Soitenly
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All  (Read 3056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shemps#1

  • Pothead, Libertarian, Administrator, Resident Crank and Baron of Greymatter
  • Global Moderator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,771
  • Gender: Male
  • Hatchet Man
    • View Profile
Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All
« on: March 29, 2008, 06:24:57 PM »
In the coming months as we get closer to the US Presidential Election we are going to get hit with a maelstrom of propaganda telling us how "every vote counts" and how important it is to "get out and vote". To this I say bullshit times a million. I have decided that if the upcoming election pits John McCain against Barack Obama I will indeed cast my vote for Obama (unless Jesse Ventura decides to run...a man can dream). If, however, it is McCain against Hillary Clinton I will stay home and abstain from voting, just as I did in 2004 and in 2000.

Now I'm sure the younger folks among us may get excited about the prospect of being able to cast their first presidential ballot, as I was in 1996 when I went to the voting booth and chose the incumbent President Bill Clinton over the decrepit Senator Bob Dole. Clinton won rather easily, after all we were in much better shape fiscally and Dole appeared as though he could drop dead at any moment. Besides, the young Gen X set might have thought it cool that our Commander In Chief was getting blowies in the Oval Office.

Fast forward four years to 2000 and the election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. I was a bit more learned in my politics, and despite my being registered I made the conscious decision to not vote. Why? Because I disagreed with the politics of both men. In 2004 it was awful tempting to go out and vote for Kerry just to "get Bush out of office", but cooler heads prevailed and I once again stayed home despite being registered to vote (in fact I got into a rather heated debate with a professor of mine about the subject).

Here are the main reasons why most people should not vote on election day.

1. Uninformed voting is the worst kind of voting.

Going back to 1996 for a minute, the only election I casted a vote in was said Presidential one. I left the other choices completely blank. Why? Because I knew next to nothing (or less) about the respective candidates. I felt as though I were ill-informed to cast my vote for any of those other people running for an elected office. Most voters, however, feel as though they should cast a vote in every single race, and most voters are either ill-or-uninformed.

If you get your news from the television set, and I don't give a shit what channel it is, you are ill-informed. Every single aspect of what is known as the mainstream news media is as biased and slanted as all get out and Yellow Journalism has become commonplace. In short, the news media is not to be trusted, and those who run it hold way too much power.

At first they tell to get out and vote if you want change. If you decide that one of the third party candidates is for you they chide you for "wasting your vote". Many pundits blame Ralph Nader for "costing" Al Gore the election in 2000, by "taking away his votes in key states". Excuse me, but those were NOT Al Gore's votes, those were Ralph Nader's votes. Who's to say that most or all of the Nader votes would have went to Gore? Perhaps the Nader voters would not have voted if he didn't run.

During the Primaries...or rather, before the primaries even start the news media spins the Wheel O' Propaganda by "telling you" (i.e. implanting in your subconscious) which candidates have a legitimate chance of winning the nomination for each party. When the primaries started I thought the best candidates on each side were Obama for the democrats and Ron Paul for the republicans. Internet polling showed Paul with a strong influence, yet the mainstream media told us that he did not stand a chance from the word Go. Now, instead of a potential revolutionary maverick who the young people were behind and would have gotten us out of Iraq, the GOP has served us with another cookie cutter "good ol' boy" who has stated he will keep us in Iraq if elected and pander to the Christian Right.

Another problem with misinformation is it causes voters to vote for the most asinine reasons. Take Obama for instance; there are rumors spreading that he is a Muslim, and we cannot have one of those dirty "ragheads" running this "great Christian nation". Obama is indeed not a Muslim, but a Christian, yet quite a few people still believe otherwise despite the controversy involving Obama's Christian minister. The proof is right in front of everyone's fucking faces, yet certain people will believe what they want. Besides, it shouldn't matter what a candidate's religion is, what with the Separation of Church and State. In the same vein, I know folks who like Obama because he is "handsome", which is just as bad.

I think everyone should take a political IQ test before being allowed to register to vote. It is my belief that this will dwindle the voting public down to a minute number of qualified individuals who will not truly "waste their vote".

2. The Electoral College

Your vote may not even count at all, due to the Electoral College, the biggest fucking sham in the history of politics. Here's how it works (basically), voters in each state go out and vote, and each each state is assigned a certain number of electoral votes based on the number of people living in said state. No matter how close the election was in the state usually it is a "winner take all" setup. Let's say you live in Maryland and vote for McCain. Obama or Clinton wins the state by 25,000 votes (a slight number), therefore the democratic candidate gets all of the support of Maryland and your vote for McCain (along with the others) doesn't make a shit worth of difference. Thusly, not every vote counts: just ask Al Gore.

3. The lesser of two evils IS STILL WAY FUCKING EVIL!

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard "I'm voting for X because he's not as bad as Y. I don't like X mind you, but I'm picking the lesser of two evils". I couldn't find a bigger pile of horse shit at the Kentucky Derby.

Evil is wrong, no matter what the packaging. If John Kerry had defeated G.W. Bush in 2004 due to the "lesser of two evils" factor we would be no better off today than we are with that criminal fucktard who did win. You are still left with evil, an evil that bend you over and fuck you up the ass without the courtesy of KY Jelly. If you like a particular candidate then by all means go out and vote; if you do not then let them know by staying home.

A low voter turn-out will speak volumes, even the assholes in the mainstream media will have to report on it. If neither candidate (or none of the third party candidates) appeals to you, then do you best Howard Beal, stay at home, and shout from your window "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" Otherwise all we will get is status quo, no matter who is in office.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." - Unknown

Offline Giff me dat fill-em!

  • Oh, Vici Kid!
  • Team Stooge
  • Muttonhead
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,989
  • Gender: Male
  • Vici Kid
    • View Profile
Re: Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2008, 08:07:29 PM »
... 'nuff said.

You and George Carlin should hold touring seminars.

I know that later on this year you're going to have one of those swell Presidential Elections that you like so much, I'm sure that as soon as you are all through voting, your country will improve immediately. I will be at home on that day doing essentially the same thing, except that when I get through masturbating, I'm going to have a little something to show for it.
The tacks won't come out! Well, they went in ... maybe they're income tacks.

Offline Waldo Twitchell

  • Bonehead
  • **
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2008, 09:21:50 PM »
Amen.

Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Chowderhead
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,884
  • Gender: Male
  • Webmaster
    • View Profile
Re: Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2008, 08:45:45 AM »
I have been sick of voting for the "lesser of two evils" crap for years, myself.  That's why I boycotted elections since 1998, until I had the opportunity to vote for Dr. Paul in Michigan's primary in January.

I don't see a dime's worth of real difference between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.  They are all quislings.  I won't vote for any of them, unless it is as part of a jury trying to decide between a firing squad or hanging them.

No More "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"
WRITE-IN RON PAUL!

As for me, I am voting for Dr. Paul this November, whether his name appears on the ballot or not.  I've never cast a write-in vote before, but I can't think of anyone more worthy of being the first!   ;D


RE:  ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Jim. I have to completely disagree with you about the Electoral College, although I can understand why you feel that way.  Most Americans don't understand what that is all about, mostly because they know little or nothing about the American Revolution or the principles behind it.

The United States was founded as an early day "United Nations."  The States were sovereign and independent, of each other as well as of everyone else.  They joined together as a confederation of otherwise independent States, with only a few specific functions being delegated to the confederation which they felt should be coordinated between them.   Everything else was to be left in then hands of the people of each State, and the people having the right to freely move to any other State in the confederation.

There was a big debate about the nature of the union in the early days of the Republic.  There were those who wanted to form a single, unified nation with the states as mere satrapies of a central government, instead of a loose confederation of independent States.  The nationalists tried to push through their ideas at the Constitutional Convention, but they were largely defeated and the new Constitution maintained a federal character for the new government.

Although the new House of Representatives was chosen based on population, the States kept their status as sovereign equals in the Senate.  The Senate was meant to represent the State governments (not the people), and the Senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures, although gradually some States started allowing their citizens to vote for Senators instead.

The State governments were also to chose the President who was to enforce the laws passed by the Congress, which is the reason for the Electoral College.  Rather than have the State Legislatures make the selection, however, the Founders decided to try to make the process a bit more independent.  The State legislatures chose the Electors who would in turn decide who to select as President.  They even included a provision that no legislator would be eligible to be an Elector.  The idea was that the separate, independent States would each choose their best and brightest to caucus together in that State and choose the best person to be the next President.

Like everything else about the now misnamed federal government, the process became warped into something else altogether by the Nationalists, who won the (also misnamed) "Civil War."  The Republicans were the political successors of the Hamilton "Federalists" (who were really Nationalists*), and they quickly began the process of transforming the federal government into a national government (without bothering to change the names.)

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a "winner take all" scenario; that is just the preference of the so-called two party system.  Any State is quite capable of changing its election rules to allow the selection of each Elector by congressional districts, with two chosen statewide, or to even create "Elector" districts that are independent of congressional districts.  The State legislatures cold even reclaim the right to choose the Electors themselves.  It is up to each State to decide (as it should be.)

I hate the trend towards nationalization.  I have lived in many different parts of the United States over the years, and while we have a lot in common we are NOT all the same, and I see no reason why we should be all the same.  I have no desire to live in a country full of "Stepford" people.

So, personally, rather than scrap the Electoral College, I would rather see it restored to its original intended function.  Let us make our decisions as States.

* Politicians have been playing name games for a very long time.  The "Federalists" in the 1780's and 90's weren't federalists at all, but rather nationalists who wanted a centralized government that controlled the States.  The real federalists were ironically branded as "Anti-Federalists."

Similarly, classical liberals believe in individual sovereignty and oppose collectivism, yet the socialists in the "Democratic" party took the name of "Liberals", making the word mean the exact opposite of its original intent.

Offline archiezappa

  • Numbskull
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sometimes Inaction Speaks Loudest Of All
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2008, 12:26:46 PM »
Funny, I never thought about writing in Ron Paul.  I voted for him in the Alabama primaries back in February.  I also agree about Clinton/Obama/McCain.  They are all the same dime-a-dozen liberals that we see everywhere.  None of them are even talking about the 2 most important issues:  unemployment and gas prices.  They're all concerned about a million other mundane things that are not even important right now.  Writing in Ron Paul is a really great idea.  Thanks for the idea.  I know what I'll be doing this November.