I just saw the Obama "Hope" poster today and, although it frightens me, I'm seriously considering not voting for a major candidate for President
( Read more... )
Adam, Adam. While I love thee, I'm going to have to kinda echo what spookygrl said, but I want to emphasize it even stronger.
While I support the theory of "A candidate should shine on their own, not just in comparison to the murk of their competition", that's really the type of talk that reminds me of my number one dislike about Reed. Reed's big problem is that while it teaches fantastic things, it teaches fantastic things with zero connection to reality, and hence when one escapes the bubble from Reed, one realizes how useless much of what it taught you was. Theory is fantastic until the crushing reality of the real world comes down upon you.
Sure, a candidate should shine in his own light. However, that's not happening, and you have a couple choices. You should weigh the option of each choice.
Choice 1: Vote McCain. This is an instant DQ for me, for so many reasons. He's useless and evil. He's shown himself to have no interest in America: the system at all. He wants into office and then if it happens he'll sit down and figure out what to do if he gets there and it will likely be whatever will likely place him there for term #2.
Choice 2: Vote Obama. Obama's not perfect. Not by a long shot. He has lots of silly ideas that won't work, and a few ideas that we don't like. He also has a lot of ideas that we do like, and whether real or not, I've actually heard more straight up ideas of things he wants to try than I've heard of things actually getting DONE by a president in my lifetime. Whether anything comes to fruition or not, I have no idea, but I have the sense he will actually try to do it, unlike McCain, who I imagine would, like Bush, kick his feet up on the desk and plan his next golfing trip to Texas.
Choice 3: Vote for some independent who "shines". Again, great in theory, but utterly useless in practice. You may as well not go vote. A third party will never be elected president in this election, and probably not for another 5-10 elections at minimum. America is full of stupid blind-following people. That's not going to change any time soon. This independent may be the perfect president. Who cares? They're not getting elected. You know that, deep inside. Hence, a vote for a third party person just sends a message. The message you want to send may be "I'm voting for the right person" but what it really sends is "I'm not in touch with reality".
As a general rule of mine: if you vote independent, when one of the main two win, you're not allowed to utter so much as a peep of complaint at any of their negative policies. You had a choice to vote for or against them, and instead you abstained.
Yes, I consider a vote for an independent abstaining.
"He wants into office and then if it happens he'll sit down and figure out what to do if he gets there and it will likely be whatever will likely place him there for term #2."
I don't agree with that statement being any more true for McCain than for Obama. At least McCain agreed to limit his campaign spending (well, Obama did too but then decided not to go through with it.) I really think both candidates believe so much in the superiority of their administration, if elected, that they'll say and do anything to get elected.
It's a slippery slope argument too; at what point is a candidate far enough from your own viewpoint that you won't vote for them? Would it make sense to vote for a candidate 99% opposed to your views in order to stop one who is 100% opposed? After all, the larger the voter turn-out, the higher degree of legitimacy is bestowed upon the election. Often, the margin by which they win influences how leaders lead.
I also disagree with your take on independents. In pretty nearly every established democracy but our own there are at least 3 major parties. This is a very good thing for a variety of reasons. If we never have the courage to vote for a third party, we will never have viable third parties. Now that's change I can believe in.
You state that voting for an independent is like throwing your vote away because they won't win. Since I'm currently registered to vote in California, using the same logic I could argue that voting for anyone but Obama is throwing my vote away. Since only 8 states are swing states with another 20 considered potential swing states, the logic suggests it's not worth voting unless you vote in one of the 28 states (or if you live in one of the 2 or 3 states that does not use a winner-take-all system.) Clearly it would be pretty awful if no-one in the other 22 states voted.
I'm beginning to think that elections have gone the way of news: they have become a culture of fear. I know people who watch the news and are now afraid to ride escalators or take digital photos of their kids thanks to fear-mongering news reporters. I suspect that no matter which of the two main candidates is elected, the country will continue to bumble along the same path. I refuse to vote for a candidate simply for fear of the opposition.
Welcome to the reality of the United States. It's full of stupid people. Yes, if you're registered to vote in California, it's a given. Yes, if everyone thought that way things would be different. No, they don't think that way.
The logic is as follows: Yes, you're correct, in everything but the 8 "swing states", it's pretty much a given at this point. So, your vote is probably wasted. Congrats. Welcome to the US, where we use an electoral college despite the availability of a true republic if we wanted.
The country is fucked for a while. That's a given. Obama will be elected, then he'll be kicked out in 4 years because he couldn't save the sinking ship and people will think it's his fault. This is the reality of the system.
And yes, I'd vote for the 99% guy instead of the 100% guy. In our modern world where we can throw 700 billion at bankers to try to make problems go away, where they then immediately spend the first million of it on a 2 day "retreat", I'll take what I can get.
The national debt just rose to over 10 trillion. Millions of people are suckered into losing their homes. The world's not a friendly place. We pick the candidate that blows the most sunshine up our ass, and hope it works out.
While I support the theory of "A candidate should shine on their own, not just in comparison to the murk of their competition", that's really the type of talk that reminds me of my number one dislike about Reed. Reed's big problem is that while it teaches fantastic things, it teaches fantastic things with zero connection to reality, and hence when one escapes the bubble from Reed, one realizes how useless much of what it taught you was. Theory is fantastic until the crushing reality of the real world comes down upon you.
Sure, a candidate should shine in his own light. However, that's not happening, and you have a couple choices. You should weigh the option of each choice.
Choice 1: Vote McCain. This is an instant DQ for me, for so many reasons. He's useless and evil. He's shown himself to have no interest in America: the system at all. He wants into office and then if it happens he'll sit down and figure out what to do if he gets there and it will likely be whatever will likely place him there for term #2.
Choice 2: Vote Obama. Obama's not perfect. Not by a long shot. He has lots of silly ideas that won't work, and a few ideas that we don't like. He also has a lot of ideas that we do like, and whether real or not, I've actually heard more straight up ideas of things he wants to try than I've heard of things actually getting DONE by a president in my lifetime. Whether anything comes to fruition or not, I have no idea, but I have the sense he will actually try to do it, unlike McCain, who I imagine would, like Bush, kick his feet up on the desk and plan his next golfing trip to Texas.
Choice 3: Vote for some independent who "shines". Again, great in theory, but utterly useless in practice. You may as well not go vote. A third party will never be elected president in this election, and probably not for another 5-10 elections at minimum. America is full of stupid blind-following people. That's not going to change any time soon. This independent may be the perfect president. Who cares? They're not getting elected. You know that, deep inside. Hence, a vote for a third party person just sends a message. The message you want to send may be "I'm voting for the right person" but what it really sends is "I'm not in touch with reality".
As a general rule of mine: if you vote independent, when one of the main two win, you're not allowed to utter so much as a peep of complaint at any of their negative policies. You had a choice to vote for or against them, and instead you abstained.
Yes, I consider a vote for an independent abstaining.
Reply
I don't agree with that statement being any more true for McCain than for Obama. At least McCain agreed to limit his campaign spending (well, Obama did too but then decided not to go through with it.) I really think both candidates believe so much in the superiority of their administration, if elected, that they'll say and do anything to get elected.
It's a slippery slope argument too; at what point is a candidate far enough from your own viewpoint that you won't vote for them? Would it make sense to vote for a candidate 99% opposed to your views in order to stop one who is 100% opposed? After all, the larger the voter turn-out, the higher degree of legitimacy is bestowed upon the election. Often, the margin by which they win influences how leaders lead.
I also disagree with your take on independents. In pretty nearly every established democracy but our own there are at least 3 major parties. This is a very good thing for a variety of reasons. If we never have the courage to vote for a third party, we will never have viable third parties. Now that's change I can believe in.
You state that voting for an independent is like throwing your vote away because they won't win. Since I'm currently registered to vote in California, using the same logic I could argue that voting for anyone but Obama is throwing my vote away. Since only 8 states are swing states with another 20 considered potential swing states, the logic suggests it's not worth voting unless you vote in one of the 28 states (or if you live in one of the 2 or 3 states that does not use a winner-take-all system.) Clearly it would be pretty awful if no-one in the other 22 states voted.
I'm beginning to think that elections have gone the way of news: they have become a culture of fear. I know people who watch the news and are now afraid to ride escalators or take digital photos of their kids thanks to fear-mongering news reporters. I suspect that no matter which of the two main candidates is elected, the country will continue to bumble along the same path. I refuse to vote for a candidate simply for fear of the opposition.
Reply
Reply
The logic is as follows: Yes, you're correct, in everything but the 8 "swing states", it's pretty much a given at this point. So, your vote is probably wasted. Congrats. Welcome to the US, where we use an electoral college despite the availability of a true republic if we wanted.
The country is fucked for a while. That's a given. Obama will be elected, then he'll be kicked out in 4 years because he couldn't save the sinking ship and people will think it's his fault. This is the reality of the system.
And yes, I'd vote for the 99% guy instead of the 100% guy. In our modern world where we can throw 700 billion at bankers to try to make problems go away, where they then immediately spend the first million of it on a 2 day "retreat", I'll take what I can get.
The national debt just rose to over 10 trillion. Millions of people are suckered into losing their homes. The world's not a friendly place. We pick the candidate that blows the most sunshine up our ass, and hope it works out.
Reply
Leave a comment