pretty good things. He also inherited a clusterfuck of near biblical proportions - two wars, a financial meltdown not seen since the days of the great depression, and a general trouncing of civil liberties and personal freedoms by the son of a bitch that preceeded him.

Do you honestly believe, SWIMfriend (or anyone else), that life in the U.S. (or most anywhere on the planet) would have been the same from 2000 on had Gore won (or rather had the office not been stolen from him) back in 2000? Do you imagine that we still would have gone to war in Iraq? My point is that there is a difference, and that those who are too apathetic or cynical to participate in the process, deserve the worst that's served up to them.

And Vovin - no, I don't think you look like Che Guevarra. I think you think of yourself in that way. I see you as humorless, pretentious, overly dramatic and lacking in critical thinking skills. I always have, but I don't hate you. I just find you to be excruciatingly annoying.

IMO the ability of people to meaningfully answer "what if" questions is WILDLY overrated--which of course doesn't change the FACT the it's always useful to try to make good decisions.

But my point in responding you is that I think you TOO EASILY dismiss the "I don't care, they're all the same" perspective. I think a long view shows that (except for civil rights and some environmental legislation) over the last 90-100 years government has done more harm than good in the US. I think my argument could stand ALONE on the facts that our military is ABSURDLY large, developed, and entrenched to the point that even the public at large thinks the idea of NOT having a perpetual and vast standing army, ready for battle in seconds is "normal," and it would be reckless to have otherwise. But I can't resist adding to that the EXTREME increase in the degree of police power (both through legislation of laws, and the militarization of police themselves). The idea of making plants ILLEGAL for people to own or cultivate would never have occurred to people even 150 years ago. It would have been too absurd to think about. But now there is a WAR upon those who would like to have certain plants--on which hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent, and tens of thousands of lives lost and ruined.

I'll only mention the economy to note that prices for most items are now about TWENTY TIMES what they were when I was a child in the late 50's/early 60's.

...and inflation is PURELY a product of government policies and actions.

There's no point getting into a LONG discussion of this...

I'd only like to note the well-supported observations of Steven Pinker that expose the surprising fact that history has trended strongly and smoothly toward PEACE over, say, the last 500 years; and that we now live (believe it or not) in the most peaceful times ever seen on the planet. And the REASON for that (mostly) is the simplest market economics and commerce: People have come to the realization (if only semi-consciously) that economic resources are NOT rigidly limited--that trade is not a zero-sum game. And so they have realized that they are MUCH BETTER OFF cooperating in commerce than they are fighting (between individuals, or groups) for resources. That was an actual lesson that took millennia for society at large to learn.

And to me, what that directly implies is that perhaps now a NEW DIRECTION is needed in history--a path toward LESS government, less centralization (and the US path has CLEARLY been one of more centralization--more than the founding fathers ever would have dreamed of), and more freedom and individual liberty.

The idea that in order to live safely and productively we must create a VAST bureaucracy, with heavy-handed powers to enforce its will on individuals and other nations, is past its prime. And the path to new directions will probably involve apathy toward older ways...

even though i dont live in the US, the thoughts of SWIMfriend resonate very much with me.Is there really need for such a big military ? so much money and research invested in weaponry and armament. i mean i live in the smallest countries on the balkan, but even here the military of the US bought very big national land, and they built the biggest army complex in the populated area.

Also, i agree with Vovin in every post. Why to vote ? Why to lie myself that i will make some difference, when in reallity its obvious even before the elections which party will win.

You do understand that one of these candidates' plans included increasing the military budget, yes? And that the other one's does not? I would call that a significant point of difference between the two. And yes, I too think our military is grossly over funded, especially in light of budget cutbacks in other crucial areas.

As for the war on drugs, you are really preaching to the choir. Neither candidate was going to move the country in a direction more acceptable to me in this regard. While this has been one of Obama's bigger failings in my opinion, it's hardly the only enormously pressing issue facing our country. Half of the people here would gladly vote for Idi Amin if he favored weed reform. It's as if this is the one and only thing that can penetrate their apathy. That is sad, and it's fairly revealing as to the motivations of our subculture.

Just as an aside, can you possibly ease up a hair with the pendatic abuse of your caps lock? I understand your points without it. There's really no need to shout.

I´ve seen someone fiercely defending moamar gadaffi on this forum. Some people have become so obsessed with their hate against society (because of drug laws) that they´ve completely alienated themselves from the rest of the world. They look down on everybody who has never taken DMT (christian for instance, describes society as 'sea of the dead' without realising how little they actually know about all the people they dismiss as dumb, ignorant or stupid.

They don´t seem to realise how much they´re a freaky little fringe subculture, almost as insignificant to the rest of the world as any doomsday-prophecy cult. And while drug-laws ARE stupid and unjustified, nobody listens to any of their aguments anymore because of the many loony conspiracy theories they vent, or their cultivated negativity that most people have no appetite for.

It´s just sad.

Art,

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I really see Obama as just a different brand of oppression than Romney. First and foremost, everyone was angry at the Bush admin for the Patriot act, as well as they should be. Obama admin renews it. What's with that? I thought he was supposed to be for privacy and civil liberties.

Secondly, I think the importance of the drug laws is often very understated. It's often seen as, "oh it's just a silly plant", or "it's just people getting high." That's not the issue. Locking away people, destroying families, and tarnishing their credibility to the point that they face a difficult to impossible time getting a decent job, for doing something without a victim, in the privacy of their own head, is wrong. It is oppression. I have sovereignty over nothing, if not my own body and mind. To have part of my life stolen away from me, that I'll never get back, is a severe infringement on my rights. Unfortunately, Obama has a worse record on this than even Bush! Who would have seen that coming? I sure as hell didn't.

The way I see any politician, is the same way I see a lawyer (no offense to any lawyers). When you work with a lawyer, you have to set terms, conditions, and make a deal. You have an agreement, but you don't make your lawyer your friend. They aren't there to make you feel good, or for emotional support. Anyone running for office is supposed to be viewed in this way. I know there are plenty of politicians who are good people, and want to make the country better. There are plenty of bad ones, too. I have no way of knowing what they are! EVER! You can know someone for a long time and realize they are a shitty person. So why should anyone ever have some sort of emotional attachment, or think that a politician is really working in their favor? Because they sound empathetical when they speak? No, they are supposed to be watched closely, and kept tabs on. Obama-fever makes me nervous, because people as a whole genuinely think he's a great guy, gonna do things for the people, but there is no way to know this. Well, there wasn't, but now he has a four year record. It has become clear to me that with the parties, you can only trade one system of oppression for another, but they are equally bad.

Obama has done some good things, but he also has a very shitty record on many other things. If I had my choice, I would have fired him, and got someone else. There's really no one to choose from, and this is where the two party system fails us. Is it so revolutionary to have a system where people don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils? How about a system where people actually choose their candidate, and actually want to vote for them? That is probably just a nonsensical rant of a stupid, no good, drug user, though.

And I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The continuance of the Patriot Act, non-closure of Guantanomo Bay and handling of the war on drugs are my three biggest complaints about the last four years. I don't see the war on drugs as a small issue at all. I just don't see it as the only issue, despite my personal feelings on the matter. And I certainly don't have Obama fever. He's been a grave disappointment in some respects. But for me, he was the overwhelmingly clear choice - and that includes all of the fringe wackos who never stood a chance anyway. I still have hopes that he can accomplish more in term #2 without re-election being a factor. Chances are, however, that there will still be a lot of gridlock to contend with.

Please don't mistake me for a proponent of the system. I think it sucks, just as most of you do. But I'm a realist as well, and if I allow my disgust to stop me from participating when I see a clear and unambiguous difference between the two candidates on the ballot - one of whom is flawed and imperfect but shares some of my basic ideals, and the other whose core beliefs are abhorrent to me on every level and whose policies I believe will inevitably drive this country further into decline - I actually feel a responsibility to exercise my right to vote for one of them.

You're doing what SO MANY people do generally in arguments--but PARTICULARLY in politics: you are shifting your perspective to defend the position you want to hold.

My point is that a few billion here or there is MEANINGLESS (and that's the tacit point of the "what's the difference, they're all the same" crowd). Neither candidate has even APPROACHED the notion that the level of our military spending and organization is, essentially PSYCHOTIC, nearly SUICIDAL...and fundamentally misanthropic.

Very well put. In the end, our vote is almost all we really have, besides public protest. It may well be a sham, and a complete puppet show, but at least you try to make the system better by voting.

My joke i kept saying before the election was this:

So, (generic office co-worker name), who do you think will win in the election? Well, it's certainly not going to be the American people!

Always got a few laughs.

And that's the point. The choice may be BOTH clear--and pointless.

If I want to get rich, and McDonalds is offering $10.25/hour and BurgerKing is offering $10.35 an hour, the choice of who to work for is perfectly clear; yet...being so proud of that rational decision doesn't change the fact that I ain't GONNA be gettin' rich flippin' burgers.

Listen, you try and argue the point that the differences between them are miniscule, but that wasn't the case at all. For you, it's an all or nothing proposition - if you're not presented with the perfect candidate, you're going to pout and stay home.

I don't for the life of me understand how anyone who is either black, gay, latino, a woman or making under $250K a year could even consider a vote for Romney. And for the record, I'm not an impoverished black lesbian - but the America I would like to live in will include representation of her demographic. Romney's America would have left her behind entirely, and no one other than rich white men and corporations would have seen their interests represented. A vote for Romney was a vote against the vast majority of the populace, and a vote for no one only increased the chances that he would win.

I read loud and clear your disdain for the system, but my question is what are you doing about it? If your choice is to remove yourself entirely from the equation, you allow yourself to be marginalized further and actually become complicit in the worst possible results.

And for the love of god, enough with the caps lock.

If everyone would think and act like this, the recreational use of cannabis would not have just been legalised in two american states.

To see voting as a civic duty is maybe taking it all a bit too far. But the 'we are all slaves' chorus and the endless pointing at 'the elites' and 'the bankers'...i mean, come on!!! It´s just sooo easy.

Just put away the bong for a while and get yourself some fresh air.

This is a tiresome conversation but I gotta chime in.

I've always voted Democrat because of their record on the environment. It is vastly different from the Republican record, especially in recent years. One party enacts regulations while the other strips them away. To me, this alone is worth my vote.

But it doesn't end there: dems broaden civil liberties, repubs hold them back. Dems enact things like equal pay for women, repubs work simply to make the rich richer. I know this is an oversimplification, but I do follow these issues closely and, by and large, this generalization is true.

So, point number 1: the two parties are not the same. Seriously. Get over your rage and look at actual voting records.

Point number 2: elections are often won by a razor thin margin. Your individual vote counts, really.

So if you can't stand the thought of supporting a flawed party, I fully understand. It's massively frustrating. But I just couldn't stand by and watch the "corporations are people" candidate win.

What a lot of you are saying, in essence, is: since my vote won't make as big of a difference as I want it to, I won't participate at all. Sure, I get it. But you're fooling yourselves of you think there is no difference between the two sides, or that your vote doesn't count.

You just have to be comfortable with being part of a tortuously slow incremental process. People in this day and age easily give up on such things.

I really don't want to get involved in this conversation, for a number of reasons (so this may be my only post). Sure, there are differences, but both parties are significantly to the right of the overall populace (just look at the published polls on Americans' desires re: healthcare, war, environmental issues, etc. and compare them to the mainstream politicians'/parties' positions).

This time around, one party/candidate was openly in favor of denying women and gays basic human rights...like it or not, that's kind of huge. However, that does not negate the fact that ~ half of American voters (and others around the world) are openly celebrating that a war criminal has been elected to the US Presidency.

As to the environment...natural gas (read: fracking) is a major part of Obama's platform...the Canadian interior ministry is overwhelmingly optimistic that Obama will approve Keystone XL. These are not issues where regulation is needed...these are practices that need to be stopped.

There's a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at that.

Hey, I voted! I helped legalize weed, and pass gay marriage. I feel like those votes counted. I wasn't eager to vote for the president, though.

I just wonder if a system could be made to where the best possible people for the job are running. Isn't it nuts that the elections are won by a slim margin? That means who ever wins, nearly half the voters are let down. It would be nice if say 75% of the people voted for the winner, because the choice was so clear. Do people vote by their morals, or do they vote for who they are told to? Much of the people in the bases on both sides just go with what the party says. People identify with a party, and the primitive group/clan part of their brain tells them they are part of that group. So they go on eating up what their party says to eat up. Remove the parties and labels of conservative and liberal, and I'm willing to bet most folks would vote along the same lines, instead of 50/50.

But how can we get to that system? I've thought on it a lot, and have never come up with a good answer.

No caps, Art! You got me laughing at your last reaction to that.

I honestly feel like Romney was just placed there as a shill so that people would choose Obama..who is not necessarily that great either..but you know how it goes. Im not super big on Ron Paul but it was very weird how he suddenly dropped out..hmm. Very strange.

I dont have much faith in party politics at the federal level like this though..the higher up you go the more bunk and corrupt the whole thing seems. You can probly inspire more change on a local level..of course there is still corruption but it is easier to deal on that level.