Romney or Obama

[Brandon Rhea]

Since this is a Presidential election thread, and you and I were 2 of like 3 people on the site who would care to debate New Jersey issues, I'll instead reply via PM.

You're free to make up something about how this is a concession if I don't actually PM you. :p

 

[BLADE]

Coward.


:CHappy


Actually, I'd say its germane since the GOP and the Democrats (in theory) represent fairly different approaches to the education issue and New Jersey has been fairly illustrative (with some local idiosyncrasies of course) of that debate.

Certainly it would make this thread a bit more substantive since almost none of the alleged conservatives on this site have the courage of their convictions or the ability (pick whichever you find most insulting, my rightward derpy friends) to debate their support for the Mormon Mammon-Worshiper.

...

Or we could just go back to making fun of Mitt Romney. I'm cool with that too.

 

[Ser Gregor]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816

"Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions."

Great article by a very pissed off Tom Morello.

 

[BLADE]

Hey guys. Guess what. Funny story. Y'know that proposed Ryan Budget? Y'know... the Path to Prosperity.

Turns out the path may be full of cannibals who want to eat your eyeballs.

http://www.epi.org/blog/paul-ryan-budget-discretionary-cuts-cost-jobs/

 

[BLADE]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/f...he-best-f--king-news-team-ever-audits-america

I have to say that when it comes to The Daily Show, I am more of a Colbert fan. The reason being that Jon Stewart is increasingly useless as a news personality. However, his correspondents still continue to put out awesome work. Namely the above. Watch it. Laugh. Weep. Nod bemusedly.

 

[Sylus]

Obama. ;)

 

[ForceFanatic]

Obama hands down.

Though does it actually matter who? They are both slaves to big business, it is not like politicians actually care for the voters.

 

[Sylus]

Obama hands down.
Though does it actually matter who? They are both slaves to big business, it is not like politicians actually care for the voters.

Nor do the voters care to vote.

I work at a retail video game store and Halo 4 will be out the same day as the election. I guarantee you more people will be playing Halo than voting. Here in the United States more people care to vote on television reality shows than to actually vote for the president.

 

[ForceFanatic]

Doesn't that reflect the systems failing though? Not voting is a choice, it is a statement.

Voting apathy is generally quite high in most western countries. I don't believe that saying "if you don't vote, you don't get a say" - There is more to politics and democracy than turning up every four to five years to tick a box.

 

[Solaris]

Doesn't that reflect the systems failing though? Not voting is a choice, it is a statement.

Voting apathy is generally quite high in most western countries. I don't believe that saying "if you don't vote, you don't get a say" - There is more to politics and democracy than turning up every four to five years to tick a box.

And what is that, exactly? Protesting when someone else didn't vote for what you wanted?

 

[ForceFanatic]

The statement is "We do not have faith in the system."

Most people that I know who don't vote say the following "Whats the point, it doesn't change anything"

A protest vote (also known as a blank vote or white vote) is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate the caster's dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates or refusal of the current political system. In this latter case, protest vote may take the form of a valid vote, but instead of voting for the mainstream candidates, it is a vote in favor of a minority or fringe candidate, either from the far-left, far-right or self-presenting as a candidate foreign to the political system.
Along with abstention, which is simply the act of not voting, it is often considered to be a clear sign of the lack of popular legitimacy and roots of representative democracy, as depressed voter turnout endangers the credibility of the whole voting system. If protest vote takes the form of a blank vote, it may or may not be tallied into final results depending on the rules. Thus, it may either result in a spoilt vote (which is the case most of the times) or, if the electoral system accepts to take it into account, as a "None of the Above" vot

 

[Solaris]

Yeah, and that's... swell. I remember some of the Iraqis doing that. Turned out pretty crappy for them, as the opposition faction didn't waste their votes and instead of getting the 'bad but tolerable' candidate, they got the guy they really hated. Everything they wanted pretty much got thrown out the window because they had no representation.
How's that going to go differently in the US?

 

[ForceFanatic]

Comparing the US political landscape and the Iraqi ones is like comparing earth and mars. That was the first election in Iraq, it is a new fledgling democracy.

Both of those candidates will continue suck on corporate penis, because that's how the system works there. The last guy that even done anything remotely in favour of the voters got blown away.

I personally don't vote in general elections as I am against the idea of a centralised government and the political system in general, a stance taken by most anarchists.

Only candidate remotely votable in my opinion was Ron Paul.

 

[Solaris]

Comparing the US political landscape and the Iraqi ones is like comparing earth and mars. That was the first election in Iraq, it is a new fledgling democracy.

And weirdly, certain fundamentals are still the same. Example, if you don't vote your voice is not heard.

Both of those candidates will continue suck on corporate penis, because that's how the system works there. The last guy that even done anything remotely in favour of the voters got blown away.

... I can't tell if you're talking about the US or Iraq.
See - they are similar.

I personally don't vote in general elections as I am against the idea of a centralised government and the political system in general, a stance taken by most anarchists.

So rather than try to change the system, you sit and complain about how it hasn't bent over backwards to suit your whims?
I get that you're trying to make a statement and all, but the problem is that nobody cares. You've thrown away your one currency - your vote - in favor of making that statement. It's like expecting a bunch of CEOs to listen to homeless bums - the bums don't have money, so they have nothing the CEOs want. No, it's worse, because the bums can at least vote in legislation against the corporations and the wealthy.

Only candidate remotely votable in my opinion was Ron Paul.

... Why? His foreign policy? His stance on pot?

 

[ForceFanatic]

"your voice is not heard" - That makes no sense, if none of the candidates are speaking for you then "your voice" is not voting i.e you are making a statement that none of the candidates are representative of your views and opinions.

American Democracy and Iraqi Democracy are completely and utterly different. Yes elections take place, just like Mars is made of rock and dirt and so is earth. Are they the same though? No they are completely different. In Iraqi people are expressing their "voice" by blowing stuff up and killing people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Iraq - check that out to read a little about democracy in Iraq and get a feel off how different it is to the American political system.

On not voting; If enough people don't vote the government does not have a legitimate claim to power, that in it self changes the system.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

There are more candidates than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. There's Gary Johnson, the Liberatarian nominee who is similar to Ron Paul. There's Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee.

Not voting because you have no faith in the system is a vote in favor of the system.

 

[ForceFanatic]

No it isn't a vote for the system, by voting you agree to the system, not voting = not agreeing with the system. When you vote you effectively enter into a contract.

Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstaining voter hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might be not be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.[1]

America has effectively two party system unless one of them are backing you, you don't stand a chance.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

You've been conditioned to believe that. It doesn't mean it's true. If most apathetic and disaffected people voted for a third party, we would have a three party system. Those third party candidates are not backed by corporate interests.

 

[BLADE]

On not voting; If enough people don't vote the government does not have a legitimate claim to power, that in it self changes the system.

Which means... what exactly? This is one of the more sophomoric attempts to apply a Lockean paradigm to the American political system. For example, a majority of American adults hasn't voted for the winning President. Has that made the political system any more responsive or modest in its aims? Can you quantify the degree to which this is true.

Honestly. This is just laziness trying to masquerade as political idealism. Voting isn't enough. If you want to change things you have to stay involved past elections. The political process doesn't end there. It hardly even begins.

Also Ron Paul is a lunatic with retrograde economic and social views. His one saving grace, his not-totally insane foreign policy (though isolationism doesn't work) is tempered by the fact that were he President he'd be unable to do much.

 

[Solaris]

"your voice is not heard" - That makes no sense, if none of the candidates are speaking for you then "your voice" is not voting i.e you are making a statement that none of the candidates are representative of your views and opinions.

At risk of beating the metaphor to death, by not voting you are remaining silent. Silence, as they say, is compliance.

American Democracy and Iraqi Democracy are completely and utterly different. Yes elections take place, just like Mars is made of rock and dirt and so is earth. Are they the same though? No they are completely different. In Iraqi people are expressing their "voice" by blowing stuff up and killing people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Iraq - check that out to read a little about democracy in Iraq and get a feel off how different it is to the American political system.

Wanna know how I can tell you don't really know much about Iraqis?
The grand majority of the people in Iraq killing other people are not Iraqis. Iraqis much prefer to use the vote to solve problems - they've had enough of war. They're even more vicious about when they catch jihadis than we were - for them, you see, the jihadis were not driving the infidel invaders out, they were killing innocent Iraqis and destroying Iraq's infrastructure to make a political point. Iraqis no longer have a sense of humor about dynamite diplomacy, and deeply dislike the use of force. The ones on the warpath are a small minority, and not representative of the general population of Iraq.
So... how, exactly, are they completely different?

On not voting; If enough people don't vote the government does not have a legitimate claim to power, that in it self changes the system.

When has that ever stopped a government before? When has that even slowed a government down?

You've been conditioned to believe that. It doesn't mean it's true. If most apathetic and disaffected people voted for a third party, we would have a three party system. Those third party candidates are not backed by corporate interests.

I've often wondered that, why the people who complain about the system not working don't try fronting a candidate of their own. It strikes me that their complaints have become self-fulfilling.

No it isn't a vote for the system, by voting you agree to the system, not voting = not agreeing with the system. When you vote you effectively enter into a contract.

Actually, you enter into the contract when you enter into society. Elections are when you have the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of that contract, and by voting "present" you forgo that in favor of allowing others to have your say for you.

America has effectively two party system unless one of them are backing you, you don't stand a chance.

Our political parties are not infallible. In point of fact, not only have we had switch-ups from time to time (hardly anyone votes Whig anymore), the parties themselves have changed dramatically even in recent memory.