Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mego]

spend a bit of time becoming educated on the issues.

Insert this thread. I normally hate talking about politics, but talking about politics with reasonably intelligent people (as opposed to fundamentalist Republicans in the United Christian Nation of Texas) is pleasant.

[G-Flex]

Ron paul sounds good, but has the problem of being fucking crazy.

"Mr. Paul, what is your stance on poverty?"
"w-w-whell, I remember one day Ronald Reagan was talking to me and he said 'Ron. America.' CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR AMERICA?!"
"Mr. Paul, that has nothing to do with poverty."
"W-thank you."

You forgot that he also has to yell about "states' rights" at some point, and also call the department of education "preposterous" and "unconstitutional" or something like that.

[Max White]

Ooh how I wish I could save myself the trouble and show apathy towards politics. How I long for the magic of the right to be so irresponsible! To have an election swing past and not give but a single fuck! Non compulsory voting truly is the greatest of all luxuries.

[SalmonGod]

By taking no action at all, you're saying that "I'm morally superior to the candidates, so I'll let less scrupulous people decide."  If you truly believe in voting as a tool of moral imperative, then you should do the needful and vote for the most justifiable candidate, regardless of if they're only a little bit less terrible than the next guy.

I understand why the issue is interpreted this way by many candidates, but I believe there are other ways to look at it.

First and foremost, I don't believe in the lesser of two evils argument.  The way I see it, I'm being asked how I want to be screwed.  I'm not going to dignify the question with a response.  I will vote for third party candidates if I actually believe in them.  I voted for Nader, knowing that I was "throwing my vote away".  For this election, I'm not aware of any that I would support.  So I'm left with a range of choices, all of which involve continuing the trend of eroding my rights.  I can vote for the person who I believe will erode my rights the least over the course of the next four years, but what about next election?  Am I just going to do the same thing?  In the long run, the losses are basically the same no matter who I vote for.  So what's the point?  This has been a continuing trend since before I was old enough to be aware of politics.  I think it's absurd that everyone is aware of and unhappy about this long-running trend, and yet I'm encouraged to continue engaging in the exact same course of action that has been producing these exact same results over and over again.  If the end result is going to be the same, then I think it's actually more productive to cease explicit support for the repetition of this process.  Voting is a form of approval and I refuse to grant approval to my own ongoing exploitation.  Quite frankly I don't care if my attitude poses a problem for the system, because the system is not going to change unless it is thrown into crisis.

so I'll let less scrupulous people decide

I find this tidbit especially dangerous, because it implies that voting is the only power that I have and I become powerless by forfeiting my vote.  The implications of this are just... painful.  The statement doesn't even really make sense, if you think about it.  When I vote for someone who I know to be unscrupulous, I am by definition granting that unscrupulous person my approval to make decisions for me in a far more clear cut manner than if I don't vote at all.

But I admit, I DO need to be more involved in my local politics.

[Capntastic]

Re:  Unscrupulous:

I was saying that you're letting people who are less cognizant of politics/morality make decisions by not voting, simply by giving their votes more proportional value.  How can you say you refuse to participate in a bad system when refusing to interact with that system bolsters the problems inherent to it?

Edit:  Unless you're basically an accelerationist, I can't see how it adds up.

[Hitty40]

Ooh how I wish I could save myself the trouble and show apathy towards politics. How I long for the magic of the right to be so irresponsible! To have an election swing past and not give but a single fuck! Non compulsory voting truly is the greatest of all luxuries.

This. This is how I feel.

[SalmonGod]

Re:  Unscrupulous:

I was saying that you're letting people who are less cognizant of politics/morality make decisions by not voting, simply by giving their votes more proportional value.  How can you say you refuse to participate in a bad system when refusing to interact with that system bolsters the problems inherent to it?

Edit:  Unless you're basically an accelerationist, I can't see how it adds up.

I would agree with you, except that my choices are restricted to the same choices that those who are less cognizant of politics/morality are going to make.  The range of candidates forces me to make the same choices as those I disagree with.  You say that I am allowing other people to make problems worse, and telling me that the proper response is to do exactly the same thing as those other people.

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

[Luke_Prowler]

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself

[Mego]

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

[Aqizzar]

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

[SalmonGod]

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

Yeah.  There's not much else to say.  I just felt the need to balance, since one side of that issue had already been thrown out there.

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

If I was going to respond, it would only be to say "you're funny."

[Hitty40]

Well, salmon, if you believe that voting has no power in this current system, then you could always run for president yourself

I'll go ahead and give what I believe would be his response to this, as well as most Americans' response:

I don't have enough <pick one or more: money, popularity, influence, political knowledge> to run.

I don't have enough faith in my country, bro. Too many <Insert dumb reasons: immigrants, corrupted politicians, not enough Subways>

[Capntastic]

Voting is a small way to affect change on a system with many flaws, yes, but it is still a way.  I mean, you could use "it's a corrupt system and I'll have nothing to do with it" as a way to basically ignore interacting with anything from school to work or anything else.  Saying that you want to work to improve 'the system' but you don't want to vote is like saying you want to be a teacher but that you think the school system is irredeemable and beyond repair.  Yes, you can be disenfranchised to that point, but that doesn't make giving up entirely the best option.

[fqllve]

Also, my ability to meaningfully interact with the system is negligent.  Those interactions are reserved for the wealthy.  The only participation I am offered, at least on a national level, is to bolster the legitimacy of the system itself.  If I see the system as bad, then I don't see how it makes sense to participate as such.

You also don't have an alternative.  You can vote, you can not vote, and from here that's about it.  I get this argument and your misgivings, but what else is there to say about it?

I suppose you could try to influence the populace, and more importantly legislators, to enact changes that would improve the system, but largely those are <really hard work/impossible/violations of corporations' first amendment rights>.

You could try to actively thwart the voting process? You know, mislead people into voting for the worst candidate, encourage people to be apathetic about the system, lie to people about where campaign donations go. But that's getting way too close to what could be considered terrorism for me.

[SalmonGod]

That depends on what you're voting for.  If I were able to vote directly on the nature of the system through policy or courses of action, then I would agree.  If I'm voting for a person to influence the nature of the system for me, and every option I'm given to vote for is a person who will worsen its flaws, then I don't understand the significance of effecting change in that manner.

A teacher has a position within the educational system far more meaningful than a voter within the political system.  They may not have direct influence over the design of the curriculum and policy they're expected to execute, but it's still up to them to execute it.  That is some measure of power.

A better analogy would be if my child's school announced that they were going to staff the next year according to parent's vote, and I could expect to receive a roster of candidates along with a ballot in the mail.  I get the package, and every teaching candidate is listed as having a history of child molestation.  At that point, it's time for some serious protest, or get your kid into a different school.