Yeah, many of us did exactly that back in 2007/2008. We nominated and worked hard to promote and to get elected a politician we believed -- based on our candidate's deeply-persuasive statements -- who would be "different". We did much more than vote. We built amazing software systems for our candidate, went door-to-door in places that almost got us shot, worked 80 hour weeks at the grass roots level, and in some cases estranged ourselves from our families. And of course we voted for him.

And look how things turned out.

So don't go fucking blaming the victims here. Our political system is deeply flawed and heading toward a cliff -- with both parties at the helm.

I think the "more than vote" really means "more than getting a candidate elected". (Or, to use Obama's own campaign catchphrase, "Be the Change".)

There may have been people who didn't understand that a bottom-to-top transformation of society with constant engagement was going to be required to realize the vision presented by the campaign even if Obama was entirely truthful on every point (a point on which I do not wish to comment either way at the moment, since its irrelevant to the point I'm making), but anyone that wasn't aware of that wasn't paying much attention to the campaign itself.

Are you trying to imply that you are a victim, just because you naively believed that investing a great deal of power in another politician, who you thought was 'your man in Washington' would lead to better results? It is hard to be sympathetic to someone who pursued such poorly thought-out objectives. It is not the political system that was at fault; in fact, if anyone is to blame, it is all the conceited individuals who believed that the politician they picked would be 'better' than the 'opponents'.

But back to the question at hand: if we, the people, are somehow supposed to right out ship by doing more than just voting, how exactly do we choose our candidates? In Obama's case, we went on his statements, biography (community organizer, law professor) and (admittedly limited) past voting record. Do you have any recommendations for those us us who don't have your finely-attuned bullshit detector on how we can pick a good candidate?

I certainly don't trust my own political judgment anymore. So I no longer vote in national elections.

I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of victimhood, however. Am I understanding correctly your assertion, which is that if a target of a conman or aggressor is sufficiently naive, that person is no longer a victim?

I invest my energies in divesting the government of power, to reduce the impact of abuse and poor decisions; but you may find a different way to change the system for the better, and I hope you do.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed

It was.

Coincidentally, I read Koestler's essays when I was a teenager, along with some of Orwell's writings with the same theme (Homage to Catalonia for one). Wish I'd paid a bit more attention to the underlying message.

But I think some things you have to experience to learn.

>I invest my energies in divesting the government of power, to reduce the impact of abuse and poor decisions;

I do the same now. I'm a very different person politically than I was back in 2007. And lack of trust in my own political instincts is only one of the reasons why I no longer vote in national elections. As proof, I'd show you all my commits to open source projects that at least partially aim to reduce government power by promoting privacy and peer-to-peer interactions, but I wish to remain at least somewhat anonymous.

I think this whole thing has to come to a head at some point- and I just see too many americans who don't even put a fraction of the effort into politics that you have.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

Unfortunately, back in 2007, I wrote off any libertarians as wacky, selfish geeks with very little political sophistication.

Since then, I've come to meet some of the least selfish and most politically sophisticated individuals I've ever met, who are also libertarians. And none of them are particularly fond of Ayn Rand (to name another one of my 2007 biases).

We basically only flip tables when we feel really oppressed.

People who live in cities seem to feel oppressed, but they also seem to really believe in bureacracy as a concept, so they instead blame the bad guys in the other party, rather than seeing the system as failed. If the bad guys are basically in both parties, you pick your team based on marketing.

Long story short- I don't see these options as viable alternatives to violence, unfortuntately. I'm glad you're practicing them over the alternative- but I'm going to hang on to engaging more instead.

He's kept a lot of his promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Not to mention major wins in healthcare, Iraq, and avoiding the major impending economic collapse that was in place when he took office.

He's no saint, and I'm as pissed as anyone about the illegal wiretapping that happened under his administration. But keep in mind that no major politician will agree 100% with your views. And no president can or will keep 100% of his promises considering this shifting political climate and his limited powers in our government.

Yes, yes I am. And if I thought I had any chance of convincing someone who still promotes Obama's "wins" at this point in his presidency, I'd argue it with you. But I don't.

I will leave you with one thought, which is that it's not even the blanket surveillance of the American people that's been Obama's most horrific failure, it's this:

1. http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/

2. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassin...

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not the one downvoting you (since you're making points I disagree with in good faith).

Every president in the modern context has been and will be awful, even if to somewhat varying degrees. The problem is not the people in office, it's the office itself. It's important that the media emphasize personalities and the infinitesimal differences between them, so the average citizen can make-believe that some presidents are better than others.

i agree with your stance that action needs to be taken, but completely disagree that we have "no one to blame but ourselves".

Could you be more specific? It doesn't help to berate me for not doing more without actually telling me what I can do. Because I feel pretty helpless here and I have no idea what I can do besides vote and talk to people.

We need to recognize that the world runs on PACs and that if we don't have a PAC to advocate our position, we're not going to get the outcomes we want.

I think we've been raised to believe there's some holy power in our vote- but this is a distraction. Unless we fund our efforts & win in politics, this is all for naught.

I also think that we have to accept when we lose in politics. This campaign is absolutely the opposite of that value. I share many of the opinions about this woman, but I find the campaign to be shameful in light of my previous opinions.

If you claim to value democracy and then execute this kind of witch hunt when democracy doesn't deliver the outcome you hoped for, there is a problem.

"Democracy for me but not for thee"

Run for office? That's too much of a sacrifice to ask. It's not a job I want, by far. If I ever managed to get nominated, I'd do my best to sabotage my own campaign so as not to get elected. No wonder politicians are all weird, no normal person could ever want to be one.

Is not "accept when we lose" completely contradictory to the rest of what you're saying? You say that we should get out and do things to fight for what we believe, and then you turn around and say we should just let it go. This isn't some pointless notion of vengeance, it's a real concern over what her involvement with Dropbox could mean for the company and our data in the future.

Personally, if you claim to value democracy and then call it anti-democratic when there's a completely non-violent grassroots campaign against a political figure, then you're completely off your rocker. Nothing could possibly be more democratic. Even if you disagree with the campaign, how can you call the very idea a bad thing? What could possibly be a better way to exercise your political views than to vote with your wallet and encourage others to do the same? Are we supposed to just shut up and ignore it all? Are we supposed to vote with our own wallet but never talk to other people about it? How does that fit in with "volunteer, donate, run for office, the world runs on PACs"?

This is the price of democracy. Not everyone disagrees with you for malignant reasons. They can have legitimate, ethical reasons for disagreeing with you.

"You say that we should get out and do things to fight for what we believe, and then you turn around and say we should just let it go."

I appologize if that's what it sounded like. I'm saying we have to accept democracy's outcomes if the democracy is actually functioning (i.e. no ballot stuffing). If you don't like the outcome of a vote, continue to work within the democratic process. Lobby for an idea through Publicity. Lobby your congress critters. Keep working within the political system.

Keeping tallies of the thought-infractions of citizens in the private sector is not healthy though. I see no difference between that and the assassination of the jesuit priest in Syria last week.

A healthy society should be supportive of and accepting of diversity of opinions and lifestyle. That means more than just being nice to LGBT folks. Even people with religious beliefs you find abhorent have the right to prosper to the best of their ability, as long as they are not violating our laws.

edit My point is ultimately proven.

OK, seriously, what the fuck. You see no difference between a public campaign to switch away from Dropbox because of someone on their board of directors and an assassination?

This conversation started out bad and has now become complete shit. I'm not going to continue. I don't understand why, but something about this topic has turned half of the HN commenters into drooling morons.

(I know that this sort of language is not supposed to be used, but personally I think it's justified in the exceptional situation where someone declares a nonviolent internet campaign to an assassination. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.)

And thank you for the wonderfully engaging insults. Enjoy your bigotry.