metza jambles
Dumb votes, this is what campaigning has become; on the surface voters with no concrete understanding of politics who vote on emotion. If you try to do the research, hop on your laptop and sift through each candidates legislature, voting record, or floor speeches, I can safety assume that probably 5 percent of readers can translate the jargon into something senseful.
On the ballot today, each proposition listed what your 'yes' or 'no' vote meant. On the pamplet everyone received weeks prior, they gave an argument for and against each vote, and each argument simply disputed the other. One side: your taxes will increase if you vote yes, on the other: your taxes will not increase if you vote yes. So who is right? How can any average American who bullshitted their way through a mild history education really make sense of who is right, and what is right? Only few people can make educated guesses on what each side means. No where is it going to tell you the utmost truth about either side, because frankly, there isn't a truth; merely two sides arguing on hypotheticals, and unless you are one of the few who moved on to get doctorates in political science you can't personally weigh the pros and cons. But for majority (i use that word with cynicism) none of this jargon translates, thus we rest our opinions on the glossy campaign put before us through practiced televised debates, hype speeches, and the opinions of people in our environment.
I'm one of many who feel weary from this campaign, exhausted from trying to disassociate from what is trendy to vote for, and really do my research, because bottom line, we have two people with two courses of action that in all actuality could both work. I don't think either candidate has a course of action that will completely destroy our country, though one may work better than the other. but this is not what they instill in us during the campaign, they use fear appeals to persuade us, making us motivated to vote on account of fear, a hypothetical fear that none of us can really conceptualize.
I seem to feel, from 50,000 feet looking over, allll detail aside (and hopefully political bias), the candidates look at America in two different perspectives.
McCain sees America as a hardworking, free market society that should give opportunites to anyone to make as much money as they possibly can. He sees us as a strong militant force, a sturdy rock over other countries. He sees tradition in America, he sees the 50's.
Obama sees America as an evolving value. Free market to him has encouraged the kind of competition necessary to keep us innovative and moving, but has produced a greed and corruption that occurs when there is no end in sight for gains, but rather more and more to be had. He sees a respected country that may have gone too far in an individualistic sense, and should be brought back to the level neighborly caring that helped him when he was growing up. He sees judicial activism, interpretation of constitution for modern american values, because 'we the people' are not the people of today.
A lot of voters have voiced their opinions, one I thought was telling: a man admitted he was utterly confused about the campaign, and rests his vote in whichever candidate makes him feel personally satisfied; satisfied meaning a positive attitude, maybe some hope, for who knows what. He simply stated that overall, Obama made him feel good, and that is all he will run with in the booth on election day. I think that may be an extreme case, but still worth thinking about.
On the ballot today, each proposition listed what your 'yes' or 'no' vote meant. On the pamplet everyone received weeks prior, they gave an argument for and against each vote, and each argument simply disputed the other. One side: your taxes will increase if you vote yes, on the other: your taxes will not increase if you vote yes. So who is right? How can any average American who bullshitted their way through a mild history education really make sense of who is right, and what is right? Only few people can make educated guesses on what each side means. No where is it going to tell you the utmost truth about either side, because frankly, there isn't a truth; merely two sides arguing on hypotheticals, and unless you are one of the few who moved on to get doctorates in political science you can't personally weigh the pros and cons. But for majority (i use that word with cynicism) none of this jargon translates, thus we rest our opinions on the glossy campaign put before us through practiced televised debates, hype speeches, and the opinions of people in our environment.
I'm one of many who feel weary from this campaign, exhausted from trying to disassociate from what is trendy to vote for, and really do my research, because bottom line, we have two people with two courses of action that in all actuality could both work. I don't think either candidate has a course of action that will completely destroy our country, though one may work better than the other. but this is not what they instill in us during the campaign, they use fear appeals to persuade us, making us motivated to vote on account of fear, a hypothetical fear that none of us can really conceptualize.
I seem to feel, from 50,000 feet looking over, allll detail aside (and hopefully political bias), the candidates look at America in two different perspectives.
McCain sees America as a hardworking, free market society that should give opportunites to anyone to make as much money as they possibly can. He sees us as a strong militant force, a sturdy rock over other countries. He sees tradition in America, he sees the 50's.
Obama sees America as an evolving value. Free market to him has encouraged the kind of competition necessary to keep us innovative and moving, but has produced a greed and corruption that occurs when there is no end in sight for gains, but rather more and more to be had. He sees a respected country that may have gone too far in an individualistic sense, and should be brought back to the level neighborly caring that helped him when he was growing up. He sees judicial activism, interpretation of constitution for modern american values, because 'we the people' are not the people of today.
A lot of voters have voiced their opinions, one I thought was telling: a man admitted he was utterly confused about the campaign, and rests his vote in whichever candidate makes him feel personally satisfied; satisfied meaning a positive attitude, maybe some hope, for who knows what. He simply stated that overall, Obama made him feel good, and that is all he will run with in the booth on election day. I think that may be an extreme case, but still worth thinking about.