Brewsters MillionsFollow

Nicely put

Vote. Don't vote. Who gives a toss.

If you have critical views about a candidate, posting about them has a tangential validity.

Taking time to post an "I don't care" comment is. .. perverse?

If you lack the rational skills to identify a preferred (or least hated) candidate, it's nobody's loss.

Your point would be valid if there were a "none of the above" box.

There isn't. One candidate will be elected.

Work out which you'd choose, and vote. Lobby for them to change their policies to more closely align with yours, by all means.

If you choose to exclude yourself from the process, that's just dandy. But by doing so you've negated the validity of any opinion you have, so quit opining.

Easy, no?

I follow the election. I vote. I was presenting an argument in defence of the people who chose not to.

Edit: And where do you get off telling me I'm not on topic? This isn't the politics forum, Nob. It's the anything forum, and this is a topic about not voting, so I made a post about not voting. So far your contribution to this thread has been to say "I don't care about this thread", which you said at the start, said just above, and will say again in response. You think I've added nothing cogent?

Edited, Sep 9th 2008 7:36pm by zepoodle

Vote third party. If enough people do, their main point will be adopted by a major party.

If you actually feel the government is tyrannical, it is your duty to rebel, and the US constitution protects your ability to do so, or so it was intended.

In prior second amendment threads I've written as to exactly how I think this should work, and why even if something like what I recommend to comply with the second amendment was enacted, we would have repealed it long ago.

By my definition, terrorism is violence against civilians to force political change (see the Oklahoma City bombing). Rebellion is open, armed insurrection against the military of the government (see US civil war).

I'd actually recommend civil disobedience as vastly more effective then the latter, and I'd never recommend the former.

[quote=Nobby]And they asked you to do this?

When you learn to speak your own mind with a modicum of lucidity, practice that before speaking on behalf of others, you imbecile.

What's next - lobbying for Serbian lesbian amputee rights?

Patronising ******************

?

Did I **** in your coffee today, or are you just flamebaiting?

Flamebaiting, right.

Have fun with that.

That's nice.

I agree. The first is utter folly and always will be(Sorry Sherman), the middle would be near impossible to pull off conventionally, at least in an offensive way (but we'll see what happens when we have a black pres), and the latter seems to work if done correctly.. and if people are serious.. which they generally aren't.

But to say that someone has no right to a political opinion because they do not participate in a voting process is simply fascism.


and for the record: I vote.

I tire of hearing people rant about the outcome of jury trials who choose not to serve. I tire of hearing people rant about politics who don't vote. That said, of course they have the right to their opinion.

I apologize for the delay in response as classes have kept me occupied. Well let's see what sort of mess people have... oh... wow.

If you are going to pretend your premise was based around you not knowing anything about the candidates when you specifically stated you knew they were corrupt players then we can stop here.

The majority of Americans have access to the internet, library, or various periodicals. The means are fully available for individuals to educate themselves. There no difference between being too lazy to drive to the voting booth or too lazy to look up candidates on the web. Your doctor analogy is so terribly flawed, because it requires a nontrivial effort to give respectable medical advice. Years of medical school versus less than an hour of reading to have the same level of understanding as the median voter.

But again, the point I was responding to definitely stated awareness of the system, not ignorance.

The only gain from not voting is not wasting your own time, laziness. There is no advantage to the system for any random voter to not cast her vote given any selection of candidates.

Edited, Sep 10th 2008 4:02pm by Allegory

And I already explained that people have the resources to educate themselves readily available. The only reason they remain unaware is that they are too lazy to make an effort to learn.

Laziness is the only reason not to vote. The effort it costs one is not worth the gain in her opinion. Any notion of moral objection, washing one's hands, or ignorance as meaningful is inaccurate.

That will depend entirely how many of those 10 people can access google from their iphones.

No, he lied. In fact, he does it all the time.