Ahem, that should, of course, have said “Bush”.
<grumble> stupid early Sunday morning posts</grumble>
I hate to hijack the Abbie bashing, but I wanted to comment on this.
The thing about ‘informed’ vs. ‘uninformed’ voting, is that there’s no real measure to determine whether or not someone is informed. I mean, some people vote for the guy who’s got the best hair. Certainly not criteria that IMO makes or breaks a presidential hopeful, but for some it is. And, so, they’re informed on the factor that matters to them.
I like to think that I’m informed, but my knowledge is certainly limited. There are others who know a whole lot more than I about both Bush and Kerry; does that make me a dangerous voter? I don’t think so. The right to vote extends to people regardless of how often they read the NY Times or turn on the news in the evening. Imbicles and geniuses both have the right to representation.
NEWS FLASH: Both of the candidates for the two major parties are full of shit. The important thing to concern ourselves with is the policies they will enact when they are in office.
Your link is in error. It should be http://www.diebold.com/
I agree; I certainly don’t think anyone should be deprived of their right to vote. If someone wants to vote for someone based on their hair style, eye color, or culinary expertise, far be it from me to suggest otherwise. I’m not calling for civics exams or anything.
Like I said, the jury is still out (for me, I mean). I’m having a hard time trying to express exactly what I mean by informed voter; I guess I mean someone who is at least aware enough of the issues that this country faces, and votes with an eye towards resolving those issues - whatever their particular views of the issues and resolutions may be.
Good to know that rjung’s tinfoil hat is still firmly anchored in place.
What gets me is that the ultra-LLL’s actually believe that the only way for Bush to win is by some sort of subterfuge. They keep drinking their own Kool-Aid. (If you hang around nothing but people with your opinions, you begin to believe that your opinions are the majority. Though they may be, you have no outside reference to be sure.)
But don’t worry, rjung, if (when) Bush gets re-elected, you’ll get yours when the Dems attempt to impeach him over Abu-Graihb.
No, you miss my point. I don’t know what the hell you’re raving on about. False hope? Melt down?
My point was utterly non-partisan. My point was just a cynical dig at ALL politicians.
I just love it when the Bushlings think that nothing will change between now and the election. Polls, at their best, are only a reflection of the electorate at one particular point in time. If you believe they can predict what will happen in 6 weeks, you are more delusional than I thought you were. Still, it will be amusing to flog you with this ill-advised boasting as the polls wax and wane in the coming weeks.
Who says it’s the only way? As with any critical system, multiple redundant solutions should always be in place. Rigged election machines with known security problems and admitted partisan CEOs is merely one part of the plan.
And if you truly believe the Republican Party won’t resort to subterfuge to try and win the election, then you’re even dumber than I thought.
Is this the Pit? Really? GOOD
Oh. My. Fucking. God. I can’t believe they still allow you to post, rjung. You do NOT do credit to your side. “…merely one part of the plan.”??? Holy shit. Like there is a deliberate, conspiratorial plan in place to rig the election? Holy fucking hell. The REPUBLICANS didn’t hire A THOUSAND FUCKING LAWYERS “just in case.” That sounds more to me like an attempt to shanghai the election through the courts rather than the electoral process to me - definitely underhanded!
But…
I don’t actually think the Dems are planning that. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if it’s a really close election, and the hired lawyers start tying up all kinds of state results in the courts, then I might change my opinion…
Sheesh…
(folks, does he REALLY believe this conspiracy shit??)
Yes, yes she is. Not in any legal or binding sort of way, but in a philospohical one. If people can’t be bothered to exercise their ability to make their preferences known, then they really should shut up when things don’t go their way. And the issue is not whether they voted for the person they want to complain about - it’s whether they particpated in the process at all.
Yes, they have a right/duty to speak up when they think something is wrong in Denmark. However, it undercuts their position when they don’t/didn’t take the steps to prevent such wrongdoing from occuring in the first place. And if they really feel strongly about it, they should take more active steps (i.e. joining a campaign, writing letters, campaigning themselves, etc.). That’s what the democratic system is about - not just sitting around bitching and moaning about the state of affairs.
Zog_10, just because it annoys you doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it (complain, that is).
‘Participating in the process’ is well and good, but that process also is in place to allow all people to have a voice, both in the polls and out in the world. Saying that not participating forfeits one’s right to complain does nothing but strangle political speach. And, since we all benefit from political speach and we all benefit from the fact that everyone is allowed to criticize the government, I think your idea that philosophically one shouldn’t speak out is fatally flawed.
I don’t know who all here on the boards voted last election, for example, but I’d say that despite a lot of junk many of us have benefited by political discussion here, regardless of the voting status of the members. And, the mere fact that they exercise their right to criticize the government helps to reinforce that right.
I am. What fucking idiot votes for a guy on his hair? I know these people are out there. We need to find them and remove them from the decision making process.
As much as I urge everyone to get out there and vote, I feel it should be recognized that it is every American’s right to not vote as well. This is the beauty of our nation. We can vote or not vote and we can speak freely about politics whether we participate in them or not.
If you wanted to take it to another logical level, a person should not critize whether we go to war or how our troops behave there unless we have participated by sacrificing our lives in the war as well.
And one further, should we not have a political opinion unless we work as a politician?
Nothing to add here, this just cracked me up.
I don’t consider myself an ultra lib, just someone who isn’t getting suckered, but I’ll say this, our track record at predicting the future is better then yours.
Pretty much everything we’d predicted long before we invaded has come true. We knew the would use 9/11 to go after Iraq. We knew they were lying about WMD. We knew that the people of Iraq weren’t going to welcome us as liberators. We knew this was going to drag into a long moneypit shitstorm.
Ugh, this is going to get sooooooo bad.
Let me clarify what I meant then.
I feel that it is a little [strange/hypocritical/backwards] to criticize a politician or political situation if one did not participate in the process that brought the situation about. That is, if there is a politician or a propositon or whatever that I disagree with, then I should exercise my right and vote against it/them.
I do not mean that if you don’t vote you somehow actually or legally forfeit your right to offer oipinions and particpate in the political process. I just feel that voting is an important part of that process and to fail to exercise it undermines in some way any further commentary one might make.
To not do so and then later complain seems silly to me.
“I don’t like George W. Bush but I didn’t vote in the last election”*
Well, why not? If you don’t like Bush, then vote against him. If you don’t like either candidate, vote for a third party. I’ll grant that often (especially in National elections) it feels like you’re choosing between two evils, and not voting for a candidate you agree with. Which of course makes it harder to choose when neither candidate appeals.
*Bush used as an example only. Not meant to indicate party affiliation.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong and, unfortunatly, sometimes that happens, but didn’t the majority of the people that voted in the 2000 Presidential Election actually vote for Al Gore. Someone tell me voting is more than a TOKEN priviledge.