This is one of those spaggy rants that's directed at the general Amurrican public, not necessarily Discordians.
Dear Undecided Voter:
Welcome to November 2008. It's been a long eight years, hasn't it? Some people will try to tell you that voting Republican this year is dumb because the disastrous war in Iraq and the current economic mess that Wall Street has made of itself have happened under a Republican administration. Well, I'm not going to tell you that.
Truth is, we're in the mess we're in because all this shit has happened under an Idiot Party administration. These aren't the benign, lovable sort of idiots that George W. Bush pretends to be; these are greedy and self-righteous idiots who are very good at one thing, and that is getting ahold of power so that they can play their idiotic games with a post-9/11 world. Even the Democrats who sat back and let this crap happen because they were afraid of being called names are members of the Idiot Party's agenda. But this is all old news.
People from both sides will screw you over if they get the chance. Republicans and Democrats are all politicians, and all those "third parties" are jokes from a strategic standpoint. You shouldn't vote based merely on political party affiliation, and if you're undecided, then you are either planning to flip a coin or are waiting for something to push you in one direction or the other. How about this:
Obama says that you'll get no new taxes if your family income is less than $250,000 a year. Let me guess, you probably fall into that bracket, don't you? Yeah, you do, and chances are you aren't going to be climbing above that quarter-million mark any time too soon.
The obvious rebuttal to this plan is the accusation that it punishes people for being successful, and it only makes sense that those above-$250,000 a year people are pushing this line of thought. Okay, maybe. In America, we're all supposed to get an equal chance. But for the past eight years, a Republican-dominated government has been giving tax breaks to the rich folks and the corporations, who just happen to be the ones helping to finance their campaigns (those slick ads don't pay for themselves, you know). The wealthy work to influence the political system in their favor. That's how it's always been. It's not a new thing and it's not going to change.
But why should the rich be the only ones pushing the politicians around? You've got a vote too, goddammit. Why are you spewing their propaganda for them? Do you think they're gonna be grateful and give you some of their money if you help elect a president who'll give them more tax breaks? HA HA! Here's an idea: let's pretend that we still live in a representative democracy where people vote for the candidate who best represents their own interests. The wealthy will be voting for their best interests, and you should vote for yours. And if you make less than $250,000 a year, then Obama probably represents you in that regard. If he falls back on his promise then kick him out in 2012.
Or don't. Vote McCain, and watch as the wealthy corporations are given more tax breaks and the executives prepare their multi-million dollar golden parachutes for when the economy collapses again (it happens, folks, all the freaking time), while you live in fear of being laid off and losing your house and the price of food and gas continue to become more pressing so you have to dip into those college savings. BUT AT LEAST YOU DIDN'T VOTE TO MAKE THOSE SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE PAY MORE, RIGHT? THIS IS AMERICA, AFTER ALL!
Oh, and did I mention that if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain if the next president sucks? Yeah. Life's a bitch, ain't it?
Why not just steal from the rich directly instead of letting the government do it?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 19, 2008, 06:29:20 AM
Why not just steal from the rich directly instead of letting the government do it?
Because they'll have their security geeks shoot you in the knee and then fuck you in the ass?
QuoteOh, and did I mention that if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain if the next president sucks?
I disagree. Bush didn't strip that right away afaik.
If you are still undecided, you might as well do us all a favor and just sit this one out. Don't listen to him, you can still complain.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 19, 2008, 06:29:20 AM
Why not just steal from the rich directly instead of letting the government do it?
Steal? OMFG, if taxes = stealing we should stop all taxes now!!! You have enlightened me. I never thought of it that way. Its like one of the ten commandments and shit! I can see it now, Vatican: "If you vote for a candidate who supports taxes in any case, you are committing a mortal sin."
Or we could realize that it is not stealing, and keep our military, roads, firemen, EMS, police, and schools, and junk.
yeah, if you don't vote you CAN complain...
...you'll just be a screeching idiot that no one should listen to.
If you're crafty, no one will know if you voted at all.
Quote from: guest7654 on October 19, 2008, 10:44:51 AM
QuoteOh, and did I mention that if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain if the next president sucks?
I disagree. Bush didn't strip that right away afaik.
If you are still undecided, you might as well do us all a favor and just sit this one out. Don't listen to him, you can still complain.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 19, 2008, 06:29:20 AM
Why not just steal from the rich directly instead of letting the government do it?
Steal? OMFG, if taxes = stealing we should stop all taxes now!!! You have enlightened me. I never thought of it that way. Its like one of the ten commandments and shit! I can see it now, Vatican: "If you vote for a candidate who supports taxes in any case, you are committing a mortal sin."
Or we could realize that it is not stealing, and keep our military, roads, firemen, EMS, police, and schools, and junk.
Hey, I never said I was against stealing.
It's only stealing if the person being taxed is being forced against their will to pay.
Quote from: Cainad on October 18, 2008, 11:56:30 PM
Oh, and did I mention that if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain if the next president sucks?
I agree. Everyone legally able to vote should do so. But should that be for Obama or McCain? Not if you don't feel it's right. Go to the polls, vote for whoever the fuck you think is qualified - could be a third party, could be your dad, it doesn't matter.
You'll get arguments until people are blue in the face about how it's throwing your vote away, but at the very least for the next four years you can say "Don't blame me, I voted for myself."
Anybody who wants to run the country shouldn't be allowed to, and anybody who thinks I should run the country should be excommunicated. Including myself.
I voted for L. Ron Hubbard.
And btw, if you want an equal America democrats, TAX RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE THE SAME % RATE.
And Republicans, not everyone is a christian. I AM AN IMMORAL ASSHOLE BECAUSE I DONT BELIEVE JESUS IS SPECIAL IN ANY WAY. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIED WORSE DEATHS. GET A JOB.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 19, 2008, 08:36:50 PM
I agree. Everyone legally able to vote should do so. But should that be for Obama or McCain? Not if you don't feel it's right. Go to the polls, vote for whoever the fuck you think is qualified - could be a third party, could be your dad, it doesn't matter.
You'll get arguments until people are blue in the face about how it's throwing your vote away, but at the very least for the next four years you can say "Don't blame me, I voted for myself."
if you dont follow politics or know shit about politics you should NOT vote.
The idea is that the process of voting is more important than the vote itself. It's solace for the disillusioned.
And I'm voting Felix '12 if only because excommunication is too often just a word nowadays.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 19, 2008, 11:52:44 PM
if you dont follow politics or know shit about politics you should NOT vote.
If your name is Pope Lecherous, you should eat a dick.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 02:32:33 AM
If your name is Pope Lecherous, you should eat a dick.
Do you disagree?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 20, 2008, 01:31:43 AM
The idea is that the process of voting is more important than the vote itself. It's solace for the disillusioned.
And I'm voting Felix '12 if only because excommunication is too often just a word nowadays.
it's kind of sad that's all a vote amounts to. If that's true.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 20, 2008, 03:07:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 02:32:33 AM
If your name is Pope Lecherous, you should eat a dick.
Do you disagree?
I just think people who tell other people they shouldn't vote should eat a dick.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on October 19, 2008, 10:53:14 PM
And btw, if you want an equal America democrats, TAX RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE THE SAME % RATE.
LEARN2ECONOMICS, NOOB.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 03:25:52 AM
I just think people who tell other people they shouldn't vote should eat a dick.
People invest more time and research choosing between American Idol contestants. You don't need to be an expert, at least make it as well-informed a decision as possible. Some basic and simple questions can determine if a person knows anything about politics. So no, uninformed people should not vote, especially if they don't wanna commit the
staggering effort it takes to google the candidates and the issues, do some reading, and take seriously who'll ne the motherfuckin PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I cherish my vote... so much that i don't want people who dont take it seriously to dilute my vote. It's already bad enough that each vote is not worth the same.
Democracy is a tyranny of swine. It is probably the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds.
Life sucks, wear a hat. But don't think for a moment you know better than the people who started this country.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 20, 2008, 04:26:21 AM
People invest more time and research choosing between American Idol contestants.
Oh, so they aren't WORTHY of a vote. And you are.
I see.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 04:31:35 AM
Democracy is a tyranny of swine. It is probably the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds.
Life sucks, wear a hat. But don't think for a moment you know better than the people who started this country.
Also: If you're undecided by this point, you're a dumbfuck.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on October 19, 2008, 10:53:14 PM
And btw, if you want an equal America democrats, TAX RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE THE SAME % RATE.
Please tell me you aren't that stupid. :|
I donno Rog. That Obama could suddenly go out and wear a really off-message lapel pin any second now.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 05:04:10 AM
I donno Rog. That Obama could suddenly go out and wear a really off-message lapel pin any second now.
Or say the pledge, but under the
wrong God!
Durn Muslins!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 05:01:42 AM
Oh, so they aren't WORTHY of a vote. And you are.
I see.
Yea, you hit on exactly the point i was trying to make :roll:
That doesnt change the fact that people need to know what they are voting for.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 05:25:34 AM
Durn Muslins!
I was talking about the Discordians, actually. :lulz:
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 20, 2008, 05:48:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 05:01:42 AM
Oh, so they aren't WORTHY of a vote. And you are.
I see.
Yea, you hit on exactly the point i was trying to make :roll:
That doesnt change the fact that people need to know what they are voting for.
The evidence suggests they don't. How else can you explain Franklin Pierce, James Buchanon, and George W Bush? Hell, there's even morons out there that
want to vote for Palin.
They have a right to do so, even if you think they're misinformed. That's the beauty of our republic.
But let me guess...you are smarter than the founding fathers, and have a better solution. Well, go ahead and dribble it out, so Felix and I can demolish it and get back to talking about Eve's hair.
Roger? You slay me! :D
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 05:51:12 AM
The evidence suggests they don't. How else can you explain Franklin Pierce, James Buchanon, and George W Bush? Hell, there's even morons out there that want to vote for Palin.
They have a right to do so, even if you think they're misinformed. That's the beauty of our republic.
But let me guess...you are smarter than the founding fathers, and have a better solution. Well, go ahead and dribble it out, so Felix and I can demolish it and get back to talking about Eve's hair.
No one was criticizing the founding fathers and their gospel. There's no way to make sure people do their part. If someone can acknowledge they dont know enough about politics they should learn or not vote. People still have the right to
choose
to make poor decisions. I would urge them not to.
Try a popular vote.
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 20, 2008, 06:15:20 AM
No one was criticizing the founding fathers and their gospel. There's no way to make sure people do their part. If someone can acknowledge they dont know enough about politics they should learn or not vote. People still have the right to choose
to make poor decisions. I would urge them not to.
And again, I urge YOU to eat a dick, for trying to urge people into NOT doing the ONE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS ACT they'll do in the next four years, whether they do so stupidly or not. It doesn't even hurt the republic when stupid people vote, because the distribution of stupidity is pretty even between parties, so they cancel each other out.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:22:27 AM
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
How about you both fuck off, and we just follow the constitution?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:22:27 AM
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
How about you both fuck off, and we just follow the constitution?
Because the electoral college is a malfunctioning relic.
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:31:47 AM
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Tempting, but there's no such thing.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:24:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:22:27 AM
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
How about you both fuck off, and we just follow the constitution?
Because the electoral college is a malfunctioning relic.
Okay, so let's change the constitution. By the way, we can pretend that 50,000,000 screaming religious nuts aren't waiting for us to try, so they can get THEIR thumb in, too.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
You're a smart guy, Felix, but sometimes you can't see the monkeys.
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:31:47 AM
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Me. El Presidente Generalissimo for life Roger.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:34:25 AM
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:31:47 AM
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Tempting, but there's no such thing.
HAH! WRONG!
Enrico.
Nuff said.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:36:01 AM
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:31:47 AM
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Me. El Presidente Generalissimo for life Roger.
Yay!
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:37:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:36:01 AM
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:31:47 AM
Why not let's try a Benevolent Dictatorship? & I nominate ... well, um uhh err (um again) y'all know who I would nominate?
Me. El Presidente Generalissimo for life Roger.
Yay!
Every man an El Duce, every woman an Imelda, and all the dinners on time!
& now I can go to sleep in peace! G'nite Roger et al!
Quote from: Honey on October 20, 2008, 06:39:21 AM
& now I can go to sleep in peace! G'nite Roger et al!
Sleep tight. Our highly trained professionals will guard you as you sleep:
(http://www.gonomad.com/readuponit/uploaded_images/cop-car-hanging-from-parking-lot-715353.jpg)
whudda relief! whew! g'nite, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite! eeeyew.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:35:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:24:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:22:27 AM
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
How about you both fuck off, and we just follow the constitution?
Because the electoral college is a malfunctioning relic.
Okay, so let's change the constitution. By the way, we can pretend that 50,000,000 screaming religious nuts aren't waiting for us to try, so they can get THEIR thumb in, too.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
You're a smart guy, Felix, but sometimes you can't see the monkeys.
What can I say? I live in a good neighborhood. They're such better actors after a few years of college.
Also, theoretically if Approval Voting could get amended in without undue pork, it'd fix a lot of problems.
Especially with restricted approval voting (vote for a minimum of two or similar), which would strengthen the system against decisive voting interest strategies.
For the last 10 years, I've chosen not to vote...for many reasons.
1) I was uneducated or unconcerned about politics. I couldn't be bothered to educate myself or care enough who ran the country.
2) My vote didn't count, what with the millions of other people voting and the electoral college (in the case of the president).
3) I wasn't registered.
4) I refused to vote for the lesser of two evils, and they're all evil. Or, I couldn't decide who was worse.
There could be more, but those were the main ones. Then last year, I had to renew my driver's license, so I just checked the box while I was there. Yay, now I'm registered to vote! And all of a sudden, I feel like I should, whether my vote really counts or not. This time around, I'm checking out who's running, and learning about their platforms and voting record. Still having issues with the evil bit. McCain strikes me as evil in a more obvious way....Obama seems more evil in a more insidious way. I've got a congressman to vote for too, and I'm looking at an incumbant who hasn't done shit in his two years in office (with ties to the rich and successful musicians), versus a rabid reagan republican (with ties to the Marines, police and firefighters).
Oddly enough, the internal debates have little to do with the reasons I listed above for not voting. It's more like: "who am I to decide who gets to govern us?", "what do I know about politics that makes me qualified to make such a momentous decision?", "How am I supposed to know who's more qualified and capable of governing this country?" It doesn't really have a damn thing to do with whether my vote counts. It has to do with whether or not I count my vote.
And finally, I'm still undecided. I'm pretty sure I don't want to vote for McCain. It seems like he'll follow in Bush's footsteps, I'm not sure that he'll live through all 4 years, and I don't think Palin would make a good president. Obama looks really good, but I can see the slime under the shine. I sincerely doubt he intends to create any good changes, despite everything he's saying now. So who's left? Ron Paul? Ralph Nader? :lol: Mebbe I'll go Green, just for kicks.
I wish the National Barking Spider Resurgence Party had a candidate running this year. :cry:
I'd be more willing to vote if there was a "No confidence" option.
And really, I'm not sure I buy into this "voting is your duty" meme. If my vote had a real impact I might agree, but as long as 300 000 000 other people get votes... donating time or money to a campaign gets more of their votes.
Quote from: GA on October 20, 2008, 05:46:10 PM
I'd be more willing to vote if there was a "No confidence" option.
And really, I'm not sure I buy into this "voting is your duty" meme. If my vote had a real impact I might agree, but as long as 300 000 000 other people get votes... donating time or money to a campaign gets more of their votes.
Wrong. Approximately half of the eligible population votes in the USA. The other half thinks along the same lines you are.
Does your non-vote count also?
No droplet of rain ever caused a flood.
Might as well keep driving my Escalade... one gas-guzzling car's not gonna kill the planet, right?
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Cainad on October 20, 2008, 06:19:16 PM
Wrong. Approximately half of the eligible population votes in the USA. The other half thinks along the same lines you are.
Does your non-vote count also?
Hi there Cainad,
I liked your original post here :)
& all I can say about the above statistic is that something is wrong when only half the people vote. Friggin' pathetic. Makes me want to go live somewhere else.
Quote from: Cainad on October 20, 2008, 06:19:16 PM
Quote from: GA on October 20, 2008, 05:46:10 PM
I'd be more willing to vote if there was a "No confidence" option.
And really, I'm not sure I buy into this "voting is your duty" meme. If my vote had a real impact I might agree, but as long as 300 000 000 other people get votes... donating time or money to a campaign gets more of their votes.
Wrong. Approximately half of the eligible population votes in the USA. The other half thinks along the same lines you are.
Does your non-vote count also?
If it doesn't count either way, might as well expend less energy, right?
Quote from: GA on October 20, 2008, 05:46:10 PM
I'd be more willing to vote if there was a "No confidence" option.
And really, I'm not sure I buy into this "voting is your duty" meme. If my vote had a real impact I might agree, but as long as 300 000 000 other people get votes... donating time or money to a campaign gets more of their votes.
you can write in "none of the above" it won't count for anything except your own satisfaction for voting your own mind (until we all get together and all vote "none of the above") dont hold your breath i have been hoping for a none of the above movement for the last two elections..
edit "three if you count this one"
It might be amusing to go back to the old method of "first place gets the presidency, second place gets the vice-presidency".
Could make cabinet meetings more fun, anyway.
OP = outstanding
Also: lots of whining, copping out fuckheads itt. Who need to go live somewhere without democracy/ rights to voting for a while to see how the "other half" lives. Then come back to me and say you know about how much democracy sucks ass.
Jesus.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:24:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 06:23:26 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:22:27 AM
A popular vote would only serve to further polarize the elections. It's a bad idea.
Try an approval vote. (http://approvalvoting.org/benefits.html)
How about you both fuck off, and we just follow the constitution?
Because the electoral college is a malfunctioning relic.
I'm a bit late on this, but let me toss my two cents on the pile -
the electoral college, for all it's modern foibles, has its heart in the right place. If the president were decided purely by popular vote, candidates would only campaign in New York and LA.
That's not to say it shouldn't be reformed. It needs help, but it's not a bad idea at its core.
It certainly gives my State much more influence than it would on a popular-vote basis. And New Hampshire wouldn't be a Battle Ground State if not for the Electoral College. I'm not sure exactly how you could make it work any better. It's going to be near impossible to devise a system that levels the playing field for geographic areas with large amounts of people and geographic areas with a minute amount of people. Population centers will always have more sway no matter what you come up with. But the popular vote makes their advantage so much heavier.
Did anyone read my link on approval voting? It's a pretty good voting system that would eliminate most of the problems of a straight popular vote.
I read it, its interesting i would like to see it tried in party primaries. I have a hunch McCain wouldn't have won with a approval vote system
I did. I hadn't heard of it before. Very very interesting - I'd be curious to see it in action.
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 09:23:58 PM
Did anyone read my link on approval voting? It's a pretty good voting system that would eliminate most of the problems of a straight popular vote.
I like it, but more specifically I like this:
[-] Washington
[ ] Stalin
[-] Madison
[-] Jefferson
In a classroom approval vote, 10/30 approved of blueberry muffins, 14/30 approved of sugar cookies, and 27/30 approved of chocolate rice krispy treats. So I made all three, held a vote, and passed the winner out.
That's how it looks in action.
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
Potentially keeping Palin out of office isn't enough?
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 12:47:38 AM
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
goddammit...I was JUST starting to think that maybe I was wrong and you actually
aren't a fucking waste of life.
ECH,
fool me once...
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 21, 2008, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 12:47:38 AM
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
goddammit...I was JUST starting to think that maybe I was wrong and you actually aren't a fucking waste of life.
ECH,
fool me once...
:cry:
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 12:47:38 AM
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
Not to join a mob against you, but I know you're not as stupid as you sound above. It's very irresponsible thinking to say that just because you are too lazy to help keep your government honest means you've done just fine ok dandy gee golly willikers.
If every motherfucker felt and did as you do, what do you think would happen? As it is, 50% already do, and look at the state we're in.
So congratufuckinglations.
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
I feel like my vote means jack shit really. However I'm already registered and come voting day my ass is headed to the polls. Even if it is just to write in none of the above, or go eeny meeny miney moe, that's unlikely though, I'll most likely vote for who I think has the least stds or will fuck us more gently in the ass. Or maybe I'll go opposite of that in hopes that whoever gets it will spark the revolution.
I often envy older generations' ability to see what's going on these days in politics and remain the least surprised by any of it. If ever we do see a period of peace, prosperity, and equity ever again in this country, I will have a hard time believing it ever happened.
Quote from: LMNO on October 20, 2008, 07:35:25 PM
It might be amusing to go back to the old method of "first place gets the presidency, second place gets the vice-presidency".
Could make cabinet meetings more fun, anyway.
Abraham Lincoln did this, I think, during a time when his country was deeply divided. Worked out pretty well I think? (I could go on & on here but I won't, don't wanna be a bore or boarish even).
Point is if McCain had chosen Clinton as his running mate (instead of that dim witted bimbo - & well I
could go on & on here too?) he would be in a more favorable position. Not that I prefer him. & y'all know who I prefer here. Without goin' into my personal proclivities, idiosyncracies & such & how they sometimes cloud the issues & without goin' into my
own ISSUES (& whooo boy are they many!) The point is, dammitt! the Republican Party has the chutzpahcracy to use the Southern Strategy over & over & again & again to get votes! Pisses me off! :x
&
both parties talk about this bi-partisan crap till they're blue in the face & that pisses me off too! & when all is said & done, waaay more was said (chutzpahcracy) than done. :x
& it makes me think of what Einstein said (& Cain quoted this once & it was a better translation too) but here's what I have,
QuoteNo problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
-Albert Einstein
(glad I got that off my chest)
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:13:21 AM
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
Um... wha?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 21, 2008, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:13:21 AM
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
Um... wha?
Half of America feels the same way as GA about voting. I am likening them to a mob.
GA is a her, IIRC.
Also I would see no point in voting in a state which overwhelmingly votes the way you prefer. On the other hand, it may be more important to vote in state primaries if your general preferred party keeps promoting dipshits for the role. I vote, for example, because my MP combines the worst aspects of New Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems are desperately seeking to topple him. However, if I had a Lib Dem stronghold, I would be looking at making sure the right sort of person gets put forward for the MP vote. The selection process does not have a primary, per se, but there are ways of influencing it.
Yeah, I live in MA, one of the bluest of the blue, and I vote not because I think the state will go a different way for national elections, but because it's been known to happen that third party candidates get voted into local office.
Ground up, kids. From the ground up.
Personally I prefer a landslide victory, so I tend to operate on the principle of the thing more than decide whether to play the odds.
What's the difference between 66% and 66.0000000000000000000000001% of the votes?
More like 66.000000001%, roughly speaking. But point taken.
Still, democracy is based on the assumption that people will vote. It doesn't work (well) otherwise.
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
:potd: :potd: :potd: :potd: :potd: :potd: :potd:
:potd: :potd:
:potd: :potd: :potd:
:potd: :potd:
:potd:
:potd: :potd: :potd: :potd:
:potd:
:potd:
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Yes, but please: let's tackle one depressing fault in the American political process at a time. Voter apathy
and political ignorance is just too much for me to handle.
Cainad,
Kidding.
I'll probably get yelled at here... but I'm gonna go for it anyway.
1. I don't think the founding fathers said anything about voting being the duty of every man and woman over the age of 18... I thought they said that you could vote if you were white and owned land.
2. Democracy is based on a government by the people and of the people. If the people are apathetic, then it will be an apathetic government... if the people are disenfranchised, it will be a disenfranchised government. If the people are batshit insane and should all be institutionalized... it will be an American government.
3. If I lived in a state that was very blue or very red, I would probably be less inclined to vote. However, I'm in Ohio and every vote counts... if diebold is involved, every vote may count more than once. So I vote. This year, I had planned to vote for McCain, traditionally, he seemed like a pretty decent guy, for a politician. Now, I'm voting to keep Sarah Palin the hell away from Penn Ave.
4. Cain is dead on about voting being one act of many that makes you a valuable member of society. Voting alone is meaningless... uneducated voting is no more Patriotic or Dutiful than playing Power Ball.
5. I like numbered lists.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Since when are we even talking about that? All I'm saying is voting is important.
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Since when are we even talking about that? All I'm saying is voting is important.
Is this a thread about voting? Why yes, I do believe it is. Are other functions, just as important to the democratic process, being neglected in the discussion, thus elevating the role of voting in this discourse at their expense? Why yes, I do believe they are.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Since when are we even talking about that? All I'm saying is voting is important.
Is this a thread about voting? Why yes, I do believe it is. Are other functions, just as important to the democratic process, being neglected in the discussion, thus elevating the role of voting in this discourse at their expense? Why yes, I do believe they are.
In that case, good job rebutting a point I wasn't even talking about. I'd hate to have to do all the work of taking a stance before having it disputed.
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 08:06:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 07:22:08 PM
Actually, its based on participationary politics, discourse and an educated population. Voting is one act out of the many from the first of those three. If you think you can vote, then forget about doing anything else at all for another 4 years, that is just as much of a problem as not voting.
Since when are we even talking about that? All I'm saying is voting is important.
Is this a thread about voting? Why yes, I do believe it is. Are other functions, just as important to the democratic process, being neglected in the discussion, thus elevating the role of voting in this discourse at their expense? Why yes, I do believe they are.
In that case, good job rebutting a point I wasn't even talking about. I'd hate to have to do all the work of taking a stance before having it disputed.
Maybe you were a useful foil for that point and nothing more.
And maybe you should stop being a touchy little bastard about it.
Yeah Cain. I'm a little too paranoid sometimes. I tend to take offense at any real or imagined insult, and harbor lots of little grudges.
That's because you're a paranoid little freak, and whose mother dresses him funny.
Oh fuck both of you. I'm off.
Sheesh Cain, Didn't you see me vociferously agreeing with you not a dozen posts previous?
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:43:58 AM
Also, theoretically if Approval Voting could get amended in without undue pork, it'd fix a lot of problems.
The bolded part is where you lost me.
Only it wouldn't be pork that would creep in. It would be other little "improvements" to the constitution, most of which have a startling resemblance to the beliefs and mores of the most rabid fundamentalist Baptists, etc, in America.
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 12:47:38 AM
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
Nobody thinks they're a bad citizen.
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:13:21 AM
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
Okay, well, fuck it. Felix, tell us: How many people are allowed to disagree with someone? I mean, everyone after the last permissible person will just have to shut the fuck up and keep their opinion to themselves, right? Right right right?
Because that's what "the free exchange of ideas"
means, right? Being all careful of people's little feelings, and wrapping them in bubble wrap so nothing bad ever happens.
Oh, Goddammit. :tgrr:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 22, 2008, 03:42:27 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:13:21 AM
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
Okay, well, fuck it. Felix, tell us: How many people are allowed to disagree with someone? I mean, everyone after the last permissible person will just have to shut the fuck up and keep their opinion to themselves, right? Right right right?
Because that's what "the free exchange of ideas" means, right? Being all careful of people's little feelings, and wrapping them in bubble wrap so nothing bad ever happens.
Oh, Goddammit. :tgrr:
I have to explain that post twice in the same thread?
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:31:56 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 21, 2008, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 21, 2008, 06:13:21 AM
Not to mob against him? People with that attitude are the real mob here.
Um... wha?
Half of America feels the same way as GA about voting. I am likening them to a mob.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 22, 2008, 03:37:39 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 20, 2008, 06:43:58 AM
Also, theoretically if Approval Voting could get amended in without undue pork, it'd fix a lot of problems.
The bolded part is where you lost me.
Only it wouldn't be pork that would creep in. It would be other little "improvements" to the constitution, most of which have a startling resemblance to the beliefs and mores of the most rabid fundamentalist Baptists, etc, in America.
Also, it's worth mentioning that individual states are allowed to decide what voting system to use. I believe California has a movement to change the election process to Instant Runoff voting.
Just a quick anecdote to give you an idea as to how well informed some voters are.
Several weeks ago I brought the topic of the candidates up with my mother. She said "I'm not voting for Obama." I said "Why not?" She replied "Because he's a Muslim." So, as calmly as I could, I explained to her that Barack Obama is not a Muslim. I have been too terrified to inquire further as to her opinion on the candidates.
Earlier this evening we started talking about the questions on the ballot. She knew what these were, at the very least, but we spent particular time on Question 2. Question 2 in *REDACTED* is to decriminalize marijuana, making possession of up to an ounce a civil offense punishable by a fine. First I had to explain that decriminalization is NOT the same thing as legalization - which is a distinction of which I'm pretty sure a fair amount of voters are unaware. Next I had to argue the pointlessness of marijuana possession being a criminal offense, etc. We went back and forth about its addictive properties, and having no available resources to cite we had to let that one go. So I asked her, after stepping down from my little podium if I'd convinced her. She said "Probably not. If it weren't wrong, why would the DA be campaigning against it?" Rant about blind faith in officials aside, here's what she's talking about.
While working at the *REDACTED* office, she witnessed a press conference where they had a prisoner give a statement about how marijuana was the cause of the cycle which degenerated him to the position he's in today. Now I'm pretty sure that under the *REDACTED* [STATE] constitution prisoners are not allowed to vote. Yet it's a-okay if they influence other people's votes on behalf of the District Attorney apparently. Well I'm sure such a benevolent act to protect the youth under constant attack from cannabis is considered good behavior, so essentially this guy is saying "I want to get out of prison."
So, while my belief that everyone should vote is a little shaken it does reaffirm that neglecting to vote out of apathy just isn't a good enough reason. And even voting ill-informed or under-informed is still better than voting completely uninformed. Because those people are voting.
Please, this election day vote against my mother.*
*Note: I still love my mother, she's a very nice woman. I just wish she'd think about this stuff.
Quote from: Felix on October 22, 2008, 05:00:35 AM
I have to explain that post twice in the same thread?
My bad. :)
You vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away. Just because people are stupid, ignorant fucks doesn't mean you don't vote. It means you vote more, vote often, and use that fucking voice for more than just whining about how shitty things are, so you're gonna sit by and let it all fail all the more. That doesn't make you fucking informed, it makes you lazy and stupid to boot. Rights that go without practice become dormant and subject to pillage and eventual obliteration. Rights that are exercised and used at will become worked for and therefore useful and powerful.
Sure, it's better to educate yourself beforehand. Sure, it's better to have a voice in all legislation that gets written, or at least have information on where that leg came from. Sure, it's better to know who holds the purse strings to what legislator who writes said legislation.
But, come on, it's also better to always floss your teeth, kiss your mother and not kick the dog. But we all cheat somewhere, and something that has such a huge apathetic following is NOT going to win out on this "what you SHOULD do" battle, now, is it?
So let's all put our high-minded ideals aside for a moment and just say:
VOTE MOTHERFUCKER, BEFORE YOU CAN'T ANY LONGER.
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:10:47 AM
You vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away. Just because people are stupid, ignorant fucks doesn't mean you don't vote. It means you vote more, vote often, and use that fucking voice for more than just whining about how shitty things are, so you're gonna sit by and let it all fail all the more. That doesn't make you fucking informed, it makes you lazy and stupid to boot. Rights that go without practice become dormant and subject to pillage and eventual obliteration. Rights that are exercised and used at will become worked for and therefore useful and powerful.
Sure, it's better to educate yourself beforehand. Sure, it's better to have a voice in all legislation that gets written, or at least have information on where that leg came from. Sure, it's better to know who holds the purse strings to what legislator who writes said legislation.
But, come on, it's also better to always floss your teeth, kiss your mother and not kick the dog. But we all cheat somewhere, and something that has such a huge apathetic following is NOT going to win out on this "what you SHOULD do" battle, now, is it?
So let's all put our high-minded ideals aside for a moment and just say:
VOTE MOTHERFUCKER, BEFORE YOU CAN'T ANY LONGER.
JENNE STOP OUT-RANTING ME IN MY OWN THREAD IT'S EMBARASSING
Er, I mean, :mittens:
Aw thanks. Well, sorry. I'm an advocate, after all. You touched on something a bit, well, touchy for me.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on October 19, 2008, 10:53:14 PM
I voted for L. Ron Hubbard.
And btw, if you want an equal America democrats, TAX RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE THE SAME % RATE.
And Republicans, not everyone is a christian. I AM AN IMMORAL ASSHOLE BECAUSE I DONT BELIEVE JESUS IS SPECIAL IN ANY WAY. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIED WORSE DEATHS. GET A JOB.
And as far as I know; Jesus didn't vote either so...no one should really listen to him anyway.
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:18:12 AM
Aw thanks. Well, sorry. I'm an advocate, after all. You touched on something a bit, well, touchy for me.
Oooh! I like touching. Can I come over and touch your touchy parts too?
Quote from: navkat on October 24, 2008, 06:20:25 AM
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:18:12 AM
Aw thanks. Well, sorry. I'm an advocate, after all. You touched on something a bit, well, touchy for me.
Oooh! I like touching. Can I come over and touch your touchy parts too?
Depends on how you take it when I do so.
UPDATE:
I have procured a button that says "Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."
I think it was intended to ironic, but I proudly wear it literally.
Quote from: Jenne on October 25, 2008, 01:11:04 AM
Quote from: navkat on October 24, 2008, 06:20:25 AM
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:18:12 AM
Aw thanks. Well, sorry. I'm an advocate, after all. You touched on something a bit, well, touchy for me.
Oooh! I like touching. Can I come over and touch your touchy parts too?
Depends on how you take it when I do so.
Whoa. That was a welcome response I was not expecting.
Quick! Let's cover ourselves in baby oil and roll around on the rug!
QuoteYou vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Most 'freedoms' that I can think of which have been 'given up' didn't really have much to do with them not being used, and more to do with people being scared and just giving them away.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 27, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
QuoteYou vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Most 'freedoms' that I can think of which have been 'given up' didn't really have much to do with them not being used, and more to do with people being scared and just giving them away.
Perhaps. That's a nitpicky argument for something that's rather plain to see, though. It's EASIER to take things away from people not using them anyway. You use fear once they go to use it and realize it's not there anymore so that they don't rebel against it.
Quote from: Jenne on October 27, 2008, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 27, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
QuoteYou vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Most 'freedoms' that I can think of which have been 'given up' didn't really have much to do with them not being used, and more to do with people being scared and just giving them away.
Perhaps. That's a nitpicky argument for something that's rather plain to see, though. It's EASIER to take things away from people not using them anyway. You use fear once they go to use it and realize it's not there anymore so that they don't rebel against it.
Well, maybe so. :)
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 27, 2008, 06:08:23 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 27, 2008, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 27, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
QuoteYou vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Most 'freedoms' that I can think of which have been 'given up' didn't really have much to do with them not being used, and more to do with people being scared and just giving them away.
Perhaps. That's a nitpicky argument for something that's rather plain to see, though. It's EASIER to take things away from people not using them anyway. You use fear once they go to use it and realize it's not there anymore so that they don't rebel against it.
Well, maybe so. :)
First you have to convince people that their rights are dangerous in the hands of others, and then they'll gladly give them up to keep said rights out of the hands of the bad guys.
just wait till your internet cel phone starts displays advertisements about what your talking about
PACKAGING! It's ALL IN THE PACKAGING!
Quote from: Jenne on October 27, 2008, 07:46:41 PM
PACKAGING! It's ALL IN THE PACKAGING!
:lmnuendo:
Heh, sorry, haven't used this one yet and seemed like a good spot for it.
I want Cain for President.
Quote from: fnord mote eris on October 20, 2008, 07:33:01 PM
Quote from: GA on October 20, 2008, 05:46:10 PM
I'd be more willing to vote if there was a "No confidence" option.
And really, I'm not sure I buy into this "voting is your duty" meme. If my vote had a real impact I might agree, but as long as 300 000 000 other people get votes... donating time or money to a campaign gets more of their votes.
you can write in "none of the above" it won't count for anything except your own satisfaction for voting your own mind (until we all get together and all vote "none of the above") dont hold your breath i have been hoping for a none of the above movement for the last two elections..
edit "three if you count this one"
I'd start one but I'm lazy. If you start I'll join though. (Did we have this conversation before?)
Quote from: Jenne on October 27, 2008, 05:42:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 27, 2008, 05:21:53 PM
QuoteYou vote because an unused right is one that is likely to be taken away.
I'm not sure that I agree with this. Most 'freedoms' that I can think of which have been 'given up' didn't really have much to do with them not being used, and more to do with people being scared and just giving them away.
Perhaps. That's a nitpicky argument for something that's rather plain to see, though. It's EASIER to take things away from people not using them anyway. You use fear once they go to use it and realize it's not there anymore so that they don't rebel against it.
You're
both right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Related: post I just made in BIP about words/thought-control:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18295.0
Christ-fuck I hope that's in the right forum...it FELT right, anyway.
*eats feelings*
BREAKING NEWS:
I didn't vote, but Obama won anyway!
Also, my state didn't pass any constitutional amendments institutionalizing bigotry!
ITT, you list how much more effective you were for having voted.
FUCK OFF.
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 05:22:13 AM
ITT, you list how much more effective you were for having voted.
I can now bitch about what the politicians do because I at least bothered to voice my opinion in the only way that they care about - my vote. Didn't vote? The politicians have NO interest in listening to you because you didn't have any say in their getting elected and are highly unlikely to have a say in their getting reelected. Want them to listen to you, or make changes that would benefit you? Then you have to vote.
It doesn't even matter who or what you vote FOR - just the act of voting gives you a voice that the politicians have to pay attention to because voting is the only way for them to get power and if you vote against them they can lose that power. If you never vote at all, don't expect anything from the government or politicians to be the way you want it because you pose no threat to those in power. The only way to affect the power structure (short of massive, country-wide revolution) is to vote because that is the only voice a politician actually cares about.
vigilante apathy is so 4 years ago.
ITT GA demonstrates how we got 8 years of Dubya in the first place.
Quote from: That One Guy on November 06, 2008, 05:21:26 PM
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 05:22:13 AM
ITT, you list how much more effective you were for having voted.
I can now bitch about what the politicians do because I at least bothered to voice my opinion in the only way that they care about - my vote. Didn't vote? The politicians have NO interest in listening to you because you didn't have any say in their getting elected and are highly unlikely to have a say in their getting reelected. Want them to listen to you, or make changes that would benefit you? Then you have to vote.
It doesn't even matter who or what you vote FOR - just the act of voting gives you a voice that the politicians have to pay attention to because voting is the only way for them to get power and if you vote against them they can lose that power. If you never vote at all, don't expect anything from the government or politicians to be the way you want it because you pose no threat to those in power. The only way to affect the power structure (short of massive, country-wide revolution) is to vote because that is the only voice a politician actually cares about.
So are you saying that if I write a letter to a representative, they'll throw it away if their magical politician senses think that I didn't vote, but they'd read it if I had? Politicians don't care about individual voters - they can't. They care about groups of voters, and about people who will donate time/money to reach groups of voters.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 05:26:13 PM
ITT GA demonstrates how we got 8 years of Dubya in the first place.
No, the country completely ignored my opinion on President 4 and 8 years ago. I just decided to not bother giving my opinion this time, and this time my country
didn't pick GWB. So you'll excuse me when I am confused as to how my voting or not voting has any real effect.
Tragedy of the Commons politics.
I don't have to vote because everyone else will.
Sigh. I'm not going to fucking bother, and GA, no, I'm not going to excuse you. You're putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la ICAN'THEARYOU la la la"
The whole point is this -
1 vote matters because that 1 voter tells 5 of his friends his point of view, who turn around and tell/convince 5 other people each, etc.
1 voter can mean hundreds of votes.
You can't make her listen, TSR. She's right, the whole rest of the country is wrong.
Thing is, GA doesn't get it--you become a pawn of the system when you refuse to use it to your advantage.
There's NO advantage in not voting.
I don't care if this sounds lame but I was proud to have been a voice in this historic election. Did my measly vote along have any significant impact? Of course not. But take that logic to its extreme where you have nobody voting. What sense does it make to base you inaction upon others' actions?
None, because in the end, it comes down to pure laziness.
Even the people who didn't want Obama, McCain, Green party, whatever, and voted, stood up and said, Fuck these guys, I don't want any of them.
Instead of, Well, I'm not going to vote because they'll both fuck us over, and I don't care which one does.
So, in it's very basic essence, It's I don't want either, I'm going to make sure I get heard, other than I'll just let whoever wins streamroll me.
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 06:10:19 PM
Quote from: That One Guy on November 06, 2008, 05:21:26 PM
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 05:22:13 AM
ITT, you list how much more effective you were for having voted.
I can now bitch about what the politicians do because I at least bothered to voice my opinion in the only way that they care about - my vote. Didn't vote? The politicians have NO interest in listening to you because you didn't have any say in their getting elected and are highly unlikely to have a say in their getting reelected. Want them to listen to you, or make changes that would benefit you? Then you have to vote.
It doesn't even matter who or what you vote FOR - just the act of voting gives you a voice that the politicians have to pay attention to because voting is the only way for them to get power and if you vote against them they can lose that power. If you never vote at all, don't expect anything from the government or politicians to be the way you want it because you pose no threat to those in power. The only way to affect the power structure (short of massive, country-wide revolution) is to vote because that is the only voice a politician actually cares about.
So are you saying that if I write a letter to a representative, they'll throw it away if their magical politician senses think that I didn't vote, but they'd read it if I had? Politicians don't care about individual voters - they can't. They care about groups of voters, and about people who will donate time/money to reach groups of voters.
But if you're not a voter, you're thus not a part of a group of voters, and are also unlikely to donate your time and/or money to the cause of a group of voters. And even if you DID donate that time and/or money, it's not the fact that you donated the time/$$ to make your voice heard - it's that you're making your voice heard
on behalf of voters. Again, the fact is that politicians are only interested in what people have to say if they think those people vote.
The example you site above references only people that vote. Whether the politicians follow every single voter's opinion or not, the fact is they only care about those they feel are likely voters, whether that be a group or organization. Even in your own rebuttal you don't refer to politicians caring about non-voters - you specifically only say that they care about groups of voters and people who reach them. Someone that doesn't vote is highly unlikely to be in either of those categories.
So what was your point again?
No matter what you might think, it all boils down to politicians only listening to people they think will vote. Someone that doesn't vote is far less likely to work on behalf of voters, or write their congressman, or work to make their voice heard to a politician. If they really cared about making their voice known, they would have voted and will most likely vote in the future, and are thus someone a politician will listen to.
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
One of the reasons I don't like Obama is because he is anti gun. It's in his plan to raise the costs of guns, ammunition, and increase laws to discourage gun ownership, and if I can find who covered an interview and post an example, he basically said - If I can't fix the 2nd amendment, there are other ways around it.
Here's one interview
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 06, 2008, 06:55:39 PM
One of the reasons I don't like Obama is because he is anti gun. It's in his plan to raise the costs of guns, ammunition, and increase laws to discourage gun ownership, and if I can find who covered an interview and post an example, he basically said - If I can't fix the 2nd amendment, there are other ways around it.
That's entirely beside the point.
I figured it wan't, I just wanted to jam that in there :)
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
For the record, I'm not militantly pro-voting. I think the whole system is kind of a sham, and frankly I don't blame GA for being disenchanted with it (even if laziness is a shitty excuse not to vote). But yeah -- what does gun ownership have to do with it? Am I missing a point made earlier ITT?
I also don't see the connection and so I'm waiting for this to be fleshed out more before I weigh in.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Why? I'm not a gun owner, but I have no issues with gun ownership. I don't actually see how those two things relate, since I could easily vote against gun ownership if that was my opinion. Unless gun ownership is a requirement for being able to vote, I'm really curious as to why and how you think the two things relate.
I'm also not saying anyone NEEDS to or MUST vote. I'm just saying that if you don't vote, you shouldn't bitch about what politicians do (or don't do), because you did nothing about it (by voting either for or against them and thus their policies and actions). I actually think not voting is a valid political statement if that non-vote is based on a rejection of the entire system of government and a refusal to participate in any services therefrom. The only hypocrisy I can see is someone that doesn't vote bitching about how the government spends money.
This thread has been hit with a rotten apple of discord.
I just want to know if the militant voters owning guns is sarcastic or not, and if it's not, why.
I thought it was a sarcastic comment.
Exercising the right to vote is not the same as exercising the right to owning a gun, free speech, drinking alcohol, driving on the streets with your windows down, etc. Yes, those are fundamental rights that we would DEARLY miss and should be upset about if they are taken away, but voting has direct impacts on the policies and the people put in place to maintain EVERYTHING, every goddammed thing, that holds those other things in place.
You won't HAVE the right to own a gun, free speech, drive on the streets, drink alcohol, if you don't continue to support the very system that affords you those rights. Don't vote, and the referendums that take those rights away will be in place before you know it. Don't vote, and the wrong people with the wrong ideas (i.e. those who would take those rights away) will be in power, raping and pillaging the bill of rights at will.
The right to vote is like the right to live. The right to breathe. In a democracy/republic, it's all you have, besides the right to information, that keeps the whole thing alive.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on November 06, 2008, 07:09:01 PM
This thread has been hit with a rotten apple of discord.
I just want to know if the militant voters owning guns is sarcastic or not, and if it's not, why.
I thought it was a sarcastic comment.
Nigel is never sarcastic.
QuoteOwning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Maybe we can get a law passed to FORCE everyone to VOTE! I mean sure, we'll have to throw the religious groups that are 'neutral' in prison. Maybe execute a couple of those assholes like GA that simply don't want to vote... or maybe we should just fine her $500 for every election she doesn't attend.
This is a touchy subject for me, I came from a neutral religion and I know Americans that were persecuted for being neutral here in the states, to the point of being left for dead. Thousands of European Witnesses died in the concentration camps of Nazis, simply for refusing to say 'Hiel Hitler', surely not voting should get you worse than that! All over the world, from the USSR to Malawi, JW's have died because they decided not to participate in the political process.
So, in my opinion, I vote. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that of any other person though.
Not voting is not a valid statement because the statement is not made or registered or heard. Taking the time to write in a vote for "none of the above" or "the electoral system is corrupted" is valid and counted. Stand up and let your apathy be recognized, write in "i don't care to have an opinion"
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
QuoteOwning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Maybe we can get a law passed to FORCE everyone to VOTE! I mean sure, we'll have to throw the religious groups that are 'neutral' in prison. Maybe execute a couple of those assholes like GA that simply don't want to vote... or maybe we should just fine her $500 for every election she doesn't attend.
This is a touchy subject for me, I came from a neutral religion and I know Americans that were persecuted for being neutral here in the states, to the point of being left for dead. Thousands of European Witnesses died in the concentration camps of Nazis, simply for refusing to say 'Hiel Hitler', surely not voting should get you worse than that! All over the world, from the USSR to Malawi, JW's have died because they decided not to participate in the political process.
So, in my opinion, I vote. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that of any other person though.
No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however. I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
QuoteOwning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Maybe we can get a law passed to FORCE everyone to VOTE! I mean sure, we'll have to throw the religious groups that are 'neutral' in prison. Maybe execute a couple of those assholes like GA that simply don't want to vote... or maybe we should just fine her $500 for every election she doesn't attend.
This is a touchy subject for me, I came from a neutral religion and I know Americans that were persecuted for being neutral here in the states, to the point of being left for dead. Thousands of European Witnesses died in the concentration camps of Nazis, simply for refusing to say 'Hiel Hitler', surely not voting should get you worse than that! All over the world, from the USSR to Malawi, JW's have died because they decided not to participate in the political process.
So, in my opinion, I vote. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that of any other person though.
No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however. I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.
Then why say anything?
Also, I think Nigel's point was the "If you don't USE your RIGHT, you will LOSE your RIGHT" as applied to voting... but yet doesn't get applied to Guns... or to every Cop that says "Mind if I have a look around".
I don't think that there is any evidence to support the idea that if we don't use freedoms we lose them. I think that some societies have lost freedoms because they gave them up temporarily, or their government simply took all their rights etc. Yet, I can't think of a single example of this mantra I hear about "Use it or Lose it".
Umm, how do you "use or lose" your right to own guns? What does that mean? Wouldn't part of that be, oh say, VOTING for politicians who support your vision of the right to own guns?
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
Except that unlike drinking alcohol, it's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
It's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
K, now I'll go eat babies.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
It's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
K, now I'll go eat babies.
Is that a Constitutional Right?
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 07:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
QuoteOwning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Maybe we can get a law passed to FORCE everyone to VOTE! I mean sure, we'll have to throw the religious groups that are 'neutral' in prison. Maybe execute a couple of those assholes like GA that simply don't want to vote... or maybe we should just fine her $500 for every election she doesn't attend.
This is a touchy subject for me, I came from a neutral religion and I know Americans that were persecuted for being neutral here in the states, to the point of being left for dead. Thousands of European Witnesses died in the concentration camps of Nazis, simply for refusing to say 'Hiel Hitler', surely not voting should get you worse than that! All over the world, from the USSR to Malawi, JW's have died because they decided not to participate in the political process.
So, in my opinion, I vote. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that of any other person though.
No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however. I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.
Then why say anything?
Also, I think Nigel's point was the "If you don't USE your RIGHT, you will LOSE your RIGHT" as applied to voting... but yet doesn't get applied to Guns... or to every Cop that says "Mind if I have a look around".
I don't think that there is any evidence to support the idea that if we don't use freedoms we lose them. I think that some societies have lost freedoms because they gave them up temporarily, or their government simply took all their rights etc. Yet, I can't think of a single example of this mantra I hear about "Use it or Lose it".
Yes, Rat. Thank you!
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
It's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
K, now I'll go eat babies.
That's funny, I don't remember that part of the Constitution. Refresh my memory...?
It has as much to do with voting as stripping of rights due to nonvoting. I never said you'd be stripped, I said you would be letting in those who could and probably will do so. I never said any punitive action should come upon you, I'm pointing to very clear events of the past 8 years.
Let me ask you this, Rat and Nigel, since you two are obviously playing the Devils Children here:
Are the Bill of Rights in more or less jeopardy since Dubya took power?
And answer from your gut, not some bullshit philosophy.
I rarely get rabid over something I'm not directly involved in, but like I said, I am really too close those who do not have these rights and have fought almost daily for them, fled persecution and near-death to have them, so I don't understand the logic that leaving people alone for not voting or even praising them for it is excusable or right.
The laissez-fairness of American politics is directly responsible for how it is run. And no amount of rhetoric to the opposite will move me on this.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:44:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
It's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
K, now I'll go eat babies.
That's funny, I don't remember that part of the Constitution. Refresh my memory...?
Point to wear my logic had such fallacies and I didn't explain exactly what I meant. You're putting words in my mouth.
Why you are doing so is beyond me. So I'm outta here before I blow a gasket. I responded above.
*zip*
Short of martial-law, the implications of gun ownership are much narrower than the implications of voting. So, aside from both being Constitutional, they are not on the same level. And in fact, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, to a certain degree, is linked to the exercising of the right to vote.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:46:34 PM
It has as much to do with voting as stripping of rights due to nonvoting. I never said you'd be stripped, I said you would be letting in those who could and probably will do so. I never said any punitive action should come upon you, I'm pointing to very clear events of the past 8 years.
Let me ask you this, Rat and Nigel, since you two are obviously playing the Devils Children here:
Are the Bill of Rights in more or less jeopardy since Dubya took power?
And answer from your gut, not some bullshit philosophy.
I rarely get rabid over something I'm not directly involved in, but like I said, I am really too close those who do not have these rights and have fought almost daily for them, fled persecution and near-death to have them, so I don't understand the logic that leaving people alone for not voting or even praising them for it is excusable or right.
The laissez-fairness of American politics is directly responsible for how it is run. And no amount of rhetoric to the opposite will move me on this.
The Bill of Rights is in jeopardy more now than before Bush. However, the election of 2004 was the highest turnout since the early 60's... AND THEY REELECTED THE IDIOT. People voted, LOTS of people voted... and now, as you correctly point out, we are at a greater risk of losing freedoms than before.
NOT because we didn't vote, but rather because we either A) voted poorly, or B) had the election stolen from us, or C) The parts of the government that are supposed to keep check on each other didn't, or D) All of the Above.
Lots of people voted... and lots of them for some ungodly reason voted for the ass that was taking pot shots at our rights and freedoms.
I personally think voting is important. But, I also think that not voting, is neither irresponsible, unpatriotic or wrong. It's a choice, an opportunity to include your opinion in with the rest of the voters opinions and hope that someone somewhere might listen.
I cannot fathom why someone would assume that they KNOW what another person OUGHT to do. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
Except that unlike drinking alcohol, it's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
2nd Amendment:
QuoteA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
All that says is that people have
to be able to own firearms, and that ability to own them shall not be infringed. It doesn't say anyone HAS to own a gun. Whether anyone actually owns a gun or not is unrelated as long as the ability to "keep and bear arms" is not infringed. Also, if enough people and states vote to amend the Constitution to remove that right, then it's removed by an additional amendment, via voting (another right that could theoretically be amended out, but either of those things happening are admittedly rather unlikely).
Now, I don't think Jenne's analogy is all that great, but there IS a relation to alcohol, constitutional amendments and voting. The 18th amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol. It was ratified by the states and made it constitutionally prohibited to sell alcohol. The 21st amendment repealed the constitutional ban on alcohol sales, while still allowing the banning on a state and/or local level.
Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it written in stone, since the constitution can be amended. By voting.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 06, 2008, 06:19:32 PM
Tragedy of the Commons politics.
I don't have to vote because everyone else will.
Tragedy of the Commons in EVERY respect is the result of apathy.
Quote from: Kai on November 06, 2008, 08:08:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 06, 2008, 06:19:32 PM
Tragedy of the Commons politics.
I don't have to vote because everyone else will.
Tragedy of the Commons in EVERY respect is the result of apathy.
No, it's the result of rational people acting in their own self interest.
ETA: Jenne, you're so easy to troll.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:46:34 PM
Let me ask you this, Rat and Nigel, since you two are obviously playing the Devils Children here:
I think it's pretty funny that you think I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Actually, I find it outright offensive when political proselytizers push their views on anyone, INCLUDING THE VIEW THAT NOT VOTING IS WRONG.
Frankly, I think that only people who have taken the time to truly educate themselves on the issues and candidates should vote. If I haven't had time to read up on a measure, I won't vote on it. You can get more people to vote with your incessant berating, but can you get more of them to vote in an informed manner?
No.
I think whether or not someone votes is their own personal business. It's private.
Quote from: That One Guy on November 06, 2008, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Owning guns and voting so NOT the same thing, kthxbye. Owning a gun doesn't decide who sits on the throne, Nigel. Owning a gun doesn't put bread on the table and water in the pipes. It doesn't make roads and build hospitals, it doesn't teach my kids when they are little.
Owning a gun is like drinking alcohol. You can do it or not.
Except that unlike drinking alcohol, it's a Constitutional right, and if you, as an American, according to your own logic, have a patriotic duty to exercise that right, lest you be stripped of it.
2nd Amendment:
QuoteA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
All that says is that people have to be able to own firearms, and that ability to own them shall not be infringed. It doesn't say anyone HAS to own a gun. Whether anyone actually owns a gun or not is unrelated as long as the ability to "keep and bear arms" is not infringed. Also, if enough people and states vote to amend the Constitution to remove that right, then it's removed by an additional amendment, via voting (another right that could theoretically be amended out, but either of those things happening are admittedly rather unlikely).
Now, I don't think Jenne's analogy is all that great, but there IS a relation to alcohol, constitutional amendments and voting. The 18th amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol. It was ratified by the states and made it constitutionally prohibited to sell alcohol. The 21st amendment repealed the constitutional ban on alcohol sales, while still allowing the banning on a state and/or local level.
Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it written in stone, since the constitution can be amended. By voting.
Yes, but part of Jenne's argument is that everyone should vote BECAUSE rights that we do not use are rights we risk losing. My point is that people who are adamant about other people having an obligation to vote, if they are going to use the "use it or lose it" argument, should be consistent by USING the other rights guaranteed us in the Constitution.
It's called logical consistency, bitches. Learn it.
Also, as far as undecided voters are concerned, someone else (Squiddy?) said it first and I think she was right; much of the time "Undecided" is shorthand for MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:46:34 PM
Let me ask you this, Rat and Nigel, since you two are obviously playing the Devils Children here:
I think it's pretty funny that you think I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Actually, I find it outright offensive when political proselytizers push their views on anyone, INCLUDING THE VIEW THAT NOT VOTING IS WRONG.
Frankly, I think that only people who have taken the time to truly educate themselves on the issues and candidates should vote. If I haven't had time to read up on a measure, I won't vote on it. You can get more people to vote with your incessant berating, but can you get more of them to vote in an informed manner?
No.
I think whether or not someone votes is their own personal business. It's private.
I don't read Jenne as saying it is outright wrong. I read it, and believe it myself, that it is a good thing to empower people to vote. Voting is the most direct, and legal, way we have to influence the direction of our country. Yes, in the end, whether a person votes or not is their personal, and individual choice. However, I don't think it is wrong for someone like Jenne, or myself, to try to educate the public on important issues and to then encourage them to exercise their rights and civic duties as U.S. citizens. Certainly, people have the right to not vote, but I feel this country is better off when more voices are heard.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 08:45:47 PM
Yes, but part of Jenne's argument is that everyone should vote BECAUSE rights hat we do not use are rights we risk losing. My point is that people who are adamant about other people having an obligation to vote, if they are going to use the "use it or lose it" argument, should be consistent by USING the other rights guaranteed us in the Constitution.
It's called logical consistency, bitches. Learn it.
Except that voting is an important piece of the right to own guns. Voting for Senators, Reps, Presidents, that support your view of what "The Right to Bear Arms" means.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 19, 2008, 12:51:08 PM
yeah, if you don't vote you CAN complain...
...you'll just be a screeching idiot that no one should listen to.
Oops, I'm out of time for now. I was going to go through the tread and pick out every instance where someone used intense language to indicate that non-voters and undecideds are WRONG.
I agree Nigel. I didn't like Jenne's analogy for that reason. Voting IS a right, but - just like with gun ownership - it's not a mandatory thing. The RIGHT to exercise the ability to vote (which by definition has to include the ability to NOT vote if one so chooses) is the only thing guaranteed.
I don't necessarily agree with the "use it or lose it" position. If I don't vote, do I lose the right to vote? No. I can register at any time and begin voting if I so choose. I can also, if I'm registered, choose to not vote and still be registered to vote in the future. The right to vote has no bearing on whether or not a given person votes. It merely means they have the ability to do so should they so choose.
I also agree that no one should be forced to vote, or be forced to say how or for whom they voted or are planning to vote. I agree completely that voting is a very private thing - that's why the ballots are secret and sealed. If people choose to share who they're voting for, fine. If not, also fine, at least as far as I'm concerned.
However, if someone chooses not to vote, I personally would find it hypocritical if that person then complains about what elected officials do with the government. They had a chance to make their voice heard in the only way that really impacts politicians and didn't.
The most direct and legal ways we have of influencing the country:
1. Become a lobbyist
2. Become a community organizer/political activist
3. Become a voice that people want to follow: Religious Leader, Civic Leader, Popular Blogger etc.
4. Become a Politican, Constitutional lawyer
5. Support the ACLU and Groups Like It
And somewhere down here is Vote/Don't Vote.
All of these are ways that we can influence the direction of this country, the 5 listed will provide you with a direct and measurable effect. Voting will get you a cute little sticker... and, if you happen to have guessed right, you might even have picked the winning candidate.
Those groups all have political power because they represent groups of voters or represent the will of a portion of voters (in the case of lobbyists). If their supporters didn't vote, the politicians wouldn't listen to them.
Look at the homeless, for example. They don't vote, and it takes the lobbying on behalf of people that DO vote to get any legislation enacted on behalf of the homeless, which has to be voted on. Community activists, leaders, religious leaders, etc. organize voters that agree with their positions in order to convince politicians that it is in their best interest (IE votes for their upcoming election) to enact legislation favorable to their group.
No matter what, it all comes down to voting when dealing with government. Admittedly, the act of an individual voting does not have the same direct impact on the process, but by voting in officials favorable to the groups a voter supports they are in effect directly influencing the ability of lobbyists, community and religious organizers and leaders etc. to be able to affect legislation.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 09:07:51 PM
The most direct and legal ways we have of influencing the country:
1. Become a lobbyist
2. Become a community organizer/political activist
3. Become a voice that people want to follow: Religious Leader, Civic Leader, Popular Blogger etc.
4. Become a Politican, Constitutional lawyer
5. Support the ACLU and Groups Like It
And somewhere down here is Vote/Don't Vote.
All of these are ways that we can influence the direction of this country, the 5 listed will provide you with a direct and measurable effect. Voting will get you a cute little sticker... and, if you happen to have guessed right, you might even have picked the winning candidate.
Tell that to the handful of Floridians who gave GWB the WhiteHouse in 2000.
Quote from: That One Guy on November 06, 2008, 09:16:28 PM
Those groups all have political power because they represent groups of voters or represent the will of a portion of voters (in the case of lobbyists). If their supporters didn't vote, the politicians wouldn't listen to them.
Look at the homeless, for example. They don't vote, and it takes the lobbying on behalf of people that DO vote to get any legislation enacted on behalf of the homeless, which has to be voted on. Community activists, leaders, religious leaders, etc. organize voters that agree with their positions in order to convince politicians that it is in their best interest (IE votes for their upcoming election) to enact legislation favorable to their group.
No matter what, it all comes down to voting when dealing with government. Admittedly, the act of an individual voting does not have the same direct impact on the process, but by voting in officials favorable to the groups a voter supports they are in effect directly influencing the ability of lobbyists, community and religious organizers and leaders etc. to be able to affect legislation.
All of that is true. My point was not that voting overall is unimportant... just that one personal vote is not the most direct and legal way of influencing the country. If a person wants to influence their country... and they vote once every four years, they're not really doing much at all to influence anything. They're a single statistic, a Yea or Nay lost in a cacophony. If you want to influence the direction of this nation, you act, you organize, or hit the streets and you fight... and you vote. If you want to think you're influencing the country, but you don't actually want to do any work, you can punch a touch screen every four years, and crow.
;-)
Of course many of us who are in the trenches do both. Because as TOG says, the votes do matter. For example in my state we just had a question about rescinding a tax on beer, wine, and soda. In fact, I was one of the people who lobbied to get that tax in place. And that was important work and did have a direct influence. However, once the initiative came up to repeal that measure, it was also just as important to cast my vote opposing it. I would've been derelict in my duty if I went through all that and then didn't cast a vote to help protect it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 06, 2008, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: That One Guy on November 06, 2008, 09:16:28 PM
Those groups all have political power because they represent groups of voters or represent the will of a portion of voters (in the case of lobbyists). If their supporters didn't vote, the politicians wouldn't listen to them.
Look at the homeless, for example. They don't vote, and it takes the lobbying on behalf of people that DO vote to get any legislation enacted on behalf of the homeless, which has to be voted on. Community activists, leaders, religious leaders, etc. organize voters that agree with their positions in order to convince politicians that it is in their best interest (IE votes for their upcoming election) to enact legislation favorable to their group.
No matter what, it all comes down to voting when dealing with government. Admittedly, the act of an individual voting does not have the same direct impact on the process, but by voting in officials favorable to the groups a voter supports they are in effect directly influencing the ability of lobbyists, community and religious organizers and leaders etc. to be able to affect legislation.
All of that is true. My point was not that voting overall is unimportant... just that one personal vote is not the most direct and legal way of influencing the country. If a person wants to influence their country... and they vote once every four years, they're not really doing much at all to influence anything. They're a single statistic, a Yea or Nay lost in a cacophony. If you want to influence the direction of this nation, you act, you organize, or hit the streets and you fight... and you vote. If you want to think you're influencing the country, but you don't actually want to do any work, you can punch a touch screen every four years, and crow.
;-)
That's indeed true - I'm just emphasizing that the lobbyists and organizers have to have people vote in order to give them the power to influence the politicians and actually impact the government. While a person that only votes once every four years isn't doing much to impact the government, they're still having more of an impact than someone that didn't vote at all.
While the organizers and lobbyists have the most direct influence, they get that by representing a larger group of voters. Without that representation the lobbyists/etc. will find it far more difficult to influence government. Also, voters without lobbyists to represent them will also find it far more difficult to influence government.
While the organizers and lobbyists are most directly involved, they need the voters behind them (ideally, admittedly - bribery does but shouldn't enter in to this) in order to influence the politicians.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 06, 2008, 09:26:53 PM
Of course many of us who are in the trenches do both. Because as TOG says, the votes do matter. For example in my state we just had a question about rescinding a tax on beer, wine, and soda. In fact, I was one of the people who lobbied to get that tax in place. And that was important work and did have a direct influence. However, once the initiative came up to repeal that measure, it was also just as important to cast my vote opposing it. I would've been derelict in my duty if I went through all that and then didn't cast a vote to help protect it.
And, if instead... you had grudging wandered over to the polls and seen a line that said:
"Would you like to give the government more money just cause you bought a soda or beer?"
Yes____ No____
Would you have voted Yes or No?
If we think EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE... then we're telling GA, she's got to check yes or no above.
I mean, if I didn't know specifically what that tax was for I would probably vote against it. Taxing food or drinks is stupid IMO, especially when its only select items, based on what some group of people think is a luxury or sin.
OMGZ! YUO DRINK WINE? PAY MORE TO THE GOVERNMENT NAO, YOU DRUNK ASS!
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 05:22:13 AM
BREAKING NEWS:
I didn't vote, but Obama won anyway!
Also, my state didn't pass any constitutional amendments institutionalizing bigotry!
ITT, you list how much more effective you were for having voted.
Okay, Proposition 2 barely passed in my state. I voted for it.
(Ignores the gun discussion)
If somebody doesn't want to vote, I don't care. But, if you actually care about an issue and don't vote, I tend to get confused.
Quote from: Vene on November 06, 2008, 10:11:17 PM
If somebody doesn't want to vote, I don't care. But, if you actually care about an issue and don't vote, I tend to get confused.
I vote that Vene is driving the correct motorcycle :wink:
I'll just say this because I think I've made my point rather well here already--I guess I care too much for some in this forum, and that drives them to call me hypocrite (something I probably am, but not in this), which actually pisses me off quite a bit. I don't think I've called anyone in this thread anything other than lazy.
Hypocrite is a big, mean word and it was meant to be big and mean.
So in that spirit, I'll just say FUCK YUO.
If you don't believe in "civic (NOT PATRIOTIC FUCK OFF) duty", then so be it. I can't force anyone to vote, but I don't condone not voting. GA, if you're just trolling, congrats, you pushed a button. I don't have many of them, but yes, this is one of them. I admitted freely how close I am to people like my father in prison who will never vote again, my immigrant husband who had to fight for citizenship to do so, and his whole famdamnily who is even now struggling to get citizenship here to do so.
So, ha ha hee he ho ho you pulled one over on Jenne. Congratufuckinglations.
At the end of it though, it's always a choice, and that's the pure beauty of it, there's no conscription, there's no jailing for not doing so. Makes me glad to be here, still, and believe me, there's not much about being HERE that makes me glad.
As of now, I'm out of this thread. Flame away, Nigel--you didn't get constructive with your commentary til I left. So, I'll leave you do it.
I agree that the hypocrite label was a bit much. I believe encouraging people to be a part of the civic realm of the USA is a noble endeavour and one that is quite worth while. The more people are engaged the better off the country is. Because the reality is that many don't have the time and capacity to become lobbyists, advocates, ACLU members, etc. But, they can write to their Representatives, they can read up and understand the nature of our issues, and they certainly can find a couple of hours, one day a year, to express their stand on those Representatives and Issues. Do they have to? Of course not. But encouraging that, IMO, should not be looked down upon. I don't feel like Jenne was saying everyone HAS TO vote. I think she was saying that everyone SHOULD vote. If you disagree, and feel it is fruitless, so be it. But I'm not sure calling those of us who want to see more involvement "hypocrites" is really necessary or helpful.
just to be "fair and balanced"--
ITT it's been said that not voting makes you a "screeching idiot" and a "dumbfuck" which I weigh as slightly more insulting than "hypocrite"
Nigel was being a bit callous, but I think she, like Jenne, just got a bit emotional from all the judgement and fingerpointing going on ITT about other people's political choices.
Well, I guess I'm more directly sticking up for Jenne, not that she needs me to or anything. Specifically because she said the following.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:29:01 PM
No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however. I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.
I read her as saying, paraphrasing obviously, "do as you will, but, here is what I believe could be the consequences." And that's kind of where I am. And obviously not everyone is going to agree with that sentiment, but I don't think it is hypocritical, just an opinion on what not voting could mean. But yes, I agree "screeching idiot" and "dumbfuck" are also going too far, as there are certainly those who don't vote based on principled positions. I don't agree with those positions of course, but at least it is based on some thought-out reasoning as opposed to pure apathy and laziness.
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 03:09:51 PM
I'll just say this because I think I've made my point rather well here already--I guess I care too much for some in this forum, and that drives them to call me hypocrite (something I probably am, but not in this), which actually pisses me off quite a bit. I don't think I've called anyone in this thread anything other than lazy.
Hypocrite is a big, mean word and it was meant to be big and mean.
So in that spirit, I'll just say FUCK YUO.
If you don't believe in "civic (NOT PATRIOTIC FUCK OFF) duty", then so be it. I can't force anyone to vote, but I don't condone not voting. GA, if you're just trolling, congrats, you pushed a button. I don't have many of them, but yes, this is one of them. I admitted freely how close I am to people like my father in prison who will never vote again, my immigrant husband who had to fight for citizenship to do so, and his whole famdamnily who is even now struggling to get citizenship here to do so.
So, ha ha hee he ho ho you pulled one over on Jenne. Congratufuckinglations.
At the end of it though, it's always a choice, and that's the pure beauty of it, there's no conscription, there's no jailing for not doing so. Makes me glad to be here, still, and believe me, there's not much about being HERE that makes me glad.
As of now, I'm out of this thread. Flame away, Nigel--you didn't get constructive with your commentary til I left. So, I'll leave you do it.
Ooooh, sorry that my posting schedule doesn't match yours! I had stuff to go do and couldn't finish up the point I was trying to make before you had YOUR OWN STUFF TO GO DO.
Seriously, when people trot out the "YOU'RE A BAD AMERICAN IF YOU DON'T VOTE" I do have a problem with it. A big problem. Do you want to be told what you SHOULD do with your Constitutional rights? No, clearly, you don't. It is a shame you took my gun ownership/hypocrisy statement so personally, as it was meant as a general response to everyone who was flipping shit about nonvoters, but if you're going to spout strong opinions about WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO in public, be prepared for people to disagree just as strongly.
For context:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 20, 2008, 05:02:18 AM
Also: If you're undecided by this point, you're a dumbfuck.
Quote from: Jenne on October 20, 2008, 08:23:56 PM
OP = outstanding
Also: lots of whining, copping out fuckheads itt. Who need to go live somewhere without democracy/ rights to voting for a while to see how the "other half" lives. Then come back to me and say you know about how much democracy sucks ass.
Jesus.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 21, 2008, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 12:47:38 AM
I'll be the first to admit that the real reason I'm not voting is because I was just to lazy to register.
I just don't buy that that means that I'm a bad citizen somehow, or that my non-voting is somehow damaging to society. The country got along just fine (or terribly, depending on your point of view) before I was born; why does it suddenly require me to fill out a multiple-choice questionaire about the politicians chosen by political parties?
goddammit...I was JUST starting to think that maybe I was wrong and you actually aren't a fucking waste of life.
ECH,
fool me once...
Quote from: Jenne on October 21, 2008, 03:01:59 AM
Not to join a mob against you, but I know you're not as stupid as you sound above. It's very irresponsible thinking to say that just because you are too lazy to help keep your government honest means you've done just fine ok dandy gee golly willikers.
If every motherfucker felt and did as you do, what do you think would happen? As it is, 50% already do, and look at the state we're in.
So congratufuckinglations.
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:10:47 AM
You vote because an unused right is one that is likely
to be taken away. Just because people are stupid, ignorant fucks
doesn't mean you don't vote. It means you vote more, vote often, and
use that fucking voice for more than just whining about how shitty
things are, so you're gonna sit by and let it all fail all the more.
That doesn't make you fucking informed, it makes you lazy and stupid to
boot. Rights that go without practice become dormant and subject to
pillage and eventual obliteration. Rights that are exercised and used
at will become worked for and therefore useful and powerful.
Sure, it's better to educate yourself beforehand. Sure, it's better to
have a voice in all legislation that gets written, or at least have
information on where that leg came from. Sure, it's better to know who
holds the purse strings to what legislator who writes said legislation.
But, come on, it's also better to always floss your teeth, kiss your
mother and not kick the dog. But we all cheat somewhere, and something
that has such a huge apathetic following is NOT going to win out on this
"what you SHOULD do" battle, now, is it?
So let's all put our high-minded ideals aside for a moment and just say:
VOTE MOTHERFUCKER, BEFORE YOU CAN'T ANY LONGER.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 06:52:04 PM
I hope all of you militant pro-voting people ARE ALSO
GUN OWNERS, or else there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Basically, to recap:
Roger: "dumbfuck."
Jenne: "whining, copping out fuckheads"
Jenne: "go live somewhere without democracy/ rights"
ECH: "fucking waste of life"
Jenne: "stupid"
Jenne: "irresponsible"
Jenne: "lazy and stupid"
Jenne: "You vote because an unused right is one that is likely
to be taken away."
Nigel: "hypocrisy"
Jenne: "YOU'RE MEAN!" <runs away crying>
I still don't see the gun issue being an indicator of hypocrisy. Because part of protecting your right to own guns is electing Representatives that support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, voting on any state or local initiatives pertaining to gun ownership. So the issue of voting is woven in with the issue of owning guns.
If someone is going to use the argument that we should vote BECAUSE it is a Constitutional right and to not use it puts us at risk for having it taken away, then I am not sure how they can miss that a similar argument can be made for other Constitutional rights?
I believe that Americans also have the right NOT to vote, or to own guns, for whatever reason they choose, and it doesn't make them "dumbfucks", "fuckheads", "fucking wastes of life", "stupid", "irresponsible", or even necessarily "lazy".
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
If someone is going to use the argument that we should vote BECAUSE it is a Constitutional right and to not use it puts us at risk for having it taken away, then I am not sure how they can miss that a similar argument can be made for other Constitutional rights?
I believe that Americans also have the right NOT to vote, or to own guns, for whatever reason they choose, and it doesn't make them "dumbfucks", "fuckheads", "fucking wastes of life", "stupid", "irresponsible", or even necessarily "lazy".
(http://www.straw.com/cpy/patterns/baby-child/images/M5-mittens.jpg)
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2008, 03:10:47 AM
You vote because an unused right is one that is likely
to be taken away.
Yet, apparently calling her on this particular argument by introducing the concept of the potential hypocrisy it contains makes me "mean". :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
If someone is going to use the argument that we should vote BECAUSE it is a Constitutional right and to not use it puts us at risk for having it taken away, then I am not sure how they can miss that a similar argument can be made for other Constitutional rights?
I believe that Americans also have the right NOT to vote, or to own guns, for whatever reason they choose, and it doesn't make them "dumbfucks", "fuckheads", "fucking wastes of life", "stupid", "irresponsible", or even necessarily "lazy".
But how can you protect your right to own guns without voting? I've pointed this out a couple of times so far and you, or others who agree, have yet to address this.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 07, 2008, 05:32:37 PM
I still don't see the gun issue being an indicator of hypocrisy. Because part of protecting your right to own guns is electing Representatives that support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, voting on any state or local initiatives pertaining to gun ownership. So the issue of voting is woven in with the issue of owning guns.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 07, 2008, 05:46:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
If someone is going to use the argument that we should vote BECAUSE it is a Constitutional right and to not use it puts us at risk for having it taken away, then I am not sure how they can miss that a similar argument can be made for other Constitutional rights?
I believe that Americans also have the right NOT to vote, or to own guns, for whatever reason they choose, and it doesn't make them "dumbfucks", "fuckheads", "fucking wastes of life", "stupid", "irresponsible", or even necessarily "lazy".
But how can you protect your right to own guns without voting? I've pointed this out a couple of times so far and you, or others who agree, have yet to address this.
I think you're confusing the argument.
The initial claim is:
"If you don't use X you will lose X"
where X is 'your rights'.
"If you don't use the right to vote, you will lose the right to vote"
is the same argument as:
"If you don't use the right to own a firearm, you will lose the right to own a firearm."
I don't think Nigel is arguing that owning a gun will madjickly make our rights stick... rather she's arguing that the "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights" is an inconsistent claim.
Personally, I still haven't seen an example where this has been the case. I would like to see some examples of atrophied rights.
Dunno if I should post my thoughts here or not.
I agree that every American has the right to choose whether or not to vote. It isn't COMPULSORY to do either.
I think that people should have a reason for whatever they choose, though.
You DO vote because you believe that you must have voiced your opinion before you can criticise the politics of whoever got in, you DO vote because you feel that people have died to give you that right and you exercise that right out of respect for that, you DO vote because someone has cajoled and berated you.
You DON'T vote because you believe the system itself is flawed and apathy is a valid way to voice your disinterest in the system, you DON'T vote because there is no candidate at all that appeals to you and you would feel dishonest for voting for someone who doesn't represent you in any way, you DON'T vote because it's cold and wet on polling day and you're feeling lazy.
There are many reasons someone can give for voting or not, and as with many things, there are valid reasons on both sides, and some truly dumbassed reasons on both sides.
I personally feel there are fewer good reasons for refusing to vote, but I admit that there may be some.
I tend not to enquire after who someone has voted for, I tend not to enquire IF someone has voted, I tend not to care what someones reasons are either way.
I do tend to encourage people to go out there and vote though, largely because I personally think the most valid reason for not voting is the "Flawed system/ not personally represented by candidate" argument. The system is not likely to change any time soon, and I personally feel that NO ONE will ever truly represent anyone else, so my idea is that trying to counteract that lies with encouraging people to go out and make some noise, regardless of whether or not it's anything but a random choice of candidate or a fouled vote.
Finally though, I really really try to avoid ideology in these discussions. It usually means that insults and personal attacks are left out of it, and that more than anything, is what I really hate about politics.
A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.
Quote from: Kostatar on November 07, 2008, 05:51:43 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 07, 2008, 05:32:37 PM
I still don't see the gun issue being an indicator of hypocrisy. Because part of protecting your right to own guns is electing Representatives that support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Also, voting on any state or local initiatives pertaining to gun ownership. So the issue of voting is woven in with the issue of owning guns.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 07, 2008, 05:46:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 05:40:44 PM
If someone is going to use the argument that we should vote BECAUSE it is a Constitutional right and to not use it puts us at risk for having it taken away, then I am not sure how they can miss that a similar argument can be made for other Constitutional rights?
I believe that Americans also have the right NOT to vote, or to own guns, for whatever reason they choose, and it doesn't make them "dumbfucks", "fuckheads", "fucking wastes of life", "stupid", "irresponsible", or even necessarily "lazy".
But how can you protect your right to own guns without voting? I've pointed this out a couple of times so far and you, or others who agree, have yet to address this.
I think you're confusing the argument.
The initial claim is:
"If you don't use X you will lose X"
where X is 'your rights'.
"If you don't use the right to vote, you will lose the right to vote"
is the same argument as:
"If you don't use the right to own a firearm, you will lose the right to own a firearm."
I don't think Nigel is arguing that owning a gun will madjickly make our rights stick... rather she's arguing that the "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights" is an inconsistent claim.
Personally, I still haven't seen an example where this has been the case. I would like to see some examples of atrophied rights.
But it doesn't hold up logically.
Exercising your right to vote means, well, voting.
How does one "use their right to own guns"? Further, how does one "use their right to own guns to make sure that right doesn't go away"? It would seem to me, protecting your right to own guns will, by necessity, involve voting on a Representative who supports your interpretation of "the right to own guns" or supporting a measure that supports your interpretation of "the right to own guns".
In otherwords, voting, by its very nature, is wrapped up in every other right in the Constitution. Because unless you are going to run for Congress, President, or become a Supreme Court Justice, you have to rely upon how those in power interpret the Constitution. And so one of the few ways an individual citizen has to protect or push forward their view of the Constitution is to vote for people and measures that support those views.
RWHN,
Again, I don't think Nigel or I believe that you need to own a gun, in order for the government not to take away your gun rights. It was an example of the statement made "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights." If that statement had been "If you don't use your right to vote, you will lose your right to vote", then Nigel's example wouldn't hold.
The point is, a person 'not using their right to do X" will not make that right go away. Its a false argument. It doesn't matter which 'right' we talk about, an individual choosing to use or not use that right, doesn't make it go away. In every case where a government has taken away rights, as far as I can recall, it was a seizure of rights, not atrophy.
If you want to make the argument that voting helps secure all of your rights, I'll tentatively agree... but I don't think that was the point Nigel was making.
I vote because I want my opinion counted in with everyone elses. If I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, though, I wouldn't vote. I left blanks on some of my ballot because I didn't have an opinion on those issues,. That may be because I didn't care enough to educate myself on everything that was gonna show up on thre ballot, or I simply didn't know the two people who were running for position X. Either way, I don't think I'll be losing my right to vote, because I didn't vote for those issues.
The idea that not voting makes the right to vote go away, is silly in my opinion. Voting an asshole into office seems as likely to fuck with our rights as not voting (see 2004 US election).
Quote from: Kostatar on November 07, 2008, 06:20:35 PM
RWHN,
Again, I don't think Nigel or I believe that you need to own a gun, in order for the government not to take away your gun rights. It was an example of the statement made "If you don't use your rights, you will lose your rights." If that statement had been "If you don't use your right to vote, you will lose your right to vote", then Nigel's example wouldn't hold.
It doesn't matter how you word it, it still doesn't hold up. Nigel seemed to be putting forth a 1:1 analogy between the right to vote and the right to own guns, and then to use that analogy to identify some hypocrisy. But, the fact of the matter is, the right to own guns relies, at least in part, on the right to vote. So it isn't a 1:1 analogy, thus, I don't see how it can be shown to be an example of hypocrisy.
Now, arguing in a wholesale manner, that not exercising a right to vote doesn't mean losing that right, that's a different matter. My issue is with the charge of "hypocrisy". I mean, if you want to call that position idiotic that's fine. But it isn't a hypocritical one.
QuoteThe point is, a person 'not using their right to do X" will not make that right go away. Its a false argument. It doesn't matter which 'right' we talk about, an individual choosing to use or not use that right, doesn't make it go away. In every case where a government has taken away rights, as far as I can recall, it was a seizure of rights, not atrophy.
I don't think it is a false argument. But, it depends on how literally you take it. Does it mean that every time you don't vote that you lose some level of voting rights? No. However, by not voting, you are one less voice against an individual or initiative that may erode other rights. For example the Prop 8 thing in California. Let's say, that the issue went down to defeat by 200 votes. Further, let's surmise there are 500 gay citizens in California, who were eligible to vote, but chose not to. Now, on an individual basis, no one person alone can be held 100% accountable for the loss of that right to marry. But collectively, those 500 staying home DID contribute to that result. But we can only vote and act as individuals, but the collective of action or inaction does indeed have a powerful effect.
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 06:00:12 PM
A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.
A gun might help. ;)
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 06:00:12 PM
A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.
A gun might help. ;)
Depends on the situation, I guess.
Much as almost every other argument made in this thread.
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 07:21:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 07, 2008, 06:00:12 PM
A note about whether "Rights" are lost by no exercising them: Freedom isn't taken away, it is seized. Meaning that you seize your own freedom, or "they" seize yours. A piece of paper, or an electronic signal isn't going to change that.
A gun might help. ;)
Depends on the situation, I guess.
Much as almost every other argument made in this thread.
:mittens:
This thread makes me go :(
Quote from: Kai on November 07, 2008, 07:31:00 PM
This thread makes me go :(
I know, right? And I just remembered that I started it.
WHY DID YOU GUYS FILL MY THREAD WITH HAET
FUCK YUO GUISE
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!
(j/k)
In the deep blue sky, there were rainbows in the night! You and me could fly, and the ocean shines so bright!
Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving . . .
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/PhotozOnline/ALPLM/Jerome_Illinois_Tornado_Putt_Putt.jpg)
We also already had this thread a week ago:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18337.0
I think there may have even been one other . . .
And if this one doesn't turn to the dark side, perhaps that one will.
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bgr/lowres/bgrn661l.jpg)
I don't like it when people I like a lot fight.
I don't like it when people I like are cruelly opinionated to the exclusion of other perspectives.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 05:50:28 AM
I don't like it when people I like are cruelly opinionated to the exclusion of other perspectives.
I am very sorry for all the rude and insulting things I may have said that offended you and others ITT. It wasn't my intent to do insult anyone.
Thank you. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone either. I'm sorry if my argument seemed personal.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 07, 2008, 04:21:27 PM
just to be "fair and balanced"--
ITT it's been said that not voting makes you a "screeching idiot" and a "dumbfuck" which I weigh as slightly more insulting than "hypocrite"
Nigel was being a bit callous, but I think she, like Jenne, just got a bit emotional from all the judgement and fingerpointing going on ITT about other people's political choices.
it was meant to be insulting.
don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be forced to vote. people have the right to be screeching idiots.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 07, 2008, 04:32:55 PM
Well, I guess I'm more directly sticking up for Jenne, not that she needs me to or anything. Specifically because she said the following.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:29:01 PM
No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however. I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.
I read her as saying, paraphrasing obviously, "do as you will, but, here is what I believe could be the consequences." And that's kind of where I am. And obviously not everyone is going to agree with that sentiment, but I don't think it is hypocritical, just an opinion on what not voting could mean. But yes, I agree "screeching idiot" and "dumbfuck" are also going too far, as there are certainly those who don't vote based on principled positions. I don't agree with those positions of course, but at least it is based on some thought-out reasoning as opposed to pure apathy and laziness.
if your thought-out reasoning led you to the conclusion that you should not exercise your right to vote, then you ARE an idiot.
In Australia you're "forced" to vote.
Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering. I actually think that's a fairly good system. Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs. Everyone wins.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 19, 2008, 12:51:08 PM
yeah, if you don't vote you CAN complain...
...you'll just be a screeching idiot that no one should listen to.
and just to clarify, my original "screeching idiot" comment was directed at people who don't vote and then bitch about how things didn't go the way they wanted.
however, I am willing to expand the context to anyone who didn't vote out of apathy or who didn't vote out of some fucktarded idea that "voting only encourages the system, man!"
Quote from: Cain on November 10, 2008, 01:09:29 PM
In Australia you're "forced" to vote.
Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering. I actually think that's a fairly good system. Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs. Everyone wins.
Cain, our mainstream parties already make satire obsolete, do you really want niche parties for the truly demented?
On second thought, that would be absolutely hilarious.
Quote from: Vene on November 10, 2008, 02:20:36 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 10, 2008, 01:09:29 PM
In Australia you're "forced" to vote.
Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering. I actually think that's a fairly good system. Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs. Everyone wins.
Cain, our mainstream parties already make satire obsolete, do you really want niche parties for the truly demented?
On second thought, that would be absolutely hilarious.
Is it too Pinealist for me to say that, as a Discordian, I would approve of this?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 10, 2008, 01:03:41 PM
don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be forced to vote. people have the right to be screeching idiots.
I know (and love) people who choose not to vote who are not screeching idiots, and I know people who do vote who are.
To each his own, IMO. People have their reasons, even if they may be ones you disagree with. If someone has no reason at all for not voting, perhaps they are not really equipped to vote anyway.
To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?
Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.
Although that logic also presupposes that the people who DO vote are going to vote to strip voting rights of those who do not, which seems a flawed assumption.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 05:18:42 PM
To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?
Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.
That doesn't make any sense. If you're right to vote has been compromised or taken away, it's most likely the case that ALL of your rights are being violated and compromised. So it's no longer about owning a gun as a right, it's something you are doing out of necessity regardless of the actual "right" of gun ownership. The situation you are talking about is more a akin to having a gun to protect yourself from some government-gone-amok. But when your government has gone amok. The Constitution goes out the window.
The bottom line is, that in a non-corrupt government, protecting your right to own guns WILL involve voting. Whether it is supporting a candidate who supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or voting for a Proposition or Referendum that supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. One of the precious few ways we have to protect our rights, legally, is to vote for people who will help protect our rights.
This whole debate seems flawed to me.
"Vote or you can't complain." seems like a statement that can never be enforced in any manner. That is, we have no idea if the complainer voted, didn't vote... or who/what they voted for.
As an American, you have the right, not requirement or duty, to vote. You also have the right to freely speak about whatever you want. You also have the right to not speak. None of them are requirements or duties... just rights.
The right to freedom of speech doesn't say "You have the right to freedom of speech, as long as you voted in the last election, or as long as you're at least somewhat informed on the issues." As such, the right to speak freely, the right to voice your opinion is equal to your right to vote. One does not supersede the other. One is not a requirement of the other. In the end, unless someone happens to having not voted, we must rely on what they're saying, to find value or not... rather than what they did on some November day in 2008.
Further, I would argue that voting, while a wonderful right that a lot of people have sacrificed for, is not the MAJOR SUPER PWOERZ that are claimed. Nor is it a demand placed upon the citizen by the Constitution. In the first election in this country, 3 out of the 10 states didn't even bother to participate and only half of the ones that did participate held any sort of general poll on who should be elected. In my opinion, as Americans have become more lazy and more reliant on the government to Do For Them, they have created a false sense of importance around voting. Voting has become a symbol of being active in politics and community, rather than actually doing something. Every four years we wear a 'I Voted' sticker and think we're doing our part... and for the rest of those 47 Months, 3 weeks and 6 days, we can be completely oblivious.
I think we would be in much better shape if we tried for 100% community involvement, rather than 100% voter turnout.
I never said that people shouldn't be ALLOWED to complain if they didn't vote, I just said they'd be screeching idiots for it.
I then explicitly stated that people have the right to be screeching idiots.
what's the problem?
The screeching idiots?
Idiots are normally a problem, if left alone with sharp objects.
The right to vote and free speech are not equal in one regard. When you tell a Congressman, "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office", that Congressman is under no compulsion to listen to you and to abide by your decree. However, when people use their vote to say "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office. We want the new guy", said Congressman must abide and GTFO.
Speech alone doesn't get things done. Speech can be important in terms of helping to set the agenda, and getting issues into the public eye. But in the end, if no one votes on the issues, or votes for those who will vote on the issues in Congress, nothing will get done. If the US citizenry overwhelmingly wants Congress to go forward with stem-cell research, then the US citizenry needs to follow up with that will and vote for the appropriate Congressmen to undertake that endeavour. It's all fine and dandy for people to want to have stem-cell research, but then if a bunch of Born-Again Conservatives get into office, well, that ain't gonna happen is it?
And let's not forget the important state and local issues that are voted on. It's easy to just focus on the Prez election and look at how insignificant one vote is. But when it comes to whether or not to open a Casino in your town, whether or not to raise the mill rates, whether or not to close the local library, in those instances every vote is important and holds significant weight.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 05:18:42 PM
To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?
Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.
That doesn't make any sense. If you're right to vote has been compromised or taken away, it's most likely the case that ALL of your rights are being violated and compromised. So it's no longer about owning a gun as a right, it's something you are doing out of necessity regardless of the actual "right" of gun ownership. The situation you are talking about is more a akin to having a gun to protect yourself from some government-gone-amok. But when your government has gone amok. The Constitution goes out the window.
The bottom line is, that in a non-corrupt government, protecting your right to own guns WILL involve voting. Whether it is supporting a candidate who supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or voting for a Proposition or Referendum that supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. One of the precious few ways we have to protect our rights, legally, is to vote for people who will help protect our rights.
But a government is less likely to run amok if it knows it's citizenry is armed, which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the main points in having the right to bear arms in the first place.
However, I have to confess I have very little interest in this argument, as my main issue here is with people namecalling and denigrating those who choose not to vote for whatever reason. The "use your rights or lose them" argument really doesn't work with voting, as it assumes that somehow fewer voters automatically = a lower percentage of those who do vote are concerned about maintaining constitutional rights. As someone else pointed out in this thread, the 2000 and 2004 elections had VERY high turnouts, yet since then more of our right have been eroded than at any previous point in history.
also, as far as the "right to own guns/right to vote" thing goes, let's try to remember that it's not that voting protects your right to own guns, it's that owning guns protects your right to vote.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:17:38 PM
But a government is less likely to run amok if it knows it's citizenry is armed, which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the main points in having the right to bear arms in the first place.
I don't really know if this impinges on the main thesis or not but I'm going to have to ask for a citation needed. Because it doesn't seem to be working. An ideological justification for running amok may well be far more powerful and influential than the right to bear arms. Having arms along is not really worth much, unless they are being used. In theory, yes, arms can be used to that end, and are helpful, but in practice it doesn't seem to be working.
I'm not saying voting is more important or owning guns or blady blah, I just have some legitimate worries about that sentence.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 10, 2008, 06:19:41 PM
also, as far as the "right to own guns/right to vote" thing goes, let's try to remember that it's not that voting protects your right to own guns, it's that owning guns protects your right to vote.
:mittens:
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:17:38 PMmy main issue here is with people namecalling and denigrating those who choose not to vote for whatever reason.
WHY ARE YUO TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
This is why I need to just start a new post instead of editing my previous one. But anyway, I did edit it, and I think my point is quite valid.
By the way, I am not actually arguing that you have to own guns in order to protect your right to own guns. I AM, however, arguing that IT MAKES AS MUCH LOGICAL SENSE as saying that you have to vote in order to protect your right to vote.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 10, 2008, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:17:38 PMmy main issue here is with people namecalling and denigrating those who choose not to vote for whatever reason.
WHY ARE YUO TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
NO YUO
<runs away crying>
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:15:04 PM
The right to vote and free speech are not equal in one regard. When you tell a Congressman, "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office", that Congressman is under no compulsion to listen to you and to abide by your decree. However, when people use their vote to say "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office. We want the new guy", said Congressman must abide and GTFO.
Speech alone doesn't get things done. Speech can be important in terms of helping to set the agenda, and getting issues into the public eye. But in the end, if no one votes on the issues, or votes for those who will vote on the issues in Congress, nothing will get done. If the US citizenry overwhelmingly wants Congress to go forward with stem-cell research, then the US citizenry needs to follow up with that will and vote for the appropriate Congressmen to undertake that endeavour. It's all fine and dandy for people to want to have stem-cell research, but then if a bunch of Born-Again Conservatives get into office, well, that ain't gonna happen is it?
And let's not forget the important state and local issues that are voted on. It's easy to just focus on the Prez election and look at how insignificant one vote is. But when it comes to whether or not to open a Casino in your town, whether or not to raise the mill rates, whether or not to close the local library, in those instances every vote is important and holds significant weight.
Thus we should bring back rotten fruit to the political process.
However, that's still missing the point.
The Right To Vote and the Right To Complain are both guaranteed AND neither is a requirement for the other, as our Constitution stands.
Everyone can choose to vote or not vote.
Everyone can choose to complain about the government or not.
Most of the time, we don't know if the person complaining, voted.
Thus, this whole argument is silly. We don't KNOW who did and didn't vote, nor who/what they voted if they did turn in a ballot. Thus, we can only weigh their whining/complaining etc on its own merits, not on the merits of some act in Nov 2008 that they may or may not have been involved in.
Hell, with the amount of legalese and interpretation involved in most issues, even the people that do vote for or against something may end up kicking themselves later. The Ohio smoking ban is a good example of that.
P.S.
You have to vote in order to protect your right to vote
You have to own guns in order to protect your right to own guns
You have to vote in order to protect your right to own guns
You have to own guns in order to protect your right to vote
You have to speak freely in order to protect your right to freedom of speech
You have to assemble in order to protect your right to assemble
You have to assemble to protect your right to freedom of speech
You have to speak freely to protect your right to own guns
etc
etc
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:28:21 PM
This is why I need to just start a new post instead of editing my previous one. But anyway, I did edit it, and I think my point is quite valid.
By the way, I am not actually arguing that you have to own guns in order to protect your right to own guns. I AM, however, arguing that IT MAKES AS MUCH LOGICAL SENSE as saying that you have to vote in order to protect your right to vote.
OK, thats fine. But logic aside, I was interested in the idea, in and of itself. Because in my experience, lots of countries with armed people have experienced repression and the like. Playing groups off against each other, retaining a monopoly on the use of violence, relying on punitive measures and state terrorism is usually enough for a state to muck people around, even if they are armed.
I mean, to use an example, Bush abolished haebus corpus. While it has not been used much, I very much doubt the fear of guns stopped him, or even came into the equation. He could use an ideological construct, the War on Terror, to convince those with the guns that it would be never used against them (even though in all likelihood it will be one day, unless that law is repealed quite soon). Hegemony, as Gramsci understood it (how a ruling clique imparts its ideology to the rest of society) would need to be overcome before one could even consider using arms.
I guess I'm saying arms are potentially useful tools, but the hardware in the head is more important. All talk about voting etc aside.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 05:18:42 PM
To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?
Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.
That doesn't make any sense. If you're right to vote has been compromised or taken away, it's most likely the case that ALL of your rights are being violated and compromised. So it's no longer about owning a gun as a right, it's something you are doing out of necessity regardless of the actual "right" of gun ownership. The situation you are talking about is more a akin to having a gun to protect yourself from some government-gone-amok. But when your government has gone amok. The Constitution goes out the window.
The bottom line is, that in a non-corrupt government, protecting your right to own guns WILL involve voting. Whether it is supporting a candidate who supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or voting for a Proposition or Referendum that supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. One of the precious few ways we have to protect our rights, legally, is to vote for people who will help protect our rights.
But a government is less likely to run amok if it knows it's citizenry is armed, which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the main points in having the right to bear arms in the first place.
Yeah, I'm not sure that a guy with a shotgun is going to be much of a match for a tank. But anyway, think about it. When we have these elections there is this prominent group called the NRA that will invariably inject itself into the debates. And how does the NRA hope to influence its members and other US Citizens? By giving them information on how to protect the 2nd Amendment, how to protect their right to vote. What else do they do? Encourage these people to GO OUT AND VOTE. You hear it all the time, "Protect the 2nd Amendment, vote for John McCain". Why? Because the next Prez will most likely be appointing Supreme Court Justices which can have a HUGE impact on cases involving gun ownership. So, protecting your right to own guns isn't as simple as just having a gun. It's making sure you have legislators, Presidents, and ergo, Supreme Court Justices, who are on your side.
QuoteHowever, I have to confess I have very little interest in this argument, as my main issue here is with people namecalling and denigrating those who choose not to vote for whatever reason. The "use your rights or lose them" argument really doesn't work with voting, as it assumes that somehow fewer voters automatically = a lower percentage of those who do vote are concerned about maintaining constitutional rights. As someone else pointed out in this thread, the 2000 and 2004 elections had VERY high turnouts, yet since then more of our right have been eroded than at any previous point in history.
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
Quote from: Cain on November 10, 2008, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 06:28:21 PM
This is why I need to just start a new post instead of editing my previous one. But anyway, I did edit it, and I think my point is quite valid.
By the way, I am not actually arguing that you have to own guns in order to protect your right to own guns. I AM, however, arguing that IT MAKES AS MUCH LOGICAL SENSE as saying that you have to vote in order to protect your right to vote.
OK, thats fine. But logic aside, I was interested in the idea, in and of itself. Because in my experience, lots of countries with armed people have experienced repression and the like. Playing groups off against each other, retaining a monopoly on the use of violence, relying on punitive measures and state terrorism is usually enough for a state to muck people around, even if they are armed.
I mean, to use an example, Bush abolished haebus corpus. While it has not been used much, I very much doubt the fear of guns stopped him, or even came into the equation. He could use an ideological construct, the War on Terror, to convince those with the guns that it would be never used against them (even though in all likelihood it will be one day, unless that law is repealed quite soon). Hegemony, as Gramsci understood it (how a ruling clique imparts its ideology to the rest of society) would need to be overcome before one could even consider using arms.
I guess I'm saying arms are potentially useful tools, but the hardware in the head is more important. All talk about voting etc aside.
YES!
People voted Bush into office. In 2004 we had a record turnout and voted him into office again... even after he'd started writing signing statements, arguing for torture etc. Why? Because their head hardware was set to 'SCARED MONKEY' rather than 'THINKING HUMAN'.
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 06:29:21 PM
Thus we should bring back rotten fruit to the political process.
However, that's still missing the point.
The Right To Vote and the Right To Complain are both guaranteed AND neither is a requirement for the other, as our Constitution stands.
Everyone can choose to vote or not vote.
Everyone can choose to complain about the government or not.
Most of the time, we don't know if the person complaining, voted.
Thus, this whole argument is silly. We don't KNOW who did and didn't vote, nor who/what they voted if they did turn in a ballot. Thus, we can only weigh their whining/complaining etc on its own merits, not on the merits of some act in Nov 2008 that they may or may not have been involved in.
Hell, with the amount of legalese and interpretation involved in most issues, even the people that do vote for or against something may end up kicking themselves later. The Ohio smoking ban is a good example of that.
Yes, people CAN complain whether they vote or not. But sometimes speech alone isn't enough. Speech isn't binding. A vote is.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 06:29:21 PM
Thus we should bring back rotten fruit to the political process.
However, that's still missing the point.
The Right To Vote and the Right To Complain are both guaranteed AND neither is a requirement for the other, as our Constitution stands.
Everyone can choose to vote or not vote.
Everyone can choose to complain about the government or not.
Most of the time, we don't know if the person complaining, voted.
Thus, this whole argument is silly. We don't KNOW who did and didn't vote, nor who/what they voted if they did turn in a ballot. Thus, we can only weigh their whining/complaining etc on its own merits, not on the merits of some act in Nov 2008 that they may or may not have been involved in.
Hell, with the amount of legalese and interpretation involved in most issues, even the people that do vote for or against something may end up kicking themselves later. The Ohio smoking ban is a good example of that.
Yes, people CAN complain whether they vote or not. But sometimes speech alone isn't enough. Speech isn't binding. A vote is.
A vote is binding, IF it gets counted properly and IF it's in line with the majority.
Sometimes, I wonder if everyone thinks through the risks of EVERYONE voting... if EVERYONE votes, lots and lots of your favorite issues might be in the minority.
Consider, for example, that a minority of people in the colonies wanted a revolution... even after it was won. If EVERYONE had a say, we'd still be getting taxed on tea (Oh, I guess we are being taxed on tea anyway...)
Its not that you CAN'T complain if you don't vote.
Its that no one will listen to your screeching if you don't.
Quote from: Kai on November 10, 2008, 07:00:12 PM
Its not that you CAN'T complain if you don't vote.
Its that no one will listen to your screeching if you don't.
Do you ask each complainer if they voted in the last poll, before considering or dismissing their argument?
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 06:49:24 PM
A vote is binding, IF it gets counted properly and IF it's in line with the majority.
Yes, but speech is NEVER binding. Even taking the cynical view that it only has weight "sometimes", sometimes > never. No one can predict the future, and no, there is NO 100% certainty your individual ballot will be counted correctly. So the answer is, what? Just, "don't vote"? So because my ballot
might be missed, I should let that dissuade me? No. I vote, and then if there is reason to suspect foul play, use your right to complain and find the right official to complain to.
QuoteSometimes, I wonder if everyone thinks through the risks of EVERYONE voting... if EVERYONE votes, lots and lots of your favorite issues might be in the minority.
Well, in my case, I advocate on the behalf of my favorite issues AND I vote on them. I educate and then actuate. If an issue is that important to you, and you worry that not all understand it the way you do, you use your freedom of speech to disseminate your viewpoints. But you can do both. And voting takes, what, 20 or 30 minutes? I took my wife and her parents to city hall to vote. We were there and back within half an hour. AND, it provided a great educational opportunity for my little girl.
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 07:02:48 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 10, 2008, 07:00:12 PM
Its not that you CAN'T complain if you don't vote.
Its that no one will listen to your screeching if you don't.
Do you ask each complainer if they voted in the last poll, before considering or dismissing their argument?
How about this. In polls, it is shown that 70% of a people in a particular community have said they are very, very concerned about putting in a Stop sign at an intersection. They have said it is very, very dangerous and needs to be addressed. When it comes time to vote, not only does it not pass, it turns out that only a small percentage of the town bothered to show up and vote on it. If it was really that concerning wouldn't they put their money where their mouth is? And since they didn't, why should the city government EVER listen to them if they can't bother to show up and vote on putting their concern into action?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 07:06:57 PM
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 06:49:24 PM
A vote is binding, IF it gets counted properly and IF it's in line with the majority.
Yes, but speech is NEVER binding. Even taking the cynical view that it only has weight "sometimes", sometimes > never. No one can predict the future, and no, there is NO 100% certainty your individual ballot will be counted correctly. So the answer is, what? Just, "don't vote"? So because my ballot might be missed, I should let that dissuade me? No. I vote, and then if there is reason to suspect foul play, use your right to complain and find the right official to complain to.
QuoteSometimes, I wonder if everyone thinks through the risks of EVERYONE voting... if EVERYONE votes, lots and lots of your favorite issues might be in the minority.
Well, in my case, I advocate on the behalf of my favorite issues AND I vote on them. I educate and then actuate. If an issue is that important to you, and you worry that not all understand it the way you do, you use your freedom of speech to disseminate your viewpoints. But you can do both. And voting takes, what, 20 or 30 minutes? I took my wife and her parents to city hall to vote. We were there and back within half an hour. AND, it provided a great educational opportunity for my little girl.
I don't think you should be dissuaded from voting. I vote and I think that ANYONE THAT WANTS TO VOTE, should vote. I think voting is important, for the people that consider it important. I don't think it should be required, or that it acts as a touchstone on your value ads a citizen or member of society.
If you want to vote, then vote... take your wife, kids, grandparents, next door neighbors and anyone else who wants to vote with you. If GA doesn't want to vote, though, then wtf business is it of anyone's other than GA's?
This entire thread reminds me of the South Park episode with the Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich... and I mean the bit where they send Stan off on a mule, not the funny bits.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
You seem to be assuming that the "few thousand more" would have all been anti-Bush, rather than split along the lines of the people who DID turn out to vote. What is your evidence to support such an assumption?
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 07:15:02 PM
I don't think you should be dissuaded from voting. I vote and I think that ANYONE THAT WANTS TO VOTE, should vote. I think voting is important, for the people that consider it important. I don't think it should be required, or that it acts as a touchstone on your value ads a citizen or member of society.
If you want to vote, then vote... take your wife, kids, grandparents, next door neighbors and anyone else who wants to vote with you. If GA doesn't want to vote, though, then wtf business is it of anyone's other than GA's?
Yes, this.
And furthermore, I would argue that if you were trying to persuade GA to vote, calling him names, swearing at him, and insisting that he is a bad citizen for not voting is EXTREMELY unlikely to sway him.
In fact, these tactics seem to function less to persuade nonvoters to vote, than to simply make voters feel superior for their choice.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
You seem to be assuming that the "few thousand more" would have all been anti-Bush, rather than split along the lines of the people who DID turn out to vote. What is your evidence to support such an assumption?
Just look at Florida on a county by county basis. Higher turnout in the counties that voted for Gore certainly would've gone to his favor. Of course, from Bush's perspective, higher turnout in the counties that went for him could've given him a convincing and clear win and avoided the Supreme Court fiasco and resulting hard feelings.
Well, then I'd guess that they weren't all that concerned and the poll was probably wrong.
Oddly enough, this leads to a story about my little town of Roseville, Oh.
There was an intersection in our town that had four accidents in one year. People complained, people wanted a stop sign there. So they got a petition together, took it to the Mayor and said "All these people agree. We need a stop sign." The mayor said OK, and had a stop sign put in. No election, no waiting for the ballot year and electronic voting machines or anything else... people simply acted on the need.
That, I think, is an example of the point I'm making. If I want a stop sign at point blah, I can hold a rally and go vote... or I can walk around get a bunch of people to support me and tell the town to just go buy a damned sign.
Voting is important, voting is awesome and people that want to vote should vote. But its not the only way to be involved in the community or civic system, nor is it the most direct, especially if you're not otherwise involved in the political process.
So for RWHN and Jenne, they seem politically motivated, informed and they want to vote... SO BY GODDESS THEY SHOULD!
GA doesn't want to vote, so whoopie! Next year, she'll complain about some political asshatery and I doubt that we'll remember she didn't vote.
Freedom must work both ways, or its not freedom. Either we're free people, or we're compelled by the government to vote. You cannot be both.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
You seem to be assuming that the "few thousand more" would have all been anti-Bush, rather than split along the lines of the people who DID turn out to vote. What is your evidence to support such an assumption?
Just look at Florida on a county by county basis. Higher turnout in the counties that voted for Gore certainly would've gone to his favor. Of course, from Bush's perspective, higher turnout in the counties that went for him could've given him a convincing and clear win and avoided the Supreme Court fiasco and resulting hard feelings.
And greater turnout in both might have resulted in exactly the same damned thing we had anyway.
Well, I don't advocate people calling names one way or the other. Taking personal shots is pretty lame in either direction.
HOWEVER, that doesn't mean one who advocates and tries to encourage people to vote, through education and information dissemination, should be looked down upon either. For some people, not voting, is as simple as not understanding the process or not understanding what issues are at stake. The informed non-voter is one thing. The un-informed non-voter is a whole different scenario altogether.
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
You seem to be assuming that the "few thousand more" would have all been anti-Bush, rather than split along the lines of the people who DID turn out to vote. What is your evidence to support such an assumption?
Just look at Florida on a county by county basis. Higher turnout in the counties that voted for Gore certainly would've gone to his favor. Of course, from Bush's perspective, higher turnout in the counties that went for him could've given him a convincing and clear win and avoided the Supreme Court fiasco and resulting hard feelings.
And greater turnout in both might have resulted in exactly the same damned thing we had anyway.
Yes, but why base a vote or a non-vote on what
might happen? Why base it on what others are doing?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Kostatar on November 10, 2008, 07:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 07:25:46 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
AND, if a few thousand more had turned out in Florida, perhaps the last 8 years wouldn't have happened.
You seem to be assuming that the "few thousand more" would have all been anti-Bush, rather than split along the lines of the people who DID turn out to vote. What is your evidence to support such an assumption?
Just look at Florida on a county by county basis. Higher turnout in the counties that voted for Gore certainly would've gone to his favor. Of course, from Bush's perspective, higher turnout in the counties that went for him could've given him a convincing and clear win and avoided the Supreme Court fiasco and resulting hard feelings.
And greater turnout in both might have resulted in exactly the same damned thing we had anyway.
Yes, but why base a vote or a non-vote on what might happen? Why base it on what others are doing?
Yeah? Why?
*walks in, whistling innocuously*
Hey, someone left a hat here. Its got "Diabolocus Advocatus" written on the side. I wonder what happens when I put it on....anyhow, the Prosecution would now like to call the honourable IOZ to the stand, in the case of Democracy and Voting.
QuoteA coworker asked me who I voted for today, and I said that I didn't vote. She asked me why not, her disapproval being frankly palpable, and I told her I didn't vote for the same reason I don't always come to complete stops at stop signs: the act reeks of undue deference to constituted authority. The presumptive obligation of each citizen to vote is one of those goofy tenets of the democratic civic religion. Like most religious precepts and practices, we continue to valorize it even as we abandon it. Well over half of us now abstain. Even Catholicism is in better shape. I actually will haul myself into a booth if there's a seat on the city council at stake, because, fuck, man, the potholes. On the opposite end of the scale you get instead the idea that if you aggregate the binary decisions of millions of people you will produce some aspirational avatar of The People, The Country, whatever . . . some pure representative of the collective will and the Direction We're Going In and so forth and so on. Most political discourse is infected with the plainly insane notion that there exists a sort of ineffible national political consensus which political leadership must tap into, like a bunch of psychic mediums, in order to Get Things Done, Bipartisanly. "The American People want . . ." begin many such ponderings. Naturally, the American People don't want anything in particular, because there are 300 million of them. We live, as we dream, alone, says Conrad. What any given soul desires at any given moment of any given day is the impenetrable business of that person uniquely. All else is obfuscation of the essential randomness of individual existence--we are but slaves to fate, etc.--usually in the servie of keeping those who are better fed and better paid than you better fed and better paid than you. Participation in the maintenance of a political order is a sucker's game. It's a beautiful day in Pennsylvania. Go outside. The sun doesn't give a damn who's president.
QuoteBut only in the opinion pages of The New York Times and are elections considered intrinsically good. Elections are a means of deciding succession in government. There's a reasonable case to be made that they can produce fairer results, by which I mean a broader sense among the governed population that their rulers guard their subjects' interests, if not necessarily better results, by which I mean rulers effectively guarding their subjects' interests. Let's say "free and fair" elections, then, obeying the cant of our times, and reminding ourselves that fairness alone isn't an overriding virtue.
There is not, however, a defensible case to be made that elections are categorically different than any other method of selecting leadership, be it hereditary succession or decisions by some People's Central Committee or the drawing of lots. There is no transcendent, eternal order that dictates what is or isn't a meritous means of deciding who gets to be the next big man. These are all human contrivances, part of no natural order, based on no particular imperatives. Would the state of our government really decline if we were to select our representatives by lottery? Over the course of a couple centuries? I wonder.
The fact that our dictator is chosen by a mediated plebiscite rather than, say, elected by the Roman Senate, is really quite irrelevant to the powers that he possesses. What is the purpose of orderly succession? Why do states and governments strive for it? Because orderly succession is one of the fundamnetals of continuity of government. Change that you can believe in!
Cain,
presenting arguments from the opposition, but not necessarily believing in them.
QuoteOn the opposite end of the scale you get instead the idea that if you aggregate the binary decisions of millions of people you will produce some aspirational avatar of The People, The Country, whatever . . . some pure representative of the collective will and the Direction We're Going In and so forth and so on.
When I was a helluva lot younger than I am even now, I used to think about all decisions that are made in parliament being put to plebiscite, "In this age of almost instant communication," I thought "Surely we can put everything that goes before parliament before The People as a whole without too much effort".
Alas, all we got was Pop Idol and controversy over the naming of an animal on Blue Peter.
I guess where I'm going with this is: Yes, the electoral process is by nature binary and broad-brush, but no one seems interested in actually FIXING that any time soon, so we have to make do with what we have.
The Honourable IOZ, it should be pointed out, has no interest in fixing things. His bohemian hedonism extends only to mocking the vanities of others, not seeking to improve their lot.
Its a useful criticism against some people, but not the argument's originator.
Quote from: Cain on November 13, 2008, 03:19:30 AM
The Honourable IOZ, it should be pointed out, has no interest in fixing things. His bohemian hedonism extends only to mocking the vanities of others, not seeking to improve their lot.
Its a useful criticism against some people, but not the argument's originator.
Yeah, I'm responding more to the argument than to him though.
Back when I was thinking about the e-plebiscite thing, I was far less cynical than I am now. I considered the current system very binary even then.
Tis true enough. Anyway, if you want to see some of IOZ's writings, get yourself to hxxp://whoisioz.blogspot.com/. Personally, my favourite anarchist (not that there were many jockeying for the position, but had there been, IOZ still probably would have won out, if for nothing less than his outstandingly pretentious faggotry and excellent use of category names).
Bookmarked.
Thanks 8)