Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Should we accept the false premise of Dem. or Rep.?

 I was recently informed that we shouldn't raise too many doubts about Obama because there is no alternative. This is a common argument and the Mass Media has attempted to drill it into our heads that we have to accept this premise; the following is my short response which I decided was worth a blog.

Zacherytaylor wrote:

The real opposition to the real Obama is being totally ignored by the Mass Media.

They're hoping we'll believe the lie that we have to choose between the candidates that they present to us all of which are owned by the same corporations that own the Mass Media.

What is the alternative?

What realistic alternative do you see for next November other than choosing between the candidate of the Democrats and the candidate of the Republicans?

Do you honestly think the candidate of a third party can get enough votes to win?

And if so, I will ask the same questions I ask of all “third party” advocates:

What makes you think the politicians of your third party, if they win, will not get as corrupted by power as the politicians of every party that has ever existed on the planet?

What makes you think that the politicians of your third party, if they win, will be immune to the influence of the money that influences power in our country?

I hope you answer those questions, Zachery. I’ve never had a single advocate of third party wishful thinking ever respond to them.

 Frank: "What is the alternative?"

The alternative is that we try to come up with something better. It may not be easy and it may involve a lot of organizational and educational efforts; but we try.

What is the alternative to not trying?

(For more information on Blog see Blog description and table of context for most older posts.)

The following are the original replies when this was first posted on Open Salon.

This conversation was begun at The Fictional Obama courtesy of Kemstone.

zacherydtaylor February 13, 2012 10:16 AM

The Mass Media has a virtual veto over who has a chance to run; ironically if they did a little better job then it would be much more difficult to change this.

As it is they're doing such an atrocious job that it is obvious to just about everyone and everyone has to know that we need major change.

This provides an enormous opportunity if we take it.

It might make some wonder why they don't do a slightly better job if they want to preserve their power; one possibility is that the system they're trying to defend has become so extreme that it is next to impossible to defend it rationally.

zacherydtaylor February 13, 2012 11:00 AM

I'm not inclined to believe either party... or their candidates.

I'm also known to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE" when I do not believe ANY of the candidates running are qualified for the job.

Perhaps instead of looking at it as "Either - Or" or the "lesser of two evils" we should be more inclined to vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE" when the candidates presented are not qualified to do the job.

MrsRaptor February 13, 2012 01:35 PM

I am going to answer you short and sweet Zachary I just gave you your accolades on Kemstones blog. No we cannot except this because we will not survive this. The only alternative is becoming painfully clear.

Jack Heart February 13, 2012 02:55 PM

Third parties do not have to win an election to influence following elections. If neither of the major parties are acceptable to a voter, that voter should not vote for them. The Republican Party was taken over by the right wing partially because of the old Conservative Party which forced the Republicans to move to the right in order to gain Conservative Party support without which they had been losing to the Democrats. The Greens and the Socialists know this already. The Democratic Party will learn they have to move to the left or they will lose; or be forced to go even further to the right and become what used to be known as the Republican Party.

Peter Breschard February 13, 2012 08:48 PM

The elections aren't going to resolve anything. Things have gotten so bad, that the only solution lies in the streets.

Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall February 13, 2012 10:35 PM

Mrs. Raptor, None of the above would be better than voting for either of the two corrupt parties but write ins would probably be even better. Whether it is none of the above or a write in if there is a strong showing then many more people may get the impression that there is a chance the next time; assuming the third party candidate can’t win.

Also local elections have a better chance of electing independents. If we can get enough members of congress elected at a sincere grass roots level they can gain a major bully pulpit an drive some real change.

Jack, I’ll take another look too, at a glance it seems to have been busy. I agree that we can’t accept this if there is an option and if there isn’t an option we should create one! The current system is based on blatant bribery and as long as we continue accepting the premise that accepting bribes is required to be a viable contender then it won’t be a real democracy.

Peter, actually the democrats are already to the right of what used to be the Republican Party and the new Republican party is even farther to the right. The system has gone insane and unless people from below get involved and change this it will continue to get worse. Accepting the false premise of choosing between the candidates approved by the corporations isn’t going to change this.

Stuart, some things may have to happen in the streets but if it comes down to violence then there will be a serious risk that this will devolve into something much worse. It would be much more effective if the protests remained peaceful and more people were educated about the corruption that is going on and the fact that the corruption is the leading instigator of protest and even the violence not the people that want sincere reform who are trying to get good government.

zacherydtaylor February 14, 2012 09:47 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment