Profile
Search
Register
Log in
how can you NOT love G Dub?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Wakeaholic



Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 40
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

There is only one reason (above all) that GW runs our country, You Fuc*ers didn't vote


This is bullshit, perhaps people, especially young people would vote if their beautiful democracy(or more closely republic) actually worked worth a shit. No, I wouldn't have voted Bush, because he's obviously a aristocratic, oil grubbing, environment hating war monger. However, I'm not going to let myself be forced to vote for a bitch ass like Gore, whose hobbies include pretending to be a man of the people and a man who cares; when this mother fucker hasn't had to go to the grocery store or worried about paying rent EVER! How can we expect laws that benefit the common people of our country when those who represent us make up the upper 5% of the economic class. Combine this with the fact that our government is run with dollar signs and swastikas, then any problem with voter turnout, presidential competancy, or anything else is completely devoid of meaning and relevancy. This is why I get so pissed when I hear of American pride, who the fuck in our American society is proud of me? I don't know how the hell I'm going to go to college next year because my benevolent governer (Jeb Bush) decided to appease people bitching about class sizes and cut my state funded scholarhship that I busted my ass for all throughout 4 years of high school.Enough. Later.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Wakeaholic wrote:

This is bullshit, perhaps people, especially young people would vote if their beautiful democracy(or more closely republic) actually worked worth a shit.


Circular logic. Think about it and you'll catch the loop, I'm sure.

The "Democracy" will ONLY WORK if people vote. You could have voted for Nader if the other choices didn't seem fitting.

- Shane
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wakeaholic



Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 40
 Reply with quote  

I indeed recognize the circular logic, however, it's more of a shitty cycle. The circularness of it is the problem, if we had respectable people to vote for, we would vote, without voting, we perpetuate the problem, with voting we perpetuate the problem in a fashion that is socially acceptable. On Nader, yeah he was a good, guy, and many people would have voted for him, maybe even up to 40%, unfortunately, the people in power have quite a large following from misinformed brainwashed citizens who would like nothing more than for the world to act like america and die if they resist. In other words, it's true that if you voted for Nader you throw your vote away. Maybe I'm a bit pessimistic coming from Florida, which despite earlier comments, still has very racist roots. The only parts which are liberal and multicultural are Miami, Orlando (although most of the population surrounding Orlando consists of rich rednecks), and to an extent Tampa. The rest is still very ignorant as I am reminded when I can't go through one day without seeing at least 5 confederate flags.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Take minks off!

Take things off!

Take chains off!

Take rings off!

Braclets is yapped,

Fame came off!

ANTE UP

Everything off!
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Wakeaholic wrote:
In other words, it's true that if you voted for Nader you throw your vote away.


Again - circular logic. If enough people "threw their votes away" then we'd have Ralph Nader as President, right? (I am not saying this is a good or bad thing - I'm just saying).

Blah blah Florida blah blah...yeah...the system was manipulated in Florida...that's no mystery. If there was anything that SHOULD be learned regarding what happened in Florida it's that your vote counts an AWFUL FUCKING LOT. Had more cats voted against Bush in other states, Florida wouldn't have even been an issue.

Nobody wanted either of them as President (or at least most didn't) - but they also lacked the fortitude to go and vote for the 3rd option (or 4th if it's there...etc.) - it's fucking pathetic.

You're trying to justify your decision to not vote now - not the other way around. You need to decide whether or not to vote based on how things are - not explain how things are in order to come up with a reason not to vote...

Don't get me wrong though - I definately respect your right NOT to vote, but your reasoning behind it is pretty weak.

Peace,
Shane
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick The Elder



Joined: 06 Jul 2002
Posts: 34
Location: NC
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Wakeaholic wrote:
In other words, it's true that if you voted for Nader you throw your vote away.



You're trying to justify your decision to not vote now - not the other way around. You need to decide whether or not to vote based on how things are - not explain how things are in order to come up with a reason not to vote...

Don't get me wrong though - I definately respect your right NOT to vote, but your reasoning behind it is pretty weak.

Peace,
Shane


WELL SAID SHANE

I can't understand people's logic to NOT vote.
I admit I voted for GORE because I knew none of the third parties had a chance but that's totally based on the fact that when I went to vote at 6:30 that night, the voter turnout in my area was 30%.
But that ws my choice, and I doubt I'll ever vote that way again.
No one is telling you who to vote for, fuckin write in SAGE FRANCIS for all I care, just do your part, or don't camplain about democracy not working for you!
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mr.oblivious



Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 100
 Reply with quote  

http://www.dubyaspeak.com has a lot of quotes that are either hilarious or incredibly depressing, depending on how you look at it.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

I will tell you why not to vote. (but before you yell, ill say I did vote. Prely so whiners like you guys could not bitch at me)

voting doesn't change things. The problems with this society, the REAL problems, are structural. It is like having a rotten foundation for a house. Voting is a COSMETIC change. Its not a real change to the system. Its like changing the paint job.

Let us take an infeasible situation. Nader becomes president. So what? he cant' make changes. the people with real power and congress would not let him make legislation.

and if the Green party somehow got big enough it would merely TAKE OVER the role of the Democrats. A majoritarian system ALWAYS leads to a two party system which in fact is a one party system.

Really what is the point of voting when there are no issues on the table? The democrats and republicans have very few issues they really disagree on. This is no surprise, they tell you that in U.S. goverment in High School. But the implications are bad. The real decisions that are being made aren't discussed with the public. Did anyone know the canidates stance on NAFTA for instance? no it wasn't discussed, but its irrelevant. Either party would have been for it.

our democratic races are merely tv icons spouting off a few vague generalities. fucking hell, this election came down to CHARACTER! and which president was slightly less boring.

so voting is just a waste of time. it distracts you from real ways to effect change.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

not to mention if you actually study voter turnout you will notice that when the two parties were relativly different the turnout was high (90% when jackson was elected)

but as the republic refined itself and the parties grew more identical voter turnout steadily dropped.

while certianly individual bear blame for low turnout, its wrong to pretend the system itself doesn't deserve a lot of it.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

"Circular logic. Think about it and you'll catch the loop, I'm sure.

The "Democracy" will ONLY WORK if people vote. "

actually no Shane, it is does not have to be circular logic. If could very well be that the system ITSELF is not very demcratic.

For instance the simple switch form a majoritarian to a plurality system (such as most of the world ahs) would make the system much more democratic. Voter turnout in non-majoritarian systems are much better by the way.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mojo the helper monkey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 1304
Location: California
 Reply with quote  

I refuse to believe the U.S. would be in such a bad place right now had Gore been elected president. He might not have been the ideal candidate but he would have been a lot fucking better than Bush.

Not only that, but now we're faced with the prospect of Joe Lieberman running for the next election. Somebody save us.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

At least you have more complete, albeit just as flawed, reasoning for not voting.

August Spies wrote:
voting doesn't change things. The problems with this society, the REAL problems, are structural. It is like having a rotten foundation for a house. Voting is a COSMETIC change. Its not a real change to the system. Its like changing the paint job.


I would except this, except for the lack of any other options. To disavow government and move into an anarchic society would be wonderful - but the odds of that happening are BY FAR less favourable than the odds of voting in a third-party President (which, in my personal philosophy, I see as a likely precursor to anarchism)

August Spies wrote:

Let us take an infeasible situation. Nader becomes president. So what? he cant' make changes. the people with real power and congress would not let him make legislation.


Ah yes - but the president assigns judges to the Supreme Court. Anything that he couldn't get done in the Legislative branch would get represented in the Judicial branch...we've seen this with G-dub's right wing conservative crew have we not? That's power. Nader may not be able to MAKE legislation - but he could certainly veto plenty of laws, put the right judges in the right places, and garner support from other parties for his other agendas as the case may be. Not to mention the orders that GW has put in place that keeps extending the President's power...another thing I've actually seen YOU complain about I beleive. The bottom line is that you're right - the Presidential election is less crucial. The most important people you will ever vote for are your state Senators, Representatives and local reps...but still - the President is still an important person and get things done...maybe not all of them...but some of them.

August Spies wrote:

and if the Green party somehow got big enough it would merely TAKE OVER the role of the Democrats. A majoritarian system ALWAYS leads to a two party system which in fact is a one party system.


You mustn't be familiar with the Green Party platform. They are NOT Democrats - they are really nothing like Democrats when it comes down to it.

Also - I challenge you to offer proof that a majoritarian system always leads to a two party system; there are several European countries in which this is simply not the case.

August Spies wrote:

Really what is the point of voting when there are no issues on the table? The democrats and republicans have very few issues they really disagree on. This is no surprise, they tell you that in U.S. goverment in High School. But the implications are bad. The real decisions that are being made aren't discussed with the public. Did anyone know the canidates stance on NAFTA for instance? no it wasn't discussed, but its irrelevant. Either party would have been for it.


It's funny that you mention NAFTA...I wonder what Nader thought of NAFTA...Oh yeah...he's the only one that even took the time to STATE what he though...but then again, the Green Party is just like the Democrats, right? :roll:

Such a common misconception - I would have assumed you to know better my man.

August Spies wrote:

our democratic races are merely tv icons spouting off a few vague generalities. fucking hell, this election came down to CHARACTER! and which president was slightly less boring.

so voting is just a waste of time. it distracts you from real ways to effect change.


And those ways would be?

But more importantly - if you ignore the rest of the post, answer this: How are these ways you speak of (which I'm really itching to hear) any LESS effective if voting is employed simultaneously with them - perhaps even voting in people who will enact the legislation that people are protesting for, etc.?

...

Peace and respect,
Shane
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

"than the odds of voting in a third-party President "

when has a third party ever really become president in any majoritarian system, ever?

"You mustn't be familiar with the Green Party platform. They are NOT Democrats - they are really nothing like Democrats when it comes down to it. "
you misunderstand. For the party to become big enough to work in our majoritarian system they would HAVE to change. and they would eventually become the same as teh democrats.

you might want to take a look at how the labor goverment in england, or the green party in germany has faired. Once they got big they became the same as teh other parties. And they aren't even majoritarian systems.

I challenge you to offer proof that a majoritarian system always leads to a two party system; there are several European countries in which this is simply not the case.

um... I have no idea what you are talking about. Most European countries are NOT majoritiarian systems. If you have some evidence on a majoritarian country with three strong parties please name one.

It's funny that you mention NAFTA...I wonder what Nader thought of NAFTA...Oh yeah...he's the only one that even took the time to STATE what he though...but then again, the Green Party is just like the Democrats, right?

no offense shane but im wondering about your reading comprehension abilities. Nowhere did say the green party is just like the democrats. I said if the time ever came that they were big enough to become a dominant player in american politics they would have had to change to fit a larger constituancy, IE they would basically become the democrats.

LESS effective if voting is employed simultaneously with them

they aren't really. like I said I voted. But people who are really PRO-VOTING are just as stupid as people who are really ANTI_VOTING. Either way it makes little difference.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

Woah!

apologies. Due to my tiredness I think I used majoritarian and plurality systems backwards. Sorry, switch the terms in my posts. Most of the world runs on a majoritarian system, its the plurality system the U.S. has that leads to two parties.

sorry.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Sarcastro



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3281
 Reply with quote  

I always wondered, why is it so hard for people to vote for the lesser evil. Obviously if all the candidates suck then pick the one that sucks the least, so that you will have atleast helped things out. There's no point in bitching about how "Bush is crap, so he's not getting my vote, but Gore was better but still crap so he won't get my vote either", that's the kind of attitude that allowed Bush (the greater evil, for anyone who got lost) to be president.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:52 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon