Will you be voting this year?

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Viral Harvest said:
I'll have no part of any of these clowns getting into office. George Carlin summed it up pretty well for me.

Dial 10-10-220 when being tragically impressionable?

Fußball Superstar said:
I personally wouldn't want to waste my time arguing politics with anybody. Or arguing anything with anybody. None of the world's problems have ever been solved by two random nobodies screaming talking points at each other.

Oh. And I'm not going to vote. (Unless Gingrich is the Republican candidate because I promised I'd vote for him when he was first thinking about running, lmao.) And I'm definitely going to complain. Loudly and annoyingly and to anyone who has the misfortune of coming within a fifty mile radius of me. And I don't own an X-Box. Or really any other gaming device except a PS2 that no longer works.

Yet you still chose to waste everyone's time.


Anyway, you guys are ignorant, part of the problem, and you suck, but other than that keep exercising your right to rage against the machine and act like teenagers that shouldn't be voting anyway while wondering why the law reflects the ideals of out of touch geriatrics. :iva:
 
Griffith said:
Anyway, you guys are ignorant, part of the problem, and you suck, but other than that keep exercising your right to rage against the machine and act like teenagers that shouldn't be voting anyway while wondering why the law reflects the ideals of out of touch geriatrics. :iva:

Sucky, ignorant people who act like teenagers that shouldn't be voting aren't voting. Sounds like the problem fixes itself to me. I don't understand why that's bad. But then again I'm ignorant so that's expected. :ganishka:
 
This made me gag a bit.

Proj2501 said:
All politicians are full of shit. Pick the one you think is least full of it. If you don't vote though, shut your fucking face when it comes time to complain. I'd rather waste time arguing with someone on the other side of the aisle than argue with some dumbass who was too busy playing XBOX to get off his lazy ass and vote.

This is such a ridiculous statement. It's right up there with "If you don't vote, you hate America". It's based on the false premise that my vote will have an effect on the out come of an election. The odds of candidate that I support being on the ballet this fall is close to zero.

Sure I can go "preform my civic duty" by wasting my time and write in my dogs name, but it will have no effect on the election. Also by exercising my freedom not to vote, it in way tells the government that they are ruling without my consent.

Also whether or not I vote for the lesser of two evils, the same person will get into office and do evil. I personally would prefer not to have the violation of property rights and deaths of innocent people on my hands.
 
Bender said:
This made me gag a bit.

This is such a ridiculous statement. It's right up there with "If you don't vote, you hate America". It's based on the false premise that my vote will have an effect on the out come of an election. The odds of candidate that I support being on the ballet this fall is close to zero.

Sure I can go "preform my civic duty" by wasting my time and write in my dogs name, but it will have no effect on the election. Also by exercising my freedom not to vote, it in way tells the government that they are ruling without my consent.

Also whether or not I vote for the lesser of two evils, the same person will get into office and do evil. I personally would prefer not to have the violation of property rights and deaths of innocent people on my hands.

Politicians do pay close attention to who votes and their poll numbers among likely voters. If young people continue to not vote, then politicians will continue to ignore us. But if enough of us register to vote and start impacting poll numbers then politicians will be forced to monitor our concerns. We may not always be able to control the candidate but our opinions do influence what they have to address and what laws they can pass to appease us.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-says-obama-agenda-not-based-bible-011457960.html
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama's Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a "different theology."

Between that and the Birth control fight, I find this to be a very important year in politics.

More reason to vote Democrat this year!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy
"Our present crisis over the rise of anti-science has been coming for a long time and we should have seen it coming," adds Oreskes.

This point was backed by Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), although she added that one specific event had brought matters to a head this year: the decision by the United States supreme court to overrule the law that allowed the federal government to place limits on independent spending for political purposes by business corporations.

"That has opened the gates for corporations – often those associated with coal and oil industries – to flood the market with adverts that support rightwing politicians and which attack government bodies that impose environmental regulations that these companies don't like," she said. "The science that supports these regulations is attacked as well. That has made a terrible difference over the past year and it is now bringing matters to a head."

So to clarify: a vote for the Republicans at this point (Including Ron Paul) is a vote for anti-human rights (birth-control/gay marriage) and anti-science.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Long overdue...

Bender said:
This is such a ridiculous statement. It's right up there with "If you don't vote, you hate America". It's based on the false premise that my vote will have an effect on the out come of an election. The odds of candidate that I support being on the ballet this fall is close to zero.

Sure I can go "preform my civic duty" by wasting my time and write in my dogs name, but it will have no effect on the election.

Yes, writing in your dog's name would be a waste of time. Good one. Likewise, the rest of your stock non-sequiturs aren't even in the same direction as the point. It's not just about candidates or the outcomes of elections, and it's especially not about YOU, your candidate, or how much you personally decide the outcome of an election, which is unfortunately the ignorant and self-centered perspective too many people grow up having of electoral politics. The point is to affect the agenda before the election even happens. Look at the effect the Tea Party had on the Republicans, and by extension the entire Government, before the last elections specifically because the GOP was afraid of their potential power as a voting block. You know why? Because they're a bunch of old white people that vote. The reason most other groups can't get that kind of traction is because of people like you.

Bender said:
Also by exercising my freedom not to vote, it in way tells the government that they are ruling without my consent. Also whether or not I vote for the lesser of two evils, the same person will get into office and do evil. I personally would prefer not to have the violation of property rights and deaths of innocent people on my hands.

Talk about a false premise; this is incredibly naive, delusional, and hypocritical since you're the one effecting no change and complying by inaction. People like you contribute to the disconnect between the whole of the citizenry and government. Your culpability is second only to those actively supporting such policies. Like I said, citizens can move the needle before the ballots are even cast, and voting is the least one can do to accomplish that. You're basically sitting back and allowing all those things you're whining about to happen unchallenged; like it or not, you're part of the problem. If you don't care, fine, but you can climb right off your hobby high horse and stop shitting this thread like a diaper wrapped around your adolescent political mind.

Groovy Metal Fist said:
Politicians do pay close attention to who votes and their poll numbers among likely voters. If young people continue to not vote, then politicians will continue to ignore us. But if enough of us register to vote and start impacting poll numbers then politicians will be forced to monitor our concerns. We may not always be able to control the candidate but our opinions do influence what they have to address and what laws they can pass to appease us.

Exactly, demographics that don't vote can be too easily discounted. That's the importance of voting in a nutshell, not some popularity contest or exercising one's right to jerk themselves off "affecting the outcome of the election."

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Between that and the Birth control fight, I find this to be a very important year in politics.

Yep, with this brilliant birth control offensive by Dems and the affirmative action Supreme Court vote coming up literally right before the election this year just got very interesting.
 

Saephon

Die young and save yourself
I don't think I'll be voting, at least not for the President. I've tried the "lesser evil" approach a couple times, and I'm still very unhappy. Obama disappointed me greatly, but honestly, I'd rather throw out 2/3rds of Congress. That's where the real influence, and blame, lies.


So when it comes to representatives or senator seats going up for grabs again, I'll be voting my conscience. Those are at least less of a buzzword-infested, circus show. Otherwise, I don't feel comfortable voting for either Obama or Romney. I'm very liberal, and while I respect Obama's very moderate views, I despise his continued attempts at reaching across the aisle. It's almost as bad as Libertarianism. Sure, it'd be nice if politics worked that way these days, but it doesn't. The GOP proved to me last year that they will run this country into the ground, just to make a Democrat President look bad and improve their own odds in the next election cycle.


If the Democrats can nominate a stern, pragmatist in 2016, who recognizes when opposition is unyielding, I'd be happy to give him my vote. And yes, I completely understand that Obama was the victim of a lot of obstructionist bullshit and nothing would have gotten done if he hadn't thrown bones to the GOP. But has that really helped? Just look at the manufactured deficit crisis. We are racing towards the bottom, and frankly I'd much rather have a mildly liberal or centrist President who has the balls to play the martyr and call out those who are doing harm. Something like, "I will not back down on this issue, and I realize that that means our side will not win against a Republican controlled Congress. But HERE are the lists of people who are interfering. I just want the American public to know." I'm sorry, but there are a lot of people in Washington you just cannot compromise with, and doing so actually is hurting us. Most of us don't WANT it to be this way, we WANTED to believe that Obama's idealism could change things, but it can't. Do we really need more proof of how many greedy sociopaths and ignorant power-mongorers are in calling the shots? Obama's term has been like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, except there's no real filibuster, and he convinces no one, so it's a sad ending.


One last thing: Our voting system really, really needs to go. First-past-the-post is simply horrendous when it comes to allowing for decent leaders who represent the majority of people's interests. But most of all, as long as our system is winner takes all, we are guaranteed to have only two viable parties, and that's the real problem. Third parties have NO chance at Presidential bids; why do you think Ron Paul is at Republican debates? His real affiliation is the worst kept secret of politics. But he's wise for doing it. Local elections, however, still have a decent allowance for dark horse candidates and independents. So there is that.


Change comes from the bottom, friends. Vote locally, write your Congressmen, or vote better ones in. As for the Presidency, as long as it's Romney or Obama, I don't think it's gonna matter too much. And maybe some sick, twisted part of me wants it to get a whole lot worse, just to shock people enough to finally say enough is enough. But that feeling goes away if I keep to my meds. :slan:
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Saephon said:
I don't think I'll be voting, at least not for the President. I've tried the "lesser evil" approach a couple times, and I'm still very unhappy. Obama disappointed me greatly, but honestly, I'd rather throw out 2/3rds of Congress. That's where the real influence, and blame, lies.
Except the President has the power to veto bills, nominate supreme court justices, and some other powers that I don't feel like looking up on Wikipedia. Anyways, if you live in a swing state (Maryland isn't a swing state) your vote has much more to it than you're giving it credit. Talking about throwing out congress, we'd all love to throw out the majority of congress (or select members), we can't. There's a great reason why Nancy Pelosi hasn't been unelected yet, and it has to do with that people that hate her (Example: Republicans from Texas) don't live in her district. Dwelling on who you hate in Congress (Kick out Ron Paul) is more pointless than your disdain for voting for the 'lesser evil'. I might not be 100% fond of Obama, but he is in tune with the majority of things I care about, and at least when everyone looks into the numbers statistically they can see support for a more liberal candidate.

So when it comes to representatives or senator seats going up for grabs again, I'll be voting my conscience. Those are at least less of a buzzword-infested, circus show. Otherwise, I don't feel comfortable voting for either Obama or Romney. I'm very liberal, and while I respect Obama's very moderate views, I despise his continued attempts at reaching across the aisle. It's almost as bad as Libertarianism. Sure, it'd be nice if politics worked that way these days, but it doesn't. The GOP proved to me last year that they will run this country into the ground, just to make a Democrat President look bad and improve their own odds in the next election cycle.

Bipartisanship happens a lot more then you're making it out to happen. Most committees in congress are made up of different members of congress (Republican/Democrat). So keep in mind there is far more 'reaching across the aisle' and that it isn't bad at all.

As for the Presidency, as long as it's Romney or Obama, I don't think it's gonna matter too much.
Well it will.

----------------------------------------------------------
I highly recommend reading this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-and-paul-successfully-call-santorums-conservatism-into-question/2012/02/22/gIQAIyvMUR_blog.html?hpid=z2
When reading this ask your self "What is Santorum being attacked for?" and "What are the things Santorum voted for that are now being used against him?".
 
I don't mean to shit up the thread if that's how you are seeing it.

Griffith said:
Long overdue...

Yes, writing in your dog's name would be a waste of time. Good one. Likewise, the rest of your stock non-sequiturs aren't even in the same direction as the point. It's not just about candidates or the outcomes of elections, and it's especially not about YOU, your candidate, or how much you personally decide the outcome of an election, which is unfortunately the ignorant and self-centered perspective too many people grow up having of electoral politics.

This is collectivist nonsense. My vote is about me and my convictions. People that did not vote can complain just as much, if not more, than those that did. Having government in your life is not voluntary.

The point is to affect the agenda before the election even happens. Look at the effect the Tea Party had on the Republicans, and by extension the entire Government, before the last elections specifically because the GOP was afraid of their potential power as a voting block. You know why? Because they're a bunch of old white people that vote. The reason most other groups can't get that kind of traction is because of people like you.

I really don't see what you are getting at. Just because I don't vote does not mean I don't support organizations or stand behind a cause. Voting is not the only way to spread ideas, however I will concede that it can be an effective way through coercion. And besides, I don't see how the tea party movement has changed much in the republican party. Just look at their major presidential candidates, they're all socialists.

Talk about a false premise; this is incredibly naive, delusional, and hypocritical since you're the one effecting no change and complying by inaction. People like you contribute to the disconnect between the whole of the citizenry and government. Your culpability is second only to those actively supporting such policies. Like I said, citizens can move the needle before the ballots are even cast, and voting is the least one can do to accomplish that. You're basically sitting back and allowing all those things you're whining about to happen unchallenged; like it or not, you're part of the problem. If you don't care, fine, but you can climb right off your hobby high horse and stop shitting this thread like a diaper wrapped around your adolescent political mind.

So I have the moral high ground on over 129 million people? I guess I could live with that.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Bender said:
I don't mean to shit up the thread if that's how you are seeing it.

We'll see, though I'm not particularly worried about whether it's intentional or not.

Bender said:
This is collectivist nonsense. My vote is about me and my convictions. People that did not vote can complain just as much, if not more, than those that did. Having government in your life is not voluntary.

That's individualist nonsense, and unless you're posting via your brainwaves from isolation in the wilderness or a vacuum I'm afraid collectivist nonsense is what we'll have to deal with here to some degree (even the supposed message of non-consent that nobody would know or care about). Anyway, as I said before, that is a rather counterproductive ideology in this context.

Bender said:
I really don't see what you are getting at. Just because I don't vote does not mean I don't support organizations or stand behind a cause. Voting is not the only way to spread ideas, however I will concede that it can be an effective way through coercion.

I made that very point, so you do see what I'm getting at; you simply choose to ignore it when convenient, such as when your own culpability is pointed out. In any case, not voting really doesn't serve any cause other than personal vanity or precisely what one wouldn't have voted for. If it makes you feel above it all, fine, but know that you're full of it.

Bender said:
And besides, I don't see how the tea party movement has changed much in the republican party. Just look at their major presidential candidates, they're all socialists.

They certainly dictated the terms Congressional Republicans could use to negotiate with Obama. The candidates are a different mess, though the current state of the Republican primary is due in no small part to their influence, unintended or not.

Bender said:
So I have the moral high ground on over 129 million people? I guess I could live with that.

On the contrary, that pretension seems more important to you than the moral substance behind it.
 
Griffith said:
We'll see, though I'm not particularly worried about whether it's intentional or not.

I see you changed your post around since I last read it a few days ago. It's less... brash. Maybe you realized it was you who was shitting up the thread. :iva:

That's individualist nonsense, and unless you're posting via your brainwaves from isolation in the wilderness or a vacuum I'm afraid collectivist nonsense is what we'll have to deal with here to some degree (even the supposed message of non-consent that nobody would know or care about). Anyway, as I said before, that is a rather counterproductive ideology in this context.

If sticking to my principles and taking who I vote for and why seriously is counterproductive, how should I vote then? How do you come to a descision?

I made that very point, so you do see what I'm getting at; you simply choose to ignore it when convenient, such as when your own culpability is pointed out. In any case, not voting really doesn't serve any cause other than personal vanity or precisely what one wouldn't have voted for. If it makes you feel above it all, fine, but know that you're full of it.

They certainly dictated the terms Congressional Republicans could use to negotiate with Obama. The candidates are a different mess, though the current state of the Republican primary is due in no small part to their influence, unintended or not.

I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at with the Tea Party. And what culpability? I haven't seen a "none of the above" box on a ballet before. Or am I supposed to turn in an empty ballet?

All that aside, I don't see what that has to do with the original argument of "if you don't vote you can't complain." As I already explained, it's based on a false premise, writing in a candidate is also a waste of time, and I never did mention that it's literally just not true. I didn't vote in the last federal elections and I have complained many times since then.

I seem to get the feeling that you think that I won't vote at all, which is not the case, just probable.

On the contrary, that pretension seems more important to you than the moral substance behind it.

You're the one that said it. I just quantified it. Any satisfaction I get out of it is negated by how depressing it is to think about.
 
Bender said:
All that aside, I don't see what that has to do with the original argument of "if you don't vote you can't complain." As I already explained, it's based on a false premise, writing in a candidate is also a waste of time, and I never did mention that it's literally just not true. I didn't vote in the last federal elections and I have complained many times since then.

Obviously you have the right to complain, but you've failed to exercise your leverage in the political system, so we take you less seriously when you complain. You can spread ideas as you mentioned all you want but unless it eventually threatens a politician's job, what reason do they have to pay attention to the ideas that you're spreading? There are a number of issues where you will see over 65% polling in one direction yet most politicians voting the other way; that's because their jobs don't feel threatened. I'm glad you conceded that it's useful coercion and that is in no way a minor point.

Bender said:
If sticking to my principles and taking who I vote for and why seriously is counterproductive, how should I vote then? How do you come to a descision?

Are you not concerned with the ramifications of society becoming disconnected with the political system? Do you want to contribute to that problem?
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Bender said:
I see you changed your post around since I last read it a few days ago. It's less... brash. Maybe you realized it was you who was shitting up the thread. :iva:

Any iteration of that post was far less brash than what originally came to mind. I'll tell you how I really feel then: my problem, in addition to everything I've said above, is I find your whole political attitude pretty immature all around, style and substance. Examples of both that and your thread shitting:

Bender said:
This made me gag a bit.

Bender said:
This is such a ridiculous statement. It's right up there with "If you don't vote, you hate America".

Bender said:
Sure I can go "preform my civic duty" by wasting my time and write in my dogs name, but it will have no effect on the election.

Bender said:
Also by exercising my freedom not to vote, it in way tells the government that they are ruling without my consent.

Bender said:
Also whether or not I vote for the lesser of two evils, the same person will get into office and do evil.

Bender said:
So I have the moral high ground on over 129 million people? I guess I could live with that.

Bender said:
Maybe you realized it was you who was shitting up the thread. :iva:

This is by no means a complete list, one could quote almost any sentence by itself and the oblivious self-importance would be evident. In a nutshell, whether it's what you're like or not (and indeed, some of your other statements suggest you aren't), you come off like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

And yes, sorry, this is still a far less brash and relatively tame reply than I'm capable of or is probably warranted.

Bender said:
If sticking to my principles and taking who I vote for and why seriously is counterproductive, how should I vote then? How do you come to a descision?

Like I said, don't think of it as just candidates or what amounts instant gratification ("they don't have EXACTLY what I want!? FUCK THIS!"). It's about moving the needle. If you can't handle that, I'm sure people that oppose your views and are far more effective at politics can. A great example is the neoconservative movements that began in the 70's as a response to the successful liberal movements of the 60's, particularly civil rights, and have effectively retarded them to this day to prop up old systems of dominance. We're months away from watching the supreme court dismantle affirmative action once and for all, and most people have probably been convinced it's a fair idea.

Bender said:
I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at with the Tea Party. And what culpability? I haven't seen a "none of the above" box on a ballet before. Or am I supposed to turn in an empty ballet?

I already said it before, but not voting doesn't somehow make you less responsible for bad things happening, but arguably more because you're not registering your dissent as part of the minority, or worse, what could be a majority if part of it wasn't silent. I believe only so much can be accomplished by electrical politics alone, but the message you send is actually what makes it important to vote even if you're going to lose. And trust me, you're not sending a message by not voting other than the candidates are right to ignore you.

Bender said:
All that aside, I don't see what that has to do with the original argument of "if you don't vote you can't complain." As I already explained, it's based on a false premise, writing in a candidate is also a waste of time, and I never did mention that it's literally just not true. I didn't vote in the last federal elections and I have complained many times since then.

Again, I don't really have a problem with that so much as how obnoxious you were about it (see above). Plus, it felt like you were pushing a pretty stupid "don't vote" agenda and generally being a bad political actor here.

Bender said:
I seem to get the feeling that you think that I won't vote at all, which is not the case, just probable.

Good, I hope you discover new, better, and more reasons to vote.

Bender said:
You're the one that said it. I just quantified it. Any satisfaction I get out of it is negated by how depressing it is to think about.

That's NOT what I said, but if we can't have mutual respect or understanding, I take solace in the fact we're at least mutually depressed by each other. =)

Groovy Metal Fist said:
Obviously you have the right to complain, but you've failed to exercise your leverage in the political system, so we take you less seriously when you complain. You can spread ideas as you mentioned all you want but unless it eventually threatens a politician's job, what reason do they have to pay attention to the ideas that you're spreading? There are a number of issues where you will see over 65% polling in one direction yet most politicians voting the other way; that's because their jobs don't feel threatened. I'm glad you conceded that it's useful coercion and that is in no way a minor point.

Are you not concerned with the ramifications of society becoming disconnected with the political system? Do you want to contribute to that problem?

Thank you, better than I'm saying it. Bender, if we're just going to go back and forth baiting each other, why don't you reply to Groovy Metal Fist instead? He has two thoughtful replies to you now, and you didn't even address the one before this.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-house-passes-24-hour-wait-abortions-071913842.html
Women seeking abortions would be required to wait 24 hours under a bill passed by the Florida House on Thursday.
The Republican-supported measure also creates a number of additional restrictions affecting clinic ownership, physician training and late-term procedures. But opponents said the bill has slimmer chances of passing the state Senate.

Guys I'm not voting this year. That should teach Obama for not being more liberal. :azan:
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Groovy Metal Fist said:
These legislators and abortion clinic bombers have no limits.

We are a capitalistic nation, you have to fill every niche in order to make your self marketable.

Perfect example, Ron Paul, filling that Libertarian niche since 1978 ( :ganishka: ): http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-no-federal-financial-aid-tornado-victims-102533838.html

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."
"The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance," Paul said.

Just updating for the sake of update: http://paul.house.gov/images/stories/funding_requests/22010labor.pdf
Ron Paul requested funding for Gulf Clean Up. Maybe they should have had oil spillage insurance.
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Perfect example, Ron Paul, filling that Libertarian niche since 1978 ( :ganishka: ): http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-no-federal-financial-aid-tornado-victims-102533838.html

Cue the Free Mason Illuminati Globalist Rothschild New World Order Tyranny manipulating the Zeitgeist accusations. Ron Paul is now a religion complete with an army of apostles.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Groovy Metal Fist said:
Cue the Free Mason Illuminati Globalist Rothschild New World Order Tyranny manipulating the Zeitgeist accusations. Ron Paul is now a religion complete with an army of apostles.

I saw this before, and I'm pretty sure it was made thanks to Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM
Ron Paul 2012
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
romney or burns.jpg
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
I only knew #4.
:sad:

You're not the one that should be ashamed. It's amazing how many quotes you'd think would be Mr. Burns are actually Romney. :ganishka:
 
Top Bottom