| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2010 03:17:45 PM · #126 |
and by not voting you are allowing those in power to "buy" votes from the ill informed, which will be uncontested by the rest of us.
I used to feel the way you did, but im watching something happen here in NJ. We actually elected a republican after years and years of democratic rule who has the balls to stand up and clean this state up. Im surprised some union leader hasn't order a hit on him yet.
Once and while you get lucky. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:22:00 PM · #127 |
| Interesting thing about Matt Cone's paragraph, you can add the word "not" in front of the word voting, and it still "works." |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:27:10 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Interesting thing about Matt Cone's paragraph, you can add the word "not" in front of the word voting, and it still "works." |
Funny enough yes, it does work linguistically, although I don't agree with the message still working.
As it is, you really do legitimize the system by voting... And it's pretty clear that your 1/N (where N=number of voters) influence is not significant, only when you agree with a majority is there any reason to vote at all, and I'm afraid that I do not agree with any majority when it comes to politics, therefore voting is an assinine waste of my time that ends up adding legitimacy to the elected officials.
Let me ask you this:
What would happen if we had an election that had 1% turnout? How do you think that would affect things?
ETA: And how apathetic do I appear? I assure you I don't suffer from apathy, I suffer from disgust, anger, disbelief, etc, but not apathy.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 15:40:16. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:43:08 PM · #129 |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 03:46:22 PM · #130 |
That's the best part isn't it? It's a bit disgusting how they portray a non-voter here. Basically the cartoon says that all non-voters have no real interest in anything, except Sponge Bob Square Pants, and that they don't have any legitimacy, so that anything they have to say is now "Whining"
How fucked is that? So, let's see, I can either legitimize the current system through participation, or everything I say is now reduced to pedantic "whining".. I think you have enough intelligence to see this is just more propaganda and indoctrination.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 15:48:05. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:12:10 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, let's see, I can either legitimize the current system through participation, or everything I say is now reduced to pedantic "whining".. I think you have enough intelligence to see this is just more propaganda and indoctrination. |
It looks to me as if you have been indoctrinated to not act. To allow your disgust with the way things are to not do the one thing you can do to change it. You have been propagandized into irrelevance.
The system does not need to be legitimized. It is the shaggy beast we have allowed it to become. It will continue on the same path it is on, if you fail to put your hand on the steering wheel. Do you think that the flaws in the system will be shamed out of existence if enough people throw up their hands in disgust? The voiceless will go on not being heard, whether they have been forcibly muted, or if they choose to remain silent in protest.
Any objections? Hearing none, the motion passes. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:15:39 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Jac:
Government is an engine that needs oil (votes) and we all know that when an engine runs out of oil it seizes up. |
I would beg to differ. The oil that greases the cogs of government is money. Without large gobs of cash, you have very little chance of being elected past local office.
Recent SCOTUS rulings have insured that there will be no lack of money, hidden and open, to ensure that the interests of capital are well represented. What percentage of the populus votes makes absolutely no difference to how the government works, it is only when voters who do show up to cast their ballots are no longer representative of public opinion at large, that the lack of votes makes any difference.
If your interests can not be represented by large donations, the only hope you have of being heard is by voting. If you have interests that do not always agree with large donors, your sitting at home on election day will not cause any problems in the smooth running of the well oiled machine.
Voting breeds apathy? That is the basset canard! Not voting is the purest manifestation of apathy! Go ahead turn your back on the country's problems, keep your hands clean. |
That SCOTUS ruling pretty much paints a bleak future. If only we could go the other way. In other words, ban all funding from elections. This would include corporate, individual and national/local party contributions as well as the candidate's own personal fund. Campaigns would have to run solely on the funds made available by the government, which should probably be slashed so that it basically only covers for essential things like travel expenses, etc. Party affliations would become a thing of the past and since there would be few if any tv ads, candidates would have to agree on more debates so as to make a case for themselves. Maybe then we would see more diversity in thought and some actual solutions brought forward. It would be a welcomed change from the career politician musical chairs game that we refer to as elections.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:29:54 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by yanko:
In other words, ban all funding from elections. This would include corporate, individual and national/local party contributions as well as the candidate's own personal fund. |
This is the most logical solution I think. If you can't run an efficient campaign with 100,000$ from the govt, how will you manage trillions of govt money?
The supreme court has birthed a corruption monster of corporate proportions with the new unlimited buying of influence, err, campaign contributions.
Cause lets face it, when you give a huge pile of money to a politician, its not to get a great shot for "wildlife XXL" you want to influence government for your own profit.
If you gave me even 10,000$ I sure would appreciate it, and feel obligated to at least listen to you.
How would I feel for 100 million? Hmmm.... Ooh Yea Baby!!! I'm gonna run as a Republican for... something! (Can I keep the suits?) |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:42:22 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Jac:
Government is an engine that needs oil (votes) and we all know that when an engine runs out of oil it seizes up. |
I would beg to differ. The oil that greases the cogs of government is money. Without large gobs of cash, you have very little chance of being elected past local office.
Recent SCOTUS rulings have insured that there will be no lack of money, hidden and open, to ensure that the interests of capital are well represented. What percentage of the populus votes makes absolutely no difference to how the government works, it is only when voters who do show up to cast their ballots are no longer representative of public opinion at large, that the lack of votes makes any difference.
If your interests can not be represented by large donations, the only hope you have of being heard is by voting. If you have interests that do not always agree with large donors, your sitting at home on election day will not cause any problems in the smooth running of the well oiled machine.
Voting breeds apathy? That is the basset canard! Not voting is the purest manifestation of apathy! Go ahead turn your back on the country's problems, keep your hands clean. |
That SCOTUS ruling pretty much paints a bleak future. If only we could go the other way. In other words, ban all funding from elections. This would include corporate, individual and national/local party contributions as well as the candidate's own personal fund. Campaigns would have to run solely on the funds made available by the government, which should probably be slashed so that it basically only covers for essential things like travel expenses, etc. Party affliations would become a thing of the past and since there would be few if any tv ads, candidates would have to agree on more debates so as to make a case for themselves. Maybe then we would see more diversity in thought and some actual solutions brought forward. It would be a welcomed change from the career politician musical chairs game that we refer to as elections.
|
So instead of tending toward MORE freedom of speech (read usage of money) you would tend toward more restriction, until ONLY the government could spend money on politics. What an incumbent joy THAT would be, eh? Less freedom for me, more freedom for Rep. Bob to direct the money that makes the race. Nah. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:42:35 PM · #135 |
Is it safe to listen to the radio again? Have the ads stopped?
$3.5 Billion spent on campaigns. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:42:39 PM · #136 |
Dang phone ....
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 16:43:32. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:45:27 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, let's see, I can either legitimize the current system through participation, or everything I say is now reduced to pedantic "whining".. I think you have enough intelligence to see this is just more propaganda and indoctrination. |
It looks to me as if you have been indoctrinated to not act. To allow your disgust with the way things are to not do the one thing you can do to change it. You have been propagandized into irrelevance.
The system does not need to be legitimized. It is the shaggy beast we have allowed it to become. It will continue on the same path it is on, if you fail to put your hand on the steering wheel. Do you think that the flaws in the system will be shamed out of existence if enough people throw up their hands in disgust? The voiceless will go on not being heard, whether they have been forcibly muted, or if they choose to remain silent in protest.
Any objections? Hearing none, the motion passes. |
LOL.. Let's see, if I steer right we hit a wall, if I steer left, we hit a tree, if I don't touch the wheel we're going to slam into another car.... yeah, steer away there buddy... I'm just going to crawl into the backseat here and hope that the impact kills the idiots steering.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 16:46:33. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:48:01 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Dang phone .... |
At least it wasn't another robo-call from a candidate. It is safe(er) to answer the phone again. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:52:52 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Recent SCOTUS rulings have insured that there will be no lack of money, hidden and open, to ensure that the interests of capital are well represented. |
Note that such money isn't always used to sway the politicians, but also the voters themselves. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 04:59:22 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
LOL.. Let's see, if I steer right we hit a wall, if I steer left, we hit a tree, if I don't touch the wheel we're going to slam into another car.... yeah, steer away there buddy... I'm just going to crawl into the backseat here and hope that the impact kills the idiots steering. |
Really, how do you get out of bed in the morning? If all possible paths you see must lead to our inevitable doom I hope you are making good progress on you survivalist compound.
Me, I'll go with Clinton's old saw " There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America". You go hide in the back and wish for the death of those of us in the front seat trying to steer, we will try to keep you safe. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:20:54 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Jac:
Government is an engine that needs oil (votes) and we all know that when an engine runs out of oil it seizes up. |
I would beg to differ. The oil that greases the cogs of government is money. Without large gobs of cash, you have very little chance of being elected past local office.
Recent SCOTUS rulings have insured that there will be no lack of money, hidden and open, to ensure that the interests of capital are well represented. What percentage of the populus votes makes absolutely no difference to how the government works, it is only when voters who do show up to cast their ballots are no longer representative of public opinion at large, that the lack of votes makes any difference.
If your interests can not be represented by large donations, the only hope you have of being heard is by voting. If you have interests that do not always agree with large donors, your sitting at home on election day will not cause any problems in the smooth running of the well oiled machine.
Voting breeds apathy? That is the basset canard! Not voting is the purest manifestation of apathy! Go ahead turn your back on the country's problems, keep your hands clean. |
That SCOTUS ruling pretty much paints a bleak future. If only we could go the other way. In other words, ban all funding from elections. This would include corporate, individual and national/local party contributions as well as the candidate's own personal fund. Campaigns would have to run solely on the funds made available by the government, which should probably be slashed so that it basically only covers for essential things like travel expenses, etc. Party affliations would become a thing of the past and since there would be few if any tv ads, candidates would have to agree on more debates so as to make a case for themselves. Maybe then we would see more diversity in thought and some actual solutions brought forward. It would be a welcomed change from the career politician musical chairs game that we refer to as elections.
|
So instead of tending toward MORE freedom of speech (read usage of money) you would tend toward more restriction, until ONLY the government could spend money on politics. What an incumbent joy THAT would be, eh? Less freedom for me, more freedom for Rep. Bob to direct the money that makes the race. Nah. |
Try reading it again but this time take the blinders off. The government wouldn't be spending anything. The candidates would be spending tax payer money that is already set aside for this. It would make it a fair race. You know what Obama had suggested he would do but changed his mind when he saw how much he could raise and McCain called him out on it. I'm sure you remember that. By reducing the amount of wealth needed to run more candidates would be able to take part, i.e. more voices would be heard, not less. So basically the opposite of what you said.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:26:10 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
LOL.. Let's see, if I steer right we hit a wall, if I steer left, we hit a tree, if I don't touch the wheel we're going to slam into another car.... yeah, steer away there buddy... I'm just going to crawl into the backseat here and hope that the impact kills the idiots steering. |
Really, how do you get out of bed in the morning? If all possible paths you see must lead to our inevitable doom I hope you are making good progress on you survivalist compound.
Me, I'll go with Clinton's old saw " There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America". You go hide in the back and wish for the death of those of us in the front seat trying to steer, we will try to keep you safe. |
Oh how noble of you...
Clearly you have a decent skill with rhetoric, but your logic suffers... Should I thank you for keeping me safe by voting for your local corrupt politicians? Well, I'm afraid I don't really think I owe you any thanks.
Tell me, if you would, how your vote yesterday kept me safe, as I'm a bit puzzled by that statement, and think you're just spouting off the same spoonfed BS I've heard a thousand times before. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:40:34 PM · #143 |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 05:46:02 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Should I thank you for keeping me safe by voting for your local corrupt politicians? Well, I'm afraid I don't really think I owe you any thanks. |
I never expected any. I'm not looking out for you as an individual, my only concern for you is that you are riding in the same ship of state that carries my daughter. If said ship of state does end up on the reef, I will bend all my efforts to keep her safe, and try not to let your cries of "I told you so, I told you so" cut me too deep.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:02:53 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Should I thank you for keeping me safe by voting for your local corrupt politicians? Well, I'm afraid I don't really think I owe you any thanks. |
I never expected any. I'm not looking out for you as an individual, my only concern for you is that you are riding in the same ship of state that carries my daughter. If said ship of state does end up on the reef, I will bend all my efforts to keep her safe, and try not to let your cries of "I told you so, I told you so" cut me too deep. |
Again, very noble and honorable, but tell me how voting has any effect on my safety, or the safety of this nation? I see the two parties as being synonymous, and since I know that one of the two will win, whether I vote or not, then I see my vote only endorsing one of the bad choices, and as such I refuse to put my endorsement on either.
I mean, if you're really committed to this whole "safety" thing, I would suggest making real contributions to this nation's security, like buying less fuel, and investing your share of effort into the development and production of alternative energy. Both of these make real differences by reducing our nations dependence on hostile nations, perhaps you can stop buying products that are made outside of the USA (admittedly VERY hard to do now..), along with a thousand other great things that a person can do, not one of which IMO is voting..
I'm just not buying your rhetoric on this, voting does not keep me safe or help the nation or ensure good leadership, or instill fear in our representatives, or anything else positive, it simply keeps you satisfied, feeling like you've had your say, when in reality, you have had no influence, and have only contributed to the legitimization of the current system.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 18:03:37. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:04:30 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I voted against Obama |
That's odd, I was under the impression he wasn't on the ballot...
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 18:04:41. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:15:40 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I voted against Obama |
That's odd, I was under the impression he wasn't on the ballot... |
He might have meant democrats and or those who supported Obama policies. Although I could be wrong. Frankly, it's very hard to distinguish who didn't support Obama's policies since so many did. I mean, you have republican John Boehner, a face of the tea party movement and our new speaker of the house, crying and pleading for support of the bailouts when GWB started them and then cried and pleaded just a few months later begging to stop them when Obama continued the policy. So in regards to bailouts it was a vote FOR Obama.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 18:17:13.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 06:32:31 PM · #148 |
| Anyone else surprised this hasn't made it to Rant yet? |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 07:02:23 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Anyone else surprised this hasn't made it to Rant yet? |
I was literally just now wondering that myself. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 07:25:46 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Both of these make real differences by reducing our nations dependence on hostile nations, perhaps you can stop buying products that are made outside of the USA (admittedly VERY hard to do now..), along with a thousand other great things that a person can do, not one of which IMO is voting... |
I had a choice for a vote for senator the other day.
One was a person who had become president of a company and chosen to change the slow and steady dynamic of a great local company that hired form within. She moved all their manufacturing to China and India. She cut 30,000 local jobs and increased the company profit and made a tidy bonus for herself. She was proud of what she had done and was a proponent of keeping the current tax laws in place that encourage such off shoring of jobs.
Her opponent is deeply flawed as a senator, but opposes such off-shoring, and sees no reason tax dollars should be spent to encourage it. So I voted for her.
And ya, Im ranting, so ill quit. |
|
