|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 12:16:53 GMT -5
like I said, not voting doesn't say anything to anyone.. that makes even less sense to me.. if you truly believe in your ideals, then you MUST vote for them.. How do you vote your ideals when none of the candidates represent them? In many of the races I'm left to choose between a guy I loathe and a guy I detest. In other races they may have a guy who does represent my ideals, but who is horribly unqualified. I'm not going to take a guy who's been a career line worker at a machine shop and make him US Senator. That strikes me as ridiculous. what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything..
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 28, 2010 13:00:25 GMT -5
How do you vote your ideals when none of the candidates represent them? In many of the races I'm left to choose between a guy I loathe and a guy I detest. In other races they may have a guy who does represent my ideals, but who is horribly unqualified. I'm not going to take a guy who's been a career line worker at a machine shop and make him US Senator. That strikes me as ridiculous. what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything.. I think it fuels the fire to vote for someone who you don't agree with. It encourages their shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 13:38:19 GMT -5
what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything.. I think it fuels the fire to vote for someone who you don't agree with. It encourages their shenanigans. agree completely.. but you're not going to find the perfect candidate for everyone, so at least vote for someone with whom you do agree with the majority of their principals.. it makes no sense to me to say you didn't vote, but didn't participate in the democratic process.. primarily because you believe that not voting makes some sort of statement in your silence.. silence is even more troublesome.. as a (mostly) libertarian guy, I vote in every election here in California, even though every year the establishment wins.. but that's not going to keep me from trying though.. so believe me, I know what it's like to feel disenfranchised and angry about affairs of the state.. I still have the power to vote and I will use that power every chance I get.. our forefathers did not create this country by being silent.. the silent treatment is something you give your spouse when they piss you off.. but certainly not your government.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 28, 2010 13:41:45 GMT -5
My ideals, quite frankly, are very, very different from the "average" political candidate. MOST elections have no one who is even close to them.
This year I will be voting in the following races: - City Council - County Commissioner
That's it. Everyone else sucks too much for me to even consider voting for them.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 14:00:02 GMT -5
How do you vote your ideals when none of the candidates represent them? In many of the races I'm left to choose between a guy I loathe and a guy I detest. In other races they may have a guy who does represent my ideals, but who is horribly unqualified. I'm not going to take a guy who's been a career line worker at a machine shop and make him US Senator. That strikes me as ridiculous. what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything.. There are some 3rd parties in some races who I do support. They have zero chance of winning though. Most of the races here simply have candidates from the two major parties. They both agree that the feds need to fix my life. They disagree about how. The two state propositions I have mixed feelings on. One is complete and total bunk. It's gun nuts who think the feds are going to take their guns away so they want to pass an ammendment to the state constitution that says the feds can't do that. It's beyond ridiculous. The other one would make it illegal for the state to deny the "mentally ill" their right to vote. That one I'm torn on. On the one hand there are intelligent people with bi-polar or schizophrenia or something who are very capable of voting but would qualify as "mentally ill." On the other hand I could see one of the two parties loading up a busfull of people with down syndrome who can't take care of themselves and telling them to go pull the lever for (insert party/candidate here). Then there's the fact that there's never, ever been a situation I know of where someone was turned away from the polls because they were mentally ill so it's strikes me as kind of pointless and I'm on the fence about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 15:21:28 GMT -5
what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything.. There are some 3rd parties in some races who I do support. They have zero chance of winning though. Most of the races here simply have candidates from the two major parties. They both agree that the feds need to fix my life. They disagree about how. The two state propositions I have mixed feelings on. One is complete and total bunk. It's gun nuts who think the feds are going to take their guns away so they want to pass an ammendment to the state constitution that says the feds can't do that. It's beyond ridiculous. boy, wish I had that prop on the ballot here.. what's so wrong with people trying to protect their second amendment rights?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 15:36:04 GMT -5
Because there is literally no threat to them. The proposition will change the wording of the constitution. Currently, it says "the people have the right to bear arms......" The proposal is to change it to say, "A person has the right to bear arms......." It literally changes absolutely nothing meaningful. There is no threat to gun rights at all and even if there was, it clearly says, "The people." It's kind of hard to misinterpret that. Changing it to "a person" makes no difference.
Honestly, it's like changing the EOA to add sexual preference to the list along with age, race, sex, etc.... It changes absolutely nothing. I can legally not hire someone because they have blue eyes or I don't like the way they part their hair. Adding such language changes nothing in either case. People think it's going to make a huge difference because they have this idea that the feds are going to take all their guns away and this will protect them. No it won't. It won't make one bit of a difference because you're protecting against something that will never happen. It's like me taking out insurance that specifically protects me against a car sized meteorite obliterating my house. Zero chance of that happening, but why not protect against it?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 16:10:52 GMT -5
Because there is literally no threat to them. The proposition will change the wording of the constitution. Currently, it says "the people have the right to bear arms......" The proposal is to change it to say, "A person has the right to bear arms......." It literally changes absolutely nothing meaningful. There is no threat to gun rights at all and even if there was, it clearly says, "The people." It's kind of hard to misinterpret that. Changing it to "a person" makes no difference. Honestly, it's like changing the EOA to add sexual preference to the list along with age, race, sex, etc.... It changes absolutely nothing. I can legally not hire someone because they have blue eyes or I don't like the way they part their hair. Adding such language changes nothing in either case. People think it's going to make a huge difference because they have this idea that the feds are going to take all their guns away and this will protect them. No it won't. It won't make one bit of a difference because you're protecting against something that will never happen. It's like me taking out insurance that specifically protects me against a car sized meteorite obliterating my house. Zero chance of that happening, but why not protect against it? will it cost your state money?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 16:14:06 GMT -5
Won't cost money either way, but that's not the point. Why not add an amendment that says that people are not allowed to break into your house and steal your stuff? That would make sense in case someone tried to legalize burglary down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 16:17:43 GMT -5
Won't cost money either way, but that's not the point. Why not add an amendment that says that people are not allowed to break into your house and steal your stuff? That would make sense in case someone tried to legalize burglary down the road. it's understandable why they are doing in my eye because it HAS BEEN an issue in the past in other places, why wouldn't they try and go all out the legalizing burglary comparison doesn't fit..apples to oranges
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 16:21:18 GMT -5
No, they haven't. They tried to ban handguns in DC. It got overturned. They tried to ban handguns in Chicago. It got overturned. They've never successfully been able to take away the people's right to bear arms and courts have always held that it's a person's right.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 16:23:55 GMT -5
No, they haven't. They tried to ban handguns in DC. It got overturned. They tried to ban handguns in Chicago. It got overturned. They've never successfully been able to take away the people's right to bear arms and courts have always held that it's a person's right. ever hear the the "assault weapons" ban? also, they have successfully done it in those places you've mentioned.. the courts overturned long time rulings banning guns in DC and Chicago
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Oct 28, 2010 16:26:37 GMT -5
what strikes me as ridiculous is not voting and thinking that it's sending a message to washington.. that doesn't do anything but fuel their flames.. they don't care if you vote or not as long as they have a job at the end of the day.. also, I'm sure there is someone, third party most likely, that represents at least a few of your ideals.. I find it hard to believe that there is nobody I can't believe I am hearing this from you.. at least vote on state and local propositions, if anything.. There are some 3rd parties in some races who I do support. They have zero chance of winning though. Most of the races here simply have candidates from the two major parties. They both agree that the feds need to fix my life. They disagree about how. you dont vote to win, in the sense that you dont vote just because you think the guy youre voting for WILL win. you vote because who you vote for represents your ideals and those ideals that you share DESERVE to be heard, whether or not the rest of the world listens. closed mouths dont get fed. and you shouldnt bitch about the government if youre not willing to change it....WITH YOUR VOTE
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 16:27:13 GMT -5
They passed the bans and then the bans got overturned. And I'm sorry, but I personally don't see any reason why someone needs to own an AK-47. Gonna hunt with it? No. It's way too powerful Gonna defend your home with it? No. It's still way too powerful. You'll shoot the bad guy, go through several walls and shoot your neighbor too. Why do you need to own a weapon like the AK-47 or AR-15 or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 16:37:56 GMT -5
They passed the bans and then the bans got overturned. And I'm sorry, but I personally don't see any reason why someone needs to own an AK-47. Gonna hunt with it? No. It's way too powerful Gonna defend your home with it? No. It's still way too powerful. You'll shoot the bad guy, go through several walls and shoot your neighbor too. Why do you need to own a weapon like the AK-47 or AR-15 or whatever? do you understand why the second amendment is in our bill of rights?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 28, 2010 16:46:01 GMT -5
They passed the bans and then the bans got overturned. And I'm sorry, but I personally don't see any reason why someone needs to own an AK-47. Gonna hunt with it? No. It's way too powerful Gonna defend your home with it? No. It's still way too powerful. You'll shoot the bad guy, go through several walls and shoot your neighbor too. Why do you need to own a weapon like the AK-47 or AR-15 or whatever? do you understand why the second amendment is in our bill of rights? In case the King of England comes storming through your door.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 16:54:41 GMT -5
Exactly. The feds are going to knock on your door and force you to give up your guns. It's very, very, very close to happening. Except it isn't. But whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 28, 2010 17:35:32 GMT -5
Exactly. The feds are going to knock on your door and force you to give up your guns. It's very, very, very close to happening. Except it isn't. But whatever. except that it can and it's happened elsewhere recently.. but forget the past.. none of that even matters I figured you might know better
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 28, 2010 17:38:01 GMT -5
Except that it hasn't happened in the States. There's a clause in the Constitution to prevent that. Shall we ammend the Constitution so it protects "a person's" right to freedom of speech instead of the "the people's" right?
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 28, 2010 21:00:54 GMT -5
If you're serious, that's your decision. Both sides have put up good arguments, but at the end of the day, it's your call whether your vote or not.
|
|