If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   "The Case for Not Voting." Apparently it boils down to being too busy   (slate.com) divider line 474
    More: Asinine, Lena Dunham, false choice, Biden  
•       •       •

6662 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Oct 2012 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-26 04:02:26 PM

DECMATH: God Is My Co-Pirate: every single adult has the responsibility to decide what issues matter the most to them, and which candidate aligns most closely with their own views.

Okay I'll bite with this link to http://www.isidewith.com/. Hope they can keep up with the traffic.


it says i could go either libertarian or green at 71% match for both
 
2012-10-26 04:03:35 PM
Remember, you owe it to your tea party to vote November 7th!
 
2012-10-26 04:04:16 PM

FormlessOne: Done in one, honestly. The very idea that there is, somehow, a case for not voting is ludicrous. Without a vote, you have no true representation - even "conscientious objection" to the railed electoral process is pointless unless you add your nudge to the electoral shove needed to change the direction of that juggernaut.


Ha ha. You think you have representation.
 
2012-10-26 04:05:49 PM

Honest Bender: Really? Because if you pay close attention, you'll notice that the garbage truck pulls up, dumps all the containers in the back of his truck, and drives it to the landfill where it's all dumped into the same shiathole.


Maybe in your rinky-dink, Podunk it does, but not in my County.

Entirely different trucks.

Perhaps you should exercise your franchise and vote in some folks who can Get Shiat Done?
 
2012-10-26 04:06:30 PM

roddack: SilentStrider: There are two acceptable reasons not to vote.

You're under age, or you're six feet under. Thats it.

3) You are uninformed and will just casting a random ballot because it is your "duty"


Should Some People Not Vote
 
2012-10-26 04:06:52 PM

MoronLessOff: ZeroCorpse: No matter who you vote for, the SAME PEOPLE will be running the world. The President is a celebrity face

[upload.wikimedia.org image 548x429]


The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they're not.

/"You can sing to my cat if you like."
 
2012-10-26 04:07:49 PM

MoronLessOff: ladykills82: Guess what the 'write-in candidate' option is for?

Steve Rodgers.

ladykills82: CruJones: I'm not voting because I live in Texas, so I won't affect the Presidency, and Im not from here and honestly don't know enough about the local elections to make an informed decision.

All I do know is the names of two candidates my TV constantly tells me not to vote for, but never who to vote for. I did consider the idea of voting against whoever does the most attack ads, simply out of spite. Things also seem pretty ok in this city, low taxes, decent schools, good economy, etc. so I'm gonna let this cycle slide by without my input.

You could take the time to become informed. Just a thought.

This. OTOH, trying to sort through the muck raking and constant exposure to political ads can be tiresome.


I could, and I will for the next one in two years, but as I said, things are going well actually, and I don't feel the need to interfere. I just simply pay very little attention to local issues, and to be honest, while less important on a large scale, I actually find local politics a little harder to navigate. There are so many judges, comptrollers, and ordinances that I'm simply too busy/lazy to do my due diligence this year. I'm not claiming its ideal. I should do the research, it's just not gonna happen. If there was an important senate/gubernatorial race, etc I'd do it.
 
2012-10-26 04:17:18 PM

Pertifly: I'm not being an asshole, I promise, but do you think the two party system is just going to magically go away? Then you can swing by and vote for your perfect candidate? We have to make the change happen, not just sit by and watch these pricks run our country into the ground.


Thank you for not being an asshole :)

I know it won't disappear overnight, but how is voting going to fix it? A proportional electoral system similar to the UK would be more along the lines of what I desire but what politician, Democrat or Republican, desires that system? Or any change to the system such as removing the electoral college?

Any change to the system breaks their dominance of the political spectrum. Not since the days of Cincinnatus would a politician willingly give up power for the good of the people. I have no faith that either party particularly cares about our system of electing representatives or president, neither have mentioned anything close to it unless they are butthurt about the election (See post 2000 election when suddenly people wanted to do away with the electoral system).

ladykills82:

Guess what the 'write-in candidate' option is for?


Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?
 
2012-10-26 04:18:02 PM
People have been saying: vote for the third party, it will change things next time. For the past 50 years. Free beer tomorrow.
 
2012-10-26 04:19:57 PM

The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?


There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com
 
2012-10-26 04:23:48 PM

GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com


It said I should vote for Gary Johnson. Still think its important for me to get to the polls?!
 
2012-10-26 04:25:51 PM
I'm voting by not voting.

Look, the people who make TV shows realize that in order for a show to succeed it must appeal to the widest possible audience. It can't be too smart, to edgy, too racy, too this-or-that. It has to be middle, average. As a result, the vast majority of what you find on TV is garbage.

This is the same process a candidate employs in order to get elected: appeal to the largest number of people by embracing the largest possible average. As a result, candidates (and the elected officials they become) are equally garbage.

Government by fiat of the lowest common denominator seems dumb to me, and I've no interest in participating in the problem when I could be trying to think of a solution instead.

Voters of America: why do you care? You won't miss my one vote anyway.
 
2012-10-26 04:26:10 PM

GanjSmokr: Find out who you actually agree with on the issues: http://www.isidewith.com


Neat. Jill Stein (95%) followed by Barack Obama (87%). I don't know how they decided I don't side with Obama on healthcare issues, so I'm actually calling it a tie. If I lived in a swing state, I could now vote Obama with a clear conscience. Since I don't, Green might get my vote. Mostly just to show the Democrats that there's votes that they risk losing by letting themselves be driven to the right.

I agree with Romney on no major issues. No surprise there.
 
2012-10-26 04:28:57 PM

thisisarepeat: GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com

It said I should vote for Gary Johnson. Still think its important for me to get to the polls?!


Yes.

If he gets 5% of the popular votes, the Libertarian party will be entitled to matching federal funds (about $90 million) from the Federal Government next presidential election.

So again, YES I think it's important for you to go "throw away" a vote on Gary Johnson. ESPECIALLY if you agree with his platform...
 
2012-10-26 04:29:01 PM

MrBonestripper: Government by fiat of the lowest common denominator seems dumb to me, and I've no interest in participating in the problem when I could be trying to think of a solution instead.


Drinking and masturbating are not the same as thinking of a solution.
 
2012-10-26 04:29:12 PM

thisisarepeat: GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com

It said I should vote for Gary Johnson. Still think its important for me to get to the polls?!


Yes. Gary Johnson at 5% would do a great deal of good for the country.

Also, apparently I side with Jill Stein on almost everything except immigration, which I side with Mitt Romney on. So there you go Mitt, I'm bipartisan.
 
2012-10-26 04:30:37 PM

ZeroCorpse: FlashHarry: shiat like this just makes my blood farking boil. what farking arrogance. what farking laziness. what farking entitlement. when millions live under oppressive dictatorship around the world, to not exercise your sacred right of suffrage is just farking disgusting.

Oh, shut up.

I was extremely politically active for years. Before I could vote legally, I volunteered for political causes. From 18 onward, I voted in every election-- even the little local ones that everyone else ignored-- Because I had the idea that I was making some sort of difference.

And maybe in those little local elections I was making a difference. But in a Presidential election? A national election? I've learned better in the 23 years since I first filled in a ballot.

No matter who you vote for, the SAME PEOPLE will be running the world. The President is a celebrity face chosen by the true powers-that-be, and we cannot vote for or against those powers-that-be. They run the world as they see fit, and placate the rest of us with hollow elections that have ZERO effect on the big picture.

You say it's laziness, arrogance, and entitlement for me not to vote. I say it's pure, 100% childish naivety that motivates you to vote.

Here's what going to happen when the next Presidency begins: NOTHING DIFFERENT. Oh, sure, they'll say they're making changes, providing new possibilities, and pumping hope and sunshine up our asses, but then the bureaucratic process will kick in-- as it's designed to do-- and we'll get the same as we've always gotten from the powerful men in charge of this world: Just enough to keep us arguing with each other, participating in their economic design, and consuming like the complacent slugs our species became about two thousand years ago.

You say I'm an arrogant, lazy, entitled person for making the decision to opt out of the farce that is our election process. I say you're a naive fool who might as well be voting for unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows, for all the good it will do you to vote. Further, I suggest that by participating and swallowing the lie they feed to you, you're in denial about your true effect on the state of the world.

I voted. I cheered for voting. I marched around proud that I "participated" in the process, and what did it get me? A lot of wasted energy. No advancements or improvements to the way of life for anyone. Wars, on schedule. Presidents who, once in office, don't seem to be anything more than middle-ground placeholders who are-- upon sharp evaluation-- no different than the last twenty or thirty men to hold the office. Senators and Representatives who live like kings and spend little time actually doing anything to fix the world because the point of their existence is to argue and stalemate and put on a show for the proles.

You want arrogance, laziness and entitlement? Look in the mirror, sir. You think by driving to a church or school gymnasium, filling out a sheet of paper, and then watching the results (if they're even really counted) as if it's a sports competition and you're cheering for your favorite team makes you better than people who have decided, once and for all, that they won't be suckered by this dog & pony show? That's arrogance, right there. You're proud of doing more to accomplish nothing. Congratulations. Enjoy your well-earned "I Voted" sticker. I hope it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, because that about as much "change" as you'll get from it.

The President, Congress, the Senate-- they're all ultimately powerless to make significant changes. They bow to their masters, just as you do. The only difference is that they get paid handsomely to be the face of the lie, while you get jack-shiat besides that warm, fuzzy feeling from "participating" in the process of maintaining the lie.

You might as well be biatching about people not voting for the winner of American Idol, for as much effect as politicians truly have on the world.

I'll vote again when we can vote the plutocrats and corporate overlords out of power. They're the guys in charge, and they have been since long before either you or I were born. Of course, since they maintain this whole show for the likes of you, and you're not likely to ever admit that you're being manipulated into a false sense of security instead of truly making a difference, the likelihood of the true lords of this planet being removed from power is hovering at about one in a trillion.

Do enjoy the "big finale" to the variety show this November. I hope it gives you a deep feeling of satisfaction. For me, it's yet another pile of horseshiat that was meant to distract me from the way things really are, and for the first time since 1989, I'm not participating. I'm done being suckered.


Your newsletter...subscribe.
 
2012-10-26 04:30:58 PM

cheesewheel: Wow, I can't believe there are so many non-vote defenders here.

Try living in a country that doesn't allow its citizens to vote, then you'll understand how much power and influence you have. To throw your vote away is the most anti-democratic thing you can do.


I view it as abstaining from the vote, which would still be participating in the voting process. Yes/No/Abstain. I dislike the options provided, and don't trust that either party (or any current independent party) will serve the best interests of the country rather than padding their own legacy. Blind acceptance of the current options isn't much of a choice past 'that guy or this guy'.
 
2012-10-26 04:31:32 PM

thurstonxhowell: MrBonestripper: Government by fiat of the lowest common denominator seems dumb to me, and I've no interest in participating in the problem when I could be trying to think of a solution instead.

Drinking and masturbating are not the same as thinking of a solution.


Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, when I'm done playing with my lever, I'll have something good to show for it, and that puts me in a much better solution-finding frame of mind.
 
2012-10-26 04:33:17 PM

GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com


Ever consider I might be an Anarchist? Or a Socialist? Or a Trotskyist? Or some other set of beliefs and issues that can't be accurately pigeonholed into our "Big tent" view of American politics?
 
2012-10-26 04:33:43 PM
For some, not voting equals not participating in a sham. The corporate/elite/rich/1-percent control both parties. There is no choice, it's a 1-party system.
 
2012-10-26 04:35:22 PM

The Southern Logic Company: GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com

Ever consider I might be an Anarchist? Or a Socialist? Or a Trotskyist? Or some other set of beliefs and issues that can't be accurately pigeonholed into our "Big tent" view of American politics?


Yes, I did consider those options. And many more that you probably don't want to know about...

There still might be a candidate for you... did you even bother to answer the questions on the site?
 
2012-10-26 04:38:08 PM

GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: GanjSmokr: The Southern Logic Company: Who do I write? What candidate represents my views? Is it better to go vote and write in myself than to not vote at all?

There's an easy way to find that out.
http://www.isidewith.com

Ever consider I might be an Anarchist? Or a Socialist? Or a Trotskyist? Or some other set of beliefs and issues that can't be accurately pigeonholed into our "Big tent" view of American politics?

Yes, I did consider those options. And many more that you probably don't want to know about...

There still might be a candidate for you... did you even bother to answer the questions on the site?


At work atm, blocked by the filter.
 
2012-10-26 04:38:48 PM

Hobo Jr.: Alabamian voting for Obama.

I might as well throw my vote away.


Kentuckian voting for Obama.

I share your pain.
 
2012-10-26 04:40:20 PM

daveUSMC: Let me preface this by addressing everyone that parades war veterans around as vote guilt trips: Go fark yourselves with rusty light sabers. I've spent the last 9 months of my life in this shiathole they call Afghanistan "earning" my right to vote or not. That said... begin manifesto:

I'm not against voting per se, but I am against voting for people I don't actually want in power. And I will never feel bad for staying away because of that. So, unless there is someone on the ballot that I would legitimately like to see in power, I feel no duty to vote. Otherwise, I'm just empowering and lending legitimacy to a systematic and self-propagating turd farm of politicians who do more and more to erode my other rights and freedoms. Even if I vote for a lesser of two evils, I have still become a part of a statistic that now is used as justification for bad policy; "President X has a mandate to bomb the shiat out of Canada because 55% of the population voted for him." I won't be part of that 55%

I am also against encouraging people to vote just for the sake of voting. Intellectually and socially, it pats people on the ass for simply "letting their voice be heard" no matter how out of tune and terrible their voice is. It's like giving everyone on Little Bobby's soccer team a participation trophy, even though they spent the entire game eating grass and chasing butterflies while the other team scored 50 goals, kicked Bobby's puppy, and got to third base with Bobby's mother's too for good measure. The simple act of voting is not noble (nor ignoble); it is not to be commended (or scorned) any more than eating a bowl of froot loops for breakfast. HOW you vote is the measure of your accomplishment of your civic duty.

I guess if someone has taken the time to carefully sift through the layers of horseshiat and actually believes that the D or R nominees are really someone they WANT in power (vice doing it to prevent the other guy from winning), fine. By all means, go and vote for th ...


That was beautiful.
 
2012-10-26 04:42:10 PM

The Southern Logic Company: At work atm, blocked by the filter.


You should take it when you're home. For entertainment purposes if for nothing else.
 
2012-10-26 04:44:14 PM

daveUSMC: I'm not against voting per se, but I am against voting for people I don't actually want in power.


Yeah. Show me someone worth voting for and I'll go vote for them.
 
2012-10-26 04:44:40 PM

lennavan: AllUpInYa: I don't think there's anything substantive to reign in healthcare costs, and making insurance mandatory creates a seller's market. Do you think that ins providers won't collude to raise prices?

If they did, they would either have to spend that increased money on benefits, or return it to people in the form of a check.

The "80/20 rule" in the ACA mandates that health insurers spend at least 80% of their customers' premiums on health services, leaving no more than 20% for administrative costs and advertising. That means if an insurance company spends 78% of the money it collects on health benefits for customers, it has to send rebate checks for the additional 2%.


So, what if they don't fight as hard to keep medical expenses down and/or change the percentage that they cover?

What prevents health ins companies from raising their rates for equivalent coverage, since there doesn't seem to be a cap on healthcare costs?
 
2012-10-26 04:48:45 PM
I work an odd schedule, with 12 and sometimes 16 hour shifts sprinkled into the mix in random unannounced ways. It can at times be very difficult to make it to vote depending on how circumstances are, but I still do it. However, early voting is the best thing since sliced bread. I took my partner, my stepson, and myself to vote last week, we were all in and out in less than 15 minutes. If your precinct has early voting, you have no excuse.
 
2012-10-26 04:49:33 PM

AllUpInYa: So, what if they don't fight as hard to keep medical expenses down and/or change the percentage that they cover?


Then people will move to an insurance company that does.

AllUpInYa: What prevents health ins companies from raising their rates for equivalent coverage, since there doesn't seem to be a cap on healthcare costs?


I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you asking what stops hospitals and insurance companies from getting together and secretly agreeing to raise rates so hospitals can charge more? Well for one, the government. That'd be illegal. For two, again, people can move to an insurance company that has lower rates for equivalent coverage.

We've gone far off the point. I only argued Obamacare addresses the issue of bankruptcy and subsequent to that Obamacare is good. A public option would be better and single payer would be significantly better.
 
2012-10-26 04:50:38 PM

2headedboy: For some, not voting equals not participating in a sham. The corporate/elite/rich/1-percent control both parties. There is no choice, it's a 1-party system.


Really?

I used to think like that, when I was young and naive. Back in 2000 I saw no difference between Bush & Gore. I didn't trust Bush, and some stuff Lieberman said made me not want to vote for Gore. I did what I consider one of the great errors of my youth, I voted for Nader.

Do you really think Al Gore would have gone on with the "screw the environment, fark the world" agenda Shrub did? Would Al Gore have gone on the same single-minded zealous obsession with terrorism over most of the 2000's? I doubt it, I really do.

Voting for Obama is a vote for protecting the recently enacted healthcare reform, voting to support LBGT rights, and pro-choice. Voting for Romney is voting for saying "just don't get sick or hurt and you'll be okay", telling LBGT they are sinful perverts who don't deserve equal rights because that would destroy America, and essentially declaring eminent domain on uteruses.

Yeah, they are fairly alike on many issues, but those are also issues there is a pretty broad national consensus on, but there are differences, and if you need Obamacare to have health insurance, are LBGT, or are pro-choice you'd have to have extra holes in your head to sit by and let Rmoney get elected.

The Republican party as a whole has spent the last decade on a slide to the far right, to positions that would have been seen as extreme in the '90's. They spew derp like birtherism (and double down when it's debunked), wacky conspiracy theories and and parrot whatever talking points FOX News and AM talk radio tell them to think.

The two parties were much alike maybe 20 years ago, now we've got a centrist Democrat party and a far-right Republican party, and a center-right President Obama and an etch-a-sketch of Romney that is hard to pin down on most issues. He's like Schrodinger's candidate, outside of a few issues his position exists in a state of quantum uncertainty, and as soon as you know it. . .it changes.
 
2012-10-26 04:54:05 PM

AngryRadio: I work an odd schedule, with 12 and sometimes 16 hour shifts sprinkled into the mix in random unannounced ways. It can at times be very difficult to make it to vote depending on how circumstances are, but I still do it. However, early voting is the best thing since sliced bread. I took my partner, my stepson, and myself to vote last week, we were all in and out in less than 15 minutes. If your precinct has early voting, you have no excuse.


In Illinois they now allow absentee voting for any one. I filled my ballot out last night, mailed it this morning. No fuss, no muss.
I also like it because it gives me the opportunity to research candidates/propositions with the ballot right in front of me. An informed decision for the next Water Reclamation Commissioner is an informed decision, after all.
 
2012-10-26 04:58:20 PM

Silverstaff: Yeah, they are fairly alike on many issues


Specifically, he is focused on "the corporate/elite/rich/1-percent control both parties." No matter who is elected, there will be some favoritism towards the rich.

Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on the wealthy, ban abortion, take away rights from gays, de-regulate the health insurance industry bringing us back to a time with pre-existing conditions denying coverage bankrupting us, de-regulating businesses and increase military spending by $2 trillion while lowering tax revenue by $5 trillion.

Obama wants to lower middle class taxes, raise taxes on the wealthy, allow abortion, treat gays as equal, regulate the health insurance industry and regulate businesses.

But they both will show some favoritism towards their donors in one way or another so both are equal and bad.
 
2012-10-26 04:59:13 PM
DNRTFT

You have two options: One is an oligarch-lover who is pro-war, anti-environment, anti-worker, will do nothing to stop Wall Street's domination, and will cut social security and medicare/medicade. The other one is Mitt Romney.

A vote for any politician is a vote for the system.
 
2012-10-26 05:00:27 PM
I'm for a simple civics test for people who want to vote. Knowing who the Vice President is, branches of government, elementary school stuff. This would help keep out 1. Total ignoramuses, 2. Mentally handicapped adults who have been specifically directed to vote a certain way by a parent or guardian. Not sure that second one is even a thing, but it couldn't happen with a test.

I don't believe in RIGHT to vote. I believe in duty or responsibility to vote. I don't feel it's a responsibility people with a low IQ or no ability to grasp how our country functions should undertake.
 
2012-10-26 05:03:12 PM

ZeroCorpse: No matter who you vote for, the SAME PEOPLE will be running the world. The President is a celebrity face chosen by the true powers-that-be, and we cannot vote for or against those powers-that-be. They run the world as they see fit, and placate the rest of us with hollow elections that have ZERO effect on the big picture.


you think president gore would've nominated alito or roberts to the bench? do you think president gore would've invaded iraq?
 
2012-10-26 05:03:21 PM

RanDomino: e


RanDomino: DNRTFT

You have two options: One is an oligarch-lover who is pro-war, anti-environment, anti-worker, will do nothing to stop Wall Street's domination, and will cut social security and medicare/medicade. The other one is Mitt Romney.

A vote for any politician is a vote for the system.


Once again, it bears repeating that you have no solutions, and the disingenuous way you paint the current administration and its accomplishments is frankly an outrage.
 
2012-10-26 05:04:44 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: I view it as abstaining from the vote, which would still be participating in the voting process. Yes/No/Abstain.


Then go in and officially spoil your ballot. Spoiled ballots send the message. Staying home sends only the message that you'll let them do anything they want to you; you can't be farked.
 
2012-10-26 05:07:12 PM
I'm in Chicago so I'll vote after I die.
 
2012-10-26 05:08:19 PM

roddack: SilentStrider: There are two acceptable reasons not to vote.

You're under age, or you're six feet under. Thats it.

3) You are uninformed and will just casting a random ballot because it is your "duty"


Thats not an excuse. Get your ass informed and get your ass to the voting booth.
 
2012-10-26 05:09:29 PM
Silverstaff
Do you really think Al Gore would have gone on with the "screw the environment, fark the world" agenda Shrub did?

Plenty here

Voting for Obama is a vote for protecting the recently enacted healthcare reform

Which undercut the possibility of single-payer, the only remotely humane option (but we can't offend those precious insurance corporations, now can we?)

voting to support LBGT rights

...to join the military. Oh, joy. Maybe some day, if we're really lucky, we'll see gay cops tear-gassing protestors and beating minorities, gay CIA agents overthrowing third world countries with populist democracies, gay bank CEOs kicking poor families out of their homes... Thank you, Obama!

you'd have to have extra holes in your head to sit by and let Rmoney get elected.

It's an insult to the hard work of thousands of activists that you imply the only alternative to working to re-elect Obama is to "sit around". No, I've seen how it works. We do all the work, and then the Democrats come by and take all the credit, pass some half-ass law that's totally insufficient, knock the wind out of our sails, and then make our activities illegal. fark the Democrats and fark you.
 
2012-10-26 05:11:04 PM
whidbey
Once again, it bears repeating that you have no solutions

Organize with solidarity and take direct action. It's not rocket science.
 
2012-10-26 05:13:48 PM

RanDomino: whidbey
Once again, it bears repeating that you have no solutions

Organize with solidarity and take direct action. It's not rocket science.


No, it's a bunch of hot air and words you're posting.

"Direct action" is supporting the Democratic leadership and not making patronizing comments about how they're worse than the scary right wing shiat we're seeing out of the Republicans.
 
2012-10-26 05:16:51 PM
whidbey
"Direct action" is supporting the Democratic leadership

March forward to a glorious future of permanent 8% (reported) unemployment, 50 million uninsured, and six times as many empty houses as homeless people!

than the scary right wing shiat we're seeing out of the Republicans.

Don't worry, we'll be calling the Democrats 'sane' for proposing the same things in 20 years.
 
2012-10-26 05:20:13 PM
I've always viewed not living in a swing state as having the freedom to vote for whoever is most closely aligned to your views without regret. Seriously, vote green, or libertarian, or socialist or even communist/fascist if you really feel that way, because fark the 2 party system. If your vote isn't counting anyway, make a statement.
 
2012-10-26 05:20:35 PM

RanDomino: "Direct action" is supporting the Democratic leadership

March forward to a glorious future of permanent 8% (reported) unemployment, 50 million uninsured, and six times as many empty houses as homeless people!


It's not going to change by pretending you're above it all, RanDomino.

than the scary right wing shiat we're seeing out of the Republicans.

Don't worry, we'll be calling the Democrats 'sane' for proposing the same things in 20 years.


They'd get a lot more sh*t passed if there weren't attitudes like yours that help Republican extremists get elected, and frankly, taken seriously.
 
2012-10-26 05:23:18 PM

RanDomino: March forward to a glorious future of permanent 8% (reported) unemployment


You do know we're creating jobs and unemployment is currently going down, not staying stagnant, right?

RanDomino: 50 million uninsured


You do know Obamacare increased the number of people who got insurance ranging from getting rid of pre-existing conditions, not allowing people to be dropped coverage for hitting a lifetime maximum and allowing people to stay on their parents health care until they are 26, thus directly providing access to insurance for millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it, right?

RanDomino: six times as many empty houses as homeless people!


You do know Obama has proposed legislation to directly help homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage, right?

RanDomino: voting to support LBGT rights

...to join the military.


You do know Obama did more on LBGT rights than repealing DADT, right?
 
2012-10-26 05:24:45 PM

lennavan: You do know Obama did more on LBGT rights than repealing DADT, right?


I'm guessing "no," Obama is part of the Deaf Machine, or some bullsh*t.

I really sick of having to defend my support to ideologues with no solutions.
 
2012-10-26 05:31:30 PM
whidbey
It's not going to change by pretending you're above it all, RanDomino.

No, but it IS going to change if we start doing more of that shiat OURSELVES rather than relying on a government and economic system that hates us.

They'd get a lot more sh*t passed if there weren't attitudes like yours that help Republican extremists get elected, and frankly, taken seriously.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats say to their radicals "Shut up! You're making us look bad (to the GOP base)!" and the Republicans say to their radicals "Crank it up, if it's between you and us they'll pick us every time!"

Or shall I point to Obama's unilateral removal of Single Payer from the table before it was even demanded by the Republicans? Even if he knew it had no chance, you keep the outrageous demand as a bargaining chip. Obama's not stupid. He knows this. Now tell me, what other possible reason could he have for doing this, hmm?

Or how Obama wanted to keep the troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government refused to grant them legal immunity?

The extrajudicial, unpunished, and unapologetic killing of a 15 year old US citizen in a drone strike last year? "He should have had a more responsible father."

God damn, this just keeps getting easier and easier. If this wasn't so effortless I wouldn't even bother with blind fanatics like you.
 
2012-10-26 05:31:35 PM
There are only a handful of issues that are really, really important in the big picture of things, and upon which these 2 candidates are diametrically opposed.

HUGE Issue (top priority, long-term)... The wealth differential between the top few % and the poors is getting far, far worse and is utterly unsustainable in a free society. It is profoundly, fundamentally unAmerican. And one guy thinks it's just fine like that.

HUGE Issue (middle-distance view)... Supreme Court appointees. Probably 2, possibly 3. Bye-bye porn and gay marriage, and quite possibly abortion rights. Hello expanded rights of corporations to own your private information and run your life. And hello again to being denied health coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

HUGE Issue (nearer term)... Do you want a full-on war with Iran? Yes or no? Because that's the decision you need to make, right farking now.


That's it. Make your choices based on those 3 things, if it's all getting too confusing to you.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report