In a way I don't want to post this because politics can make enemies out of friends, but...

Since SS is a "global" community and I'm a curious person that grew up in a socialist's utopia and moved to the US and read European news every day. I'm curious to know what all you SS members think about the election and the candidates.

Personally, I can't say that I'm overly enthused with any of them.... but I'd love to know what you guys think.

If you do answer, I'd like for you to tell me/us why you think this or that.

PS. Whatever your answer... I won't hold it against you. Unless you LOVE Hugo Chavez or something like that.  

I think South Park said it best. Only douches and turds can suck up enough to get ahead in politics, unless you're someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich and most people think you're crazy. Nevertheless, the choices this year are better than most that have come out of the woodwork these past few years, excluding Billary. I'm also not exactly enthused about the candidates although I'll be voting for sure. The way I see it, if you don't vote, you can't complain and people love complaining about politics. Then again, you can't complain if the person you voted for goes on to fuck up the country. Really, you can only complain if you voted for the guy who lost.

Whatever. My two cents.

I've really never been one to comment publicly on politics or religion, however, Billary and Obama aren't anywhere near left-wing enough for my liking and McCain's just a right-wing POS.

If I was living in the USA the Greens would be getting my vote. Sure they might not win, but I sure as hell wouldn't be part of the problem and vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

    

Who are the "Greens"?  

Here we go.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Who are the "Greens"?

http://www.greenparty.org/intro.php

I was serious.

I understand Chris, but are they on the ticket? Don't they need a certain percentage before we can vote for them...

Is that even someone you can vote for in the general election here?

Ralph Nader was the candidate for the Green Party for many years, and some believe that he garnered enough votes to cost Gore the 2000 election.

If the Libertarians ever got that kind of candidate, it would probably hurt the Republicans, although a good deal of the Independent candidates do this already, in my opinion.

Of course you can vote for the Greens in the seats they're contesting.

Who are you gonna vote for, Pia?

I don't like Obama or Clinton at all for many reasons, and I really and truly don't like McCain. But if I had to vote for one (but I don't...since I'm underage. ehem) I'd vote McCain.

-Chris

I'm not a citizen Chris.

I don't vote in the Swedish elections either. I could, but I don't feel I should since I don't live there.

I'm very politically minded though and follow it all around the world to the best of my ability.  

Quoted from Takeshi Of course you can vote for the Greens in the seats they're contesting.

Not necessarily.  Not all candidates make it on the ballot for every state.

http://www.gp.org/committees/ballot/ballotstatus.shtml

Well, if there wasn't a candidate I liked, I wouldn't vote. Like I said, just because the party I like can't win, doesn't mean I'd be part of the problem and vote for a Democrat or a Republican. I don't like right-wing parties and I don't go in for that pick the best of a bad bunch BS.


    

I think The Simpsons said it best.

The two aliens impersonate the Democrat and Republican candidates and their disguise has just been exposed.

Kang "What are you going to do? It's a two tier state"

Onlooker#1 "I do believe I'll vote for a third party!"

Kang "Go ahead, waste your vote!"

I can't trust any politicians, and therefore I don't vote. I figure you get screwed either way.

I agree with James about South Park. Whoever you're getting is bound to have a certain amount of douchebaggery in him/her.

I live in a country that has a liberal/conservative coalition (that's classical liberal for you silly Americans ) that's slightly to the left of Hillary and Obama in their politics. I'm right wing in Denmark (on most issues) but if I could vote in the US election I'd probably vote for Obama. Politics wise I can live with either Hilary or Obama, but integrity-wise, if I think about who I distrust the least, Obama takes the cake. And he's a brilliant speaker. I measure this by the up-chuck factor (that is how much I wanna vomit in my mouth when I hear a politican speak) where he earns close to zero. Maybe a one or two on MLK day.

McCain I respect too, but I don't agree with him on many social issues (and economic for that matter). But I still believe he has a hell more integrity than any of the other Republican (and Democratic) candidates.

But it surprises me every time people start partisan trench warfare. With unamerican pinko liberals on one side and insane biblethumping intolerant zealots on the other. It's astounding people on each side can view the world in so simplified black/white.

In the past I've voted blank. I don't like politicians and I don't trust them. And I certainly don't feel my views are harbored by any one party, or any one wing. Basically this means that in the US left-wingers call me right wing and right wingers call me left wing.

Quoted from Death Monkey But it surprises me every time people start partisan trench warfare. With unamerican pinko liberals on one side and insane biblethumping intolerant zealots on the other. It's astounding people on each side can view the world in so simplified black/white. In the past I've voted blank. I don't like politicians and I don't trust them. And I certainly don't feel my views are harbored by any one party, or any one wing. Basically this means that in the US left-wingers call me right wing and right wingers call me left wing.

Sure there needs to be a balance between collectivism and individualism, but I don't think Clinton, Obama or McCain are capable of achieving that. So that's why I wouldn't vote for any of them.  

I've voted Republican most of the time.  I don't want to vote for McCain this time around as I think we have to get out of Iraq (and everywhere else) and McCain said he'd have no problem if we stayed there another ten years.  The country will be bankrupt by then.

If Obama gets the nomination, he'll get my vote.  If Clinton gets it, I'm voting for McCain.  Clinton hasn't done anything for New York since she moved here except promote herself and lie.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe If Obama gets the nomination, he'll get my vote.  If Clinton gets it, I'm voting for McCain.  Clinton hasn't done anything for New York since she moved here except promote herself and lie.

That sounds about right.

Quoted from dogglebe I've voted Republican most of the time.  I don't want to vote for McCain this time around as I think we have to get out of Iraq (and everywhere else) and McCain said he'd have no problem if we stayed there another ten years.  The country will be bankrupt by then. If Obama gets the nomination, he'll get my vote.  If Clinton gets it, I'm voting for McCain.  Clinton hasn't done anything for New York since she moved here except promote herself and lie. Phil

I agree completely! I'm so sick of Clinton's whiney butt.

Quoted from Takeshi Sure there needs to be a balance between collectivism and individualism, but I don't think Clinton, Obama or McCain are capable of achieving that. So that's why I wouldn't vote for any of them.

That diatribe wasn't meant especially for you, Chris. I sympathise with your choice. I'd rather not vote than vote for what I perceived to be the lesser of two evils. Which is why P. Diddy's Vote or Die campaign was ridiculous. Voting simply for the sake of voting (versus because you have a conviction or informed yourself about the political issues) makes no sense to me. If a person knows nothing about politics, nothing about any of the issues, you know what, God bless him if he stays home come election day.

Better that than refusing to vote for Obama because they heard he was a muslim terrorist. Or refusing to vote for Hilary because they heard she was a cybernetic organism sent from the future to destroy America. What? It's all over youtube!

Hell, let's up the ante! Abolish democracy right now and put me in charge. People are idiots anyway, they don't what's good for them!

...I digress.

I think voting blank sends a stronger message than not voting at all. At least you'll be saying to whoever is on the ticket that they suck (rephrased of course), not voting just means that a) you're too lazy to move your ass or b) you just don't give a damn (or both) and in either case you deserve what's coming to you.

Quoted from sniper I think voting blank sends a stronger message than not voting at all. At least you'll be saying to whoever is on the ticket that they suck (rephrased of course), not voting just means that a) you're too lazy to move your ass or b) you just don't give a damn (or both) and in either case you deserve what's coming to you.

This I agree with. I think there's a big distinction in not voting and going to the election places and voting blank. I've voted blank the one time I didn't vote for any party.

But voting blank is only useful if you're message is "I've informed myself on the issues and what the parties want to do about them, but I disagree with all you fuckers".

If you truly don't know anything about politics or don't care, then not voting is more honest I think. After all, it is a privilege not a duty.

Actually, voting is not a privilege; it's a responsibility.  You're SUPPOSED to vote.


Phil

Quoted from sniper ...not voting just means that a) you're too lazy to move your ass or b) you just don't give a damn (or both) and in either case you deserve what's coming to you.

As a former resident of Florida, I respectfully point out that you neglected option "C", which is "you have lost all confidence in the system."

Elections in this country have become a well-choreographed charade, with the outcomes largely predetermined.  A few hundred-thousand votes either way actually make very little difference.

What a frickin' screw-job our country got with W.

Quoted from dogglebe Actually, voting is not a privilege; it's a responsibility.  You're SUPPOSED to vote. Phil

Says who?

And what happens if you don't vote? What of the repercussions?

Also the fact that you feel voting is a civic responsibility doesn't negate it being a privilege. The two can co-exist.

Privilege: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor."

Voting is a privilege in a democracy.

Quoted from bert A few hundred-thousand votes either way actually make very little difference.

I think Al Gore would disagree with you on that

Quoted from bert What a frickin' screw-job our country got with W.

Good Lord yes. I wonder if we'll actually recover anytime soon...our nation's long nightmare is almost over.

I think the problem with the current administration is it has basically jumped the shark. Bush's adventures have taken on increasingly zany and unbelievably twists and turns his catchphrases without any zing to them anymore. "Mandela's dead"? The writers must be desperate. They obviously felt they'd shake things up a bit by adding and removing key cast members and getting washed up guest stars like Saddam Hussein to appear.

What's that? The Bush administration isn't a sitcom?

Oh.

While you're supposed to vote, it's not a requirement.  You don't get arrested for not doing it.

Hopefully, with the upcoming election, we'll get a big turnout.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe While you're supposed to vote, it's not a requirement.  You don't get arrested for not doing it. Hopefully, with the upcoming election, we'll get a big turnout. Phil

But where does it say you're supposed to vote? In contrast to having the right to vote.

I'd rather have small turnout of informed voters than a big turnout of idiots.

Actually, voting isn't a right.  Not everyone is allowed to vte; the government decided that.



Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Actually, voting isn't a right.  Not everyone is allowed to vte; the government decided that. Phil

Huh?

Voting isn't a right? Of course it's a right. Something being a right doesn't mean it's an unconditional right. Different societies set different conditions, but the most pervasive one is the age of enfranchisement. Usually in the west it's 18.

Add to that the condition of citizenship and in some countries voter registration.

For the first two, voting is an automatic right granted to all citizens by the same merit. Age. Like how all 21 year olds can buy booze.

So voting is a right by law. Not a duty.

The Americans here can correct me if I'm wrong but in the US doesn't a convicted fellon lose his/her right to vote forever?

Quoted from sniper The Americans here can correct me if I'm wrong but in the US doesn't a convicted fellon lose his/her right to vote forever?

That is correct.  To take it a step further, it varies from State to state, but the right is revoked WHILE they serve their time.

http://www.helium.com/items/826626-right-revoked-constitutionality-felon

Quoted from sniper I think voting blank sends a stronger message than not voting at all. At least you'll be saying to whoever is on the ticket that they suck (rephrased of course), not voting just means that a) you're too lazy to move your ass or b) you just don't give a damn (or both) and in either case you deserve what's coming to you.

Either one of those things doesn't mean to squat to the candiates. Do you really think any three of them would lose sleep becaus e a group of people turned in a blank ballot? Hell no! Politicians don't care about me or you. They care about themselves and how much money they can make, and how many books they can write. That's the bottom line.

Quoted from Pants Either one of those things doesn't mean to squat to the candiates. Do you really think any three of them would lose sleep becaus e a group of people turned in a blank ballot? Hell no! Politicians don't care about me or you. They care about themselves and how much money they can make, and how many books they can write. That's the bottom line.

I don't believe Rob was saying McCain, Hilary or Obama would suit up and jump into the elector-mobile if they had a whiff of someone voting blank. They wouldn't lose sleep over a few people voting for the other side eaither. but if it's a million, if it's ten...

But the point were discussing isn't the practical use of voting blank, it's the symbolic gesture, and the distinction between sitting at home and not voting and then going to the polls and voting for no one.

Hey,

Quoted from Grandma Bear Since SS is a "global" community and I'm a curious person that grew up in a socialist's utopia and moved to the US and read European news every day. I'm curious to know what all you SS members think about the election and the candidates.

I think the election is really interesting, exciting, entertaining. This is also the first election I'm old enough to vote in which I'm sure also contributes.

I'm going to be voting for John McCain(and possibly other, perhaps fraudulent, activities... but don't tell anybody ) I'll also say that I'm going to be enthusiastically voting for him, even though I do personally disagree with some of his positions. I think he's a man of great character and stature(although a bit old and long winded). I'd be proud to have him as my president.  

Which brings me to this: I don't understand why everybody is so disaffected about all the candidates. Is it because they don't share all of-- most of your positions? Maybe I just have lower expectations. Do you really think they're all bad people? I read the douche bag comment and while I generally agree with that, do you really think these guys are that bad? Especially for politicians.

Quoted from death monkey if I think about who I distrust the least, Obama takes the cake. And he's a brilliant speaker.

On the brilliant speaker thing, I’ve gone back and forth on that. He totally blew me away with his Iowa victory speech. I think it was the best delivery of a speech I’ve seen in my lifetime. However, if the last debate he had more hmms and huhs then Bush(at least he didn’t mispronounce words, I guess). He was completely tongue tied. Anyways, I’ve seen days where he’s completely brilliant at speaking and other days where I’m just completely flabbergasted by how poorly he does.

Quoted from Death Monkey But it surprises me every time people start partisan trench warfare. With unamerican pinko liberals on one side and insane biblethumping intolerant zealots on the other. It's astounding people on each side can view the world in so simplified black/white.

Actually, it’s kind of funny, Anne Coutler gave a talk at my school last night and I went. I had a group of bible thumpers sitting on my left( I mean literally one of them I swear had I bible in her hands) and a 7 foot tall guy in drag on my right with che Guevara pins on his backpack. I kid you not.
  

Quoted from Sniper I think voting blank sends a stronger message than not voting at all.

I really don’t get the not voting thing(or voting blank). It seems to me like if you thought one candidate was better then the other, even if it was a lesser of two evils kind of situation , you ought to vote for what you think is best if only to lessen the damage that’s done to your country. If you can’t do what’s best, do what’s better makes perfect sense to me. Do you conduct other parts of your life like that? I’m gonna lose one leg anyway, might as well lose two?

I understand the wanting to voice disagreement and disappointment thing, but not voting is merely symbolic and you remove your voice from the process. Why not instead of removing yourself from the process you work really hard between elections to get your opinion/outrage? heard? It just seems like there are less destructive ways to accomplish the same thing. But then again, ideas are bullet proof...

Although I do agree that if you don’t know anything about the issues you shouldn’t vote. If you are only voting because P. Diddy told you to, then you especially shouldn’t be voting.

Quoted from Pants Politicians don't care about me or you.

Really? I do think McCain and Obama do what they do because they want to do what’s best for the country (perhaps the world). And they do that because they want to do what’s best for the people. I even think that Clinton believes that she would be what’s best for America.

Why else would you want to be president? It’s a pretty shitty job. Fame? Money? Bitches? There are better jobs for those things. The only one that really makes sense is a thirst for power and Obama and McCain don’t really come off as the power hungry type. Clinton? Well, errmm, yeah…

sheepwalker  

Quoted from Death Monkey I don't believe Rob was saying McCain, Hilary or Obama would suit up and jump into the elector-mobile if they had a whiff of someone voting blank. They wouldn't lose sleep over a few people voting for the other side eaither. but if it's a million, if it's ten... But the point were discussing isn't the practical use of voting blank, it's the symbolic gesture, and the distinction between sitting at home and not voting and then going to the polls and voting for no one.

My point is that a gesture is not symbolic unlesses it causes someone to stand back and be like, Whoa! As far as people who don't vote, I don't care, however they better keep their mouths shut about the issues. My not voting they give up their right to have an opinion. On Super Tuesday, we voted to increase property taxes to benefit the school district. It oassed. The next day all of these people were pissing and moaning about it. It was very annoying when I founf out most of the people complaining didn't even vote. Once again...no vote, no opinion!

Quoted from Soap Hands Really? I do think McCain and Obama do what they do because they want to do what’s best for the country (perhaps the world). And they do that because they want to do what’s best for the people. I even think that Clinton believes that she would be what’s best for America. Why else would you want to be president? It’s a pretty shitty job. Fame? Money? Bitches? There are better jobs for those things. The only one that really makes sense is a thirst for power and Obama and McCain don’t really come off as the power hungry type. Clinton? Well, errmm, yeah… sheepwalker

Dude, I can tell you are young, because you still have a positive outlook. Talk to me after you actually paid attention to a few elections. Every election is the same thing, you vote for the lesser evil. Politicians don't care about you. Do they care about their gay constituents enough to vote for gay marriage? Do they care enough about their gamblers to legalize on-line gambling? NO! They care about filling your little head with lies so you vote for them and then they do whatever they want!

IMHO, the goal of most politicians is to get re-elected and they will do anything to make that happen.

Quoted from Pants My point is that a gesture is not symbolic unlesses it causes someone to stand back and be like, Whoa! As far as people who don't vote, I don't care, however they better keep their mouths shut about the issues. My not voting they give up their right to have an opinion. On Super Tuesday, we voted to increase property taxes to benefit the school district. It oassed. The next day all of these people were pissing and moaning about it. It was very annoying when I founf out most of the people complaining didn't even vote. Once again...no vote, no opinion!

What do you mean a gesture isn't symbolic unless it causes a ruckus? The degree of symbolism isn't proportionate with how many people are affected by it. The symbolism of the Chinese student in Tianenmen square who stood in front of the tank would've been no less symbolic had there been no cameras and no audience. I don't really get what you're saying here at all.

Quoted from Death Monkey The symbolism of the Chinese student in Tianenmen square who stood in front of the tank would've been no less symbolic had there been no cameras and no audience.

The only reason you know about that was because of the tv cameras and the audience. Let me rephrase....without causing a ruckus it's a pointless symbolic act having not effect on the outcome of a situation.

Quoted from Grandma Bear IMHO, the goal of most politicians is to get re-elected and they will do anything to make that happen.

Meaning LIE. What does IMHO stand for?

Quoted Text I really don’t get the not voting thing(or voting blank). It seems to me like if you thought one candidate was better then the other, even if it was a lesser of two evils kind of situation , you ought to vote for what you think is best if only to lessen the damage that’s done to your country. If you can’t do what’s best, do what’s better makes perfect sense to me. Do you conduct other parts of your life like that? I’m gonna lose one leg anyway, might as well lose two?

I would say that's a false analogy. In voting blank the third option is not having the amputation at all.

Let's make things interesting and say you had a nazi running against a communist. Would you vote for the lesser of these two evils when you had a choice to vote for none of them? I understand the example is a bit hysterical but the principle applies. If you really feel there are NO ONE in the campaign that's even remotely worth voting for, you should voice that opinion.

Quoted Text I understand the wanting to voice disagreement and disappointment thing, but not voting is merely symbolic and you remove your voice from the process. Why not instead of removing yourself from the process you work really hard between elections to get your opinion/outrage? heard? It just seems like there are less destructive ways to accomplish the same thing. But then again, ideas are bullet proof...

Voting blank doesn't remove you from the process. Staying at home does. If 50 million Americans voted blank that would indeed affect the process, it would do more than just send a signal.

I find in the US especially, because of your two party system (for all intents and purposes anyway), there's this conventional wisdom that a vote on anyone but the two main parties is a vote wasted. Which is naturally only true because people tell you it's true and reinforce the myth.

It's always a dillemma if you should vote strategically or honestly. I've done both in the past. But you know what, if you feel the system is rotten, you shouldn't feed it. You shouldn't settle with the lesser of two evils just for the sake of influence.

Here's my analogy: Imagine you're a cop and find out everyone else on the force is crooked and the orders you're getting are basically serving certain higher-ups and not the people.Would it be better to stay a cop with some influence, if close to none, or to resign and not help support that system.

And yes, that is basically the plot for LA Confidential. And yes, I am suggesting we solve future primaries by holing the candidates up in an old shack and sending kill squads in after them. Whoever survives is prez!

Quoted from Pants The only reason you know about that was because of the tv cameras and the audience. Let me rephrase....without causing a ruckus it's a pointless symbolic act having not effect on the outcome of a situation.

So if people don't know about it it isn't symbolic? Don't you mean it's not symbolic to the people who don't see it. I suppose you subscribe to the no-sound, no-tree theory?

And again, one blank vote has no actual use in determining any outcome. Just like any other vote. But if a number of people came out to vote blank that would mean something.

Quoted from Death Monkey So if people don't know about it it isn't symbolic? Don't you mean it's not symbolic to the people who don't see it. I suppose you subscribe to the no-sound, no-tree theory? And again, one blank vote has no actual use in determining any outcome. Just like any other vote. But if a number of people came out to vote blank that would mean something.

Yes you are correct. If people don't know about it than it's not symbolic. If it's only symbolic to you, then who the hell cares?

A number like an entire state, that would mean something. A 1,000 people wouldn't make a dent!

Quoted from Soap Hands Which brings me to this: I don't understand why everybody is so disaffected about all the candidates. Is it because they don't share all of-- most of your positions? Maybe I just have lower expectations. Do you really think they're all bad people? I read the douche bag comment and while I generally agree with that, do you really think these guys are that bad? Especially for politicians.

Personally I think this selection of candidates is far better than the losers from 2004, so I don't know why some people are so hostile about it.  I don't agree with any one candidate on all of the issues but, contrary to what Pants is talking about, I think of the 3 major ones, Obama seems the most genuine.  Yes, I realize that a politician will do anything to get into your pants, but I also don't buy that every single politician is evil and doesn't give a shit about the people.  It's a much different reality when you're actually in office rather than when you're just running for it.  

Some people consider Herbert Hoover to be one of the lousiest presidents of all time due to how the country was in the crapper during his 4 years in office.  It would be easy to point the finger and say that he didn't care about the people, but out of office he was a genuinely good human being and a good man.  Obviously the presidency doesn't work out for everyone.  We have had a share of punks in office, but we've also had some brilliant folks who did care about the people, like my buddy Teddy.

Hey,

Quoted from pants Dude, I can tell you are young, because you still have a positive outlook. Talk to me after you actually paid attention to a few elections.

Didn't I read on the age thread that you were like two years older then me? lol How many more elections have you "actually paid attention" to?  

I think it's sad that optimistic is interchangeable with naive for you. I really do think that I have the more realistic perspective on this. Show me how everything's going to hell and the system is completely broken. ...Actually, I'm not sure how useful that's going to be. I'm guessing we're both pretty entrenched in our perspectives and if we can't even agree on something this simple it's going to be really difficult getting anywhere.

I'll leave you with this: Is everything perfect? No. Has then been progress since the creation of this country?Yes. In the past 50 years? Yes. In the past 20 years? I think so.  Do you believe that your life is worse then those citizens that lived 50 years ago?      

Quoted from pants Every election is the same thing, you vote for the lesser evil.

Actually, this election for example, I don't think is between a lesser of two evils. I really think McCain's a good guy.

Quoted from Death Monkey I would say that's a false analogy. In voting blank the third option is not having the amputation at all.

I don't understand. One candidate is bad(amputate one leg) and one is worse(amputate two legs). One of them is going to get elected, even if you vote blank. The damage to the country is going to be done even if you vote blank. Why not try and make sure it's the least amount of damage? How is it that voting blank is not having the amputation? It seems to me like not having the amputation choice is more analogous to abandoning the country.

Quoted from death monkey Let's make things interesting and say you had a nazi running against a communist...  If you really feel there are NO ONE in the campaign that's even remotely worth voting for, you should voice that opinion

That's an interesting point though I do think it's a bit of a straw man. But regardless, point taken. That said though, if my choices were between nazis and soviets I'd be doing a hell of a lot more then voting blank...

...So, I guess the answer to my question is you think the system is completely broken and these candidates really are bad people. Or did, I misunderstand you. Were you only advocating voting blank if it was a choice between Stalin and Hitler? Didn't you say you voted blank once? Was your choice between Stalin and Hitler, really?(I'm exaggerating here for rhetorical effect, so I hope we don't get hung up on that. You understand the point of the question right?)  

I still say that in the US, even if you've thought both candidates were bad there has still been a choice between better and worse and the better has always been worth voting for.

After voting for what's better you can voice disagreement and disappointment in more productive ways.  

Quoted from Death Monkey I find in the US especially, because of your two party system (for all intents and purposes anyway), there's this conventional wisdom that a vote on anyone but the two main parties is a vote wasted. Which is naturally only true because people tell you it's true and reinforce the myth.

No, it's true because it's true. And people say it's true for that same reason. If there was a new party that had positions attractive to enough people to win they would win. People vote on issues not based on parties. It may be the case that certain parties get identified with certain issues but that won't last for long if the party betrays the voters by abandoning the issues.


sheepwalker

Quoted from Soap Hands I don't understand. One candidate is bad(amputate one leg) and one is worse(amputate two legs). One of them is going to get elected, even if you vote blank. The damage to the country is going to be done even if you vote blank. Why not try and make sure it's the least amount of damage? How is it that voting blank is not having the amputation? It seems to me like not having the amputation choice is more analogous to abandoning the country.

You have the choice between electing "leg loss 1" and "leg loss 2" and then none of them. YOUR choice is to not have the amputation, that is, not help either evils take office and do damage. I think it's a cop out saying that you have to choose the one who would do least damage to your country, simply for the sake of voting...

Quoted Text That's an interesting point though I do think it's a bit of a straw man. But regardless, point taken. That said though, if my choices were between nazis and soviets I'd be doing a hell of a lot more then voting blank... ...So, I guess the answer to my question is you think the system is completely broken and these candidates really are bad people. Or did, I misunderstand you. Were you only advocating voting blank if it was a choice between Stalin and Hitler? Didn't you say you voted blank once? Was your choice between Stalin and Hitler, really?(I'm exaggerating here for rhetorical effect, so I hope we don't get hung up on that. You understand the point of the question right?)

You did misunderstand me. I was using Stalin/Hitler as an extreme example because these are two people virutally everyone can agree are BAD choices. So I'm saying imagine you feel both candidates will ruin your country...I think it's a strange compulsion to vote for the lesser of two evils simply to be "part of the process". Voting is your voice, and you know what if you vote for a guy you feel is pernicious to the system, because you feel a blank vote is wasted, then you sort of deserve what you get.

Quoted Text I still say that in the US, even if you've thought both candidates were bad there has still been a choice between better and worse and the better has always been worth voting for. After voting for what's better you can voice disagreement and disappointment in more productive ways.

More productive ways than voting? Your assumption is that there are always a better and worse candidate. This might be true in the mainstream but if your views are on the fringe, and you don't believe a candidate will do anything good, don't vote for him.

Quoted Text No, it's true because it's true. And people say it's true for that same reason. If there was a new party that had positions attractive to enough people to win they would win. People vote on issues not based on parties. It may be the case that certain parties get identified with certain issues but that won't last for long if the party betrays the voters by abandoning the issues.

It's true because it's true and people say it's true because it's true? Circular logic much?

Nothing's true "because it's true". There is a truism out there that states that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted, so people don't vote for a third party because they don't wanna waste their vote, which in turn means that if you vote for a third party you will waste your vote. Do you see the chain reaction going on here? Of course matters are complicated further by the "winner-takes-all" system.

It is for instance true that many people who vote democrat are actually alligned with the Green Party, and to a lesser extent Libertarians on the Republican side. That's the problem with the two-party system. In a truly multi-party system would Mitt Romney ever be in the same party as Ron Paul? Or John McCain? Ron Paul is a republican because Libertarians don't get elected President.

Quoted from Pants Yes you are correct. If people don't know about it than it's not symbolic. If it's only symbolic to you, then who the hell cares? A number like an entire state, that would mean something. A 1,000 people wouldn't make a dent!

Listen, I'm not debating whether or not people would "care" or not. I'm saying a thing being symbolic or not has NOTHING to do with how many people are actually there to see it, which is where you seem to be confused...

*wonders if I'm really eating breakfast right now if I'm the only one around to see it...*

Hey,

Quoted from death monkey You have the choice between electing "leg loss 1" and "leg loss 2" and then none of them. YOUR choice is to not have the amputation, that is, not help either evils take office and do damage. I think it's a cop out saying that you have to choose the one who would do least damage to your country, simply for the sake of voting...

???

Yes, I understand that YOUR choice is a rejection of both options, however, option 1 or option 2 WILL BE chosen by the country. So, given that one will be chosen, regardless of whether or not you the individual rejects them, why isn’t it a better option to use your agency to minimize the damage?  

I think we may be getting muddle in the leg amputation example. I used that to make it crystal clear that both options were bad but one was still better then the other. But like I said to your Nazi-Soviet example, I acknowledge that you have a point in the case of two really really evil things.

That said, I can not think of one example of that in American history. I also have a hard time believing that the time you voted blank it was a choice between two real EVILs. But then again I know almost nothing about your country(actually I just learned recently that Greenland is like a state of your’s or something?).

And lastly, it’s not “simply for the sake of voting”. It’s to influence the direction and future of the country such that it will be more positive and your life will be better. It just so happens the when it comes to elections one of the primary means by which to affect the process is voting for a candidate. Voting blank is little more then taking your ball and going home(I know you love the sports analogies).  

Quoted from Death Monkey I was using Stalin/Hitler as an extreme example because these are two people virutally everyone can agree are BAD choices. So I'm saying imagine you feel both candidates will ruin your country.

Yeah, and I acknowledge that in that case you have a point(although like I said before there would be better things to do then voting blank, I would run another candidate). That said, I do still think it’s kind of a straw man because it’s not really representative of what we are talking about. Like, I don’t know where you personally stand on this, but a lot of the people I talk to that share your opinion didn’t vote in Bush/Kerry because they weren’t happy with their choices. Bush/Kerry is not in any way similar to Stalin/Hitler.

Our point of disconnect may be a language issue. For example, if I had to choose between Clinton and Obama for president, both of which I think would be BAD for the country, I would still vote. That said, I do not think either of them would RUIN America.

So, to clarify, like I kind of asked before, do you think this system is completely broken? Are these guys all really that bad? I’m not just talking about this election. Let’s even say the last 50 years.  

Quoted from Death Monkey I think it's a strange compulsion to vote for the lesser of two evils simply to be "part of the process".

As I said above, it’s not merely to be a part of the process, it’s what being part of the process can do for you and your country.

Quoted from death Monkey More productive ways than voting? Your assumption is that there are always a better and worse candidate.

Yes. Better and worse are logically equivalent to less worse and worse. I thought that was clear.

Quoted from death monkey This might be true in the mainstream but if your views are on the fringe, and you don't believe a candidate will do anything good, don't vote for him.

That’s an interesting point, however, even for most on the fringe, one candidate is going to better reflect their values then another. In fact, the only examples I can think of off the top of my head where all the candidates would be antithetical to their beliefs would basically be derivations of anarchism.

Quoted from death monkey It's true because it's true and people say it's true because it's true? Circular logic much?

No, it’s more of a tautology. It’s is true because it’s true. 5 is 5, that’s why I call it five. I say there is an orange in my hand because I have an orange in my hand.

In today’s system with today’s circumstances voting for a third party is going to do next to nothing. That’s why I say it will do next to nothing. I think that’s more the case then the other way around. Otherwise, I basically agree with what you’re saying.

That said, if the Republcan and Democratic party were both taken over by space aliens that wanted to  enslave humanity(as in me’s example from the Simpsons), I’m sure people would be willing to vote for Ralph Nader— maybe—as long as the space alien didn’t promise to lower my taxes.

People vote more on issues then by party. The confusion may be that there of course is a correlation between party and issues.  


sheepwalker

Quoted from Soap Hands People vote more on issues then by party.

Are you sure about that?  I think you're being optimistic.  I'd say that a minority of Americans vote based on issues.  I think a fair number vote by party -"I'm a Republicrat, so that's who I'm voting for!".  Many others (or perhaps even many more) vote based on personality.  Which is fine, except that I think a lot of people are looking for the wrong personality qualities.  Which isn't to say that their values are necessarily different from mine.  But I think that few people actually consider what would make someone a good president.  They want someone with looks and charm and the morals of a boy scout.  It's like voting for the high school class president again, nothing more than a popularity contest.  The only difference this time is that the person actually has a job do to.

Quoted from Soap Hands Hey, ??? Yes, I understand that YOUR choice is a rejection of both options, however, option 1 or option 2 WILL BE chosen by the country. So, given that one will be chosen, regardless of whether or not you the individual rejects them, why isn’t it a better option to use your agency to minimize the damage?   I think we may be getting muddle in the leg amputation example. I used that to make it crystal clear that both options were bad but one was still better then the other. But like I said to your Nazi-Soviet example, I acknowledge that you have a point in the case of two really really evil things.

I think what's missing from the leg example is the moral implication of being part of choosing something "bad". That's why I like the corrupt cop analogy better.

Quoted Text That said, I can not think of one example of that in American history. I also have a hard time believing that the time you voted blank it was a choice between two real EVILs. But then again I know almost nothing about your country(actually I just learned recently that Greenland is like a state of your’s or something?).

You don't have to sympathize. This isn't about you understanding the merits of someone else's definition of "evil". The fact is there are people in the US who genuinely feel the Bush Administration was evil. This is about having the choice between tow PERCEIVED evils, not two objectively proven evils.

The time I voted blank was actually at a transitional periode in my life where couldn't find a party that shared my values, but at the same time I felt no party was an evil. The thing about Danish politics is that the schism in the political spectrum is much narrower than in the US. There's no moral plane at all. the parties only disagree on two things basically: Economics and immigration. So iI voted blank to reflect my ambivalence in not having a preference.

And yes, Greenland is a self-governing Danish province that partakes in electing the Prime Minister. Although they don't care.

Quoted Text And lastly, it’s not “simply for the sake of voting”. It’s to influence the direction and future of the country such that it will be more positive and your life will be better. It just so happens the when it comes to elections one of the primary means by which to affect the process is voting for a candidate. Voting blank is little more then taking your ball and going home(I know you love the sports analogies).

I think you have a sort of romanticized view on voting. You assume that one cadidate will be measurably better than another and therefore you should use your influence to vote for this candidate. But if one feels it's a moral choice, that the pool of candidates every year are the same people, who get there via a broken system, then I think you have a moral obligation to yourself to not take part in something you feel isn't making your country better. Again if someone felt that the distinction between a John Kerry and a George Bush was close to Stalin/Hitler (I use this example because there were actually people who voiced this opinion, and I sort of sympathize ) then voting to "influence" becomes itself a symbolic gesture, while at the same time becoming part of the electorate you make it possible for this system to prevail.

To quote the Simpsons:

When Homer prepares to join in Springfield's annual slaughter of snakes with sticks, Whacking Day, Lisa implores him:

LISA
I beg you. Please don't lower yourself to the mob!

HOMER
Lisa, maybe if I'm part of the mob, I can help steer it in wise directions. Now, where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?

Quoted Text Yeah, and I acknowledge that in that case you have a point(although like I said before there would be better things to do then voting blank, I would run another candidate). That said, I do still think it’s kind of a straw man because it’s not really representative of what we are talking about. Like, I don’t know where you personally stand on this, but a lot of the people I talk to that share your opinion didn’t vote in Bush/Kerry because they weren’t happy with their choices. Bush/Kerry is not in any way similar to Stalin/Hitler.

I would not have voted for either Kerry or Bush, if I could. I might have voted for a third party or I might've voted blank. I will not be part of what keeps getting these people into office. Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian.
Vote to influence things? Seems like by influence can go two ways, and both of them SUCK. So to me the influence argument in this case is a strawman, because if you can't influence things in a  direction that is even remotely close to what you believe then isn't that kind of influence an illusion?

And again, I'm not saying that you can only justfy voting blank in a case where it's nazis VS communists, I was simply using that as an example of two ideaologies most people agre are BAD. If you feel The Free Puppies Party and The Funshine Bears Party are undiluted terrible choices, then the same applies.

Quoted Text Our point of disconnect may be a language issue. For example, if I had to choose between Clinton and Obama for president, both of which I think would be BAD for the country, I would still vote. That said, I do not think either of them would RUIN America. So, to clarify, like I kind of asked before, do you think this system is completely broken? Are these guys all really that bad? I’m not just talking about this election. Let’s even say the last 50 years.

No, I don't think so. But some might. And if they do, they'd be right to vote blank. What I do think is this: In a country where you basically have to cater to 200 million potential voters, 99% of the time the only way you're getting past the primaries is by betraying your ideals (if you have any), lie, make secret arrangements in return for financial backing and stab people in the back. Which is why in 99% of the cases we end up with douche and a turd.

And you know, if you don't like always having to choose between a turd and a douche, you shouldn't keep giving them your vote. That's the kind of mentality that keeps them in business.

Quoted Text As I said above, it’s not merely to be a part of the process, it’s what being part of the process can do for you and your country.

Again, I think you assume a clear distinction between the douche and the turd. What the douche and turd can do for your country might be pretty much the same in terms of suckness, so by being part of an electorate you're part of the proverbial problem.

You can't complain that the election is always between a douche and a turd if you keep voting for them...

Quoted Text Yes. Better and worse are logically equivalent to less worse and worse. I thought that was clear.

But there is a distinction in semantics. Better has the implication of "good" (it being the stem of the inflenction "better") which is why it why it isn't quite apt here. Just like it would be ridiculous to be asked to choose "the better" of the diseases "AIDS and Cancer". Again putting things in extreme terms, but you get what I'm saying.

Quoted Text That’s an interesting point, however, even for most on the fringe, one candidate is going to better reflect their values then another...

If we go back to Communism and Nazism one of these are also bound to better reflect your values than the other. So by virtue of influence you should choose the better of the two.

It seems much of this discord stems from your disbelief that anyone could actually feel that the cadidates are all BAD choices. Which is in my mind beside the point. I'm arguing from a hypothetical plane, saying that IF you feel none of the candidates are good choices, then you certainly shouldn't feel compelled to vote for anyone simply to have "influence". I'm not going to interrogate people's definition of a good candidate, that's not what this is about, IMO.

Quoted Text No, it’s more of a tautology. It’s is true because it’s true. 5 is 5, that’s why I call it five. I say there is an orange in my hand because I have an orange in my hand.

It is circular though because you use your initial claim (it's true) as a reference to why it's true (because it's true). But no matter.

Quoted Text In today’s system with today’s circumstances voting for a third party is going to do next to nothing. That’s why I say it will do next to nothing. I think that’s more the case then the other way around. Otherwise, I basically agree with what you’re saying.

My claim. If a third party got the majority of the votes in a state they would win it.

Why doesn't a third party get the majority of the votes?

You say people vote based on the issues, not the party. I'm not sure about that. If we imagine the majority of people felt alligned with a third party in a given state, this would not be relfected in the polls, because of the truism that a vote on a third party is a wasted vote.

So even if the majority of the people wanted a third party, this would not happen because of this mentality. Thus, it's not true because it's true.

But I grant you that coupling this mentality with the system of "winner-takes-all" is an incredible handicap. But it strikes me as odd if Americans as some of the only free people in the world can graph their political leanings by just two parties every time. You guys must be a very homogenous group?

Quoted Text That said, if the Republcan and Democratic party were both taken over by space aliens that wanted to  enslave humanity(as in me’s example from the Simpsons), I’m sure people would be willing to vote for Ralph Nader...

Wha do you mean "IF"...?

Quoted Text People vote more on issues then by party. The confusion may be that there of course is a correlation between party and issues.

What evidence do you feel there is that people vote on issues rather than party?

Hey,

Quoted from escapist Are you sure about that?  I think you're being optimistic.  I'd say that a minority of Americans vote based on issues.  I think a fair number vote by party -"I'm a Republicrat, so that's who I'm voting for!".

If John McCain came out tomorrow and said he regularly sodomized the baby Jesus many religious conservatives would not vote for him, even though they generally vote Republican(because they believe it’s the party that better reflects their values).

If Obama came out tomorrow and said he wanted to amended the constitution to outlaw gay marriage and abortion many democrats that that mattered to would not vote for him.

If Clinton came out tomorrow, well I’d think it’s pretty funny, but then I’d still vote McCain(I’ve always had a hunch about her).

Issues trump party. People vote along party lines because they perceive that the party generally reflects their positions on issues. If this was not the case, as in the space alien example, people would be able to convince themselves to vote for another party.  

Quoted from escapist   Many others (or perhaps even many more) vote based on personality.

Yeah, I agree with that. So, I guess the hierarchy would be personality, then issues, then party???

Quoted from death monkey I think what's missing from the leg example is the moral implication of being part of choosing something "bad". That's why I like the corrupt cop analogy better.

Well most of the time I’ve been referring to bad, or even some of the time I’ve used the term evil(as in a better of two evils, figure of speech) I wasn’t really referring to any moral component.

This is why I’ve kept asking if you think the system is completely broken, or if you think all these candidates are really bad guys, or wondering about the time you voted blank, to help clarify that part of it.

In the case of two real moral Evils, I still think there are better options then voting blank. Why not do something even more active? Run another candidate for example. Voting blank seems nearly as complicit as voting for one of the “evil” candidates.

Quoted from death monkey You don't have to sympathize. This isn't about you understanding the merits of someone else's definition of "evil".

Like I said above, it’s more to understand your argument, but besides that I also think it’s kind of interesting.

Quoted from Death Monkey The fact is there are people in the US who genuinely feel the Bush Administration was evil.

Then they should have voted Kerry— or Nader(cringes).

Quoted from Death Monkey This is about having the choice between tow PERCEIVED evils, not two objectively proven evils.

Yeah, I even believe that one cannot prove something to be objectively evil. That’s not what I’m arguing about. 1) I’m just trying to better understand where you are coming from 2) There comes a point where, to believe certain things are evil diminishes what evil is and the word loses meaning. Maybe more on this later.

Quoted from Death Monkey You assume that one cadidate will be measurably better than another and therefore you should use your influence to vote for this candidate.

Yes, that is an assumption I make and I think it rings true for the vast majority of people.

Quoted from death monkey But if one feels it's a moral choice, that the pool of candidates every year are the same people, who get there via a broken system, then I think you have a moral obligation to yourself to not take part in something you feel isn't making your country better.

First of all, I think voting blank is taking part in the system, you use the system, but you remove your self from the process of influencing the future of the country in a meaningful way.

It is a complicit act to vote blank. If you wanted to do something you should run another candidate and persuade fellow citizens to vote for that person. That may accomplish something meaningful. I’ll say it again, voting blank is little more then taking your ball and going home. Please respond to this point.

Quoted from death monkey Again if someone felt that the distinction between a John Kerry and a George Bush was close to Stalin/Hitler (I use this example because there were actually people who voiced this opinion, and I sort of sympathize  )

To say that there are no moral distinctions(by any common moral standard) between Kerry, Bush, Stalin, and Hitler makes the words moral and evil meaningless. People that believe this are moral IDOITS.

I think we are now teetering on the precipice of nonsense. I can’t argue with nonsense.

In fact, I hope I’m misunderstanding this.

Quoted from Death Monkey I will not be part of what keeps getting these people into office. Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian.

1)     Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people can get the job done too
2)     There is a distinction to be made between disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people and morally evil people
3)     Voting blank does not stop Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people from getting into office
4)     It sounds like you do think the system is broken

Quoted from death monkey Vote to influence things? Seems like by influence can go two ways, and both of them SUCK.

The assumption I make is that there is always a better and a worse. Like I said I can not think of an example where that is not the case. I’m starting to feel like we are going around in circles.

Quoted from death monkey So to me the influence argument in this case is a strawman, because if you can't influence things in a  direction that is even remotely close to what you believe then isn't that kind of influence an illusion?

I’m going to basically quote my answer to this from my last two posts:

Quoted from Stud That’s an interesting point, however, even for most on the fringe, one candidate is going to better reflect their values then another. In fact, the only examples I can think of off the top of my head where all the candidates would be antithetical to their beliefs would basically be derivations of anarchism…  I still say that in the US, even if you've thought both candidates were bad there has still been a choice between better and worse and the better has always been worth voting for. After voting for what's better you can voice disagreement and disappointment in more productive ways.

Quoted from Death Monkey And again, I'm not saying that you can only justfy voting blank in a case where it's nazis VS communists, I was simply using that as an example of two ideaologies most people agre are BAD. If you feel The Free Puppies Party and The Funshine Bears Party are undiluted terrible choices, then the same applies.

Again I feel like we are retreading old ground.  I don’t think you’ve closed the case on the voting blank option being the best option for the nazi-communist case (which is probably your strongest example, if I may say) so how can you extend it to less extreme examples.

Quoted from Death Monkey And you know, if you don't like always having to choose between a turd and a douche, you shouldn't keep giving them your vote. That's the kind of mentality that keeps them in business.

Now it almost sounds like you’re saying that you advocate voting blank because you don’t personally think they are nice guys, or good guys or whatever you want to call it.

I don’t think this really follows from the nazi-soviet example(which you haven’t won me over on yet btw).

Quoted from Death Monkey Again, I think you assume a clear distinction between the douche and the turd. What the douche and turd can do for your country might be pretty much the same in terms of suckness, so by being part of an electorate you're part of the proverbial problem. You can't complain that the election is always between a douche and a turd if you keep voting for them...

Again, I already think I’ve responded to this. You’ve just seemed to replace the words better and worse or Hitler and Stalin with douche and turd(which I think is the weaker example for you).

Quoted from death monkey But there is a distinction in semantics. Better has the implication of "good" (it being the stem of the inflenction "better") which is why it why it isn't quite apt here.

No, I disagree. But it’s kind of a moot point. If you prefer that I exclusively use less worse and worse that’s fine by me. In all previous posts where it reads “better” just read “less worse” instead.

Quoted from death monkey Just like it would be ridiculous to be asked to choose "the better" of the diseases "AIDS and Cancer". Again putting things in extreme terms, but you get what I'm saying.

Again, this is like the Stalin/Hitler argument which I have already responded to. I’m not going to repeat it again. If you want to read it you can look up the page.

Quoted from Death Monkey It seems much of this discord stems from your disbelief that anyone could actually feel that the cadidates are all BAD choices.

From my last post:

Quoted from The Great One For example, if I had to choose between Clinton and Obama for president, both of which I think would be BAD for the country, I would still vote.

You can just put the rest on my argument on the back of this.

Quoted from Death Monkey I'm arguing from a hypothetical plane, saying that IF you feel none of the candidates are good choices, then you certainly shouldn't feel compelled to vote for anyone simply to have "influence". I'm not going to interrogate people's definition of a good candidate, that's not what this is about, IMO.

For the purposes of this point I don’t think it’s necessary to define what a good candidate is either.

That said, to say that there are only two BAD candidates is logically equivalent to saying that “none of the candidates are good choices”. Then the rest of my argument follows.

Quoted from death monkey It is circular though because you use your initial claim (it's true) as a reference to why it's true (because it's true). But no matter.

You may have the point that it was poorly phrased but you get what I’m saying right? Anyway, it’s not that important. I guess I’ll drop it too.

Quoted from Death Monkey My claim. If a third party got the majority of the votes in a state they would win it. Why doesn't a third party get the majority of the votes? You say people vote based on the issues, not the party. I'm not sure about that. If we imagine the majority of people felt alligned with a third party in a given state, this would not be relfected in the polls, because of the truism that a vote on a third party is a wasted vote. So even if the majority of the people wanted a third party, this would not happen because of this mentality. Thus, it's not true because it's true.

Look at my response to escapists' comments.

Quoted from Death Monkey But it strikes me as odd if Americans as some of the only free people in the world can graph their political leanings by just two parties every time. You guys must be a very homogenous group?

I think you’re overlooking the fact that there are various factions within each party. This is necessitated by the winner-take-all system. Whomever casts the wider net has a better chance of wining, as long as they can keep the net together.

Historically, these faction fighting over power has been the pathway by which “other parties” rise to power. For example, the Goldwater and Reagan Republicans taking over the Republican party after Nixon and Ford.

……………………………………….

Maybe it’s cause I’m tired but it seems like your argument has gotten more convoluted. At least, I’m a little confused. It seems like you keep bringing up the same points. We keep retreading the same ground.

sheepwalker  


    
    

  

Quoted from Soap Hands Well most of the time I’ve been referring to bad, or even some of the time I’ve used the term evil(as in a better of two evils, figure of speech) I wasn’t really referring to any moral component. This is why I’ve kept asking if you think the system is completely broken, or if you think all these candidates are really bad guys, or wondering about the time you voted blank, to help clarify that part of it. In the case of two real moral Evils, I still think there are better options then voting blank. Why not do something even more active? Run another candidate for example. Voting blank seems nearly as complicit as voting for one of the “evil” candidates.

I think you misunderstand. It is central to my argument that one feels a moral implication in participating in a perceived corrupt venture. There's the moral angle. Is it defensible to take part if one has these views?

Why do you feel voting blank is the same as voting for the evil candidates? Again, I feel you disregard cause and motive and focus solely on effect. If you're a teacher and you believe in Evolution and your school asks you to disregard it and teach Creation instead, even though you hold it to be completely false and unscientific, would it not be morally wrong to teach the kids something you believe for a fact to be wrong? Isn't it better to resign even if it means you don't get to influence these kids in other areas?

Quoted Text Then they should have voted Kerry— or Nader(cringes).

And if they feel these are as bad choices then they should vote blank. Pretty simple.

Quoted Text Yeah, I even believe that one cannot prove something to be objectively evil. That’s not what I’m arguing about. 1) I’m just trying to better understand where you are coming from 2) There comes a point where, to believe certain things are evil diminishes what evil is and the word loses meaning. Maybe more on this later.

Hold on. You first say you don't believe in an objetive evil yet later state that "There comes a point where, to believe certain things are evil diminishes what evil is and the word loses meaning."

Well since evil is subjective, what evil is and is not is not for you to decide. It is perception. And someone might be in their right mind to perceive Obama to be evil. Even if the mainstream might think that person is extreme.

Quoted Text Yes, that is an assumption I make and I think it rings true for the vast majority of people.

So if you're not part of the vast majority of people voting blank is cool?

Quoted Text First of all, I think voting blank is taking part in the system, you use the system, but you remove your self from the process of influencing the future of the country in a meaningful way.

Rf. my Simpsons quote concerning the angry mob and the aspirations to influence it. Voting blank means giving voice through democratic means but removes yourself from the current political lineup, or the specific system of election.

Quoted Text It is a complicit act to vote blank. If you wanted to do something you should run another candidate and persuade fellow citizens to vote for that person. That may accomplish something meaningful. I’ll say it again, voting blank is little more then taking your ball and going home. Please respond to this point.

I have responded. Albeit not in metaphor form. Let's try that.

Voting blank is like showing up to a soccer game where neither team plays by the rules, then taking your ball and going home.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is like saying "I'm playing for the team that cracks least skulls 'cause I wanna influence the direction of the game!"

Wow that's actually pretty good. Much better than the LA confidential thing.

Quoted Text To say that there are no moral distinctions(by any common moral standard) between Kerry, Bush, Stalin, and Hitler makes the words moral and evil meaningless. People that believe this are moral IDOITS.

I must not be familiar with the spectrum of common moral standards?

I won't comment on the ironic last typo of yours. Not because it's unbefitting the debate, but because I couldn't decide which witty pun I'd have go with it.

Quoted Text I think we are now teetering on the precipice of nonsense. I can’t argue with nonsense. In fact, I hope I’m misunderstanding this.

I'm sure you are. However, I'll gladly argue with nonsense. I expect nothing else from the internet.

Quoted Text 1)     Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people can get the job done too 2)     There is a distinction to be made between disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people and morally evil people 3)     Voting blank does not stop Disingenuous, self-serving, phony, and assholian people from getting into office 4)     It sounds like you do think the system is broken

1) Which job is that? The one they're supposed to be doing for the people as opposed to themselves, or their cronies?

2) Which distinction is that, and what happened to evil that couldn't be objectively determined?

3) It, however, does send a message that speaks to the current pool of candidates, which in turn might spark debate about the issue and perhaps change the discourse or mentality towards how things are conducted. Or it may do nothing. Even so it's your voice.

4) Asked and answered.

Quoted Text The assumption I make is that there is always a better and a worse. Like I said I can not think of an example where that is not the case. I’m starting to feel like we are going around in circles.

We are. Because I feel the notion of better and worse is a semnatic construction that in many cases has no bearing in real life, and the choice between the two is absurd.

It doesn't matter if you can't think of an example. What matters is if someone can.

Quoted from Soap Hands Again I feel like we are retreading old ground.  I don’t think you’ve closed the case on the voting blank option being the best option for the nazi-communist case (which is probably your strongest example, if I may say) so how can you extend it to less extreme examples.

To quote the great John Stuart Mill in his seminal work On Liberty:

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments [...], but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

Quoted Text Now it almost sounds like you’re saying that you advocate voting blank because you don’t personally think they are nice guys, or good guys or whatever you want to call it. I don’t think this really follows from the nazi-soviet example(which you haven’t won me over on yet btw).

I don't think that's what it sounds like I'm saying.

And whether or not I win you over is out of my hands. All I can do is supply the arguments.

Quoted Text Again, I already think I’ve responded to this. You’ve just seemed to replace the words better and worse or Hitler and Stalin with douche and turd(which I think is the weaker example for you).

I was watching South Park at the time. It's not the weaker example.

Quoted Text No, I disagree. But it’s kind of a moot point. If you prefer that I exclusively use less worse and worse that’s fine by me. In all previous posts where it reads “better” just read “less worse” instead.

Really? You disagree that there is a semantic distinction? We're either having cyanide pizza or weapons grade plutonium for dinner tonight. Which is the better choice do you think?

Quoted Text Again, this is like the Stalin/Hitler argument which I have already responded to. I’m not going to repeat it again. If you want to read it you can look up the page.

Boo. You're no fun.

Quoted Text From my last post: You can just put the rest on my argument on the back of this. For the purposes of this point I don’t think it’s necessary to define what a good candidate is either. That said, to say that there are only two BAD candidates is logically equivalent to saying that “none of the candidates are good choices”. Then the rest of my argument follows.

I am not following?

Quoted Text I think you’re overlooking the fact that there are various factions within each party. This is necessitated by the winner-take-all system. Whomever casts the wider net has a better chance of wining, as long as they can keep the net together. Historically, these faction fighting over power has been the pathway by which “other parties” rise to power. For example, the Goldwater and Reagan Republicans taking over the Republican party after Nixon and Ford.

So do you agree that the two parties are artificial constructions enveloping multiple parties (the so-called sub-party 'factions')?

Quoted Text Maybe it’s cause I’m tired but it seems like your argument has gotten more convoluted. At least, I’m a little confused.

It hasn't. You are. I'm watching House.

It's sad 'cause he's both physically and emotionally crippled...

In truth voting has little impact on what happens to a country.

The issues in a Global economy are so vast and so complicated that it is almost impossible to even try and make an informed decision about whose policy would be the best.

Obama, Hilary and John Mccain can't do an awful lot about the fact that China now runs the worlds economy.

Gordon Brown in the UK is not going to be able to persuade China to stop the cultural genocide taking place in Tibet. The Dalai Lama can call for Britain to do more all he likes, but what the hell can the UK do against the power of China?

Policy is dictated by pragmatic concerns. Europe needs the cheap labour that China provides as we have laws in place to protect exploitation. God forbid we do it on our own continent, but it won't stop us taking advantage of others to maintain our standard of living.

No US President is going to be able to dictate to the Saudis to increase Oil Production and reduce oil prices. The Saudis have over 3 Trillion pounds invested in the US economy and can do what they like. They are the home of Islamism and are the ultimate root of Islamic terrorism but the US still had to go there with a begging bowl to ask for concessions.

My local MP recently got voted into power on the promise that he would restore weekly garbage collections. I know that this is impossible as it is dictated by European Legislation and local policy cannot be changed. The issue was invented by a German fellow in Brussels and has caused riots on the streets of Italy, but voting won't change a thing as the Governments are tied into the E.C.

Referendums across Europe saw numerous countries vote against an EU constitution so they just relabelled it and passed it through another way.

The whole political system is an interesting diversion but the people who really make the decisions that affect peoples life are the leaders of Banks, Oil Companies etc

Politicans merely react to events that happen outside of their control.

I don't bother voting anymore myself. I merely stayed informed about business matters and use whatever daft scheme they come up with to further my own ends and the ends of those close to me. In the long run, there is little else you can do as all the decisions that are of importance to you are well out of your hands.

Follow the money, not the crowd.

Hey,

You don’t seem to be taking this seriously anymore so I guess I’ll follow your lead. I’ll just correct some of your thinking and then wash myself clean of this.

Quoted from Death Monkey And if they feel these are as bad choices then they should vote blank. Pretty simple.

You said they thought bush was evil not a bad choice. If they thought Bush, Kerry, and Nader were all evil then they are disconnected from reality or are moral idiots.

Quoted from Death Monkey Hold on. You first say you don't believe in an objetive evil yet later state that "There comes a point where, to believe certain things are evil diminishes what evil is and the word loses meaning.

Yes, objective evil is different then a general consensus of what is evil.

If one uses “evil” to describe something that is beyond the general consensus of what the word evil means(i.e. Bush and Kerry are as evil as Hitler) then the word loses it’s meaning.

It’s like if I started calling cats hotdogs.

The crazy lady down the street snapped and ate all her hotdogs.

Quoted from Death Monkey Well since evil is subjective, what evil is and is not is not for you to decide. It is perception. And someone might be in their right mind to perceive Obama to be evil. Even if the mainstream might think that person is extreme.

While I can’t say they are objectively wrong that Obama is evil I can say that they are completely unreasonable and a moron.

And btw, who’s says it’s not for me to decide what’s evil for other people? Maybe I have the perception that I should be allowed to do that. I might be in my right mind to perceive that I should get to decide that. Even if some people in the mainstream think I’m a little extreme.

Quoted from Death Monkey So if you're not part of the vast majority of people voting blank is cool?

No, I still think it’s stupid.

But at least in their case it makes a little sense. As the only case I can think of would be anarchists and it would be silly for anarchists to participate in government.

Quoted from Death Monkey I have responded. Albeit not in metaphor form. Let's try that.

No you haven’t. I’m referring to other strategies of action being superior to voting blank, mostly because you still retain influence and they are more effective.

But I’ll respond to your metaphors. Again. But this time in all caps form.

Quoted from Death Monkey Voting blank is like showing up to a soccer game where neither team plays by the rules, then taking your ball and going home.

IF BY VOTING BLANK YOU MEAN LEAVE THE COUNTRY THEN YES, THIS IS TRUE.

Quoted from Death Monkey Voting for the lesser of two evils is like saying "I'm playing for the team that cracks least skulls 'cause I wanna influence the direction of the game!"

NO, IT’S LIKE VOTING TO PAINT YOU ROOM BLUE EVEN THOUGH YOU WANTED TO PAINT IT GREEN BECAUSE BLUE WAS YOUR FIFTH CHOICE SO YOU’LL GO WITH THAT BECAUSE IT’S IN THE REALM OF POSSIBLY HAPPENING. AND ANYWAYS YOU SURE AS HELL DON’T WANT TO VOTE WITH THE ASSHOLE THAT WANTS TO PAINT IT RED ‘CAUSE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT FUCKING ROOM.

Wow, that was actually pretty satisfying. Much better then typing in stupid regular sized letters.

Quoted from Death Monkey I must not be familiar with the spectrum of common moral standards?

You don’t think there is a general consensus of what is good and evil? If you don’t use such things how do you talk to anybody about anything? Although I think your comment is cute, next time please respond to the point.

Quoted from Death Monkey I won't comment on the ironic last typo of yours. Not because it's unbefitting the debate, but because I couldn't decide which witty pun I'd have go with it.

Touche.

Quoted from Death Monkey I'm sure you are. However, I'll gladly argue with nonsense. I expect nothing else from the internet.

Dim lights. Queue soaring score. Close up on sheepwalker. He clenchs his fist and brings it to his heart.

Sheepwalker: I expected more from you, Death Monkey. *barely audible*  I expected more from you…

Fade out.

Quoted from Death Monkey It doesn't matter if you can't think of an example. What matters is if someone can.

It does however suggest that if you can’t think of an example then anybody that’s been doing it before has done it for no good reason. It also suggests that since this almost never occurs apple hungry goat hat.

There’s some nonsense for you to gladly argue with.

Quoted from Death Monkey To quote the great John Stuart Mill in his seminal work On Liberty: "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments [...], but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

????

This quote agrees with my viewpoint. I said you needed to prove the more extreme example of Stalin/Hitler before you can extend it to the milder example of douche and turd.

Quoted from Death Monkey And whether or not I win you over is out of my hands. All I can do is supply the arguments.

You do have to persuade me of this case before you can extend it to other cases though. Other wise you’re just wasting your breath— or type energy???

Quoted from Death Monkey It's not the weaker example.

You think it’s easier to argue that you shouldn’t vote for either a douche or a turd rather then arguing that you shouldn’t vote for either Hitler or Stalin????

If a douche and a turd had a retarded evil baby and you took that to the 10th power, and then a yak pissed on it, then you would have Hitler. Maybe.

If you believe that then you are a moral idiot.

Quoted from Death Monkey Really? You disagree that there is a semantic distinction? We're either having cyanide pizza or weapons grade plutonium for dinner tonight. Which is the better choice do you think?

I disagree that there is a logically significant distinction between "better and worse" and "less worse and worse" as "less worse" relative to "worse" is equivalent to "better".

But anyway, if you want to argue the Hitler/Stalin thing again whatever, but please don't try to just score points by nitpicking my language(even though you're totally wrong, +1 point for me). I already said if you want to replace all my "betters" with "less worses" that's fine by me.  

But since you asked the cyanide pizza(They say it tastes like walnuts).

Quoted from Death Monkey I am not following?

It’s cause you didn’t quote the parts where I quoted myself. (That’s the important part because that’s where I answer your question)

Quoted from Death Monkey So do you agree that the two parties are artificial constructions enveloping multiple parties (the so-called sub-party 'factions')?

How is this relevant?

To answer your question I need you to define: “parties”, “artificial”, “enveloping”, and “do”. But my tentative answer is yes.

Quoted from Death Monkey It hasn't. You are. I'm watching House.

If those are answers to the questions: “Has this been worth sheepwalker’s time?”, “Am I awesome?”, and “Type ‘I’m watching House.’ if you admit defeat.” then yes, I agree with you.

*turns head* "Hey guys, go get the Mission Accomplished banner"*

sheepwalker

    

          

Quoted from Soap Hands Issues trump party. People vote along party lines because they perceive that the party generally reflects their positions on issues. If this was not the case, as in the space alien example, people would be able to convince themselves to vote for another party.

Your examples regarding McCain and Clinton don't have anything to do with issues, they're about personality.  Regarding the Obama example...do you really think that would be enough to cause Democrat voters to vote for McCain?  I really don't.

Voting party lines because you believe a party represents your stance on the issues is NOT the same thing as voting for a candidate based on the issues.  The latter implies that voters are active and informed, which I really don't think is the case.

Hey,

Quoted from escapist Your examples regarding McCain and Clinton don't have anything to do with issues, they're about personality.

The Clinton thing was a joke. You have point with the McCain example, I should have picked a better one(what I was getting at was that this behavior reflected on his positions, but point taken)

So fine, if McCain wanted to raise taxes, grant amnesty, and give free abortions to everyone, and cut military spending then most republicans wouldn't vote for him.

Quoted from escapist Regarding the Obama example...do you really think that would be enough to cause Democrat voters to vote for McCain?  I really don't.

No, I don't think they'd vote for McCain but for a lot they wouldn't vote for Obama. I don't know, maybe if his platform was to make Bush president for life they'd vote McCain.

Quoted from escapist Voting party lines because you believe a party represents your stance on the issues is NOT the same thing as voting for a candidate based on the issues. The latter implies that voters are active and informed, which I really don't think is the case.

Yeah, I guess implicit in my argument is that voters are aware of the issues to begin with. You may have a point but I don't know.

That said, I have a pretty firm conviction that if there were a conflict in an individual voter between party and issues, issues(meaning important issues) would almost always win out.  

sheepwalker

Quoted from Soap Hands Hey, You don’t seem to be taking this seriously anymore so I guess I’ll follow your lead. I’ll just correct some of your thinking and then wash myself clean of this.

Damnit, seems like I gave you an out with my charming nonchalance. Oh well, better now than in 20 pages.

Quoted Text You said they thought bush was evil not a bad choice. If they thought Bush, Kerry, and Nader were all evil then they are disconnected from reality or are moral idiots.

First of all I have no idea what a "moral idiot" is? I did a search and found the word only used on messageboards for MMORPGs and amateur political blogs. That must be one of 'em new awkwardly made-up words on the internet. Like "troll" or "co-dependent". Crazy kids...

Secondly you're using your own definition of what can and cannot be evil (in which Bush cannot be evil) and that's fine but I don't see the relevance to our discussion?

Quoted Text Yes, objective evil is different then a general consensus of what is evil. If one uses “evil” to describe something that is beyond the general consensus of what the word evil means(i.e. Bush and Kerry are as evil as Hitler) then the word loses it’s meaning.

What is objective evil then? I'm looking for some parameters here?

What is the general consensus on the word "evil"? You mean the lexical definition?

1 a : morally reprehensible  : SINFUL, WICKED  *an evil impulse*  b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct  *a person of evil reputation*
2 a archaic   : INFERIOR  b : causing discomfort or repulsion  : OFFENSIVE  *an evil odor*  c : DISAGREEABLE  *woke late and in an evil temper*
3 a : causing harm  : PERNICIOUS  *the evil institution of slavery*  b : marked by misfortune  : UNLUCKY

As you can see the lexical definition refers back to other synonyms or near-synonyms, not the thing itself. Meaning is infintely, or circularly, deferred.

Quoted Text It’s like if I started calling cats hotdogs. The crazy lady down the street snapped and ate all her hotdogs.

How is it like that? We have a common concensus on what a hot-dog is and what a cat is?

Quoted Text While I can’t say they are objectively wrong that Obama is evil I can say that they are completely unreasonable and a moron.

But...this thread isn't about what you feel about other people's definition of evil. It's cool you think they are morons, but what does that have to do with anything?

Quoted Text And btw, who’s says it’s not for me to decide what’s evil for other people? Maybe I have the perception that I should be allowed to do that. I might be in my right mind to perceive that I should get to decide that. Even if some people in the mainstream think I’m a little extreme.

Dude. Missed the point by THAT much.

This is turning into one of them:

DUDE 1: "I have the right say what I think, you can't censor me!

DUDE 2: "Don't tell me what I can't do, I have the right to say I don't like that you're saying what you're saying! Don't censor me!"

DUDE 1: "It's pretty ironic how we're both completely missing the point of the debate right now, isn't it?"

DUDE 2: "Indubitably."

Quoted Text [quote]No, I still think it’s stupid. But at least in their case it makes a little sense. As the only case I can think of would be anarchists and it would be silly for anarchists to participate in government.

So the bottomline for you is basically that people who want to vote blank should write an essay on their reasons which would then be screened by you, before they got permission. If it turned out they were moral idiots, then tough luck, mofo. That's righteous, yo.

Quoted Text No you haven’t. I’m referring to other strategies of action being superior to voting blank, mostly because you still retain influence and they are more effective. But I’ll respond to your metaphors. Again. But this time in all caps form. [quote]IF BY VOTING BLANK YOU MEAN LEAVE THE COUNTRY THEN YES, THIS IS TRUE.

SO NOW THE PLAYING FIELD REPRESENTS NOT THE ELECTION PROCESS BUT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. FUNNY, I DIDN'T THINK METAPHORS COULD CHANGE CHARACTER IN MID AIR? CONVENIENT, MONSIEUR.

Quoted Text NO, IT’S LIKE VOTING TO PAINT YOU ROOM BLUE EVEN THOUGH YOU WANTED TO PAINT IT GREEN BECAUSE BLUE WAS YOUR FIFTH CHOICE SO YOU’LL GO WITH THAT BECAUSE IT’S IN THE REALM OF POSSIBLY HAPPENING. AND ANYWAYS YOU SURE AS HELL DON’T WANT TO VOTE WITH THE ASSHOLE THAT WANTS TO PAINT IT RED ‘CAUSE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT FUCKING ROOM. Wow, that was actually pretty satisfying. Much better then typing in stupid regular sized letters.

WAIT. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SOCCER ANALOGY? STAY THE COURSE, SIR! DON'T LEAVE ONE METAPHOR BEFORE WE'RE DONE WITH IT, EVEN IF THINGS GET DIFFICULT.

ALSO YOUR NEW ANALOGY IS DUMB.

P.S. WHY ARE WE SHOUTING!?!?

Quoted Text You don’t think there is a general consensus of what is good and evil? If you don’t use such things how do you talk to anybody about anything?

OF COURSE I DON'T-

Oh sorry. Force of habit. Of course I don't think there's a general consensus on good and evil, beyond the vagueness of a lexical definition which I already supplied. If you feel there is please, by all means, present it.

As for how I manage to talk with anyone about anything without believing in a general consensus on good and evil, well, I do just fine. In fact, here's a funny observation, I don't see how the two are connected at all?

Wait, that wasn't funny. That was just astute.

Quoted Text Although I think your comment is cute, next time please respond to the point.

It's called the Socratic method. It means before we can discuss something we need to define our terms. You throw out flimsy and vague concepts that may mean one thing to one person and another to someone else, so before we can discuss them I need to know what you talking about.

Quoted Text Touche.

Wait a minute. That's French!

Traitor.

Quoted Text Dim lights. Queue soaring score. Close up on sheepwalker. He clenchs his fist and brings it to his heart. Sheepwalker: I expected more from you, Death Monkey. *barely audible*  I expected more from you… Fade out.

But I'm on the internets...? I thought we went through this?

Quoted Text It does however suggest that if you can’t think of an example then anybody that’s been doing it before has done it for no good reason. It also suggests that since this almost never occurs apple hungry goat hat. There’s some nonsense for you to gladly argue with.

I can't tell it apart from eveything else?

I'm in the zone!

Quoted Text ???? This quote agrees with my viewpoint. I said you needed to prove the more extreme example of Stalin/Hitler before you can extend it to the milder example of douche and turd.

No, it agrees with me. Milly is my homeboy.

When asked if you would vote for Stalin and Hitler if these were your choices, did you not concede you would vote for neither? Because you felt both of these choices would effectively ruin your country. So if you feel that any given two candidates will ruin your country, then the same applies. Hell, if you feel the candidates are just pernicious the same applies, by the Mill principle I just stated.

Quoted Text You do have to persuade me of this case before you can extend it to other cases though. Other wise you’re just wasting your breath— or type energy???

Ok, you took the "nonsense" joke too far. I hope you're happy.

Quoted Text You think it’s easier to argue that you shouldn’t vote for either a douche or a turd rather then arguing that you shouldn’t vote for either Hitler or Stalin???? If a douche and a turd had a retarded evil baby and you took that to the 10th power, and then a yak pissed on it, then you would have Hitler. Maybe.

First of all, shame on you for quoting me out of context. Second of all, if it's true for the extreme example then it's true for the less extreme one too. Thus the notion of stronger/weaker example is null.

Quoted Text If you believe that then you are a moral idiot.

And you, sir, are a first class Solthefryer! I think my made-up magical creature trumps yours. Mine has firebreath and plays bass.

Quoted Text I disagree that there is a logically significant distinction between "better and worse" and "less worse and worse" as "less worse" relative to "worse" is equivalent to "better".

Semantic. Semantic distinction.

Quoted Text But anyway, if you want to argue the Hitler/Stalin thing again whatever, but please don't try to just score points by nitpicking my language(even though you're totally wrong, +1 point for me). I already said if you want to replace all my "betters" with "less worses" that's fine by me.

Oh it's not nitpicking. This goes to the rhetoric that frames your argument. You make a false distinction between the one choice and the other by using the diametrically opposed terms "better" and "worse" whenin reality any distinction between them might be absurd.

Quoted Text But since you asked the cyanide pizza(They say it tastes like walnuts).

Fool. With plutonium the gamma rays would give you unimaginable powers!!!

Quoted Text It’s cause you didn’t quote the parts where I quoted myself. (That’s the important part because that’s where I answer your question)

I hope that's a phrase you're never gonna use again.

Quoted Text How is this relevant? To answer your question I need you to define: “parties”, “artificial”, “enveloping”, and “do”. But my tentative answer is yes.

My tentative reply is: awesome?

Quoted Text If those are answers to the questions: “Has this been worth sheepwalker’s time?”, “Am I awesome?”, and “Type ‘I’m watching House.’ if you admit defeat.” then yes, I agree with you. *turns head* "Hey guys, go get the Mission Accomplished banner"* sheepwalker

No, those weren't the questions I was answering at all!

Everyone lies...

His thread seems to be getting a bit volatile.  Can we just all agree that Hilary is the devil incarnate and move on?


Phil

Quoted from Soap Hands So fine, if McCain wanted to raise taxes, grant amnesty, and give free abortions to everyone, and cut military spending then most republicans wouldn't vote for him.

If this was the case, then McCain wouldn't really be a Republican, now would he?  Even if he still considered himself one, the party certainly wouldn't support him as their candidate.  Look what happened to Lieberman when he wandered too far from shore.  Same thing holds true for your Obama example.

And as for voting the issues, who do you vote for if you're anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun control, pro-big government, anti-immigration, pro-flat tax, pro-oil drilling, pro-nationalized healthcare, and anti-big military?  Which of the two candidates is for you?  The problem with issues is that they're a package deal.  So unless you only have a few that really matter to you, you're really just voting for a party.

Quoted from dogglebe His thread seems to be getting a bit volatile.  Can we just all agree that Hilary is the devil incarnate and move on?

If by "volatile" you mean "hilarious", then I agree.  And if by "Hilary" you mean "Dick Cheney", then I agree again.

Hey,

Quoted from dogglebe His thread seems to be getting a bit volatile.  Can we just all agree that Hilary is the devil incarnate and move on?

No, don't let the squabble between Death Monkey and I stop discussion. Let the discourse rage on.

There's no hurt feeling on this side and I'm sure he feels the same way. Just a small disagreement between two simplyscripters.

And besides, I agree with escapists, it's starting to get really entertaining. I almost wish it would happen more often.

Quoted from escapist If this was the case, then McCain wouldn't really be a Republican, now would he?  Even if he still considered himself one, the party certainly wouldn't support him as their candidate.  Look what happened to Lieberman when he wandered too far from shore.  Same thing holds true for your Obama example.

Point taken, but that's not what I'm really arguing. I'm just saying that when voting for someone, issues will trump party(although as you pointed out this presupposes that the person is aware of the issues, and of course there are other considerations).

Quoted from escapist And as for voting the issues, who do you vote for if you're anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun control, pro-big government, anti-immigration, pro-flat tax, pro-oil drilling, pro-nationalized healthcare, and anti-big military?  Which of the two candidates is for you?  The problem with issues is that they're a package deal.  So unless you only have a few that really matter to you, you're really just voting for a party.

I don't know how true that is for how many people but point taken. I guess I concede that "issues trump party" is a pretty qualified statement.

Quoted from Death Monkey Wait a minute. That's French! Traitor.

  

Credit where credit is do.

Yes, you're right. That choice of diction was a gross error of judgment.

I am shamed.


one more thing.

Quoted from Death Monkey When asked if you would vote for Stalin and Hitler if these were your choices, did you not concede you would vote for neither? Because you felt both of these choices would effectively ruin your country. So if you feel that any given two candidates will ruin your country, then the same applies.

  

I concede that I would not vote for either of them, BUT NOT THAT I WOULD VOTE BLANK. I said that I would run another candidate and VOTE FOR THAT CANDIDATE so I can still retain my agency rather then voting blank which does next to nothing.

As I said, twice I think, you hadn't won me over on that point(that voting blank is the best course of action whether it be Hitler/Stalin, turd/douche, or Bush/Kerry because they are all apparently morally equivalent, or if they aren't you can't say that they aren't because there is no general understanding of the term evil, which is what you are advocating).

I encourage everybody that cares to read through what Death Monkey and I wrote because there were some good points on both sides and it's a semi-important issue. Or if you don't care, read the last couple posts because there are some alright funnies.  

Happy Memorial Day,

sheepwalker  

  

Yet another thread ruined by my witty banter and rugged good looks, it seems. Well one out of two then, you be the judge.

Anyway, I'm not really sure how much of what I said I actually believe, and when I was just being facetious. Honestly, it's like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer goes to Lollapalooza to be shot with a cannonball and there are these two grunge kids in the crowd:

GRUNGE KID#1
Oh look it's that Cannonball guy. He's cool.

GRUNGE KID#2
Dude, are you being sarcastic?

Grunge kid#1 bows his head down.

GRUNGE KID#1
I don't even know anymore...


Anyway, long story short: I'd probably vote for Obama because I'd trust him with the task of working for the people more than Hilary. McCain I trust as well but disagree with on many issues. So yeah, Hilary ain't kosher.

I'm watching House.

Happy Memorial Day!

P.S. Isn't "13" a bit young to be a doctor?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films No US President is going to be able to dictate to the Saudis to increase Oil Production and reduce oil prices. The Saudis have over 3 Trillion pounds invested in the US economy and can do what they like. They are the home of Islamism and are the ultimate root of Islamic terrorism but the US still had to go there with a begging bowl to ask for concessions.

The minute the world becomes non-dependent on oil is the minute the Middle East gets turned into a big pile of glow-in-the-dark radioactive sand. Thanks for services rendered -- KABOOM!

I pay my taxes - why can't I have a nuke? A nuke and an AH-64A Apache gunship, man that would be so cool.

RED LEADER (O.S.)
There are women and children down there!

ROB THE WRITER (O.S.)
Stay on target.

RED LEADER (O.S.)
All they want is food!

ROB THE WRITER (O.S.)
Stay on target.

What? 'The fuck you mean I'm rambling?

Quoted from Soap Hands Hey, Didn't I read on the age thread that you were like two years older then me? lol How many more elections have you "actually paid attention" to?

No. I am much older than you. And that's great that you are so excited about being able to vote. And by the way McCain is not the best man for the job. It's Obama. I'm a Republican saying this too by the way. We need a young, fresh outlook on things in the White House. Obama will bring that. All McCain will do is cause more problems and probably die in office. I heard he used to be BFF's with God.