Poll : Should voting be Mandatory ?

[Stace]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

You do have a right to bitch because you did do your part.Someone who does nothing when they have the oportunity forfits any reason for complaining.
Since I was never a NCO, I can not make an opinion on that.Although I do find it hard to beleave that troops in Iraq were able to vote but not soldiers attending pldc.

You're obviously missing my point here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And as for PLDC, let's just say that I was surprised they let him come home for the day to spend Thanksgiving with me....at least out here, PLDC is basically a lockdown school. I can't imagine them setting up the kids in basic training to be able to vote; PLDC isn't much different.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

The First Amendment is based on legal principles. My opinion was based on a principle of moral authority. Apparently you don't know the difference.

And am I to be excoriated for exercising my right to free speech because I look at the issue presented in the topic from a perspective different from yours?

I have stated my reasons for limiting the vote in certain circumstances while fully acknowledging the logistical difficulty in implementing what I think should be the law.

I do not believe NavyPride has suggested nor have I suggested that it should be mandatory to vote; in fact I have quite adamently expressed my opinion that those who don't know who or what they are voting for should not vote. Nor have either of us presumed to inhibit your First Amendment rights to free speech.

What I have said (and I think he said though he can speak for himself) is that those who, whether by choice or by ignorance, do not exercise their right to vote have abdicated their moral authority to bitch about the outcome of the election. Nobody has said you can't go ahead and do it. But those who don't exercise their right to vote are simple whistling in the wind with their complaints. They had a chance to make a difference and chose not to do that.

My posts prove that I know the difference between moral authority and legality; which is why I have asked you non-rhetorical questions about both, separately.

You have yet to answer them.

I'm am at a compleat loss of understanding of your opinion on this.
I did not care for either candidate, thus, supporting either one would have been a lie.

Again I ask you:
*What source of morality inspires you to believe that when I exercise my Constitutional right to not vote, that I have somehow given up my moral authority?

*Is not "moral authority" self evident, showing itself through the words and deeds of one's life?

*Is not one such piece of self-evidence my telling the truth?
{"I do not support either candidate."}

*I must now lie at the voting booth by falsely showing support for a given candidate in order to be seen as having "moral authority"?

*Exactly what kind of oxymoron is that; that I must lie in order to be seen with moral authority?; a contradiction in terms?; an adjective–noun?

*Does not that lie divorce me from the very moral authority which you claim I would be giving up?

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you to explain yourself. If you think that I should remain silent about my upcoming $5,000 tax return because I did not vote for Bush in the last election, that's fine. Let's explore that.

You have yet to identify and illustrait the logical mechanism by which one divorces themselves from moral authority by (in my case) choosing not to lie.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Originally Posted by Busta:
My posts prove that I know the difference between moral authority and legality; which is why I have asked you non-rhetorical questions about both, separately.

You have yet to answer them.

I believe I have answered them though probably not in the way you solicited. My point of view on who and who should not vote is based on my personal convictions and not on any law. Therefore, discussion of any existing law would be both irrelevent and unnecessary to that discussion.

Moral authority is the earned right by experience or action for taking a particular stance or participating in a particular action.

Legality is what is and is not permitted under the existing law. My particular comments had nothing to do with legality other than in the rhetorical (and wishful) sense, thus I resisted being characterized as if I was implying an interpretation of legality on the issue of voting.

I am at a compleat loss of understanding of your opinion on this.
I did not care for either candidate, thus, supporting either one would have been a lie.

No, because there is always a better choice even if the choices are equally distasteful. One who studies the issues at stake and the propensity of the candidates to support them in a certain way will have no problem determining who is the better choice even if you dislike both.

Again I ask you:
*What source of morality inspires you to believe that when I exercise my Constitutional right to not vote, that I have somehow given up my moral authority?

Not all moral authority but just that which involves the results of the election scorned. When you choose not to exercise your constitutional right to cast your vote, you are giving up your opportunity to make a difference. Thus, if the outcome is not to your liking, you have no standing to object to the results. If you can't be bothered to take your time to stick your finger in hole in the dike, you have no moral authority to complain if it breaks.

*Is not "moral authority" self evident, showing itself through the words and deeds of one's life?

Of course. And by not voting, you say loudly and clearly that you don't give a damn who wins or loses. He didn't coin the phrase, but Ross Perot was the last one to use it effectively: "Words are plentiful (and cheap) but deeds are precious."

Is not one such piece of self-evidence my telling the truth?
{"I do not support either candidate."}

*I must now lie at the voting booth by falsely showing support for a given candidate in order to be seen as having "moral authority"?

*Exactly what kind of oxymoron is that; that I must lie in order to be seen with moral authority?; a contradiction in terms?; an adjective–noun?

*Does not that lie divorce me from the very moral authority which you claim I would be giving up?

I am not arguing with you, I am asking you to explain yourself. If you think that I should remain silent about my upcoming $5,000 tax return because I did not vote for Bush in the last election, that's fine. Let's explore that

If you were choosing a king with absolute authority, I would agree. But in our system of government, you are not choosing a king. You are choosing a person who will head a branch of the government and who will have opportunity to influence certain principles that you may or may not favor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to study the issues at stake and choose the candidate most likely to support the principles you deem important even if you think neither candidate is up to the job. When you cast your vote, you are casting much more than favor of a particular personality. Or at least you should be.

You have yet to identify and illustrait the logical mechanism by which one divorces themselves from moral authority by (in my case) choosing not to lie.

I don't know if you will agree, but I believe I have and here have done so again. We can of course discuss tax policies, etc. on another thread, but tax policy is based or at least will be influenced by who wins the election. This is one of those issues I was referring to that are included in our choice of who to vote for. Our vote of course should not be based on purely the person we like the best.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

I believe I have answered them though probably not in the way you solicited. My point of view on who and who should not vote is based on my personal convictions and not on any law.

I don't believe that I was discussing who should and should not be allowed to vote.

Considering the last presidential election, it did not matter to me if the car was going to be T-boned from the left side or the right side; I objected to the car being T-boned at all. Neither was any better than the other because both were equally distastefull.

"It's like trying to decide which pair of dirty socks to wear."

My opinion and knowledge is proof that I did and do "give a damn" about the issues, but as for which puppit gets to ride in the plane, it wasn't a matter of not caring about who was going to win, it was a matter of seeing the obvious victor a year in advance.

Perhaps if the Dem.s had bothered to put up a fight there would have been something to vote on.

You seem to want to paint me as a person who doesn't care or doesn't know about what is going on, but it is precisely because I care and because I know what is going on that I did not vote.

Moral authority is the earned right by experience or action for taking a particular stance or participating in a particular action.

That is exactly correct.
I told the truth: "I do not support either candidate", thus, I have moral authority.

"Words are plentiful, but deeds are precious"
Lech Walesa

Indeed.
Rather than lie, I demonstrated the truth.

You keep saying that those who choose to not vote loose their moral authority, but you have yet to identify and illustrait the logical mechanism which divorces one from moral authority when they choose not to lie.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Busta writes

I don't believe that I was discussing who should and should not be allowed to vote.

I was and that was the foundation for the comments I made on that point.

Otherwise, I stand by my previous comments as you havent asked any new questions and I think I've answered all the old ones.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Busta writes


I was and that was the foundation for the comments I made on that point.

Otherwise, I stand by my previous comments as you havent asked any new questions and I think I've answered all the old ones.

Erm, I still do not understand how you connect telling the truth with being absent of moral authority.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Erm, I still do not understand how you connect telling the truth with being absent of moral authority.

Telling the truth has absolutely nothing to do with abdicating one's right to do their duty.

If you dont stick your finger in the dike when you have a chance to stop the leak, you have no moral authority to complain when the dike breaks.

If you don't pay your bills when they come due, you have no moral authority to whine when your car or furniture is repossessed.

If you decide to sleep in and don't go to work because you just don't like your job or you can't stand your boss, you have no moral authority to whine when you are unemployed.

And if you don't cast your vote which is your constitutional right and opportunity to make a difference in how we are governed, you have no moral authority to whine when your government is not to your liking.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Telling the truth has absolutely nothing to do with abdicating one's right to do their duty.

I did my duty, I told the truth and abstained from lieing.

If you dont stick your finger in the dike when you have a chance to stop the leak, you have no moral authority to complain when the dike breaks.

Both candidates were the leak. I abstained from suporting a non-solution.

If you don't pay your bills when they come due, you have no moral authority to whine when your car or furniture is repossessed.

I did pay my bills. I payed with truth rather than a lie.

If you decide to sleep in and don't go to work because you just don't like your job or you can't stand your boss, you have no moral authority to whine when you are unemployed.

In this analogy, they were going to fire me anyway.

And if you don't cast your vote which is your constitutional right and opportunity to make a difference in how we are governed, you have no moral authority to whine when your government is not to your liking.

My "whine" was that there wasn't anyone to vote for.
Here again you try to connect lieing as a requirement of moral authority.
I must lie in order to complain?

Taking it to an extreme:
If my only choices were either Sodom Hussein or Hitler, and I chose to not vote, then you would say that I would have no moral authority to complain about rape-rooms or furnesses?

I just don't get it.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

What if he didn't like any of the candidates?

That has happened to me many times.......Then you vote for the lessor of the 2 evils but you still vote.......

I was wrong but I was no big fan of Reagan when he first ran for president in 1980 but I sure as hell was not going to vote for Carter.......

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

That has happened to me many times.......Then you vote for the lessor of the 2 evils but you still vote.......

I was wrong but I was no big fan of Reagan when he first ran for president in 1980 but I sure as hell was not going to vote for Carter.......

I believe this is the perfect example to illustrate the problem with the "lesser of two evils" candiate:

If my only choices were either Sodom Hussein or Hitler, and I chose to not vote, then you would say that I would have no moral authority to complain about rape-rooms or furnesses?

I really believe there should be a "no choice" option. If it wins the most votes, all candidates are tossed and more are picked. We shouldn't have to pick our poison.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Aside from the fact that the only election that I did not vote in was the last Presidential election......saying nothing for my state reps. or local government.....

Let me get this straight: You are basing your personal conclusion on reputation? You would only see the value of the content of what I have to say if I had lied at the voting booth? Does not such a lie negate any reputation that I would have had anyway?

My friend, I will not bear false witness to myself in public or privet, and that includes the ballot box.

As for "whining", you have yet to disregard what I have said on abortion and gay-marriage threads as "whining". Instead, history shows that you and I agree on most issues; but now you would abandon an ideological ally because I chose not to vote for the last Pres.?

Surly you did not learn that in the Navy.

Would it really make that much of a difference to you if I had voted for Mickey Mouse? What tangable difference, if any, is there between voting for a cartoon charactor and abstaining my vote?

Besides, both parties have found enough dead and/or nonexistent and/or illegal alien voters to suit their needs.
So, to a degree, I am a "disenfranchised voter".

We just see this one differently my friend.........I just believe if a person does not vote then they have no right to bitch about who is elected..............The first time I voted in a presidential election was 1960 and I have not missed and election since........I consider voting a sacred right and I am ashamed to see a bigger pecentage of Iraqis voting in their country even at the threat of death if they do it...............

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

I believe this is the perfect example to illustrate the problem with the "lesser of two evils" candiate:

No one said the system in this country is perfect but it is the best one there is...........

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

No one said the system in this country is perfect but it is the best one there is...........

So would you vote for Saddam or Hitler then? Seriously, a lot of countries have the "no candidate" option. What's wrong with us having it?

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

So would you vote for Saddam or Hitler then? Seriously, a lot of countries have the "no candidate" option. What's wrong with us having it?

That is not the case in this country.............I don't think you would consider that a democractic government, do you?

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

That is not the case in this country.............I don't think you would consider that a democractic government, do you?

What a "no candidate" option? How is that not democratic?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

I believe this is the perfect example to illustrate the problem with the "lesser of two evils" candiate:


I really believe there should be a "no choice" option. If it wins the most votes, all candidates are tossed and more are picked. We shouldn't have to pick our poison.

The point is, however, that you aren't just voting for a man. You are voting for a party leader, a platform, a set of principles of governance. That's why those who vote for somebody they 'like', with no clue how this person might govern, do us no favors and these people should not vote.

If you don't know what issues you are supporting or opposing with your vote, you should not vote.

Busta seems to think a matchup of Kerry vs Bush as no different than a matchup of Hussein vs Hitler. That is absurd since in this country you do have a choice.

If there is nothing or nobody on the ballot that one can support, it is time to pick another country and move.

Until then, it is those who exercise their right to vote and make a difference who are the ones with moral authority to complain about the outcome. If you haven't taken the time to study the issues, please don't vote. And please don't complain about what sort of country you have. And if you do know what the issues are but can't be bothered to get down to your polling place and vote, then you have given up your chance to say what your government should be and you really don't have the moral authority to complain about it.

This is no way suggests that you don't have a constitutional right tp complain about it. I just think most people who vote will not take seriously the complaints of those who do not.

Disclaimer: The 'you' here is the rhetorical 'you'.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Busta seems to think a matchup of Kerry vs Bush as no different than a matchup of Hussein vs Hitler. That is absurd since in this country you do have a choice.

No no, that was just an extreme analogy to make a point.

My problem with the last Pres. election was 2-fold:
1. Kerry was not a real candidate. He may have spoken English better than Bush, but Bush was a master of speaking $$$$. It was obvious to me that Bush was going to win as soon as the Dem. nominee was official.
There was no contest.

(For the conspiracy theorists out there: Bush had The Order of the Oil, Haliburton, many oil and industrial companies and, last but not least, the computerized voting machines, in his pocket; and Kerry had, what, ketchup?)


2. Even if Kerry had won, nothing significant would be different. Perhaps instead of Bush's tax cuts having been continued we would have some gov. program for children, but the events that matter, like the war in Iraq, would still have happened. I remember D ick in some interview shortly after the Iraqi invasion telling the host that the U.S. and Brittan have had Iraqi invasion plans on the shelf for years; and that it wasn't a matter of "if", but "when", and 9/11 sped up the time table.
The only significant difference between their administrations is how the news is reported; and absolutely nothing ells.

I just don't see how you guys are making the connection.

OMG, I just realized something: if nothing ells, I should have voted for Bush just to p iss my mother in-law off (she's a BIG Kerry, alGor, Hillery supporter),
@&$#*!
From now on, that will be my defalt vote. If don't see a candidate worth my time, I will vote for whomever my mother in-law opposes.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

No no, that was just an extreme analogy to make a point.

My problem with the last Pres. election was 2-fold:
1. Kerry was not a real candidate. He may have spoken English better than Bush, but Bush was a master of speaking $$$$. It was obvious to me that Bush was going to win as soon as the Dem. nominee was official.
There was no contest.

(For the conspiracy theorists out there: Bush had The Order of the Oil, Haliburton, many oil and industrial companies and, last but not least, the computerized voting machines, in his pocket; and Kerry had, what, ketchup?)


2. Even if Kerry had won, nothing significant would be different. Perhaps instead of Bush's tax cuts having been continued we would have some gov. program for children, but the events that matter, like the war in Iraq, would still have happened. I remember D ick in some interview shortly after the Iraqi invasion telling the host that the U.S. and Brittan have had Iraqi invasion plans on the shelf for years; and that it wasn't a matter of "if", but "when", and 9/11 sped up the time table.
The only significant difference between their administrations is how the news is reported; and absolutely nothing ells.

I just don't see how you guys are making the connection.

OMG, I just realized something: if nothing ells, I should have voted for Bush just to p iss my mother in-law off (she's a BIG Kerry, alGor, Hillery supporter),
@&$#*!
From now on, that will be my defalt vote. If don't see a candidate worth my time, I will vote for whomever my mother in-law opposes.

I knew it was an analogy and should have said so. I apologize. My point in using your same analogy is that when you vote for a Hitler or a Hussein you have no alternate candidate with an alternate point of view.

There was most certainly a contest in the last election, and if Kerry had been a more credible candidate he probably would have won. But he ran on a campaign of not how to do things better but on how we must punish Bush. That is rarely a winning strategy and the Democrats have been making the same mistake ever since. There are programs the President has pushed and continues to push such as dedication to the war on terrorism, unwavering support for the mission in Iraq, NCLB that is producing some very good things and reworking Veterans benefits to provide better benefits and tax cuts that have been one of several critical components in a roaring economy. Based on Kerry's quite lengthy voting record, he would not have supported any of these things though he might have done other things better. It was the issues mentioned however, among others, that won Bush my vote and would probably have won it again. According to people in the oil industry that I know, they have benefitted not at all from Bush policies but they generally support him for other reasons.

As far as fiscal accountability, control of our borders, that prescription drug bill, and foreign trade policy, Bush gets low marks from me. I don't know whether Kerry would have done any better on those points as he put no credible plan out there on any of those or any other issue.

But once a candidate convinces us that s/he means what s/he says, there are always issues critical to the security, integrity, and quality of life in the union to help us decide which candidate is most likely to do it better. Bush convinced me that he meant what he said and in the five years he has been in office he has not let me down on that score.

Kerry convinced me that he would say absolutely anything that he thought his audience wanted to hear.

I would not have to personally like or dislike either one to know which was the one to vote for.

As a citizen I still believe it is my duty to make what little difference I can make by casting my vote. I think everybody eligible to vote should register and do the same, but I think they need to know why and for what they are voting. Otherwise I really think they should just stay home. (And be quiet.)

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

No, there are enough uninformed idiots voting already. It would be disastrous.

 

[Axismaster]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

No, there are enough uninformed idiots voting already. It would be disastrous.

Yes, that's right. The only thing worse than apathy is stupidity.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

I knew it was an analogy and should have said so. I apologize. My point in using your same analogy is that when you vote for a Hitler or a Hussein you have no alternate candidate with an alternate point of view.

There was most certainly a contest in the last election, and if Kerry had been a more credible candidate he probably would have won. But he ran on a campaign of not how to do things better but on how we must punish Bush. That is rarely a winning strategy and the Democrats have been making the same mistake ever since. There are programs the President has pushed and continues to push such as dedication to the war on terrorism, unwavering support for the mission in Iraq, NCLB that is producing some very good things and reworking Veterans benefits to provide better benefits and tax cuts that have been one of several critical components in a roaring economy. Based on Kerry's quite lengthy voting record, he would not have supported any of these things though he might have done other things better. It was the issues mentioned however, among others, that won Bush my vote and would probably have won it again. According to people in the oil industry that I know, they have benefitted not at all from Bush policies but they generally support him for other reasons.

As far as fiscal accountability, control of our borders, that prescription drug bill, and foreign trade policy, Bush gets low marks from me. I don't know whether Kerry would have done any better on those points as he put no credible plan out there on any of those or any other issue.

But once a candidate convinces us that s/he means what s/he says, there are always issues critical to the security, integrity, and quality of life in the union to help us decide which candidate is most likely to do it better. Bush convinced me that he meant what he said and in the five years he has been in office he has not let me down on that score.

Kerry convinced me that he would say absolutely anything that he thought his audience wanted to hear.

I would not have to personally like or dislike either one to know which was the one to vote for.

As a citizen I still believe it is my duty to make what little difference I can make by casting my vote. I think everybody eligible to vote should register and do the same, but I think they need to know why and for what they are voting. Otherwise I really think they should just stay home. (And be quiet.)

The differences between Bush and Kerry are thus:

The Invasion from Mexico: Bush has done nothing to protect our borders. Kerry would have done nothing to protect the borders, but he gave speaches in front of mexican racist organizations.

The Budget: Bush has done nothing to stop the Republicans from spending my money to buy votes. Kerry would do nothing to stop Democrats from spending my money to buy votes.

The Drugs for Seniors Scam. Bush promised to spend my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too. Kerry would have spent my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too, only more so.

Foreign trade. Bush is against free trade. Kerry is against free trade.

Bush probably had political pull getting his safe niche in the Texas ANG. Kerry beyond doubt "wounded" himself to get to three purple hearts and a ticket out. Neither deserves respect for their "war record". Dan Rather deserves applause for being so funny.

Most people that voted for either were confused and thought their vote would make a difference. Since there was no difference in the candidates, there would have been no difference in the result. The only exception to this is that Kerry would have nominated people to the courts who think the Constitution should be printed on long rolls of perforated soft squares of paper. So far Bush hasn't broken the courts further, yet.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

The differences between Bush and Kerry are thus:

The Invasion from Mexico: Bush has done nothing to protect our borders. Kerry would have done nothing to protect the borders, but he gave speaches in front of mexican racist organizations.

The Budget: Bush has done nothing to stop the Republicans from spending my money to buy votes. Kerry would do nothing to stop Democrats from spending my money to buy votes.

The Drugs for Seniors Scam. Bush promised to spend my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too. Kerry would have spent my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too, only more so.

Foreign trade. Bush is against free trade. Kerry is against free trade.

Bush probably had political pull getting his safe niche in the Texas ANG. Kerry beyond doubt "wounded" himself to get to three purple hearts and a ticket out. Neither deserves respect for their "war record". Dan Rather deserves applause for being so funny.

Most people that voted for either were confused and thought their vote would make a difference. Since there was no difference in the candidates, there would have been no difference in the result. The only exception to this is that Kerry would have nominated people to the courts who think the Constitution should be printed on long rolls of perforated soft squares of paper. So far Bush hasn't broken the courts further, yet.

However, Bush has assured our troops in harms way on the ground that he will not cut their legs out from under them. Kerry assured them that he would.

Bush's NCLB program in just five years has sharply narrowed the gap between the more privileged students and the less privileged. In no group is this more apparent than among black students.

The economy is doing simply great and the deficit is going down and taxpayers are earning more money even while the tax bite takes less of it. Historically, that would never have happened under a Kerry.

We have not had another 9/11 and I personally believe that without the efforts of Homeland Security and policies that have untied the hands of law enforcement agencies, that very well may not have been the case. Would Kerry have taken homeland security as seriously? His voting record and his track record on truth telling would suggest no.

We are getting judges appointed, finally, who will interpret the existing law as it was intended rather than use their judiciary powers to order the law to be as they think it should be. I am reasonably certain that a John Kerry would not appoint such judges.

The other things you mentioned I don't have any quarrel with you about (except free trade--he does believe in free trade but he has condoned some tariffs that I think are hurting those industries) and we're working on those things through our elected representatives. If enough people speak up and assert their opinions on these things, change will happen. As President he could not have implemented any of these things, but the President exercises leadership with the purpose of having Congress follow his lead as much as possible. No President can force Congress to enact anything however.

All this is to say that I believe we elected a man with strengths and weaknesses in the last election and this is the way it has always been as we are not likely to elect God in our lifetime. I do believe we elected the better choice of the choices we had in the last election.

I still believe good citizenship requires us to vote with full knowledge, as much as possible, of what our vote means. It is the only way that this country will remain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people as it was envisioned.

 

[Busta]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

The differences between Bush and Kerry are thus:

The Invasion from Mexico: Bush has done nothing to protect our borders. Kerry would have done nothing to protect the borders, but he gave speaches in front of mexican racist organizations.

The Budget: Bush has done nothing to stop the Republicans from spending my money to buy votes. Kerry would do nothing to stop Democrats from spending my money to buy votes.

The Drugs for Seniors Scam. Bush promised to spend my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too. Kerry would have spent my money buying people drugs so that when I get to be their age I'll be poor and dependent on the party in power to take care of me, too, only more so.

Foreign trade. Bush is against free trade. Kerry is against free trade.

Bush probably had political pull getting his safe niche in the Texas ANG. Kerry beyond doubt "wounded" himself to get to three purple hearts and a ticket out. Neither deserves respect for their "war record". Dan Rather deserves applause for being so funny.

Most people that voted for either were confused and thought their vote would make a difference. Since there was no difference in the candidates, there would have been no difference in the result. The only exception to this is that Kerry would have nominated people to the courts who think the Constitution should be printed on long rolls of perforated soft squares of paper. So far Bush hasn't broken the courts further, yet.

Thank you!!!

Arrogance will say that those who were diswayed from voting, and/or disenfranchised from their faith in "the systom", Uncle Sam and Big Bro. are ignorant, stupid, etc.; and should remain silent if they do not wish to play along with, what I see as, the great distraction.

Yes people, I did know all about the candidates and the issues. That's why I didn't vote.

There is a war with Iran looming in the near future. No vote or President could have prevented this.

If you believe that you can, for your part, choose the next President, then I say choose wisely; for the next President will also be a "war 'President"......and I'm not talking about Iraq.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Poll : Should voting be Manitory ?

Thank you!!!

Arrogance will say that those who were diswayed from voting, and/or disenfranchised from their faith in "the systom", Uncle Sam and Big Bro. are ignorant, stupid, etc.; and should remain silent if they do not wish to play along with, what I see as, the great distraction.

Yes people, I did know all about the candidates and the issues. That's why I didn't vote.

There is a war with Iran looming in the near future. No vote or President could have prevented this.

If you believe that you can, for your part, choose the next President, then I say choose wisely; for the next President will also be a "war 'President"......and I'm not talking about Iraq.

People that are ignorant of what their vote will do shouldn't be allowed to vote. Look at all the fools in 2000 babbling about how Gore won the "popluar vote" therefore he should be President. Not a one of those idiots had a clue.

Because I realize how the system works, it was a waste of a vote to vote anything but my conscience, since no matter what, Gore was going to take California's 53 electoral votes.

What I could do with my vote was NOT vote for a Republican, since that party might get the mistaken impression that I supported their left-wing socialist agenda. By voting for the Libertarian candidate of the time, the post election statistical breakdown of the election showed a miniscule, totally undetectable shift away from GOPism to a more American oriented party.

But if enough people do that, the big parties finally start to see a reason why they're losing votes. Clearly the third parties are cheating and should be outlawed.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Libertarians will never be a big party. Why? because they don;t feel very solid. Democrats leftists. Republicans are rightists. Libertarians are split. They feel to radical to become a dominant party. Contrary to what scarecrow just said, Libertarians don't make much of a difference. Nader's party of "oh I don't care I'm voting Nader" and " Hey look! Nader's on the ballot" got more people than the libertarians in both 2000 and 2004.

However I am a third Party guy even though I know that my vote doesn't really matter. Most of the time however, I don't vote period becuase all the candidates are evil and none of them are lesser.