PDA

View Full Version : Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election is...


Tysyacha
05-29-2008, 06:37 PM
Your thoughts? :) Note: If you pick Option 3, please suggest another option besides voting, and that you think would be better than voting, for making changes happen in our country.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 06:50 PM
I don't entirely believe that my vote would be counted (not because there are so many people, but for other reasons), but I will still vote.* If you don't care for the current 'regime,' voting is a great way to protest. Not only is it an act that many gave their lives for over two hundred years ago, but it enables anyone to say "I disagree with the current administration, and this is my way of making a difference." To not vote is to put shame on your country, in my opinion.

*= I would vote, but I can't this election. 2012 is the year for me! :p

mimartin
05-29-2008, 06:52 PM
I’ll vote, I wouldn’t say because it is my civic responsibility and I’ll gladly perform it except I’m forced in the poll if I am definitely going to vote. I vote so that I am not such a hypocrite when I grip about the direction this country is taking. At least I’m trying even if they don’t count my vote. :(

True_Avery
05-29-2008, 07:25 PM
I've noticed a trend that happens around voting season...

People talk less about voting for who they -want-, and more about who they -don't want- in office. I can understand if you don't want a certain person in office, but how many people simply vote for someone because they just don't happen to like the other guy? I dunno, maybe its just me.

I don't particularly feel like voting though. I'm not a fan of Hilary, Obama, or McCain. I'm not going to vote for them simply because they support one party more than the other. Plus, I'm cynical enough to think that they will all screw things up and fix things in their own unique ways.

You can call me unpatriotic. I'd be the first to agree with you.

Rev7
05-29-2008, 07:34 PM
2012 is also the year for me to vote.

When that time comes I will most definately vote.

JCarter426
05-29-2008, 07:36 PM
I picked option three. Not because I think my vote is worthless, but because I think my vote in this election is worthless. All three candidates are equally unfit. :xp: But I probably will vote. Maybe I'll flip a coin. ;)

So, what should you do instead of voting (or in addition to, rather)? Read the constitution. And then get the candidates to read it.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 07:46 PM
I picked option three. Not because I think my vote is worthless, but because I think my vote in this election is worthless. All three candidates are equally unfit. :xp: But I probably will vote. Maybe I'll flip a coin. ;)

So, what should you do instead of voting (or in addition to, rather)? Read the constitution. And then get the candidates to read it.

May I suggest a vote-in?

At Avery: I respect that you don't like any of the candidates. If I had it my way, they'd all lose. Of course, that's not an option (or rather, that's not a reasonable option), and the choice remains the same. I don't like McCain, and if it comes down to it, my 'vote (meaning anyone I influence)' will go to Obama. He seems the lesser of two evils in this race.

RyuuKage
05-29-2008, 07:52 PM
I picked option 3, simply because no matter which candidate wins we're all f'ing screwed...

Achilles
05-29-2008, 07:59 PM
^^^^
How so?

Gurges-Ahter
05-29-2008, 08:08 PM
I picked option 2, because I do feel a responsibility to vote, but I can't stand any of the candidates remaining. So for the first time since I've been eligible, I might not vote.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 08:08 PM
Perhaps he means America as a whole, and not the Presidential Candidates?

At above: If you don't vote, how do you stand yourself when you complain about the President? At least, if you voted, you have the right to criticize the other candidate that won.

Gurges-Ahter
05-29-2008, 08:11 PM
I won't complain about the president. I have never complained about a president. Whether or not I agree with his/her beliefs, he/she is still my president and I will accept that regardless of the person.

Litofsky
05-29-2008, 08:30 PM
I won't complain about the president. I have never complained about a president. Whether or not I agree with his/her beliefs, he/she is still my president and I will accept that regardless of the person.

All the better to you. I, on the other hand, constantly insult the President, and have done so for quite some time now. :p

RyuuKage
05-29-2008, 08:37 PM
^^^^
How so?

one liberal socialist
one more liberal socialist
one angry angry man

not very good options imo...two will socialize the nation and take away most of our freedoms, the other will free the prisoners, open the border to all nations, and continue the now-pointless Iraq war.

EnderWiggin
05-29-2008, 10:31 PM
not very good options imo...two will socialize the nation and take away most of our freedoms, the other will free the prisoners, open the border to all nations, and continue the now-pointless Iraq war.

When has Obama's campaign platform ever been "Obama '08: Taking away most of your freedoms"? I'm not sure what you're implying here. Or rather, I see what you're implying, but I'm not sure why.

About McCain: Isn't this country free? Shouldn't the borders be open to others?

And as for this:

one liberal socialist
one more liberal socialist
one angry angry man

You've got to be kidding me.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-29-2008, 10:50 PM
I have one little voice. By myself, I'm not going to make very much of a difference, although the people in Broward County, FL learned just how important their votes were in the 2000 presidential election.

However, if a bunch of people who share my views go out and vote, all of us together make a difference. Even if our candidate loses, it lets the winner know that some of us didn't agree with his/her ideas, and that might have an impact on their policy-making.

There have been a few elections where I held my nose while pushing the lever to vote, but I voted anyway.

JCarter426
05-29-2008, 11:00 PM
When has Obama's campaign platform ever been "Obama '08: Taking away most of your freedoms"?
No, his platform has been "change we can believe in". Change what? Hmm? Change what? And how? :disaprove

(Not saying the other two are any better. ;))

mimartin
05-29-2008, 11:19 PM
No, his platform has been "change we can believe in". Change what? Hmm? Change what? And how? :disaprove

Perhaps change from taking away our personal liberties in the name of security.

Perhaps change from shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the guise of Home Land Security.

Perhaps change from the partisanship that is destroying this country.

Perhaps change from alienating our own allies.

(Not saying the other two are any better. ;))
I am saying that none can be worst than the person that currently holds the position.

JCarter426
05-29-2008, 11:32 PM
Perhaps change from shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the guise of Home Land Security.
Trouble is, McCain, Obama, and Clinton would all do the same, only under a different guise.

Perhaps change from the partisanship that is destroying this country.
Then what's all this talk I hear about "Democrats uniting"? Both sides are responsible for splitting the country up into two sides.

I am saying that none can be worst than the person that currently holds the position.
You do have a point there. :xp:

Arcesious
05-30-2008, 12:11 AM
In 2012, I'll finally be able to vote too...

As response to what True Avery mentioned, my father is voting for Mccain for the kind of reasons she mentioned:

-He hates Hillary because of the original Clinton Administration's decisions
-He doesn't want Obama because he is a Christian who supports Gay Marriage
-He wants Mccain because he thinks Bush did a great job as president,
-He wants someone like Paul or Romney as Vice President,
-And he hates democrats due to their 'immoral values'... :(

Out of who's left, I'd vote for Obama... Either that, or maybe Hillary isn't so bad... I think I'll go check out her website... I want to have all the facts, after all, and wanting to support Obama on the hunch that Hillary is worse than he is shouldn't be what I use to judge who's better... I'll have to check that out later.
Hopefully next election season we'll have some better candidates, and our voters will have learned a few things from this election...

Totenkopf
05-30-2008, 12:51 AM
If I vote this time, it'll be more as vs than for, as I will have to choose from the lesser of 2 evils (yet again). Guess I'll have to wait and see who the veep candidates are first.

Perhaps change from taking away our personal liberties in the name of security.

Rather in the name of social welfare.

Perhaps change from shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the guise of Home Land Security.
Instead shredding it to form the Nanny state.

Perhaps change from the partisanship that is destroying this country.
Or foist dem partisanship upon us instead of rep.

Perhaps change from alienating our own allies.

to taking orders from them


I am saying that none can be worst than the person that currently holds the position.

Well...........not quite. As bad, yes. However, I grant you he HAS been a disappointment on many levels. :)

Web Rider
05-30-2008, 12:56 AM
I'm porbably closest aligned with #1, I do feel it's my responsibility, but not to society, I feel it's my responsibility to myself. I've really got nobody to blame but myself when things go wrong if I don't make any sort of effort to swing them in what I believe to be a poisitive direction.

MdKnightR
05-30-2008, 01:00 AM
I picked option three. Not because I think my vote is worthless, but because I think my vote in this election is worthless. All three candidates are equally unfit. :xp: But I probably will vote. Maybe I'll flip a coin. ;)


Vote 3rd Party/Independent. If Ron Paul ultimately bails out, that's what I'm going to do.

El Sitherino
05-30-2008, 01:57 AM
Obama supports personal responsibility, and out of all the candidates he's the one whom I agree with the most. Honestly, he does carry some weight, at least charismatically and linguistically.

Hillary I have issues with, even if only for her stance on video games. That's nanny stating a government.

McCain doesn't seem his old rambunctious self. It's a little depressing, he used to be very entertaining to hear on the Daily Show and more vocal news outlets.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 03:29 AM
one liberal socialist
one more liberal socialist
one angry angry man This doesn't tell me anything. Your use of the term "socialist" indicates to me that you probably don't know what it means.

not very good options imo...two will socialize the nation and take away most of our freedoms, How? What freedoms are you concerned about losing under Clinton or Obama?

the other will free the prisoners, I must confess that I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

open the border to all nations, I thought they were already open and had been for hundreds of years.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

and continue the now-pointless Iraq war. Amen to that :)

No, his platform has been "change we can believe in". Change what? Hmm? Change what? And how?At the risk of sounding like I'm mindlessly regurgitating campaign rhetoric:

Changing the politics of division and exclusion.

Voter registration in 2008? Record breaking.
Campaign contribution in 2008? Record breaking.
% of Obama's campaign contributions made by private citizens? 99%

Love him or hate him, that's your call, but you can't honestly say that the man has not accomplished what he set out to do.

RyuuKage
05-30-2008, 03:44 AM
blagh, too much stuff so i'll focus on the only one that matters to me atm (being stuck in California: immigration).

There's a difference between open borders and secure borders. The quote you made regards LEGAL immigration. My problem is ILLEGAL immigration. I'm not saying don't let anybody in; i'm saying don't let them come in without us knowing, and meeting our standards for immigration. If you have no border, you have no country.

and nobody is uniting anyone in Washington, lol

Achilles
05-30-2008, 04:01 AM
blagh, too much stuff so i'll focus on the only one that matters to me atm (being stuck in California: immigration). Hopefully you'll forgive me if I take that as "I don't have any example of freedoms I'm concerned about losing" :)

There's a difference between open borders and secure borders. The quote you made regards LEGAL immigration. My problem is ILLEGAL immigration. I'm not saying don't let anybody in; i'm saying don't let them come in without us knowing, and meeting our standards for immigration. If you have no border, you have no country. Oddly I don't think they had such a distinction when the Statue of Liberty was assembled. :dozey:

Since it sounds as though you're retracting your earlier statement, I'll let the matter drop.

and nobody is uniting anyone in Washington, lolSo the best course of action is to continue the path that we're on? Please explain.

mimartin
05-30-2008, 11:10 AM
Rather in the name of social welfare. Last I checked that did not happen under Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Why would it happen under Obama? Last I checked we had three branches of government that provide checks and balances and a Constitution that limits any one branch of governmentís power. Oh, wait never mind I was in my happy place and forgot about the last 8 years. ;)
Instead shredding it to form the Nanny state. Wow, I did not see that as part of the Obama platform. I actually believe we are in need of Nanny state now. Something about not taking person responsibly by pushing our debt onto future generations makes me look at this country as a bunch of children in need of a good nanny.

Or foist dem partisanship upon us instead of rep. Yes, the democrats are just as much to blame for the partisanship. I would not see things getting better under Hillary Clinton, but Obama has said he will work with the Republican. I just giving him the benefit of the doubt, the same courtesy I gave Bush 8 years ago when I voted for him for the same reason. That worked out well. :rolleyes:
to taking orders from them When have we ever taken orders from our allies. Even in WWII, under a democrat, we did not take orders from our allies, but we did work with them to a pretty successful conclusion.

Achilles
05-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Yes, the democrats are just as much to blame for the partisanship. I would not see things getting better under Hillary Clinton, but Obama has said he will work with the Republican. Yep and considering his track record of doing precisely that, I'd be inclined to think that it isn't empty rhetoric.

mimartin
05-30-2008, 01:50 PM
Yep and considering his track record of doing precisely that, I'd be inclined to think that it isn't empty rhetoric.
Well the fact that Obama is already in Washington gives me hope. Bush had a good record of working with Democrats in the Texas House and Senate, but failed miserably once he got to Washington. In fairness is it really a failure when you donít even try? Also might have something to do with most Texas Democrats in office are pretty conservative.

El Sitherino
05-31-2008, 01:39 PM
A "Nanny-state" is never a good thing. Teach people personal responsibility, don't set up some barriers to protect people from their own idiocy.

The biggest problem with the nation today is that no one actively thinks. The fact that I can say "Critical thinking" and people look at me confused is a sign that things are a bit wrong.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 02:19 PM
Teach people personal responsibilityWho needs to do this? The government? If so, how is that not "a nanny-state"?

Maybe you're suggesting a "tough-love" approach, but I would argue that that's still a nanny-state.

I'm all for a participative democracy comprised of educated citizens, but it seems that not very many others are interested.

PoiuyWired
05-31-2008, 03:43 PM
"A waste of time, because nothing will really change if we vote"

Whoever vote for this option should really think again, really.

Arcesious
05-31-2008, 06:55 PM
I want to beleive that something will change if I vote (come 2012) but I honestly can't beleive that until all this government idiocy ends.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 07:00 PM
I want to beleive that something will change if I vote (come 2012) but I honestly can't beleive that until all this government idiocy ends.The idiocy won't end until enough voters decide that they've had enough. So long as the masses stay home on election night, those with enough ambition to organize will control the agenda. The political process is not going to fix itself.

Arcesious
05-31-2008, 07:07 PM
Yeah, sad thing is, that probably won't happen anytime soon, hence what I just said... :(
If worse comes to worse, it's not like we're in any position to force a change in the government, unless if we can sway the loyalty of the military and those who guard and carry out the orders of those in command... But I doubt it's that bad. Still, I don't trust anyone in the government, and I doubt my single vote counts for anything, what with superdelegates, electoral college, and the presidential capability to enforce martial law. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I've had enough. If the majority has, I don't know, but the majority seems to be pretty gullible...

ForeverNight
05-31-2008, 07:40 PM
It's the bane of all democracies, Mob Rule.

My friend and I get in huge debates about the electoral college (And, I always wish I had a tape-recorder on hand when they start!), he's always saying that its wrong, because it means that you could lose the popular vote, but win the election nevertheless.

Case in point: George W. Bush.

My rebuttal to this, however, is that the popular perception is going to be almost always formed by the mass media, which is no longer center, but left of center. (Debate for another time) And, since most people get their perceptions from this, it means that the mass media will do their best to get who they want in office. Usually through slandering the person of the opposite party, or the incumbent who they hate.

Case in point: George W. Bush.

But, anyway, the way I see it, any vote still matters! The superdelegates/delegates only matter in the primaries (and I've met two people who are dem's who support Hillary, and since most of the people I know are dem's (I live in Minnesota, can't help it!) that suggests that few like her.) so I don't see how the issue of those fit in...

Presidential Capability to Enforce Martial Law... if I recall the Constitution properly, that requires a vote in the... House? (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!) But, if any president did that because he wanted his party to stay in power/he wanted power, than I have a feeling that there would be a revolution!

Also, I also believe that it is not possible under most circumstances to get rid of most parts of the constitution... but I haven't read it in the past year, so I might be wrong.

So, basically what I've been trying to say throughout this muddled mess of a post, is that your vote still counts, even with the Electoral College.

Achilles
05-31-2008, 08:03 PM
My rebuttal to this, however, is that the popular perception is going to be almost always formed by the mass media, which is no longer center, but left of center. (Debate for another time) And, since most people get their perceptions from this, it means that the mass media will do their best to get who they want in office. Usually through slandering the person of the opposite party, or the incumbent who they hate.

Premise 1 - Perception is controlled by the media
Premise 2 - The media "leans to the left" (i.e. is liberal)
Conclusion - The media exerts liberal influence on elections.

If this is true, then please explain the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections?

Presidential Capability to Enforce Martial Law... if I recall the Constitution properly, that requires a vote in the... House? (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!) But, if any president did that because he wanted his party to stay in power/he wanted power, than I have a feeling that there would be a revolution!Bush signed an amendment to the Insurrection Act in 2006 that would have circumvented this, however those powers were repealed earlier this year.


Also, I also believe that it is not possible under most circumstances to get rid of most parts of the constitution... but I haven't read it in the past year, so I might be wrong. Military Commissions Act got rid of the 5th and 6th amendments. Patriot Act has done away with the 4th.

ForeverNight
06-01-2008, 06:06 PM
Thank you for correcting me on those two points, like I said, I might be wrong.

Premise 1 - Perception is controlled by the media
Premise 2 - The media "leans to the left" (i.e. is liberal)
Conclusion - The media exerts liberal influence on elections.

If this is true, then please explain the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections?

Alright, in a nutshell, we are not a true democracy. Bush lost the popular vote in, at least the 2000 election if I recall correctly, I think it might have been both.

Yes, I could have used better wording when talking about people forming their perceptions, but, it still comes across.

~~~
Wow, just re-read my post, very disjointed.

So, in order to clarify what I said earlier, the Mass Media is going to be a large part of the formation of anybody's opinion. That is a given, after all, we trust the media to report the news as it is, right?

So, if the media put their spin on it either way (Left or Right) then that will largely form the people who watch it unthinkingly, (Far too many of those people today it seems), and then that will become the opinion of the people, probably a majority of the people.

Then, coupled with a true democracy, that would sway the vote to the candidate that most closely comes into accord with the Mass Media's views. That is my argument for why the Electoral College is a necessary evil, not a spiel on the Media controlling our entire way of thought, I'm sorry if it looked that way.

Hope this helps with my disjointed post.

Edit: Decided to look up the Military Commissions act, the first non-lobbyist group I could find about it is wiki... Wiki, Military Commissions Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

Looking over it, I don't see how it violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment... Please, do explain this, probably best in a PM or different thread. I'm curious.

Achilles
06-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Thank you for correcting me on those two points, like I said, I might be wrong.I wouldn't consider it a "correction" (since you admitted that you were unsure), but I'm glad I could help.

Alright, in a nutshell, we are not a true democracy. Bush lost the popular vote in, at least the 2000 election if I recall correctly, I think it might have been both. You're correct, it was the 2000 election that you're thinking of. Even if I were to concede on this point, I'm afraid you're still left to explain the 2004 election.

So, if the media put their spin on it either way (Left or Right) then that will largely form the people who watch it unthinkingly, (Far too many of those people today it seems), and then that will become the opinion of the people, probably a majority of the people.I'm inclined to agree with this, however this still doesn't explain the elections if the media has a liberal bias. Acknowledging that there is a conservative bias (or at the very least least acknowledging that media sources that have a conservative bias have gained in popularity) might explain it though.

If you're really interested in learning more about the debate, I'd recommend reading this (http://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-About/dp/0465001769) as well as whatever book one of our resident right-wing contributors recommends as a rebuttal to my recommendation and then making up your own mind.

Then, coupled with a true democracy, that would sway the vote to the candidate that most closely comes into accord with the Mass Media's views. That is my argument for why the Electoral College is a necessary evil, not a spiel on the Media controlling our entire way of thought, I'm sorry if it looked that way. I don't disagree with your thinking. I question one of your premises and therefore your conclusion, but your thinking itself seems sound.

Edit: Decided to look up the Military Commissions act, the first non-lobbyist group I could find about it is wiki... Wiki, Military Commissions Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

Looking over it, I don't see how it violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment... Please, do explain this, probably best in a PM or different thread. I'm curious.If you read the act itself, you'll notice that habeas corpus has been suspended. Either the President or the Secretary of Defense can decide that you are an enemy combatant and then have you shipped to Gitmo (or it's equivalent) for as long as they would like without due process or any of the other rights previously guaranteed under the 4th and 5th amendments. If you need help finding the document or want to discuss the implications further, please feel free to PM me anytime. :)

I hope that helps.

ForeverNight
06-02-2008, 07:36 PM
Yeah... I already have a book picked out for the Right perspective (Bias, can't remember the author), so this should make a good balance for it. Thanks!

Oh, and it does help.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Yeah... I already have a book picked out for the Right perspective (Bias, can't remember the author), so this should make a good balance for it. Thanks!Hehe, Alterman discusses Bias (the author's name is Goldberg, FWIW) in his book. So that should be a real treat for you :)

Oh, and it does help.Great to hear it. Take care.