Enjay Posted October 8, 2008 JohnnyRancid said:I don't see why you would want to let stupid people run the country when you have as much oppurtunity as them to say what you think is best for the country. Honestly, it's people like you (and not just you, anyone who thought it was a good idea to not vote) generations ago who let stupid people become our candidates. What gives you the impression that you will get better results by sitting down and watching the outcomes instead of DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT? So, voting for one of the stupid people is better than standing up and saying "all you guys are so stupid, none of you are worth my vote"? For me, it's not. I can say, hand on heart, that I went to the polls and told the government, and all the other candidates that they weren't good enough. To me, that is a vote, it is speaking out and it is something that gets counted and recognised. I agree, however, that simply not voting is a different thing. That merely gives the message "I can't be bothered, so do what you like". That's a whole different ball game. 0 Share this post Link to post
exp(x) Posted October 8, 2008 What the hell is so bad about raising taxes for stuff like education and health care? As a student, I cannot afford to pay for health care out of pocket, and what little money I do have is coming from loans (making my dept-to-income ratio approach infinity). Considering how completely neglected and uninviting higher education is in the US, it's no wonder the average American is an idiot. Libertarianism is only a good idea if there isn't such a discrepancy in socioeconomic classes. 0 Share this post Link to post
John Smith Posted October 8, 2008 exp(x) said:What the hell is so bad about raising taxes for stuff like education and health care Raising taxes is always bad, dontcha know. Most of the people I know are solidly conservative and this is basically their argument, that nothing good ever came from raising taxes. I think this is mostly the ideology of the very short sighted, who can't perceive any immediate benefit to them, just less money they make per paycheck. 0 Share this post Link to post
exp(x) Posted October 8, 2008 The only good thing that would come from not having high taxes is the inability to wage war, but since all of the budget goes towards the military anyway, that would leave no money for things that actually benefit people (members of the military-industrial complex excluded). 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted October 8, 2008 Yeah, I don't get these people who are opposed to taxes. I mean, how do you think the government even operates? True, the IRS is pretty fucked up (I hate how they take like half the money I earn away then I have to fill out forms to prove I deserve 90% of it back, and if I fuck up they'll just keep the money or even fine me), but still that doesn't mean we should abolish all taxes. A little reform is what we need. EDIT: Also, see my title. 0 Share this post Link to post
Haloless0320 Posted October 8, 2008 @JohnnyRancid:I agree with you,majority of americans are stupid.But the only reason they're stupid is because they like to turn a blind eye to the current events and act like "They know what theyre doing up on capital hill!"Of course they know what theyre doing,making deals with crooked lobbyists and lining their pockets tax payers money. @MYK:Just so you know,you know what AIG did with the money that was given to them($85 billion + another $37 mil I believe)The CEO's went to a big luxury resort in Florida to recieve spa treatmentsand manicures.If you still feel that I'm inhumane or "Stupid" maybe you should research just how deep we are in the shit. Danarchy:I don't belive all taxes are evil.I know that's how we can fund schools,Health Care,etc.But taxes that are ridiculously high aren't for the good of the people. So all in all I place my vote for the lesser of two evils,Cthulhu...wait I mean McCain.(Originally I was going for Ron Paul) 0 Share this post Link to post
exp(x) Posted October 8, 2008 Haloless0320 said:So all in all I place my vote for the lesser of two evils,Cthulhu...wait I mean McCain.(Originally I was going for Ron Paul) So we can go to war with Iran the second Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes fun of McCain? Having a president with a world-renowned temper doesn't seem like a good idea to me. 0 Share this post Link to post
DooMAD Posted October 8, 2008 Haloless0320 said:@MYK:Just so you know,you know what AIG did with the money that was given to them($85 billion + another $37 mil I believe)The CEO's went to a big luxury resort in Florida to recieve spa treatmentsand manicures.If you still feel that I'm inhumane or "Stupid" maybe you should research just how deep we are in the shit. If that had something to do with the government, then you're voting for the party that allowed it to happen. Well done. 0 Share this post Link to post
kristus Posted October 8, 2008 Enjay said:Worried that your voice won't be heard? Do you have the concept of a "spoiled ballot" in the US? In Sweden you can make blank votes for this very reason. Haloless0320 said:This is the way I see it... Obama wants to raise taxes...speaks for itself ... If Obama wins we have to pay out more taxes so the dregs of society can recieve help for their "Inability" to work. ... Actually, Obama wants to lower taxes for the poor-middle class citizens and only raise it for those making >250000$ a year. And I don't care what you think. That's a shit load of money. And it's not so dregs can live the easy life (unlike anyone making 250000$ annually). It's so poor people too can enjoy the benefits of not dying from pneumonia, or go to school so they can learn how to not be so poor. 0 Share this post Link to post
ReFracture Posted October 8, 2008 kristus said:Actually, Obama wants to lower taxes for the poor-middle class citizens and only raise it for those making >250000$ a year. And I don't care what you think. That's a shit load of money. And it's not so dregs can live the easy life (unlike anyone making 250000$ annually). It's so poor people too can enjoy the benefits of not dying from pneumonia, or go to school so they can learn how to not be so poor. What drives me insane is how whenever I talk to my dad about this (he's 100% pro-McCain) he goes on about the bad things obama wants to do.. yet EVERYTHING he mentions is just shit that is said in either pro-mccain ads or things McCain himself have said. 0 Share this post Link to post
John Smith Posted October 8, 2008 In complete fairness the vast majority of people who live on welfare in this country are not interested in bettering themselves, they just want government money because they have a false sense of entitlement. That said you wont find anybody outside of trailer trash louisiana or ghetto detroit running on a platform of raising the amount of money the government puts into welfare, so its not as if the extra money would go into that. Possibly something that stupid or stupider, but not that specifically. 0 Share this post Link to post
kristus Posted October 9, 2008 While I am sure Obama will find a lot of stupid things to do with money. His primary ideas have been getting the american people public health insurance and schools/colleges. Which is hardly stupid or "wasteful" as McCain likes to put it. Speaking of Wasteful. McCain are still pimping that freedom fighting war thingamajong over in Iraq that costs a nice juicy (wasteful) 10bn$ a month. 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Marine Posted October 9, 2008 exp(x) said:Considering how completely neglected and uninviting higher education is in the US, it's no wonder the average American is an idiotThat's a given. Idiots vote Republican, so to perpetuate themselves, the Republican Party will do everything to keep higher education out of reach so they can remain in power. I'm amazed by the number of retards convinced that Palin could handle any leadership role let alone VP. Fuck her. Hate fuck her. 0 Share this post Link to post
alexz721 Posted October 9, 2008 So...much...misinformation...in...thread... *explodes* 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Marine Posted October 9, 2008 Oooh yeah baby, grandpa loves it when you talk dirty 0 Share this post Link to post
GreyGhost Posted October 9, 2008 Whoever replaces Bush in the White House will either have to raise taxes or slash expenditure in order to keep government debt from rising to levels where foriegn banks start redeeming Treasury Securities and rushing for the exits. If that happens the current financial meltdown will look like a storm in a teacup. 0 Share this post Link to post
VileSlay Posted October 9, 2008 Enjay said:So, a high turn out with a lot of spoiled papers is seen as a vote of no confidence. Accomplish anything... In the grand scheme of things, not just a hell of a lot, no. The guy who was always going to get in still gets in. However, as I said above, the number of spoiled papers do get counted and published. Also, if you ever get into a conversation about governments and someone says "well you guys voted them in" or "what did you do about it" saying "no I didn't" and "I turned up and told them they were all shit" is so much better than "oh, I just didn't bother". doesn't work like that here. the concept of a vote of no confidence doesn't seem to exist here in the US. should you intentionally spoil your ballot and that comes up in conversation you would be told that you have no right to say anything bout the administration since you didn't really vote. 0 Share this post Link to post
Richo Rosai Posted October 9, 2008 VileSlay said:doesn't work like that here. the concept of a vote of no confidence doesn't seem to exist here in the US. should you intentionally spoil your ballot and that comes up in conversation you would be told that you have no right to say anything bout the administration since you didn't really vote. what if you went in there n took a dump on it lol? 0 Share this post Link to post
40oz Posted October 9, 2008 Your vote doesn't matter to anyone if you hand them a spoiled paper. It gives no reference to what you prefer in a candidate, and thus the vote poses no bias toward any way of working things. Congress learns nothing by your reaction and will continue to carry on with what other people think. Honestly, you don't have the option to get good candidates if you can't dictate which one is any better than the other. It's no different than not voting at all. Imagine the difference between comparing a wad to another wad and simply labeling both wads as "Shit." When you compare two wads, both authors can find out what is good and bad about their wads and they learn to improve in those areas. When you simply tell them their wad is shit as in there's nothing they can do to fix it, they become disheartened and will likely never continue mapping again. Now I see clear enough that you wouldn't mind both candidates resigning and having someone else take their place, but your spoiled vote leaves no record of what you want, so you are pretty likely to be stuck with candidates that are about the same (or worse) as the ones we have now. When I read your arguments, I sense almost a fear of being biased in one direction. Both republican and democratic sides have their goods and bads, and in the event where the candidate's bads become apparent in popular culture during their presidency, you fear the mistake of making a decision that wasn't absolutely perfect. You need to be confident in your decision making so that when those "You voted for him" replies come in, you can say "well even if it sucks, it's still better than the other candidates plan." 0 Share this post Link to post
hardcore_gamer Posted October 9, 2008 I REALLY hope Obama wins. Palin looks to much like a person that views the world in black and white, good vs evil. Plus i don't want another warlord into the white house. Bush has fucked things up enough as it is. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted October 9, 2008 JohnnyRancid said: It's no different than not voting at all. Not really, because you are participating in the process. Not voting may imply you don't care who wins or don't like the system. 0 Share this post Link to post
Death-Destiny Posted October 9, 2008 myk said:Not really, because you are participating in the process. Not voting may imply you don't care who wins or don't like the system. However, the final result is the same, in that your vote is meaningless. Since defaced ballots are simply destroyed and the numbers aren't pulblished, all you gain is the ability to say, "No one was good enough for my vote, so I spoiled my ballot" in honesty. It would still be more beneficial to vote for the guy who you think would wreck the least stuff so that your vote has meaning within the system, IMO. Doom Marine's Media said: MY PUSSY'S SO HOT!!! See, stuff like this is why I don't think McCain can win, because of his VP. Regardlees of what Palin stands for, the first and most obvious thing American's will notice is that Palin is a woman. I just don't think they're willing to give a woman a chance at the highest US office at this point, because they're too uncertain how a women would lead the country since it's never been done before (all other US presidents have been men, obviously.) And furthermore, it's not like she's got a huge following like someone like Mrs. Clinton... I've hardly heard anyone say they like Palin. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted October 9, 2008 They added Palin (a woman who's a new face of sorts) to counter the fact that the other party had something new (a black guy who's a new face of sorts). It seems like a desperate choice. Death-Destiny said: However, the final result is the same, in that your vote is meaningless. Since defaced ballots are simply destroyed and the numbers aren't published, all you gain is the ability to say, "No one was good enough for my vote, so I spoiled my ballot" in honesty. Well, if that is true, your country is fucked up in that respect. In mine invalid and blank votes are counted and generally published by news programs or publications. The percentage of such votes is often cited as a way of showing how much faith there is in the candidates, while not voting (which occurs even though it's mandatory) is more of a sign that people don't care or have no faith at all in the voting process. I vote for the "least of the two evils" only if it's actually good enough, otherwise I tend to vote for small parties that mostly likely or certainly won't win (at least they get some encouragement from it). 0 Share this post Link to post
Haloless0320 Posted October 9, 2008 How about this...either way we're fucked. 0 Share this post Link to post
Cupboard Posted October 9, 2008 How about this...what are you even talking about? We're only fucked because of Bush (plus a changing global economy, but I'm not going to go there). If people actually got involved and LEARNED about the issues, then we wouldn't be in such a bad position. We got where we are today because of ignorance and Republican and Rove induced fear. We can't afford to give up now while we have a chance to fix whose running the country. McCain perpetuates the whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality that makes America look like ass and provokes conflict. He views the world as a dangerous and scary place which really creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, his "league of democracies" idea is laughable. He and Palin would make a scary administration, only slightly better than Bush/Cheney. Unfortunately, they operate under the guise of "change" when really they support most of Bush's policies and attitudes. Please, let's vote for the incumbent party to give us "change". *eye roll* Obama makes a very capable leader. He recognizes that there are many views to problems and is not as dismissive to new ideas or ways of thinking about things. He is very intelligent and is willing to sit down and talk with our enemies instead of giving them the silent treatment. I agree pretty much with all of Obama's positions and I think he's going to be in the White House soon. If anyone plans on voting for McCain because Obama would raise taxes for 5% of the American people, I advise you to go read a book. 0 Share this post Link to post
Haloless0320 Posted October 9, 2008 Obama's a fool,he thinks he can sit down and have a nice heart to heart talk with a leader of a Jihad.Now every religion has it's fanatics that are willing to kill for their "god" and one thing the radical islamic terrorists have demonstrated is the willingness to kill anyone that doesn't fit into that group.If you had been paying attention you would have seen this when they decapitated that reporter with a fucking scimitar.They've already told us their demands,convert to Islam.And I'm sure the American public is totally against this. Afterwards,how long do you think it would take for another attack?Answer me this. After Israel pulled out of Gaza, how long did it take before Hamas proclaimed victory, and then began lobbing rockets over the border at Israel? So far he wants to become friends with the terrorists,pull out of Iraq and leave it wide open for the Jihads and let me see what else?Oh he wants to cut the funding on the missle defense system,that's like bending over and asking to be raped with a nuke. Unilateral disarmament does not work either. If we disarm, the enemy must do the same as well. If they don’t, and we do, they will perceive themselves as stronger, and attack. That is how tyrants in the real world play the game. Don't get me wrong,I would like to see the US pull out of Iraq because of the casualties of war.And I think it sucks that bush dragged us into this,It should have been dealt with covertly and not dragged on until it's an all out war.And I would like to have the same health system that Canada has...but I'm looking at Obama's plans as a whole.A few good ideas but the bad ones ruin the whole thing. But just because I don't want some idiot running the country doesn't mean that I want a Warmongering cowboy as a president either.But right now it's either picking the guy that wants to befriend the guy who wants to paint the wall with my brains and a guy thats all gung-ho for defending the country and pissing off everyone in the process.I want to vote cause not voting isn't gonna help. Personally I'm Marxist,so don't expect me to like our capitalist government at all. 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Marine Posted October 9, 2008 Bush had eight fucking years to push for energy independence from the Middle East. Instead, he pandered to big business oil and squandered the surplus from the Clinton years to wage a pointless war. The correct move back in 2000, when we had the huge budget surplus would've been to R&D renewable energy, creating millions of jobs in the process, give the finger to the Middle-East, and push our economy through the roof. Using that surplus, close the national debt, subsidize higher education, rinse, lather, repeat, and this cycle would've kept America on top of everything. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted October 9, 2008 Haloless0320 said: Personally I'm Marxist, ¿Qué? 0 Share this post Link to post
Belial Posted October 9, 2008 Haloless0320 said:he wants to become friends with the terrorists On par with some of the dumbest comments I've read on YouTube while watching the debates.Haloless0320 said:the Jihads Oh noes, teh Jihads!Haloless0320 said:Oh he wants to cut the funding on the missle defense system,that's like bending over and asking to be raped with a nuke. The only nukes the US are likely to get raped with won't be delivered via ballistic missiles.Death-Destiny said:Regardlees of what Palin stands for, the first and most obvious thing American's will notice is that Palin is a woman. s/a woman/dumb as fuck 0 Share this post Link to post
Enjay Posted October 9, 2008 JohnnyRancid said:Stuff Thanks for the feedback (I think it was aimed at me). I still hold that turning up and effectively voting for "none of the above" is a valid option. I really don't see how voting for "the lesser of two evils" gives the respective candidates more information than what I did. The one that you vote for will never know that you did it because you thought he was slightly less shit than the other guy. He will claim it as a positive affirmation of his policies and say that you made the right choice in endorsing his manifesto. What I did was turn up, show the politicians that I was prepared to make the effort to vote, but none of them were doing what I wanted. The message is: "If you want my vote in future, you'd better change what you are doing. Clearly I'm willing to vote, all you have to do is provide enough policies that I agree with for me to endorse them with my vote." And, as I said, at the last election there was a matter of principal that I felt very strongly about but the candidates I had to choose from had all adopted a stance that was diametrically opposed to my beliefs on the matter. I was angry and felt robbed of my chance to object because who ever I voted for, I was voting for a person who had supported the (as I saw it) objectionable policy. I was not playing it safe, or hedging my bets, or not wanting to commit. Quite the reverse, I wanted to commit but it was the candidates who had removed my ability to do so. I was, and still am, angry about it. The best I could do was turn up and say, none of you are doing it right - noe of you are good enough. To me, voting for candidate #2 because he is bad, but isn't as bad as candidate #1 doesn't give a clear message. The "I don't like #1 so I'm voting for the not-quite-so-bad #2" votes would get lost amongst the "I like #2" votes and would certainly be counted as such (publicly at least) by #2. And that's the difference. A vote for #2 can easily be misconstrued as genuine support for him even if it is actually a protest vote against #1. A vote for "none of the above" clearly is a vote that says "I don't support any of these guys". As I said, in the UK, a spoiled paper is counted, published and recognised. It isn't the same as not bothering to vote and it isn't the same as apathy. It can be used as a protest, it can be recognised as such and my spoiled paper was certainly a protest. However, if such a system isn't available or recognised in the US, or doesn't fit with how people in the US would regard such an action, I can understand that the import of doing it might not seem as relevant as it does to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the spoiled paper is always the best solution. In the past, I have voted for a candidate who I didn't think was that great because I knew that, if the candidate I voted for got in, it would be a bloody nose to the guy I had tactically voted against. And sometimes there is a candidate who I agree with and I will vote for them - and that, of course, is the best situation. However, last time, none of the candidates were acceptable to me and the best I could do was vote for none of them. It wasn't an ideal situation. I would much rather have had the opportunity to vote in someone who I agreed with, but there wasn't anyone available. 0 Share this post Link to post