No, because if that's your excuse you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out what the issues are and make a decision. I don't know what's so hard about reading what each candidate's position is on the issue and then deciding which one you'd rather have in office based on that information.
No, because if that's your excuse you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out what the issues are and make a decision. I don't know what's so hard about reading what each candidate's position is on the issue and then deciding which one you'd rather have in office based on that information.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Pretty much the way it works. If you don't vote, then you are allowing someone else to vote for you.
But as I said, if you don't have a position or a stand on a particular issue or office and don't feel that it affects you, then leave that choice blank on your ballot. Many people get this idea that voting is a test, like back at school. That's simply ridiculous.
My suggestion to the OP would be to <gasp> actually educate himself about the candidates.
Gee...imagine that! An informed voting public!
I was thinking this very thought...well said.
I would only add "those who blindly follow a political party" to the list. So I guess that makes it a three-fold problem
You should move to China or North Korea or any other Dictator led Country of your choosing, you'd fit in a whole lot better and feel better too.
This voting concept is obviously causing you too much pain and suffering.
I don't normally reply in threads such as this, but I do feel it necessary to address a common point.
First, Allow me to apologoze for not placing this in P&N first, I felt that this was neither news or any particular political issue. I felt it was something that everyone would like to discuss in OT, as opposed to the sea of idealogues here. I also like OT since people keep it real there. So it was moved, but I am not questioning that judgement, I am no Mod, nor do I want to be.
I also did not feel any way to consicely provide cliff's notes. This was an expository argument, not a story.
I normally don't reply to replies, since your replies largely make my point for me, that people are irrational, blind, self-riteous, as evident by the baseless claims, accusations, and assumptions about me in the flames and semi-flames above. Most of the things people guessed about me are wrong, but I am not going to debate them, since it is meaningless in a forums such as this. People who assume are asses, plain and simple. I actually do stay informed on the so-called "issues," but they are simply red herrings, as no plan on solving a problem is ever presented in a detailed way. "issues" should be synonymous with "problems," but instead they are just something people mull about in their heads in a general way, feeling their way to one side or another of the line drawn by the ideal.
Which is kind of my point that most of you all are missing. My point is that you don't really know what you are getting when you vote, nor do you ever know what you got after you voted. Not in any substantive, measurable, accountable sense. I'm not talking about a candidate saying they will lower taxes before they get elected and lowering taxes after they get elected. I'm talking about nuts and bolts, real-world problem solving that we don't get involved in. No one asks the question "why are my taxes too high?" or "why should those people be taxed more," they just follow what they FEEL pertains to them. No one cracks open the books to take a look and see that there is a problem with a certain tax, that it does not meet goals x,y, and z, and that the root cause is q, and we could do either a,b, or c in terms of fixing the problem. But most people aren't problem solvers I guess.
I would like someone who is up on the "issues" to do the following for me. Present for me, 2 major issues before the last election, and lay out a detailed case as to what the actual problem was, in a measurable quantitative, nuts-and-bolts sense. Show me what anlysis was done and what options were weighed in the public discourse about such issues, and why the best choice was what your party decided on. Then show me that your candidate defined the problem in the same, measurable way and ran on a platform of solving the problem in the prescribed way. Then, part 2, if your guy got elected, show me that not only did he implement the plan in the way promised, but that you, the concerned voter investigated and monitored the important details of the solution. If your guy lost, point to 2 things that went awry because your guy identified specific flaws with his opponent's plan that manifested after the election, again be specific in the statement, not we got tax cuts for the rich. Also present the detailed concern of the public discourse from analyzing measurable aspects of a problem. I'm not talking about stats, those are generalizations, give me specefic case study data that was weighed by you, the voter, who supposedly has and weilds the power. I am not being sarcastic, I would like to see it. But i suspect since as I argue in the OP, people judge with emotion, and not sound judgement, even those who are up on the "issues," even though the issues are just as general as blind ideolegy, and no one really can prove that their choice ended up resulting in what they wanted. But I guess it's nice to decieve oneself into believeing they voted for a good reason.
Get it?
EDIT: someone wiser than I once said something along the lines of: "If we followed politics as closely as we followed football, the country would be a lot better off." I agree, if we mean the kind of football fan who gripes about every injury of his team, analyzes it's weaknesses, and suggests what the team can to improve. This actually happened with the buffalo bills a couple years when the added Takeo Spikes, and I was amazed, I'm not even a bills fan. If everyone was that kind of fan, but for their own country, we wouldn't be picking a GUY, we'd be picking a solution.
First, Allow me to apologoze for not placing this in P&N first, I felt that this was neither news or any particular political issue. I felt it was something that everyone would like to discuss in OT, as opposed to the sea of idealogues here. I also like OT since people keep it real there. So it was moved, but I am not questioning that judgement, I am no Mod, nor do I want to be.
I also did not feel any way to consicely provide cliff's notes. This was an expository argument, not a story.
I normally don't reply to replies, since your replies largely make my point for me, that people are irrational, blind, self-riteous, as evident by the baseless claims, accusations, and assumptions about me in the flames and semi-flames above. Most of the things people guessed about me are wrong, but I am not going to debate them, since it is meaningless in a forums such as this. People who assume are asses, plain and simple. I actually do stay informed on the so-called "issues," but they are simply red herrings, as no plan on solving a problem is ever presented in a detailed way. "issues" should be synonymous with "problems," but instead they are just something people mull about in their heads in a general way, feeling their way to one side or another of the line drawn by the ideal.
Which is kind of my point that most of you all are missing. My point is that you don't really know what you are getting when you vote, nor do you ever know what you got after you voted. Not in any substantive, measurable, accountable sense. I'm not talking about a candidate saying they will lower taxes before they get elected and lowering taxes after they get elected. I'm talking about nuts and bolts, real-world problem solving that we don't get involved in. No one asks the question "why are my taxes too high?" or "why should those people be taxed more," they just follow what they FEEL pertains to them. No one cracks open the books to take a look and see that there is a problem with a certain tax, that it does not meet goals x,y, and z, and that the root cause is q, and we could do either a,b, or c in terms of fixing the problem. But most people aren't problem solvers I guess.
I would like someone who is up on the "issues" to do the following for me. Present for me, 2 major issues before the last election, and lay out a detailed case as to what the actual problem was, in a measurable quantitative, nuts-and-bolts sense. Show me what anlysis was done and what options were weighed in the public discourse about such issues, and why the best choice was what your party decided on. Then show me that your candidate defined the problem in the same, measurable way and ran on a platform of solving the problem in the prescribed way. Then, part 2, if your guy got elected, show me that not only did he implement the plan in the way promised, but that you, the concerned voter investigated and monitored the important details of the solution. If your guy lost, point to 2 things that went awry because your guy identified specific flaws with his opponent's plan that manifested after the election, again be specific in the statement, not we got tax cuts for the rich. Also present the detailed concern of the public discourse from analyzing measurable aspects of a problem. I'm not talking about stats, those are generalizations, give me specefic case study data that was weighed by you, the voter, who supposedly has and weilds the power. I am not being sarcastic, I would like to see it. But i suspect since as I argue in the OP, people judge with emotion, and not sound judgement, even those who are up on the "issues," even though the issues are just as general as blind ideolegy, and no one really can prove that their choice ended up resulting in what they wanted. But I guess it's nice to decieve oneself into believeing they voted for a good reason.
Get it?
EDIT: someone wiser than I once said something along the lines of: "If we followed politics as closely as we followed football, the country would be a lot better off." I agree, if we mean the kind of football fan who gripes about every injury of his team, analyzes it's weaknesses, and suggests what the team can to improve. This actually happened with the buffalo bills a couple years when the added Takeo Spikes, and I was amazed, I'm not even a bills fan. If everyone was that kind of fan, but for their own country, we wouldn't be picking a GUY, we'd be picking a solution.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Bah.. it's just easier and "cooler" to say "Duh.. I don't know what going on.. let's go to the mall!" instead. Kids these days. *shakes head*
I don't see it as much different than hiring an employee. If you have to make that decision all you can do is look at there resume and maybe make a few calls to see if whats on it is accurate. There is always some unknowns.
For all you lazy slackers just submit an absentee ballot.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
tkotitan2, you talk about rising up & changing things, you know there are libetarian candidates, independent candidates, and that you can writ in your own candidate, right?
Protest votes keep the big 2 major parties in line by virtue of the sheer number of protest votes.
By chosing not to participate, you have no ownership in the process think of Cartman in Southpark walking away from a game that he's losing
Protest votes keep the big 2 major parties in line by virtue of the sheer number of protest votes.
By chosing not to participate, you have no ownership in the process think of Cartman in Southpark walking away from a game that he's losing
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
At least give a Protest vote. Pick some obscure Party or Write In "Homer Simpson"(if you have the option) or something to show your disdain for the main choices. Not voting has no purpose, but to perpetuate a mucked up system that is only getting worse.
I think this particular election is going to be an important one so I wouldn't really recommend this right now, but here goes.
What I did during the last election was vote libertarian. I was at the time living in a state that wasn't a "battleground state" and the outcome of our electoral college was pretty clear. Rather than "throw my vote away" I directed it at a third party. If we can get over a certain percentage (6 ??) for a third party they will begin to get federal funds thereby giving us something resembling a real three party race.
Just an idea for ya. You should always vote. If you don't feel you can make an intelligent decision on the matter go for a third party at least. By not voting you simply increase the value of my vote and I'm just plain evil.
JoLLyRoGer
Diamond Member
- Aug 24, 2000
- 4,153
- 4
- 81
I'll assume you DO NOT live in the "Great State of Cook County"! It sucks that those jerkoffs always get to hijack the rest of the state. Try getting a good public education in Southern Illinois. What a joke!:| All the funding goes up north!
Fvckin Chicago. Takes up about 1/100th of the state and gets to ruin it for everyone. BTW the Cubs SUCK! Go Cards!
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Don't you people EVER READ? We do not have a democracy. We haven't had one. The closest we had was near nothing, and that was between 1776 and 1790.
It's a REPUBLIC
...and that's why my support goes behind the LP, even if they did pick a crackpot.
and staying in power
Social Security, anyone?
Patriot Act? War in Iraq? I would call those progressive and important.
Nader himself doesn't help the situation, mind you.
Oh, and deficit and debt...deficit especially. It's wonderful.
Really? What are you watching or reading?
This is one instance where the short presidential terms (4 years; max 8/10) don't help, because no President will be in office when any real changes come to full fruit. The only guy who managed that died, and was the last--and now his solutions are what we want changed.
I may go with Kerry, myself, even if it is futile. While they do little, and both are career politicians (as you can see up there and elsewhere, I'd rather have Badnarik than either career politicians), change is usually good. Voting could dilute your vote, but not voting only strengthens the others.
If you are in one of those states, you should vote for a third party then. Regardless if they get your electoral votes or not, you independent vote will count towards the percentage needed to get a third party federal funding.
Think about it.
No offense dude, but:
1. That's a sh1tload of work. You're asking for a thesis there. If you got 100 votes instead of 1 it would be worth it to convince you.
2. You're pawning it off on someone else rather than using your own time and mind.
3. It would be easier if you just didn't vote. It gives my vote more power.
4. If you truly don't want to vote then read my previous post on what to do. There IS a viable third option that is guaranteed to benifit America.
If you fail to do your own research it is certainly possible you will do more harm that good with your vote. If you feel this applies to you see #4.
I hate people who say that they don't vote because they don't follow politics.
I mean, why the f* don't you follow politics? is it that much effort to read a newspaper or look up info online about various canidates?
I don't know if this is true everywhere, but in my voting district, we get a sample ballot a few weeks before the actual election. more than enough time to research all the canidates and issues that will be voted on.
I mean, why the f* don't you follow politics? is it that much effort to read a newspaper or look up info online about various canidates?
I don't know if this is true everywhere, but in my voting district, we get a sample ballot a few weeks before the actual election. more than enough time to research all the canidates and issues that will be voted on.
I have to correct one glaring mistake that the liberals have often made. America was and never has been a Democracy. A true Democracy is mob rule. We are a Republic. To me the Republicans believe in rugged individualism and the Democrats believe in wards of the state. To me the Democrats believe in giving a man a fish and the Republicans believe in teaching a man how to fish. With one party you become a slave and the other party you are free.
While Bush may be an idiot of a man, fighting Israel's wars by proxy, this is in my opinion better than the alternative, which is having a Democratic president open our borders to Mexican immigrants - just to grab the Hispanic vote. Bush has an unimpressive immigration policy, but he is less likely to overhaul immigration and make it easier for Mexicans to flood in, as Kerry has promised he would do.
The core ideological tenet of the Republican platform is capitalism and meritocracy. Republicanism asserts that everyone is equal and therefore no one needs social assistance to succeed. I think most conservative whites vote Republican because they privately believe non-whites can?t succeed on their own, and a 'fair' system would make that all too obvious. They believe the Democrats and their social programs not only give non-whites a leg up that they do not deserve, but also they give them no reason to self-improve. Essentially the system rewards them for doing nothing, and Republicans hate this. To say Democrats and Republicans are both commies is a little silly IMO.
One of the reasons the Soviet system crumbled is because everyone was guaranteed a job by the State, and it was hard to lose that job. People became under-achievers because they knew it didn?t matter - they weren't being rewarded or promoted in proportion to their efforts or skill set. When I go to Moscow to this day, this mentality still exists, and you see it in business. Retailers don't smile at you when you come into their store and they always seem bored, as if you are inconveniencing them. The Republican system prevents this type of economic malaise. Taken to the extreme however, Republicanism becomes socially ruthless. As we keep going to the ideological Right, we eventually find fascism and Nazism. Communism and socialism on the other hand, are well to the left of Democratic ideology. These systems are designed to protect everyone in society, no matter what kind of stupid under-achievers they are.
Something well in-between socialism and fascism is probably the most humane and progressive form of government, all things being equal, which they are not. Right now in the USA we have a parasitical black population screaming 'gimme!', and an invasion of Mexicans from south of our border. Both tax our system, stress the welfare state, and create social upheaval. This is why we have trended Republican in the last 50 years, and I would be just perfectly happy if we moved further toward fascism in the interim. It will have to happen anyway just to keep the USA from fracturing in the short term. Democracy is fine in a homogenous society. It is a disaster in a multi-cultural one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I am strongly against the support of Israel, if Bush gets at least 1/3 of the Jewish vote that will make me happy. Jewish voters, with the important exception of orthodox Jews, tend to be on the liberal and cosmopolitan side of this cultural split, while most Republicans, whether Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, are on the conservative side of it.
Most American Jews are Democrats. In the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections, 80 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, according to exit poll interviews. But I sense that Bush, due to his removal of Saddam Hussein, his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorists, and his robust support for Israel?s government led by Ariel Sharon, is gaining ground among those Jewish voters who place their highest priority on Israel?s survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans and the Middle-East Conflict
"The flurry of pro- and anti-road map activity pointed to a paradoxical dilemma facing the president as he plans his next moves: His strongest opposition comes from political allies whose enmity could cost him in 2004, while his strongest support comes from liberal groups that are unlikely to reward him politically for his efforts."
"These guys" - the pro-road map liberals - "are not Bush's friends," said Dr. Mandell Ganchrow, executive vice president of the hawkish Religious Zionists of America, and head of his own pro-Israel political action committee.
Indymedia: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1614435.php
MSNBC News: Dems fear Bush's gains with Jewish voters
While Bush may be an idiot of a man, fighting Israel's wars by proxy, this is in my opinion better than the alternative, which is having a Democratic president open our borders to Mexican immigrants - just to grab the Hispanic vote. Bush has an unimpressive immigration policy, but he is less likely to overhaul immigration and make it easier for Mexicans to flood in, as Kerry has promised he would do.
The core ideological tenet of the Republican platform is capitalism and meritocracy. Republicanism asserts that everyone is equal and therefore no one needs social assistance to succeed. I think most conservative whites vote Republican because they privately believe non-whites can?t succeed on their own, and a 'fair' system would make that all too obvious. They believe the Democrats and their social programs not only give non-whites a leg up that they do not deserve, but also they give them no reason to self-improve. Essentially the system rewards them for doing nothing, and Republicans hate this. To say Democrats and Republicans are both commies is a little silly IMO.
One of the reasons the Soviet system crumbled is because everyone was guaranteed a job by the State, and it was hard to lose that job. People became under-achievers because they knew it didn?t matter - they weren't being rewarded or promoted in proportion to their efforts or skill set. When I go to Moscow to this day, this mentality still exists, and you see it in business. Retailers don't smile at you when you come into their store and they always seem bored, as if you are inconveniencing them. The Republican system prevents this type of economic malaise. Taken to the extreme however, Republicanism becomes socially ruthless. As we keep going to the ideological Right, we eventually find fascism and Nazism. Communism and socialism on the other hand, are well to the left of Democratic ideology. These systems are designed to protect everyone in society, no matter what kind of stupid under-achievers they are.
Something well in-between socialism and fascism is probably the most humane and progressive form of government, all things being equal, which they are not. Right now in the USA we have a parasitical black population screaming 'gimme!', and an invasion of Mexicans from south of our border. Both tax our system, stress the welfare state, and create social upheaval. This is why we have trended Republican in the last 50 years, and I would be just perfectly happy if we moved further toward fascism in the interim. It will have to happen anyway just to keep the USA from fracturing in the short term. Democracy is fine in a homogenous society. It is a disaster in a multi-cultural one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I am strongly against the support of Israel, if Bush gets at least 1/3 of the Jewish vote that will make me happy. Jewish voters, with the important exception of orthodox Jews, tend to be on the liberal and cosmopolitan side of this cultural split, while most Republicans, whether Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, are on the conservative side of it.
Most American Jews are Democrats. In the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections, 80 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, according to exit poll interviews. But I sense that Bush, due to his removal of Saddam Hussein, his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorists, and his robust support for Israel?s government led by Ariel Sharon, is gaining ground among those Jewish voters who place their highest priority on Israel?s survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans and the Middle-East Conflict
"The flurry of pro- and anti-road map activity pointed to a paradoxical dilemma facing the president as he plans his next moves: His strongest opposition comes from political allies whose enmity could cost him in 2004, while his strongest support comes from liberal groups that are unlikely to reward him politically for his efforts."
"These guys" - the pro-road map liberals - "are not Bush's friends," said Dr. Mandell Ganchrow, executive vice president of the hawkish Religious Zionists of America, and head of his own pro-Israel political action committee.
Indymedia: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1614435.php
MSNBC News: Dems fear Bush's gains with Jewish voters
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
People with social power over the black people need to get up and tell them to start doing for themselves. Of course you're not going to amount to anything if you act like you're a victim, when you're only a victim because you want to believe so. It really is sad what people do to themselves, just because someone stands on a podium and tells them. I disagree, however, about the path that should be taken. I think we need to start backpedalling, and not go more towards an authoritarian government. Start scraping away at the affect of the national government in our daily lives, and force more responsibility on the individual. It will cause social problems, that's for sure, but, IMO, they are necessary. I say we've learned our lessons about have too small a government, and now we are learning lessons about having one that's too big.
i agree, i registered to vote, but i wont be voting until i really feel i have an idea of where the candidates stand and what exactly they plan to do. people telling me to vote, i ask them, who are you voting for, and why? most of the time, they just tell me, 'i dont think kerry would make a good president', or 'bush is stupid.' my response is, in that case, you shouldnt be voting. let someone who really knows what's going on decide.
i think all ballots should come with a short answer section, and the voter has to write a coherent argument why they voted for a particular candidate. what issues are important to you, why you think your candidate's plans will work, etc. any vote from a voter that's apparently clueless ('bush is stupid' or 'kerry's sucks') should get thrown out.
(yeah, i know, it's not practical, but i wish it was)
i think all ballots should come with a short answer section, and the voter has to write a coherent argument why they voted for a particular candidate. what issues are important to you, why you think your candidate's plans will work, etc. any vote from a voter that's apparently clueless ('bush is stupid' or 'kerry's sucks') should get thrown out.
(yeah, i know, it's not practical, but i wish it was)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter