PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:19 pm

voting is pretending you have a choice about who you'll pretend isn't raping you in the ass for at least four years.

jack · Post by **jack** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:31 pm

jute gyte wrote:voting is pretending you have a choice about who you'll pretend isn't raping you in the ass for at least four years.

and what do you consider a better alternative? a dictatorship? a monarchy? at least we have the power to change things.

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:55 pm

I wish we could vote on certain issues. Way it is, if you want economic change, you vote for Kerry. But if you want more lenient gun laws, you vote for Bush. But if you want better handling of the environment, you vote for Kerry. But if you don't want people harvesting embryos for stem cell research, you vote for Bush. But if you want to end Capital Punishment, you vote for Kerry (maybe).

Why should I have to prioritize my issues? Why can't the american people vote to decide if abortion should be legal or not? Why can't the american people vote to decide how long copyright should last? Isn't this a democracy?

You might say "the populace isn't educated -- they might vote to abolish copyright, so all their music would be free, and we'd run into problems." Well, first of all, I don't think the populace is that myopic. I'd think we'd make some pretty good decisions. And what if we didn't? Hell, vote again. Vote every year -- who cares? I don't see why there should be the few representing the many in all cases, especially in cases where the many are perfectly capable of representing themselves.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:37 pm

c hack wrote:
c hack's stuff above

You're on the right track there I think. After all this is the year 2004 - we vote people out of the Big Brither house, we vote for Pop Idols - hell, we got internet and SMS - lets vote for everything. Who needs a Parliment?

Personally, I think Parliment should be run like Big Brother. Every month - after the election, we all get to vote 1 member out until there are only 2 left - then it's time for another general election and vote a new lot in. THis way even the most anonymous back-bencher will probably get a go at being Prime Minister somewhere along the line. Maybe some physical challenges like on Survivor would be fun too.

Seriously though, a lot of people in Australia now think that we no longer need State governments. Our constitution was written 100 years ago when it took a month to even get a message from Sydney to Perth. Today, Australia is effectively much smaller and 6 seperate state governments are a wasteful duplication.

Perhaps now it is time to reconsider the concept of representational democracy - the IT revolution has made it possible for us all to represent ourselves - maybe we should.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:25 am

The problem, as always, is getting people to trust the technology that would make a system such as this work. Remember Minority Report, I Robot, and any number of Sci-Fi flicks where the "fail-safe system" fails in some horrible way? You expect people to trust technology after filling their heads with ideas like that?

c hack · Post by **c hack** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:45 am

I'd like to go on record that I in no way trust technology, especially voting machines. Even ones with open source code make me nervous, but closed-source ones -- like Diebold's -- are downright evil.

Even if we stuck with paper ballots, we could still vote on the big issues, like once a year, or even every 4 years. Get all the voting done in one fell swoop, if need be.

Poor June · Post by **Poor June** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:01 pm

it's not really the voting that i don't trust... it's the government that i don't trust...

to me voting seems like a wack idea... the votes aren't even all counted till weeks after the election is over...
i don't see how that is possible

...

but it's just conspiracy theory... and i'll leave it at that

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:29 pm

jack shite wrote:
jute gyte wrote:voting is pretending you have a choice about who you'll pretend isn't raping you in the ass for at least four years.
and what do you consider a better alternative? a dictatorship? a monarchy? at least we have the power to change things.

what i was saying was actually that i don't think we have the power to change things.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:19 pm

Just casting my mind back to your last US election, I always thought "The Swinging Chads" would have made a great band name.

Did anyone ever hear of a band using that name?

Ogreasy! · Post by **Ogreasy!** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:17 pm

There was a band called the "Hanging Chads" with Don Dixon, Jamie Hoover, Bill Lloyd, and Robert Crenshaw.
But I'm not sure they were an actual band(I think just the group of them working together was called The Hanging Chads)

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:20 pm

Is there anyone--anyone???--who isn't voting for whoever they're voting for because they think that candidate is the lesser of two evils?

The argument to place your vote behind a potential leader of your country should have nothing to do with mistakes his opposing candidate has made, and the fact that it does with many or most people really pisses me off.

Therefore, I'm voting third party, but not necessarily because I agree more with any third candidate's views (though, in Badnarik's case, I actually do). My primary reason is that I think if America had at least three (preferably more) major candidates to choose from, competition would force more common sense and morals onto all the candidates. Less mud-slinging ("He did this!" "Nuh-uhh! Well he said that!" I hate that bullshit.), and more honest, level-headed talk about important issues. It's a simple law of economics.

The mentality that voting third-party is throwing ones vote away is a rather narrow-minded one. Essentially, any vote is a throw-away, since one person in a gajillion doesn't make a bit of difference. I mean seriously, do you really think that whether you vote or not this year will matter one fucking bit? It won't change a thing.

Changing people's minds (enough to make a difference in voting) is where the real change comes in. So why bother voting? For bitching rights, basically. If you're an eligible voter who's not voting, you have no right to complain about the new (or same) president. And it's the bitching (i.e., intelligent political discussion) that will really make a difference, if you ever actually make one.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a throw-away vote. If everybody does that, guess who'll be in power? An evil bastard. And guess whose fault it'll be? Yours.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:08 am

user wrote:Is there anyone--anyone???--who isn't voting for whoever they're voting for because they think that candidate is the lesser of two evils?

mmmmmme.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:49 am

Many, many people support either Kerry or Bush because they actively support their candidate's positions on important issues. To rhetorically imply that everyone has it in their minds that this is a choice between two evils based on your own opinion is self-centric.

Peoples votes matter. One vote by itself doesn't make a difference, but neither does one calorie. But every single day, you can walk into McDonalds and find someone who is way too fat, even though one calorie makes no difference at all. And every four years, someone gets elected, even though one vote by itself makes no difference at all. Voting matters to the process of getting someone elected. Whether or not you believe that getting someone elected affects any real sort of change at all is a different story. Votes matter.

Making up imaginary rules about who can bitch is pointless. I can find someone who believes that people who voted for a third party candidate give up their right to bitch. It's pointless. Everyone gets to bitch. Everyone. Regardless.

How will having a third party candidate force more common sense and morals onto all the candidates? Or create an era of decreased mud-slinging, and more honest, level-headed talk about important issues? Voting for a third party candidate *is* a throw away vote. The person you are voting for has no chance at all of getting elected. None. You have your reasons for voting for a third party candidate, but the vote for a third party candidate is meaningless.

Quit getting so upset at people's reasons for voting or not voting.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:18 am

It's fine if you're voting for Bush or Kerry because you actually want him to be president, and yes, it was a generalization that everyone hates the both of them. However, many people do hate the both of them. The common remedy for this problem seems to be either to not vote, which is a terrible idea if you really do care about anything that goes on in this country (or sometimes out of), or to vote for the guy you think is less of an asshole.

With just two major candidates butting heads, neither has to worry too much about being a douchebag, as long as he makes sure everyone thinks the other guy is even more of a douchebag. The more candidates you throw into the mix, the more competition will force everyone to really start thinking and justifying their statements. As I said before, it's a simple law of economics.

And as for "meaningless..." My vote is one of the many ways in which I can say "The current electoral process is corrupt and unjust. Also, more specifically, both Bush and Kerry are unfit to lead my country." What meaning is behind someone's vote who votes for Kerry just because they hate him less than they hate Bush? That they're willing to accept sub-standard leadership, as long as it's not too bad.

And as for the voting thing, no, one vote does not make a difference, at least not a difference substantial enough to change anything at all about who's going to win--which I feel justified in calling "no difference." A vote is the "do" behind the "say," the "practice" behind the "preach," which is why it's so important. But individually, the only difference it makes is towards the character of that individual.

And while I woudn't label myself as "upset at people's reasons for voting or not voting," those reasons are extremely important. I mean, sure, we vote or not vote (freedom and all that), but what we should do is a different story. We (U.S. citizens who are at least 18) should all vote. The only excusable reason not to is that you truly don't care, in which case, fine. That, or medical reasons or freak accidents of some sort.

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Why is it bad if someone is voting for "the lesser of two evils?" Even if the situation were that black and white, I wouldn't see a problem with it.

The next person I hear say that voting for Kerry is choosing the lesser of two evils is getting a flying knee drop to the sternum.

So fucking stupid.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:26 am

Ahem... Kerry is the greater of two evils. A Politician with a capital P.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:34 am

user wrote:With just two major candidates butting heads, neither has to worry too much about being a douchebag, as long as he makes sure everyone thinks the other guy is even more of a douchebag. The more candidates you throw into the mix, the more competition will force everyone to really start thinking and justifying their statements. As I said before, it's a simple law of economics.

What makes you think that the third candidate won't be just as douchy as the other two? What makes you think that "a lesser of two evils" won't become "the least of three evils"? Saying that a third candidate is going to make the existing two candidates start thinking and justifying their statements is like saying Jones Soda is going to force Coke and Pepsi to make better cola beverages.

user wrote:And as for "meaningless..." My vote is one of the many ways in which I can say "The current electoral process is corrupt and unjust. Also, more specifically, both Bush and Kerry are unfit to lead my country." What meaning is behind someone's vote who votes for Kerry just because they hate him less than they hate Bush? That they're willing to accept sub-standard leadership, as long as it's not too bad.

How many people are out there who actively hate both Bush and Kerry, but are willing to vote for Kerry even though they know he will perform at a substandard level? I think there are lots of people who are not superexcited about Kerry, but think that he will do a decent job, and do better than the current president. They are voting to make their lives better. You seem to have decided that both candidates are both below average, and are therefore indistinguishable. Not everyone shares your belief in this little slice of propoganda.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:08 am

Both candidates are below average, but they're distinguishable. I'm just aggravated that, by American society's current standards, if I want my vote to "count," then I have to vote for a guy who I don't think should be leading the country.

And just to clarify, I think Bush makes a considerably better leader than Kerry. Still, I'm appalled at his stance on abortion and gay marriage, so I'm pretty pissed that he appears to be my prime choice.

Also, Coke and Pepsi need not improve their products, because as of yet, theirs are the best among cola drinks. While some may argue, the general populace of soda drinkers agrees that neither tastes bad. Some people have their preference, but in general, no one who normally drinks soda is disgusted at the thought of a Coke or Pepsi. If, however, both Coke and Pepsi were disgusting yet somehow still the two major cola products, then Jone Soda would indeed force them to make better cola beverages. That, or run them out of business.

It is possible that a third major candidate be just as douchy as the other two, in which case I'll plead for a fourth and fifth. But the more choices America has, the better off it will be. Any spark of positive competition will help.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:26 am

Budweiser

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:58 am

Kerry actually said this last night. In this order. Verbatim.

"I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally.

Let me come back in one moment to that, but I want to speak for a second, if I can, to what the president said about fiscal responsibility."

Tell me again why I'm supposed to like either of these assholes.

Sober · Post by **Sober** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:17 am

user wrote:Also, Coke and Pepsi need not improve their products, because as of yet, theirs are the best among cola drinks. While some may argue, the general populace of soda drinkers agrees that neither tastes bad. Some people have their preference, but in general, no one who normally drinks soda is disgusted at the thought of a Coke or Pepsi. If, however, both Coke and Pepsi were disgusting yet somehow still the two major cola products, then Jone Soda would indeed force them to make better cola beverages. That, or run them out of business.

Coke (Bush (read into that as much as you like)) is very likely going to get me killed, one way or another. Pepsi sounds pretty damn good to me.

User, I have asked this before, and I ask it again. Tell me why Kerry is a bad guy, as you seem to hate him so much. No one has yet been able to give me a solid answer.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:58 am

See my above post. Kerry would have you believe he is a breath of fresh air, but at least in terms of his campaign approach, he's just the same. A 'litany of complaints' is pretty much all I hear from EITHER of these stumpriders. As far as I'm concerned, Kerry's campaign slogan could be 'Four More Years!'.
Now I know that there are differences between the two, but they are not severe enough (or likely enough to be appreciably implemented) for me to be strongly affected.
I really want to remain positive about this, so I'd like to offer an intelligent alternative to throwing your vote at one of these guys. But here we are in mid-October, and I don't know what that alternative is. Sorry.

</rant>