|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 26, 2010 14:51:36 GMT -5
I'm one of those people who gets up early on election day so I can go out and vote before work. I have for as long as I've been old enough to vote. I've voted in every election except for primaries because I'm a registered Libertarian and it's pointless.
Anyway, I'm thinking of not voting this year. I'm just so freaking disallusioned by tweedle dee and tweedle dum every year and I know they're gonna get re-electing. Regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats win, they both want to fix my life. They just disagree about how to go about fixing my life. There are a few Libertarians on the ballot, but they're not going to win. The media here simply will not cover them. They yak all day long about the Democrats and the Republicans, but basically refuse to acknowledge that there's even another candidate in the race.
So, I can vote for candidates that don't have a snowball's chance of winning or candidates who I loathe. There are two ammendments to the state constitution but I really have no strong feelings on either of them. One will change the wording so that "a person" has the right to bear arms instead of "the people." Another one I'm kind of on the fence about. It will change the constitution so that people who are mentally ill can't be denied the right to vote. I'm on the fence about it because I don't know that the mentally ill are actively being denied the right to vote as it is. Plus, I have the vision in my head of one party or the other loading up a bus full of people with Down's syndrome and telling them "Vote for anyone who says XYZ party by their name."
I can't decide. Any input?
|
|
|
|
Post by Happy Pizza on Oct 26, 2010 15:01:46 GMT -5
I have similar reasons for not voting, yet Slappy was appalled that I chose not to vote.
Is consciously choosing not to vote really worse than voting just for the sake of voting? I understand voting is a privilege and all, but I don't see a point in choosing which guy to elect when I don't agree with either of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 26, 2010 15:05:30 GMT -5
Slappy's input is kind of what I really want right now. He's an intelligent guy yet he could potentially be banned from voting in my state which is ridiculous. On the other hand, my situation that I presented could happen if the amendment passes which is ridiculous.
I'm just sick of seeing the Republicans frak things up and when people get sick of it, they put the Democrats in office and they frak things up. Them people get sick of the Dems and they vote for the Republicans again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:06:00 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more with you guys.
I'll be voting in my local elections and leaving my state elections (which are dominated by terrible career politicians) blank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Oct 26, 2010 15:07:39 GMT -5
I'm voting, but really, my only intent is to cast a vote against Paul Hodes. The rest of the ballot will pretty much fall in line with what you guys have been saying.
|
|
Captain d00m - Mr. 3000
Main Eventer
Bringing death and destruction since 2005!
Joined on: Dec 2, 2005 20:52:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,376
|
Post by Captain d00m - Mr. 3000 on Oct 26, 2010 15:08:39 GMT -5
Ive already sent in my absentee, though I know nothing I voted on will get passed. Just how it works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Oct 26, 2010 15:17:19 GMT -5
better to vote, than not..
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:33:37 GMT -5
For some reason I think you live in Kentucky, right?
If so, I see why you don't want to. Neither Senate candidate is really that special.
I believe it is Nevada that gives you the option to vote for "None of the above." Which I think every state should have.
Just go in, vote 3rd party for everything and the ones you can't then leave it blank.
It should already be federal law that they cannot refuse to allow someone to vote, so if they vote to make sure mentally ill people can't vote, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:34:44 GMT -5
For some reason I think you live in Kentucky, right? If so, I see why you don't want to. Neither Senate candidate is really that special. I believe it is Nevada that gives you the option to vote for "None of the above." Which I think every state should have. Just go in, vote 3rd party for everything and the ones you can't then leave it blank. Rand Paul FTW. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:36:04 GMT -5
For some reason I think you live in Kentucky, right? If so, I see why you don't want to. Neither Senate candidate is really that special. I believe it is Nevada that gives you the option to vote for "None of the above." Which I think every state should have. Just go in, vote 3rd party for everything and the ones you can't then leave it blank. Rand Paul FTW. You like the number one of his supporters did to a woman who was from MoveOn.org? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:39:41 GMT -5
You like the number one of his supporters did to a woman who was from MoveOn.org? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:45:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 26, 2010 15:45:31 GMT -5
For some reason I think you live in Kentucky, right? If so, I see why you don't want to. Neither Senate candidate is really that special. I believe it is Nevada that gives you the option to vote for "None of the above." Which I think every state should have. Just go in, vote 3rd party for everything and the ones you can't then leave it blank. It should already be federal law that they cannot refuse to allow someone to vote, so if they vote to make sure mentally ill people can't vote, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. It's in Kansas and the language is already in the state constitution. Currently it reads: They want to amend it to strike the mental illness from the amendment claiming it's too broad. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:47:43 GMT -5
So some of his supporters beat up some chick? I'm not shocked. There are crazies in every campaign. If Rand Paul was in there helping to hold her down or something, then I'd care. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less. This is exactly the kind of thing that "they" want you to vote about. "They" want you to not pay attention to the issues and "they" want you to watch their media coverage of isolated incidents that have nothing to do with the actual person running for election. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:48:48 GMT -5
For some reason I think you live in Kentucky, right? If so, I see why you don't want to. Neither Senate candidate is really that special. I believe it is Nevada that gives you the option to vote for "None of the above." Which I think every state should have. Just go in, vote 3rd party for everything and the ones you can't then leave it blank. It should already be federal law that they cannot refuse to allow someone to vote, so if they vote to make sure mentally ill people can't vote, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. It's in Kansas and the language is already in the state constitution. Currently it reads: They want to amend it to strike the mental illness from the amendment claiming it's too broad. I knew it started with a K. Great choice for your next Governor in Sam Brownback.  The Republican is going to kill the Democrat in the Senate race, he's polling at 40 points ahead of her. Yes, it is too broad. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:49:49 GMT -5
So some of his supporters beat up some chick? I'm not shocked. There are crazies in every campaign. If Rand Paul was in there helping to hold her down or something, then I'd care. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less. This is exactly the kind of thing that "they" want you to vote about. "They" want you to not pay attention to the issues and "they" want you to watch their media coverage of isolated incidents that have nothing to do with the actual person running for election. He didn't notice at all though. In the video, he walks by and two seconds later this is happening. He didn't hear anything happening? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:49:50 GMT -5
Oh.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 26, 2010 15:52:12 GMT -5
I'm not saying it should impact the race any more than that Barack Obama supporter who carved a B into her forehead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 26, 2010 15:54:20 GMT -5
I'm not saying it should impact the race any more than that Barack Obama supporter who carved a B into her forehead. It shouldn't affect it AT ALL. It has nothing to do with Rand Paul whatsoever. Anyway, this topic is steering in a wrong direction... I don't blame Hulk for not wanting to vote. It's hard to feel the need when the people you're voting for are lying pieces of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 26, 2010 15:56:01 GMT -5
It's in Kansas and the language is already in the state constitution. Currently it reads: They want to amend it to strike the mental illness from the amendment claiming it's too broad. I knew it started with a K. Great choice for your next Governor in Sam Brownback. The Republican is going to kill the Democrat in the Senate race, he's polling at 40 points ahead of her. Yes, it is too broad. Yeah, that's the joy of living in a red state. Republicans always, always, always win unless they run someone who's a complete schmuck. Brownback is a fairly popular Senator so he's a shoo in for governor. I went out and voted against the gay marriage ban a few years ago. It got 70% of the vote. Yep. That's the kind of state I live in. |
|
I dont know good luck 
