KevinG Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 I just found it peculiar l when you stated you don't like name calling since I've noticed over the years you throw out names. Asshats, idiots, rubes, cowards?You don't have to praise a non-voter. And I don't think if someone chose not to place a vote for a presidential nominee that it makes them a coward. Honestly, I don't remember saying I don't like name calling. But I guess just keep saying that and it must be true. And I am old and my memory is not what it used to be. There is a difference and important one that I would like to make a distinction about. Staying home on election day makes you a coward. Going to the polls, voting for a third party candidate, or a write in vote, or just a refusal to pick a candidate is not cowardice. You are at least participating. You are making your voice known that you do not like any candidate. But not bothering to walk yourself to your polling place is just plain lazy. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Honestly, I don't remember saying I don't like name calling. But I guess just keep saying that and it must be true. And I am old and my memory is not what it used to be. There is a difference and important one that I would like to make a distinction about. Staying home on election day makes you a coward. Going to the polls, voting for a third party candidate, or a write in vote, or just a refusal to pick a candidate is not cowardice. You are at least participating. You are making your voice known that you do not like any candidate. But not bothering to walk yourself to your polling place is just plain lazy. With mail-in/drop-off ballots there's no point in going to the polling place. Besides, why would someone going to the polls and writing in "Gary Coleman" or going to the polling place and refusing to pick a candidate make any sense. It's not public duty (Jury Duty is a public duty) to vote, but a right that some choose to not exercise for whatever reason. I know a few people who opted not to vote and I think none the less of them for exercising that right. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 With mail-in/drop-off ballots there's no point in going to the polling place. Besides, why would someone going to the polls and writing in "Gary Coleman" or going to the polling place and refusing to pick a candidate make any sense. It's not public duty (Jury Duty is a public duty) to vote, but a right that some choose to not exercise for whatever reason. I know a few people who opted not to vote and I think none the less of them for exercising that right. Voting IMHO is an obligation. Of course you the right not to vote, but it doesn't lessen the obligation. Voting shows that you are engaged in the public process. Without this engagement our leaders have no way of knowing what the public wants and thus they cater to the people who did vote. I think the percentage of eligible voters who did not vote was something like 42%. Now we don't know if this group would have voted for Clinton, Trump or Harambe the Gorilla. By voting you are being counted. As a thought exercise, let's say the that 42% did not vote because they did not like either one of the candidates. By going to the polls and writing in whomever, it would be counted. It would be a huge story. 42% of the voters voted for no one. Politicians would have to take notice of that. That is a form of protest. Sitting at home is meaningless. It just shows you are too scared to even try to make a difference. The people who you know who didn't vote, what was their reasons? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Voting IMHO is an obligation. Of course you the right not to vote, but it doesn't lessen the obligation. Voting shows that you are engaged in the public process. Without this engagement our leaders have no way of knowing what the public wants and thus they cater to the people who did vote. I think the percentage of eligible voters who did not vote was something like 42%. Now we don't know if this group would have voted for Clinton, Trump or Harambe the Gorilla. By voting you are being counted. As a thought exercise, let's say the that 42% did not vote because they did not like either one of the candidates. By going to the polls and writing in whomever, it would be counted. It would be a huge story. 42% of the voters voted for no one. Politicians would have to take notice of that. That is a form of protest. Sitting at home is meaningless. It just shows you are too scared to even try to make a difference. The people who you know who didn't vote, what was their reasons? All had the same reason: complete lack of faith in either of the two viable candidates. I'm willing to bet that a lot of that 42% consists due to similar reasoning, and that alone says a lot. Changing the way we vote and the availability of (day of the week? Make it a holiday?) might help boost those numbers, but I'd never call someone a coward for exercising moral/philosophical beliefs in an election as crummy as this one was. Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 The people who you know who didn't vote, what was their reasons? My college-aged son didn't vote. He said that he didn't like either candidate and that his vote in Massachusetts - where he is registered - wouldn't make a difference because Clinton was going to win it easily. I tried to convince him that it was an obligation, that he should vote even if it didn't decide who won, etc. etc. but I couldn't sway him. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 All had the same reason: complete lack of faith in either of the two viable candidates. I'm willing to bet that a lot of that 42% consists due to similar reasoning, and that alone says a lot. Actually it says nothing. A no vote says nothing. We can speculate, we can say we think this is what they mean, but we have no way of knowing what these people want. We do not know what these 42% want. We don't know if it was a protest, or laziness, or what. It is a sea of nothing. Meaningless in the conversation. We can only guess, which is bad. Why should anyone care what the non voters think? They can't be bothered with their obligations, why should politicians or people be bothered with them? My college-aged son didn't vote. He said that he didn't like either candidate and that his vote in Massachusetts - where he is registered - wouldn't make a difference because Clinton was going to win it easily. I tried to convince him that it was an obligation, that he should vote even if it didn't decide who won, etc. etc. but I couldn't sway him. Fucking millennials. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Actually it says nothing. A no vote says nothing. We can speculate, we can say we think this is what they mean, but we have no way of knowing what these people want. We do not know what these 42% want. We don't know if it was a protest, or laziness, or what. It is a sea of nothing. Meaningless in the conversation. We can only guess, which is bad. Why should anyone care what the non voters think? They can't be bothered with their obligations, why should politicians or people be bothered with them? Well, out of the ones I know who didn't vote, there were actual reasons given as to why they didn't vote ("obligations" was not one of the reasons). Their right not to vote is as important as anyone else's is to vote, whether it was protest, laziness, a broken spine, a philosophical stand, or they were out playing Pokemon Go. And, they have as much right to discuss politics as anyone else and decide whether or not they want to vote next time, as well. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 I don't want to hear any complaints about the next couple years from non-voters. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 I don't want to hear any complaints about the next couple years from non-voters.You likely won't know who they are, though, so just assume everyone has a "right" to bitch about whatever they want.... Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 15, 2016 Author Share Posted November 15, 2016 I can understand disliking candidates, but I find the "It's all the same" argument irresponsible and intellectually lazy. Whether you're voting for Satan or Dracula (Penny Dreadful anyone?) you're going to get a different result. You may as well make a decision of which one will work out, even if it's only slightly better. I think people are reluctant to vote because of misplaced political pride. My Clinton vote was not the same as telling people I'm a Beatles guy. I was on the hiring committee for our chief executive. Sometimes you interview a ton of people and you're not sure anyone's great, but it's a position that needs to be filled. The people whose identity/pride makes them check out in the middle of the last hiring committee meeting are irksome. None of this is to say anyone is not allowed to discuss anything. It's just to say that I find them to be wrong in their lack of engagement. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 You likely won't know who they are, though, so just assume everyone has a "right" to bitch about whatever they want.... But isn't that just a tad disingenuous? The non voter complains about something they could have actually had a changing. It is like the dude who complains about olives on their pizza, who said nothing when it was ordered. Olives are the worst. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 15, 2016 Author Share Posted November 15, 2016 Olives are the worst. This is objectively untrue. You've been getting your pizza info from the Lame Stream Media! Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 This is objectively untrue. You've been getting your pizza info from the Lame Stream Media!#makepizzagreatagain Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 My college-aged son didn't vote. He said that he didn't like either candidate and that his vote in Massachusetts - where he is registered - wouldn't make a difference because Clinton was going to win it easily. I tried to convince him that it was an obligation, that he should vote even if it didn't decide who won, etc. etc. but I couldn't sway him. does he know that the ballot had more election races than just the presidency, and also had referendums? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 2016 was the year that facts just didn't matter, but it the machinery to enable this way of thinking has been in the works for a while... Thanks, Ailes, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. this was incredibly depressing to listen to. it's definitely worth a listen, and while there aren't too many here, I would love to hear the perspectives of Fox News viewers on this. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/599/seriously?act=1#play Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 I was watching the Samantha Bee show last night and I had to turn it off. Previously, finding humor in poking holes into the Right was worth my while. Post-Election, it's just not funny anymore. It doesn't lift my spirits. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 I was watching the Samantha Bee show last night and I had to turn it off. Previously, finding humor in poking holes into the Right was worth my while. Post-Election, it's just not funny anymore. It doesn't lift my spirits. I am right there with you, sir.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4iED5yrII Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 If some Americans had lazily refused to go vote we could not have an insane egopath about to be sworn in as our president. Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The Prediction Professor says Trump will be impeached. Presuming he's found guilty and thrown out with the trash where he belongs, that would leave Pence as leader of the land. If this happens within the space of 2 years, he'd have a Repugnant House and Senate. It's reasonable to guess that they would prefer Pence, and could "accomplish" more. http://theweek.com/speedreads/662318/professor-predicted-trump-win-election-now-predicts-how-trumps-presidency-end Question to lefties: Which scenario is scarier?Question to righties: Which scenario would you prefer? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Pence appears to be scarier than Trump but who knows once this spaceship takes off in January. We still don't even know his cabinet, etc. appointees yet (which I'm not sure why the press is making such a big deal about as many previous presidents have taken much longer, i.e. Obama took 3 weeks). It's only been a week. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 The Prediction Professor says Trump will be impeached. Presuming he's found guilty and thrown out with the trash where he belongs, that would leave Pence as leader of the land. If this happens within the space of 2 years, he'd have a Repugnant House and Senate. It's reasonable to guess that they would prefer Pence, and could "accomplish" more. http://theweek.com/speedreads/662318/professor-predicted-trump-win-election-now-predicts-how-trumps-presidency-end Question to lefties: Which scenario is scarier?Question to righties: Which scenario would you prefer? Meh - either scenario doesn't matter to me. I read somewhere recently that angry people vote (meaning, those angry people voted for Trump). With either Pence or Trump in charge, I would assume there's going to be a large contingent of angry people (again) in 2020. I would think this will be a one term presidency, but I thought the same thing about Bush Jr. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Strong stuff from Ireland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOTpuF0TMzk Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Pence is going to be the acting president no matter what happens, so I don't see much of a difference. Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 It might be Priebus who's the acting president. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Pence is going to be the acting president no matter what happens, so I don't see much of a difference. This Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts