F*** Russell Brand. Anybody who encourages young people to NOT vote can go to hell

[scheming daemons]

And yes... I watched that word-salad of a video from the other thread.


Russell Brand, and his opinion that not voting is a noble thing, should be ridiculed.


Voting is how revolutions happen here, Russell. Drop out if you want, but keep that shit to yourself.

[Francois Jeopardy]

1. George Carlin said the same thing.

[legcramp]

3. So we have 2 comedians encouraging the "utes" not to vote

It's a consensus!

[MADem]

9. Ehhh, where's My Cousin Vinny, to make it a threesome!

I love Herman Munster as the judge in that film....

[AAO]

51. No just one - the other guy is dead.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. He doesn't have to keep anything to himself. The fact that you think not voting should be ridiculed

just shows you like to bully people. If you want to vote, vote. But leave people the hell alone. If people don't want to vote they don't have to.

[leftynyc]

5. Do you really believe

encouraging anyone not to vote is something to emulate? I have no idea who this guy is but do you really believe that is something that should be encouraged?

[arcane1]

10. Criticizing an abysmally stupid public statement is not bullying, by any stretch of the imagination.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. I get so tired of people telling people how they should vote. I get bullied into voting for any

democrat no matter how much their policies are similar to republicans. Well guess what? The bullying does not work. I vote for who I want.

[treestar]

100. When were you ever bullied into voting?

Did some Democrat come into the booth with you and force you to pull the lever?

Everyone tells others how to vote, it's called trying to influence.

[Cha]

115. thanks treestar

really?

[MH1]

149. You have to be bullied into voting for Democrats?

Wait, what?

[MH1]

150. I get so tired of people cheapening the word "bullying".

ACTUAL bullying is a real and terrible scourge that harms people.

At most, what is happening to you is that you are bullied into promising to vote for someone, or bullied into saying you voted for that person.

If that's the case, well you are an adult and you need to stand up to any bullies in your real life. But claiming to be "bullied" by someone who is urging you to vote a certain way, is bullshit. (As a last resort, there is this novel new technique. It's called lying. If someone crosses the line so much to try to bully you into voting a certain way, it is perfectly ethical for you to lie to them. After of course, you find that telling them it's not their business doesn't work. And get that idjit out of your life, if you can.)

And feeling "bullied" by any words you see on an anonymous discussion board on the internet - that aren't personally directed at you and with a pattern of stalking - is absolute and complete bullshit and you ought to rethink your reaction.

[Bobbie Jo]

170. +1

Thank you. This can't be repeated often enough.

[jeff47]

47. It is not possible to "not vote".

Sure, you're not going to a polling place and casting a ballot, but not voting has effects, just like voting.

The primary effect is politicians ignore you. If you aren't going to vote, they aren't going to bother doing anything about your issues. Time is limited, and you aren't going to be there.

The secondary effect is the people who you would vote against are more likely to win.

If you dislike how the government currently works, not voting is the best way to ensure it continues to work that way.

[razorman]

53. Agreed. I had a college professor once, who said, "Not making a decision IS a decision."

[7962]

95. RUSH: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

[annabanana]

68. BINGO! If you don't vote, the bozos vote counts MORE! .. . . . n/t

[airplaneman]

71. I double agree.

I also think not voting increases the odds that a more radical group, the one issue voter, or someone nobody wants is going to win. I strongly encourage everyone to vote.
-Airplane

[treestar]

99. Exactly, it is childish plea for attention

which the politicians are not going to give, logically.

[okaawhatever]

70. He was referring to Brand "encouraging people not to vote" not the same thing as

ridiculing someone for not voting. Especially if you also think the system needs to be changed.

[Cali_Democrat]

125. Criticism of public statements is bullying?

LOL

[roguevalley]

127. I hate it when people don't vote. They are full of opinions about things and spew them

but they don't take any steps toward fixing them. Given that red necks vote in large numbers, anyone who doesn't vote sells out reason. I say screw you to non voters. Carlin and the others are full of it to encourage others not to vote. They can suck on their cynicism.

[SamYeager]

4. Agreed. If the asshole wanted people to make a statement whe would urge them to vote

but file a completely blank ballot, or in those areas where write-ins are allowed write in "None of the Above".

People who do not vote are saying, "the status quo is just fine by me" no matter what other bullshit they want to spew.

[freshwest]

6. Voting sure as hell worked for the Teahadists! Are they smarter than us? Huh, huh?

Anyone telling you to not vote has nothing to lose and gives the victory to those who do vote - RWNJs, etc.

GOTV and kick them out!

[MADem]

7. Paulbot talking points from the Disruptive, Anti-Political crowd.

He doesn't think it through.

He doesn't need to keep it to himself, though--let people excoriate him for the dumbass thesis. And look askance at anyone who cheers for that kind of stupid approach.

My goal is to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans--that's why I like this website. It shares that goal that I have at the forefront of my mind, each and every day.

Fact is, unless all the video-game playing, cheeto muching "activists" who are too lazy to even MARCH in a demonstration these days (despite the ease of organization that the internet offers) are willing to "take up arms" and foment an actual "revolution," the only way to achieve power is through the ballot box.

So, they've got a choice--get in shape, put down the iPhone, put away the XBox, get organized, get that lazy ass up off the couch, and take to the streets like a thin, fit and motivated Palestinian might, or waddle down to the precinct voting location and cast a ballot for the person(s) who will make a diff in state and federal legislatures. On the way home, go to the store, get a video game, a bag of chips, and some RockStar, and trundle on merrily. And then go back to the damn XBox, secure in the knowledge that they've done more to perpetuate democracy by that small act than any half-baked advice from a clever but scattershot recovering heroin addict who can't keep a relationship afloat might...!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Righteous rant!

[nomorenomore08]

80. +2

You said it better than I could!

[polichick]

8. I get what he's saying - this system sucks...

We the people voted for hope and change last time but still got a corporatist prez and a gov't that looks after the status quo on behalf of the 1% - always will with this system.

I vote because end time idiots freak me out - but really, the sooner we crash and burn the sooner we can build something other than this rigged game.

[scheming daemons]

11. your last sentence is EXACTLY what the teabaggers say

Congrats.

[polichick]

13. Congrats on your closed fearful mind. I'm not talking about end times "crash and burn."

[Pretzel_Warrior]

29. Yes. The dismay and anger that McAuliffe is up bigg

Is kind of telling too.

[MineralMan]

61. Yup. Some people were spreading scandal about McCauliffe.

Some were from the right, but got picked up by others and spread, too.

[treestar]

101. Or "the system" could wind up a lot worse.

As it is, though, it's not a bad system. It's too easy for Americans to complain about it.

The only better system would be a parliamentary one, with a bill of rights. The Founders had to deal with various colonies used to having power themselves, though, and perhaps did not want to mimic the British system.

We could do a lot if we could get rid of the filibuster and various House rules. That's one thing I've learned from other more informed DUers.

[bettydavis]

12. have to agree with Scheming

only an a$$hole at this point wouldn't vote. no matter how jaded you are if you believe Al Gore would have gone into Iraq without cause you're an asshole. If you think who's on the supreme court doesn't matter you're an asshole. No matter how little one may believe they matter, ELECTIONS FRICKIN MATTER. Stop throwing tantrums, we're all fucking frustrated. just get up and drag your ass to the polls and just frickin VOTE!

[liberal_at_heart]

21. Maybe people who want to control what other people do are the a$$holes.

[indigoth]

54. I have to point out

That those who don't vote ... for whatever reason ... GUARANTEE that they have no control over what happens to them, and they are giving ALL control to someone else

[Rebellious Republican]

69. Is it possible that they have no control regardless, think Diebold, SCOTUS...

Should I go on?

[tblue37]

156. The House majority also has investigative power, which Issa is currently

using to smear Democrats.

And without Bushes' appointment of Justices Roberts and Alito, we would not have Citizens United or the striking down of the part of the Voting Rights Act that would have prevented a lot of the worst states' voter ID laws to suppress poor and minority Democratic votes.

The power to appoint USSC justices is the power to shape not just the law, but also the politics and culture of this country for a generation! Nader and the Naderites insisted, too, that there was no point in voting Dem in 2000, because it would be better to just let the whole mess get so bad that we finally just crashed and burned--and we know what we got for that.

[tinrobot]

14. If there are no good candidates, why vote?

[scheming daemons]

15. there are always worse candidates

If the past month didn't show you that, then you're ignorant of the world around you.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. you sure like to call people who don't agree with you names don't you?

Something I've noticed about republicans and democrats. Voters are pawns in their quest for victory. They don't care by which means they have to use to make them do what they want them to do. Well some of us will not be pawns for either side.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. Sounds like you're a third party person

Go for it! Run for office, start a ThirdpartyUnderground....something.

[tblue37]

157. The rules on DU say that you must not advocate for the defeat of Dem candidates.

I suspect that includes spreading the meme that no one should bother to vote Dem.

[MattSh]

120. Ah, the ole "lesser of two evils."

Gotta love that.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. Because there are really bad candidates.

In my opinion there hasn't been a worthy candidate since Howard Dean... I still vote.

[Ikonoklast]

24. Then you get what you deserve.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

58. Because the greater evil must be opposed.

Many German left-wingers refused to support the more moderate parties in the 1920's. Some even thought that Hitler's extremism would be rejected by the populace so forcefully that it would lead to a socialist revolution. They failed to account for the great harm truly evil people can do when they sneak into a position of authority. And as the potential of man grows, so does the danger posed by malevolent political leadership.

You want to tell me the Democrats suck, or that Labour sucks? Well fine, sometimes they do. If you tell me that I should wait around for the perfect politician or political party to rise up before even making the barest of contributions to the political process, you're mad. The only way out of the 2-Party political trap is to beat the crazy party so thoroughly that the sane party can fragment into sane conservatives and liberals. The presence of the crazy party will continually shift us to the right until we collapse, if it's not driven out.

[tblue37]

158. +1000. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

159. I was wondering when Godwin's Law would show up in this thread.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

161. Godwin's Law is hardly applicable here. People are asking why they should participate in politics.

And there is a damn good reason for why they need to. If you don't participate, you leave political control in the hands of those that do. Are you so historically blind that you believe that NAZI's are an aberration that can never happen again?

[Vashta Nerada]

163. The OP said nothing about Nazis.

You did.

Hence Godwin's Law. You equated those who sit at home and don't vote to the 1930s Germans who did the same thing, which allowed the Nazis to rule. We're nowhere near pre-Nazi Germany, friend.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

168. The 1920s Germans were nowhere near the 1930s Germans, friend.

Be lackadaisical. Be apathetic. Do nothing, and watch how quickly the worm turns.

[nomorenomore08]

81. And if you don't vote, the *very worst* candidate is more likely to win.

Yeah, I know when I vote Dem I'm most likely supporting the lesser of two evils. Doesn't mean I won't keep doing it, if only for lack of better options.

[treestar]

102. lol

So then the worst ones can get in?

If you're that down on the available candidates, at least pick the least "bad."

Or run yourself. Now that's a good candidate, I suppose?

[SharonAnn]

108. When there's not a candidate I can vote for, I still show up to vote and leave that

election position blank.

The people who analyze elections do count the number of people who show up to vote and how the numbers of the actual votes match the number of voters. It's like making a "None of the above" choice.

We've used this process to analyze how popular candidates were in some of our unopposed elections. For example, if 1,000 people showed up to vote and the unopposed only got 700 votes, then there were actually 300 who wouldn't vote for him/her. That starts the information process to determine whether it's worth running a candidate against him/her. A campaign is $$ and work, as well as a good candidate. If the unopposed candidate is getting 100% of the vote, then put your time and money elsewhere.

[quinnox]

18. John Kerry was the first president I voted for

I was 34 years old. Let's face it, a lot of young people don't pay any attention to politics until they get older, like out of their 20s.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. What made you not vote in 2000? That was my first

Because I saw Bush as a corporate shill and utter train wreck from a mile away.

[quinnox]

39. Just not paying attention, you might say the 2000 election debacle

woke me up.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

41. Understandable.

[Vashta Nerada]

160. In 2000, when I turned 18, I voted for Gore.

I saw how stupid Dubya was during the debates.

[FSogol]

19. K & R. n/t

[ajk2821]

20. If you don't vote, you forfeit any right you have to complain about the gov't

If you can't be bothered to vote, then don't complain about the government. If you can't do the most basic exercise of your power in elections, then SHUT THE HELL UP. Write in your favorite candidate. Write in Mickey Mouse. Then you can say you tried and can complain.

Just my opinion.

[Bgno64]

46. No you don't

Wrong. Mickey Mouse or any other write in candidate has zero chance of winning. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. Shall we be pleased with neoliberalism when it comes from a putative liberal rather than a Republican? Maybe they'll have slightly more empathy for the masses, enacting more social welfare program so they can further rig the game for their corporatist buddies/masters?

Yes. Let's all vote and elect more corporatist Democrats. That will save us.

[ajk2821]

59. Or do like the GOP did

And start trying to take back the state governments. Which is what I was trying to do in Florida when I was there last.

Or you could just stay on the internet and bitch about things. I am sure that helps too.

[treestar]

103. You know why Mickey Mouse can't win?

Because not enough people will vote for him. Essentially you are really saying that other people who don't think like you do really should have a say.

[MattSh]

121. Uh, even IF he Mickey gets the most votes...

He'd be disqualified because he didn't me the minimum requirements for the office. Most offices above dogcatcher have them, you know.

[treestar]

129. Mickey is certainly old enough

Does the Constitution say the President has to be a human? Mickey 2016!

[tabbycat31]

164. I remember Homer Simpson beating Mickey Mouse

One local newspaper published the names of write in school board candidates. I think Homer beat Mickey 2-1 (Each received at least 10 votes)

[Bluenorthwest]

133. But the OP's own sigline promotes George Carlin, who disagrees with you.

"I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
George Carlin

It is interesting to me that the OP promotes Carlin but also says people like Carlin can go to hell.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

22. Civil Rights

such as they are for black, and other citizens of color were not achieved through voting.
Civil rights, such as they are for people who are not hetero sexual were not achieved through voting.
Voting says 'we believe the system works as is'
Brand is saying that's not so..................

[liberal_at_heart]

23. thank you.

[geek tragedy]

35. you're thanking someone for blatantly lying about the civil rights movement? nt

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

48. Do you mean me?

I'm not lying about anything.

[geek tragedy]

55. Either you're completely ignorant, or completely dishonest on the subject

of the Civil Rights Movement and the Right to Vote.

John Lewis:

"At 10 AM in the morning 48 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. His signature on that bill changed America forever. Millions of Americans who had been left out of the political process, who had been denied the right to participate in our democracy became registered voters and helped usher in a new and better nation. If it had not been for the Voting Rights Act there would not be as many women and minority elected officials in office today, who strengthen the deliberation of every legislative body where they serve with their sensitivity to the issues of varied cultures and experiences.

We have come a great distance. We have made some progress, but the deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult for many people to participate in the democratic process still exists to this very day. Only hours after the Supreme Court made its decision invalidating Section 4 of the act -- before the ink was even dry -- states changed their law in an effort to suppress the voting rights of some of their citizens.

The vote is precious; it is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in our democracy. And these actions on the part of state governments serve to demonstrate that the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever before. The burden cannot be placed on those citizens whose rights were, or will be, violated to open up the political process. That is the duty of Congress to restore the life and soul to the Voting Rights Act. And we must do it on our watch, at this time."

Martin Luther King Jr.

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.

[jtuck004]

112. He didn't sign it because a bunch of people voted. He signed it because they took to the streets and

lost blood in the process of trying to use their civil rights.

If they had waited for voting to achieve it we would still be drinking out of separate water fountains.

[scheming daemons]

28. the Civil Rights act of 1964 most definitely was achieved by voting

Do you think marriage equality would be becoming a reality without Democrats in position of leadership?

Voting matters.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

38. Certainly

it was. But not until people raised some hell. I wish we could get enough Dem's into the mix who would vote for equality, fair opportunity and enact legislation to attempt to correct the wealth inequity our nation has.
But I'm not holding my breath. In the interest of full disclosure, my first presidential vote was for George McGovern and I've stayed D all the way.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. Must be why MLK encouraged youth to work inside the system

Voting is a necessary but insufficient prescription for evolution of change for the better.

[geek tragedy]

33. Painfully ignorant post. Pathetic.

Civil Rights such as they are for black, and other citizens of color were not achieved through voting.

Seriously, it should physically hurt to type something that stupid.

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[msanthrope]

37. Seriously. There's days one wants to reach into the tubes.....nt

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

43. My, lately I have been attracting all sorts of vitriol

in response to my posts. Do you think the civil rights movement was about voting? Do you think black Americans could have voted Bull Connors out of his job? Are you aware of the struggle that went on for America and black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement? Not until they took to the streets did anything change.
Change is what Brand is talking about.
And please, if you think I'm ignorant, pathetic and stupid, I'd have trouble arguing that. After all I'm discussing this with you.................

[geek tragedy]

52. Jesus, you're doubling down on the stupidity.

Do you think the civil rights movement was about voting?

Yes, it was. That is not belief. That is FACT. Only ignoramuses dispute that.

Do you think black Americans could have voted Bull Connors out of his job? Are you aware of the struggle that went on for America and black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement? Not until they took to the streets did anything change.

That's because THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. They campaigned FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

http://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-commemorates-signing-voting-rights-act

"At 10 AM in the morning 48 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. His signature on that bill changed America forever. Millions of Americans who had been left out of the political process, who had been denied the right to participate in our democracy became registered voters and helped usher in a new and better nation. If it had not been for the Voting Rights Act there would not be as many women and minority elected officials in office today, who strengthen the deliberation of every legislative body where they serve with their sensitivity to the issues of varied cultures and experiences.

We have come a great distance. We have made some progress, but the deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult for many people to participate in the democratic process still exists to this very day. Only hours after the Supreme Court made its decision invalidating Section 4 of the act -- before the ink was even dry -- states changed their law in an effort to suppress the voting rights of some of their citizens.

The vote is precious; it is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in our democracy. And these actions on the part of state governments serve to demonstrate that the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever before. The burden cannot be placed on those citizens whose rights were, or will be, violated to open up the political process. That is the duty of Congress to restore the life and soul to the Voting Rights Act. And we must do it on our watch, at this time."

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

62. First of all I'm not an ignoramus

though the word does sort of roll off the tongue, second you are fixated on my use of the word vote. Let me ask you this; once black Americans got the right to vote were they then treated equally to white Americans? Did the system further change to reflect the fact black Americans were voting? Do you think racism no longer exists because black Americans can vote? The Civil Rights Movement extends far beyond the act of stepping in a voting booth.
Then there is this............

http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/30/north-carolina-passes-the-countrys-worst-voter-suppression-law/

[geek tragedy]

64. "you are fixated on my use of the word vote"

The discussion is regarding . . . voting, which you have repeatedly dismissed and diminished by pretending it was ancillary to the civil rights movement, when in reality the civil rights movement put the right to vote at its very core.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

65. This discussion

as I see it, has voting as part of the subject but what that Brand fellow was talking about was changing the system because voting doesn't work. If it did, Gore would have been president.

[geek tragedy]

66. Voting does work. It's not sufficient, but it does work. nt

[nomorenomore08]

84. Yeah, if voting isn't important, why do they try so hard to keep the "wrong" people from doing it?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

85. I said the main point

of the Civil Rights Act, while showcasing voting, was really about more than voting. It was about change. Brand said voting was not important. I pointed out that until people took actions other than voting (civil rights marches for ex) nothing changed. Only after they took action did they get the right to vote. Which in and of itself, doesn't always seem an effective way to manifest change.....

[nomorenomore08]

86. And I agree. I *do* think voting by itself is insufficient.

But going out and agitating isn't necessarily enough, by itself, either. In my mind you need both approaches, the more moderate and the more radical, in order to change things.

[nomorenomore08]

83. If anything, it showed that "working within the system" AND working outside it are BOTH necessary.

The Civil Rights Act, after all, was signed by an elected Democratic President (okay, technically he was elected Vice President, but you know what I mean).

Ultimately, both moderate (like MLK) and radical (like Malcolm) voices are necessary to change things. Either one by itself is insufficient.

[msanthrope]

36. Who the hell passed the Civil Rights Act? PEOPLE WHO WERE VOTED FOR!!!! nt

[MADem]

45. Don't ever become a history teacher. PLEASE.

The Civil Rights Movement was about voting in a major way. It's obvious you missed the lesson on 'Freedom Summer.'

Good grief.

Do you even have a clue as to who James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael "Mickey" Schwerner were, and what they were doing when they were brutally murdered?



Go look them up.

[jtuck004]

113. You are correct. After all the failed lawsuits and attempts at voting, it took people

taking to the streets, direct action and losing blood, before they got those civil rights.

It was rolling with the system, paying too much attention to those who were profiting from the current system, those who were willing to have anyone else pay the price for their comfort that held them back for so long.

Interesting. Reading some of the answers to your post above puts me in mind of the letters sent to MLK jr when he was in jail in Birmingham, telling him how his position was wrong, how he just needed to go along to get along.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

118. The problem with

Internet Forums is no tone of voice, facial expression and certainly none of us probably knows the other well enough to 'listen'. We jump to conclusions and seem to be eager to find someone who is, what did they call me? An ignoramus, stupid, a liar and so on.
You have expressed better than I what I am trying to say. The act of voting, as a means to accomplishing anything above a local level, is not very effective in changing anything.
I'm ok with people here dis-agreeing with me. It's the condescending name calling and some times downright hostile replies that get under my skin. If I let it!

[jtuck004]

126. First, please realize that not being asked for advice has never stopped me from offering it

In that vein, I re-read this link on a regular basis, because not everyone that says they are your friend has anyone's best interests at heart except their own, and I find it very useful to remember:

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-21st-century-but-house-negro-is.html#.UmtjIHiP_W8

The other piece I thought was interesting is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/30/a-hard-rain/

The writer talks about how a political person makes the mistake of lumping everyone in a geographical area into the same category of enemy, when in fact there are quite a few that would be on his side, and does them a dis-service in the process. But what got me thinking was this line in the next to last paragraph...

"This is modern “progressivism” in action: compassionate, caring, open, embracing — unless you’re the wrong kind of person, living in the wrong place. Then you are ripe for collective punishment..."

egads, I've seen that somewhere else.

Have a good evening

[Bluenorthwest]

25. He's British, his opinons about the current system are about Westminister

I figure folks get to speak about their own relationship with the politics in their own countries as they see fit. Also he's a comic. Which should cause reasonable people to see his musings with a certain perspective.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

34. And yet it's blowing up big here in DU with no less than

3 threads about it and this one condemning it. I agree with you he is a comedian and entertainer, and he has a long history of saying and doing outrageous things for publicity.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Sorry but people reacting to a Brit not voting by shouting about Al Gore and the SCOTUS

look silly to me. And I do think that people have a right to their own politics in their own country, and that to criticize that internal discussion from outside is a bit pointless and also sort of rude. I'm not going to curse someone to hell for speaking about the politics of a nation which is his, not mine.

[mimi85]

105. Plus he was married to Katy Perry for a nano-second. nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

40. It's sad that this kind of thing even needs to be said.

But some worship celebrities and try to use them to shore up their own opinions, even when those opinions are absolute shit.

I'm secure enough in my opinions that I don't need to resort to showing the latest political video or statement some asshole celebrity made to get attention.

Unfortunately, some are not that secure in their opinions.

But I digress, fuck anyone that tells people not to vote.

[NuclearDem]

42. Here's a wild idea.

Maybe run progressives worth voting for rather than third way corporate shilling blowhards?

Playing the "not as bad as the Republicans" card just enables the Democrats to move further to the right while just staying enough to the left of the Republicans to show something of a difference.

[scheming daemons]

44. then write in a vote or vote third party. not voting at all is moronic

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Brand is a Brit they have more than two Parties.

But your sig line is very ironic considering Carlin's comments on voting and the election system. How can you have George as your sig line and post this without frothing at the mouth and falling over backwards?
Just for the hell of it:
“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
George Carlin

[MattSh]

122. But voting for somebody who'll get maybe ten votes is brilliant?

[Bluenorthwest]

135. I note your lack of response about Carlin's attacks on voting.

Pretending the point is not made will not make the point go away.

[quinnox]

49. yep. good post. Run inspiring candidates, and maybe the young people will show up

[BluegrassStateBlues]

50. Who voted for a "third way corporate shilling blowhard" lately?

We voted for a liberal constitutional law professor that has a beautiful family and has exceeded all expectations in the face of extreme opposition.



Maybe you're living in a different reality.

[truebrit71]

89. "Liberal"? Hardly....

...

[DRoseDARs]

57. There's a South Park episode in here somewhere... n/t

[Politicub]

63. I have no respect for people who discourage others from voting

and taking part in the political system.

It's immoral and disgusting, and Brand come across as pompous jerk.

It's a step below voter ID laws. But both the ID laws and people who encourage apathy lead to the same ends.

[Bluenorthwest]

131. But the OP's own sigline promotes George Carlin, who very famously told Americans this:

“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
George Carlin

So the Original Post is a snapshot of the Centrist way. He is angry that a comic say he does not vote while also desiring hipster points by promoting another comic who says he does not vote. One comic is told to go to hell, the other is treated as if he were a font of eternal wisdom. Buttering the bread on both sides, Centrist style. It is very hard to fathom.

[Politicub]

145. Carlin is treated like a sage from on high by some

He is held up as some kind of paragon of virtue and prophet straight from the old testament. There are several posts quoting Carlin in the thread like it means something significant.

Voting is one of the fundamental rights that we all share. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not to exercise it. But those who discourage others from voting live in some kind of delusion where they believe not voting will somehow lead us to a third party mystic who will rescue us all from human nature.

[Bluenorthwest]

166. Point is the OP uses Carlin as his sigline while claiming to curse all who discouage voting

although Carlin ranted against voting. Brand has nothing to do with 'third Party mystics' as he is British and they have many Parties in each election.

[whirlygigspin]

72. are your knickers properly twisted then?

Just remember the words of Marie Antoinette, "the people are revolting"

amazing that the media and the DC gasbags and enablers of the status quo are having a fit over this, especially considering the 24/7 spew of horshit they secrete. I find this new flavor of crap to be quite refreshing.

*please don't tip the staff on your way out, it only encourages them.

[Saviolo]

73. Look at the real point he's trying to raise

Just to put it in perspective: I'm Canadian and I do vote. It's different here with more than two parties, and we can actually elect third parties, and there's more than just GOP vs. the Dems.

But take a look at what he's really saying in that clip. The youth feel disenfranchised because they -are- disenfranchised. What would possibly motivate them to vote for rich people who have no real interest in the real problems of poor people or people of their own class. It's true in the USA, too. Elections are bought and sold by corporate dollars funding campaigns, funding candidates, and the poor are nothing more than an occasional photo-op. It's intensely frustrating to young people of poor backgrounds who see poverty, drugs, and violence surrounding their lives and then after the next election, they see the banks make more money, they see the large corporations get more tax breaks and bailouts, and they see -NO CHANGE- in their own lives. I personally think it's foolish not to vote, but I understand 100% the frustration and futility that people feel when they vote, and nothing really changes, ever.

The USA is a great object lesson. Despite having a much more progressive President than you've seen in a long long time, the -OTHER GUYS- that the young and marginalized didn't vote for are controlling the discourse, even though they lost! The -OTHER GUYS- yes, the -LOSING TEAM- shut down the government, for the exact reason that they lost! What lesson does that teach new young voters that want to elect a progressive into a position of power? That no matter how much they vote, even if they win, the other guys have enough money and power to control the discourse if they decide to pitch a hissy fit like a four year old who didn't get his cookie.

[socialist_n_TN]

87. Finally somebody in this thread who actually GETS what Brand was........

trying to say. It took a while. He basically said at the end of the interview that he wasn't voting until there was somebody or something worth voting FOR, not just voting against. When you vote "against" you vote to spackle over the cracks in the foundation, you're not fixing the foundation.

Look at DeBlasio in NYC. I bet the turnout there is going to be HUGE because the people actually have somebody who's telling them that he's going to be on their side rather than the side of the power structure. Give the people a candidate that SAYS he's on the side of the people, IOW a real CHOICE, and that 50% of eligible voters that aren't even registered would probably register and then vote. But the system doesn't WANT the people to have that choice. The dictatorship of capital wants you to have the ILLUSION of choice so they give you corporate candidate R and corporate candidate D. Maybe candidate D makes some concessions on a few peripheral issues that benefit a certain segment of the population. Or maybe not. But those two candidates are the same (or mostly the same) on the issues of economic justice. They BOTH believe that the wealthy need to be coddled.

[Saviolo]

97. Until...

Until the vote of the average citizen holds the same power as the vast avalanche of money from the wealthiest people and corporations, there will be massive disenfranchisement, frustration, and thus apathy.

[TBF]

93. Exactly. Many of us vote anyway

because we believe in doing the least amount of harm as we continue to work on movements behind the scenes.

Brand is telling you (you meaning Party at large) to give people something to vote for. Look at how people responded when Obama pushed through Obamacare - sure it's not perfect but it provides care for people who have never been able to get it before. That's huge - that affects thousands of people as opposed to just a few millionaires. And when Ted Cruz threw his hissy fit they basically told him to get bent - they want health care.

That's what he's talking about. There isn't a damned comedian anywhere who is literally going to lead a revolution - but he is telling you how to get people involved.

[Saviolo]

96. The real tragedy

will be that those young potential voters may never come back and be part of a functioning system if their first encounter with a system was one that was so badly broken. Their guy can win, and they still lose. In real terms, we can see that a lot of them will be positively affected by changes that Obama is making (repealing DADT, gay marriage, ACA), which may be enough. But the shutdown, Ted Cruz's hissy fit, the rich getting massively richer and blaming those poor youths for them -not getting richer fast enough-. It's enough to discourage anyone.

It's someone's .sig around here somewhere: The system isn't broken. The system is fixed.

[bettyellen]

132. in great part because people were too lazy and stupid to vote in the midterms.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. Speak for your own territory, the entire West Coast did fine in 2010, Oregon set turnout records

And the entire Coast went very Blue. All 6 Senators, all three governors, the great majority of all three House delegations and State House delegations, Democratic.
Sorry, but I get sick up and fed with these bashings of States that worked hard and delivered victory for the sake of covering for the States that ran 'Moderate Centrists' who lost because of their similarity to their opponents in the GOP.
My State set turnout records and you wail that we were lazy and stupid to cover what went down back east among the 'Blue Baggers' and 'Tea Dogs' of the center.

[bettyellen]

137. nationally, we were fucked because idiots think the president does everything and it never occurs to

them to vote in midterms. Obama "supporters" largely forgot to actually support him by showing up.
Huge drop off of voters nationally- because they are often as simple mined as Brand.

[Bluenorthwest]

140. Our elections are State by State events, not nationally run.

It is highly complimentary that you claim the entire West Coast has no idiots, but in fact we do have idiots, we simply know how to get out the vote. A huge part of that is running candidates worth voting for. Also many States back in your region suppress voting rather than encourage voting. Why? Because year in and year out, those who do vote do not bother to improve their systems, they do not address e voting, long lines, funky ballots, short hours, lack of polling places. This stuff is not created by nature. It is made by the people in those places.
Why do you think some regions had this drop off while others did not? Pretending it was national is self indulgent and incorrect. The drop off in voting was regionally isolated. Again, Oregon set records.
Seems to me that instead of seeking solutions you just want to say nasty things about your neighbors. Not about mine, we all voted like mad. It's not the bad candidates and shitty election methods used, it's the voters who are idiots. Got it. The West Coast turned out for Democrats because we are simply less idiotic. Not because of better candidates, systems and propositions.

[bettyellen]

142. 1/3 less young people vote in the midterms, skewing the vote conservative.

and the west coast seems to have learned a hard lesson after years of getting (very locally) screwed over so very badly by the republicans they elected starting with Arnold. So, yeah, there are idiots in California, and everywhere.

[Bluenorthwest]

165. Actually much of the electoral outcomes here have to do with better election systems and

access to voting. Other States should notice that and act accordingly. We don't get that big drop off. The reasons are not mysterious.

[bettyellen]

171. Sadly other states are interested in limiting the vote

[MyNameGoesHere]

74. Well f*** me too!

I totally agree. Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is fucking stupid. So I exercise my RIGHT of not voting. If voting is so precious why do people throw it away on someone that only represents 10% of themselves?

[dangin]

75. Scripted

I've filmed a lot of interviews for TV and film. This one appears scripted to me. I would wager at minimum he had the questions in advance.

[ScreamingMeemie]

76. Adding Russell Brand to my "word trash" list because, really...I don't know or even

care who the hell he is.

[quinnox]

77. He is a British comedian

Most Americans probably never heard of him, so you aren't alone.

[Zorra]

78. Yes. If liberals don't vote, this is what happens ~

When liberals vote, this is what happens:

July 2, 1964: Johnson signs Civil Rights Act

14 States with Legal Gay Marriage

It's not rocket science.

I'm all for non-violent constructive revolution. In the meantime, I will do what I can to make the world better by voting for the most liberal candidate that has a chance of winning an election.

[Flatpicker]

79. There are a few comedians

That push people not to vote.

Penn Jillete
George Carlin
Russel Brand

Are the ones that come to mind.

There are things that I find funny in their acts, but I don't agree with these points of view.

If you aren't part of the system, you are still ruled by the system. Their ideas only work if you could take yourself out of the general population in some way.

Perhaps if you were a very successful comedian who could afford their own private island or something...

The rest of us have to use the system to make changes. Opting out simply isn't possible.

[DeSwiss]

82. How tolerant of you.

[center][font size=10]“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
~George Orwell
[/center]

[truebrit71]

88. I think you completely missed the point...

...what he said was very interesting, and I applaud him for using his fame as a platform to plead for REAL change...and not to participate in the "lesser of two evils" bullshit system we currently have...kudos to him...

[DetlefK]

90. Sooooo, don't vote against the larger of two evils?

[truebrit71]

92. No. Demand REAL change instead.

That's his point, because voting in the current system only perpetuates the disenfranchisement, in order for the poor, the under class and the downtrodden to want to get involved they have to be presented with a REAL choice for representatives that truly represent THEM and not the monied interests...

[DetlefK]

154. You can demand all you want, while sitting on your hands.

[DetlefK]

91. His rant was unbearably non-productive.

Q: "What do you want, what do you expect that system you propose to be like?"

A: "Here's what it won't be like: ..."


Not a single suggestion how to make things better, except abstaining from elections until someone with the ultimate, perfect idea comes along.

[socialist_n_TN]

94. His answer to that is something I've said a lot too.......

In case you missed it, it went something along the lines of "You want a coherent socialist system described in a TV interview (I usually say an internet post) and it can't be done." All you can do in a limited frame is a few ideas.

If you had a few hours, there are a few basic ideas that could be expounded. What the interviewer (and you) are asking for is the impossible.

[DetlefK]

155. But he didn't deliver ANYTHING.

He wants change. But change to what?

A new party?
A change of election-laws?
A switch from representative democracy to direct democracy?

His whole strategy is resistance and waiting.

Waiting for Godot.

[treestar]

98. That kind of thing is self indulgent and stupid

Like the person wants to set themselves up as being better than "the politicians." At least they try to do something, even if we don't agree with it. And somebody has to do it, so the stuck up idea that anyone who wants to do it shouldn't it ridiculous.

[JoePhilly]

104. I'm siding with Katy Perry on this topic ...

[MADem]

110. +1,000 nt

[WinkyDink]

106. Well, he IS British.

[Bonobo]

107. He doesn't vote and yet...

He has a greater impact on politics than you do. Odd, isn't it?

I would say he is more involved in politics than people who rage on a closed-off website and then toss off an automatic "D" vote.

[scheming daemons]

114. Yes, he has a big microphone

All the more reason that it is reprehensible for him to advocate against voting.

[Bluenorthwest]

138. But do you say the same about Carlin, who also advocated abstaining from the vote?

No, you foist him off as your sigline!
“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.” George Carlin.
Carlin speaking to Americans about America, while Brand is British.

[Cha]

109. Anyone who blowhards about "not voting" is an idiot who

doesn't have a clue. That got us fuck all in 2010.. Fortunately there's a Lot of really smart people who are out there working their tails off for CLEAN HOUSE GOTV2014!

You can damn well bet the teabaggers are going to be out there voting.. the teakoch sweep in 2010 Got Our Gov SHUTDOWN.. as if I needed to repeat this.

thanks scheming

[gulliver]

111. People who don't vote are the first to be screwed.

Anyone who doesn't vote is asking to be screwed. Politicians will happily sacrifice non-voter interests without batting an eye.

[Puzzledtraveller]

116. I do not support not voting

I do understand being jaded on politics and feeling like we are just pawns for both sides to pit against each other. In fact part of my job is registering people to vote and something I take very seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. Do you think that is true in all countries with elections?

Do you realize the comic in the OP is not American, so when he does not vote he's not voting in elections in the UK, a nation we staged a revolution against.

[Cronus Protagonist]

117. Brand is advocating a cultural revolution, not aiding apathy.

Quite the opposite of the OP's take on it.

In 2013 (another made-up imaginary concept) we cannot afford to giggle, drivel and burp like giant, pube-covered babies about quaint, old-fashioned notions like nation, capitalism and consumerism simply because it’s convenient for the tiny, greedy, myopic sliver of the population that those outmoded ideas serve. I will never vote because, as Billy said, “It encourages them.” I did a job with Billy Connolly and Eddie Izzard not long ago and the three of us shared a dressing room. Eddie believes in democracy and spoke sincerely of his political ambitions. “One day I’d like to be a politician . . .” he said. I spoke of my belief that change could only come from within. “I’d like to be a spiritual orator . . .” I said grandly.

Billy eyed us both, with kindly disapprobation. “I’d like to be a nuisance,” he said. “I want to be a troublemaker, there in the gallery in parliament shouting RUBBISH and PROVE IT.” Who am I to argue with The Great Trickster Connolly? I will never vote and I don’t think you should, either.

To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone. The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years, the Industrial Revolution took hundreds of years, the Technological Revolution took tens, the Spiritual Revolution has come and we have only an instant to act.

Now there is an opportunity for the left to return to its vital, virile, vigorous origins. A movement for the people, by the people, in the service of the land. Socialism’s historical connection with spiritual principles is deep. Sharing is a spiritual principle, respecting our land is a spiritual principle. May the first, May Day, is a pagan holiday where we acknowledge our essential relationship with our land. I bet the Tolpuddle martyrs, who marched for fair pay for agricultural workers, whose legacy is the right for us to have social solidarity, were a right bunch of herberts if you knew them. “Thugs, yobs, hooligans,” the Daily Mail would’ve called them. Our young people need to know there is a culture, a strong, broad union, that they can belong to, that is potent, virile and alive. At this time when George and Dave pilfer and pillage our land and money for their oligarch mates, at this time when the Tories are taking the EU to court to stop it curtailing their banker pals’ bonuses, that there is something they can do. Take to the streets, together, with the understanding that the feeling that you aren’t being heard or seen or represented isn’t psychosis; it’s government policy.

But we are far from apathetic, we are far from impotent. I take great courage from the groaning effort required to keep us down, the institutions that have to be fastidiously kept in place to maintain this duplicitous order. Propaganda, police, media, lies. Now is the time to continue the great legacy of the left, in harmony with its implicit spiritual principles. Time may only be a human concept and therefore ultimately unreal, but what is irrefutably real is that this is the time for us to wake up.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

[Cha]

119. Occupy The VOTE RESPECT Our VOTES

http://www.liberalamerica.org/

[AtheistCrusader]

123. So, you want to curtail his free speech?

Someone expresses an idea and your response is to tell him to 'keep that shit to himself'?

That doesn't seem terribly apropos to me...

[Recursion]

128. No, scheming wants to point out that what Brand is saying is facile and idiotic

That's part of freedom of speech too.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Then call it facile and idiotic. (which it is)

I'm uncomfortable with telling people to remain silent. That doesn't help anyone. Least of all the person who holds such facile and idiotic ideas.

[steve2470]

124. If he thinks non-voting revolutions are easy and bloodless he's very naive to say the least nt

[ourfuneral]

130. Hey, it's Russell Brand

Does anyone take that douchbag seriously?

[Shankapotomus]

134. Why can't we do both?

It isn't one or the other. I think both voting and activism can bring eventual change to the system.

At the same time, why would you call for a revolt among democrats when things are going better for us politically than they are for republicans and conservatives?

Let the conservatives be the crazy-over-throw-the-government brand.

[stevenleser]

141. That's the real problem with Brand's rant. Voting takes a few minutes once every two years.

There is nothing stopping you from being a potent activist in the between times.

[bettyellen]

143. exactly! This either/ or thing is facile bullshit.

[Shankapotomus]

144. Not to mention all the political advantages to voting

For one, your side doesn't appear so intractable when it's willing to engage in free and fair elections. Also the politically strategic advantage that is handed to you when the opposition party starts attempting to rig elections and deny a certain demographic of citizen the ability to vote. Republicans will have to pay for all their shenanigans sooner or later.

[whirlygigspin]

147. the point is moo

I know there's got to be a forest somewhere past all these trees...keep searching....

[MH1]

151. Yes, but may I point out -- it's EVERY YEAR, everywhere I've lived.

There may be some places that it's only every two years, and maybe that applies to you. But we have a HUGE problem that most people (especially Dems) don't even seem to know that elections are held EVERY year.

Doesn't negate your point one bit. In fact, it takes even less time to vote in the "off year" elections that no one seems to even know about. Never a line, you see.

[stevenleser]

152. Good point. Its important to vote in those elections too! nt

[Ohio Joe]

148. Agreed. Not voting is a stupid idea

Anyone falling for such bullshit is a moron.

[whirlygigspin]

153. all this fuss over a call for a little metanoia in the noos, lol

Why I haven't heard this much desperate squealing since last I pulled my old pig Bessy from the trough.

*not that either is on point or has any relation to what was actually said.

garble garble quack quack!

fiddle Nero fiddle on...

[Incitatus]

162. 144

Republicans voted to send us into default, Yes, voting matters. There are a lot of problems we need to find a solution to, but not voting is not a solution and an extremely stupid idea.

[ourfuneral]

167. Russell Brand is a fuckwit

Who the Hell would listen to him???

[Avalux]

169. Democracy only works with FULL PARTICIPATION.

Of course Russell Brand is entitled to his opinion; however I don't like seeing him elevated as someone who knows what he's talking about. Not voting is plain stupid.