President Obama Re-Elected - Page 38

On April 21 2012 04:19 Defacer wrote:


Yes.

Only high school kids or freshmen in college think not participating is 'subversion'.

Not voting 'out of principle' is a lazy person's way of justifying their bitching and moaning despite being to cowardly or impotent to do anything about it.

If people actually gave a shit about politics, they'd at minimum protest or get involved in politics. Sitting on your ass simply makes it easier for the institutions you oppose to piss on your doorstep.

On April 21 2012 04:48 squanzo wrote:
Look I'm gonna sum up this entire thread right here:

If you honestly don't think Ron Paul is the only candidate that has the ideas to restore America, it's monetary system, the gold standard, resolve largely funded bank bailouts, peace in the middle east, or any other policy requiring a plan of action over the next 4 years to ensure the American people's rights are properly protected while consistently improving quality of life not only in this country but around the world, then you have failed to properly assess the situation this country is in and how we got here, and where we're going, and I can only hope you will not vote this year. It's that simple. Have a good day.

On April 21 2012 04:32 Holytornados wrote:


I agree. Not voting gives you no right to speak against anything that is being done. If you want it done another way you should go out and vote. Find a candidate you can back.

On April 21 2012 06:12 seppolevne wrote:

How do you reason not voting = no complaining? What is different between the exact same words and arguments coming from someone who two years earlier checked a box and one who didn't?

On April 21 2012 06:16 Jisall wrote:


Because if you complain but do nothing, your just a nagger.
If you complain but try to actively persue a solution, your a contributor.

On April 21 2012 06:16 Jisall wrote:


Because if you complain but do nothing, your just a nagger.
If you complain but try to actively persue a solution, your a contributor.

On April 21 2012 06:26 Slakter wrote:


You can do things without voting. Actually most actual social change comes from grass root activism, not a meaningless vote for a bought president.

I wont vote because I find the system of representative democracy horrible, why does that mean that I have no right to complain about the shit that we´re in?

On April 21 2012 04:32 Holytornados wrote:


I agree. Not voting gives you no right to speak against anything that is being done. If you want it done another way you should go out and vote. Find a candidate you can back.

On April 21 2012 01:50 Golgotha wrote:
It's hilarious when people shove recent poll numbers in my face when the actual election is months away. They mean NOTHING right now. One cannot simply think the actual race will be very close based on the poll numbers of today. That is not a good projection of how the election will go. IMO Obama is a sure win this year. People must understand that TOP republican heads are backing away from this election year due to the fact that Obama is too strong.

Also, keep in mind that Romney...is tolerable at best to Republican leaders. I don't hate Romney, I wouldn't mind him, but Obama's reach and influence is far too great for such a weak contender.

On April 21 2012 06:42 liberal wrote:

Suppose a cafeteria gives me the option of either a turd sandwich or a turd casserole. Suppose I refuse to vote for either of these on the principle that people shouldn't be forced to eat shit. Does that mean I'm not allowed to complain when I'm forced to eat shit?

Internet analogies 1-0 Democracy cliches

Suppose you think there are some fundamentally immoral aspects of a system or country, and that voting for any candidate who supports them is implicitly granting your consent to the immorality. Shouldn't a person then be allowed to not vote and to still voice their complaints?

Stop this simplistic reasoning judging.

On April 21 2012 06:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It annoys me when I hear other Americans say "Both parties suck and don't care about voters so I'm not going to vote."

Third Parties have ballot access in a majority of states including the Libertarian, and Green Party.

On April 21 2012 06:49 supereddie wrote:
Is it possible to vote 'None of the above' (or similar) in US elections? Whenever I vote in the Netherlands I have the option to produce a 'blanc' vote: one that does count for the voter turnout, but has no effect on the actual results. It also sends a message that I have taken the effort and time to go and vote but that I cannot identity with any of the candidates.

On April 21 2012 06:53 Defacer wrote:


That's cool! "This is bullshit!" should be an option for all voters.

On April 21 2012 06:52 TheToast wrote:


But they're not going to win. Third parties only serve to split the vote between them and one of the main parties, resulting in the other main party winning. That's generally considered to be the reason why George HW Bush lost in 1992, large numbers of typically republican voters crossed over to Ross Perot, giving Clinton the edge.

This is a well known and documented phenomena with a direct representation system, and one of the reasons why most countries around the world utilize a proportional representation system.

On April 21 2012 06:49 supereddie wrote:
Is it possible to vote 'None of the above' (or similar) in US elections? Whenever I vote in the Netherlands I have the option to produce a 'blanc' vote: one that does count for the voter turnout, but has no effect on the actual results. It also sends a message that I have taken the effort and time to go and vote but that I cannot identity with any of the candidates.