@Thucy- I totally get what you are saying, even (especially?) the idea that casting a vote for the lesser of two evils candidate is a tacit endorsement of the political process.

What doesn't make sense is the idea that inaction is an effective way to address the issue. Not voting doesn't remove anyone's mandate. The whole idea of a mandate is that the person who was elected got a lot of votes, so if you want voters to vote fr you, you should probably do what that person says. Not voting does nothing to decrease this.

@yassem

Go fuck yourself, I am anything but lazy. You don't know me

Also, for the record, I think Thucy is mainl right, not Jeff Kuta and yassem

"I was -1 when they were elected"

I'm old.

@Thucy, well then tell me, cause I'm dying of curiosity - what is it that you DO to change things? Or is it only the things you don't do?

@uclabb

Yes it does. The lower turnout is, the less legitimate the government can then pretend to be. If a president were elected with 51% and a 10% turnout, that means 5% of voters elected him. That is not the people's president, and everyone would know it.

Again, I am not against the concept of voting. I am however against voting under the current conditions. I therefore make an active choice not to vote. The so-called apathetic millions who never vote - can we not begin to ask, why indeed do they not care about politics? Why indeed do they feel voting is a pointless waste of time? Perhaps it is time we started listening to the electorate that isn't voting. They are still voting in a way.

No yassem it's the things I do. As I stated already I take direct action.

@Thucy, oh my fucking god, you are so stupid, you keep repeating the same argument, that has been disproved over and over again in this thread. IT IS NOT VALID. We will soon run out of possible sentences to build to tell you that, and will just repeat ourselves word for word. I'm going to watch germans kick some portuguese ass, but when I come back I hope to see some more reasons to make fun of you than the same old argument.

So please, tell me about your direct actions. Is it getting yourself McFired? (scroll down for some older threads, like 5 days ago) Or is it more like thumbsupping some Facebook pages that are also about boycotting stuff?

Yassem, I really admire how you can make such a thorough analysis of Thucy's actions and personality, just going off some posts on some website. It's really impressive. It would take most people actual time spent with a person, and perhaps some adult conversation, but you just pull it off. Quite something.

I am making assumptions only as a result of him denying to share with us the actual info (which on itself says quite a lot)

Thucy's whole proposition is inane.

"Suppress voter turnout, and show the government for what it really is, a disengaged plutocracy."

That naturally plays right into the hands of the disengaged plutocracy. "They" *want* a disengaged electorate so they can continue to do whatever they want without giving the little people any recourse.

Taking direct action is all fine and dandy. However, if you refuse to use all the tools at your disposal, namely VOTING, then you truly are as powerless as you believe yourself to be.

Seriously. People died so that you could have the ability to vote for your future. Voting doesn't *cost anything* except time.

And everyone on webDip certainly has enough time to vote. :P

@Thucy: Yes it is power. Apparently an internet video had the power to influence your perception of reality.

That's probably not why he's not saying it. First of all it sounds really sanctimonous to talk about all the wonderful things you do for your fellow people, so much more than other people blablabla. People might even think you do it just so you can brag about it.
Second, people will say you're making stuff up to sound cool.
Third, someone who wants to actually act rather than just talk will see little point in this kind of conversation and even less the sanctimonous piss contest you're trying to provoke.

Last but not least, and I can't stress this enough, I'd be very surprised if he gives a single fuck about what some dude in Poland thinks.

That's to yassem.

Direct action or voting.

Why not both?

I'm not saying Thucy is right about everything, but from his point of view: if he believes the system that is, to him, corrupt and undemocratic and in this corrupt and undemocratic system, people vote as a crucial part of the system.

You don't see how someone opposed to the system would consider not voting?

I would probably vote for/create a party that vocally opposes this system in that case, but in the absence of such a party I can understand not voting.

It's easy to be frustrated with government. But it is another thing entirely to advocate for dropping out of the system so you have zero chance of changing it except through revolution. It's even further ludicrous to think--yes, that's only a thought experiment he really proposes--that there will come a time when so few people are voting that the "true" will of the people can finally push past the sham democracy of the disengaged plutocracy.

Everyone knows the rich have the ability to effect change with their wealth and connections. Use the free tool you have and VOTE.

Apathy is easy, and that's what Russell Brand is really selling.

"It has long since become clear to me that ours is not a democracy, and our "system" is not one worth defending. Any opportunity for reform or even revolution, you best believe I am on board" - Thucy

Thucy's looking to replace voting by good old fashioned revolution. Like I say, a more hands on approach.

I doubt he's in if it's a violent revolution, to be fair.

Ask him. I genuinely don't know with Thucy anymore.

@Thucy- in your example, your ultimate conclusion was: "if only 5% of the people voted for him, he's #notmypresident". The same effect is achieved by voting third party, except then you actually are asserting a position rather than (assumed) apathy.

Fundamentally, it doesn't make a difference to the government what percentage of people vote- they care a lot about who can get the votes that are out there, but voter turnout doesn't affect their power in any way. It just doesn't. This notion that if no one voted politicians would look themselves in the mirror and see that they need to change seems... I don't even know what. What you are saying seems a lot like the whole Occupy Wall Street thing, except even more muddled. Potentially good ideas/motivation, but absolutely no direction.

So I think the relevant question is: what change are you hoping to actually accomplish?

@ Steephie

"we're essential feudalist, or fascist, or some freaky combination of both" - Thucy

If you genuinely believed you lived in a fascist country, would you not support violent revolution? Actually, thinking of your pacifistic comments in other threads, you might not. But I would. Fortunately, I don't believe it. Not even close.

I do not believe in violence myself.

Do not pigeonhole me by saying all I want is an overthrow is the government. I would rather the existing government actually function the way a legitimte democracy should, but it does not. All I want is true democracy - remove money from politics. One man one vote. That's all I ask.

However it is becoming clear that no change is coming from within. Obviously. Perhaps we need a new constitution, perhaps we need an overthrow, perhaps we need a new political party, all I can say is that we need SOMETHING. As it stands, I will not vote, because I will not interact with a corrupt and illegitimate state any more than I must. I plead for fairness only. Anyone who says the current "democracy" is fair is out of their mind.

But in case you were wondering, yes, peaceful civil disobedience has been and will continue to be part of the direct action of which I speak.

The right to vote was hard won. Our current choices are not real choices , for anyone who has views even mildly to the left of centre it is going to be damn near impossible to find a candidate to vote for. I personally favour the spoilt ballot option with an essentially pointless but satisfyingly defiant "none of the above scrawled acoss the bottom of the voting slip.

It was hard won yes, and so they set about seeing how they could make it meaningless.

"I do not believe in violence myself"

With the greatest respect, Thucy, unless you have made a complete U-turn in the past few months that is totally untrue. You have often argued, and rightly so, for military intervention against despotic rulers. That implies a belief that violence is sometimes necessary to prevent great injustice. I can understand a squeamishness about getting your own hands dirty (although I could have sworn you claimed you'd join the military if the need was there a while back), but you cannot claim to not believe in violence.

My question to you is this. If you genuinely believe that the USA is a freaky feudal fascist state, how do you justify not doing whatever is necessary (including violence) to fight it? I suspect it is because you don't actually believe it is anything like as bad as you like to claim it is.