Improving the gene pool of the American People....

[RandomPhantom700]

The misinformed, lazy, 'know it alls' that didn't vote as a "protest", who now whine that Bush was elected, and then justify it by saying "well, my vote wouldn't have counted anyway".

And who, on this message board, does this straw-man generalization apply to again?

 

[Darksoul]

-Well, I didn't vote. Hate Bush, don't like Kerry, understood that the other candidates didn't have a prayer to get in the office. I'm all for extra parties in the mix, as opposed to just the dems and the publicans, but its not the right time. Right now, its important to take a good look in the mirror, and I've been doing that a lot this year. Everyone needs to take a good look at themselves and evaluate. Time to center yourself and refocus on whats important. (One reason I returned to the MAs) Should the country decide to follow suit, I believe you'll see more people get out to vote, and perhaps support the other political parties. For me, the dems this time around just didn't have it all together. And the next election will prove, if not more important, than just as important as this one. Political parties need to reach out to the nation as a whole, not just those that support them. Majority rules seems often times in contrast to a nation so divided.


A---)

 

[Rich Parsons]

-Well, I didn't vote. Hate Bush, don't like Kerry, understood that the other candidates didn't have a prayer to get in the office. I'm all for extra parties in the mix, as opposed to just the dems and the publicans, but its not the right time. Right now, its important to take a good look in the mirror, and I've been doing that a lot this year. Everyone needs to take a good look at themselves and evaluate. Time to center yourself and refocus on whats important. (One reason I returned to the MAs) Should the country decide to follow suit, I believe you'll see more people get out to vote, and perhaps support the other political parties. For me, the dems this time around just didn't have it all together. And the next election will prove, if not more important, than just as important as this one. Political parties need to reach out to the nation as a whole, not just those that support them. Majority rules seems often times in contrast to a nation so divided.


A---)

Something like 98% of the people with address (* we all know that the homeless do not count *) have a TV. Not until it is as easy as turning on your TV with a remote, will you get near 90% voting. Why? The apathy in this country and the belief that your vote does not count.

In reality only one vote in each state counts. That is 50 states, add in DC you get 51 votes ** Not sure where Peurto Rico falls could be 52 ** that actually count. All the rest of the votes are just wasted. I mean come on, to win by 1 vote or a million does not matter. Right? So why should I go out and vote, since someone else can cast that single vote.



:idunno:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The 3rd parties will never gain strength if everyone keeps saying "they had no chance" and 'Ill wait til the get bigger'. If you want them to grow, you have to add your voice to the chorus. It's why I voted Libertarian. I knew, as did they that that the chance for succes was slim. Yet they ran, they donated money, the put foot to pavement and knocked on doors. The mission is to raise the army. To expand the ranks. To add more voices to the mix until they have no choice but to hear us.

The Republican Party was a nobody, a minor player, until a divided nation elected an 11+time loser President in 1860. He didn't have the popular, he didn't have the majority. What Lincoln had was the most votes of all the candidates, but not the popular. Since then, the Republicans have held on tight to that chance.

Another chance will come, and when it does, a 3rd will hopefully run with it. It may be the Libertarians, the Greens or even the Socialists. But if enough people swell their ranks, they can do it. Even failing to win the election sends a message. Their platforms planks are constantly being integrated into th major parties own.

I'm sorry folks, but I agree in spirit with Bester.
If you were an eligable US voter, and you didn't vote, you've got no business complaining about the outcome. If you couldn't that is different, but if you just sat home and "protested", or continue to insist that there was only 2 choices, then you've missed the whole point of what the Right to Vote is all about.

It's about making your intent known.

Silence is just that. Silence.

"We The People" are the government.
Not George Bush, not John Kerry, nor any of the hundreds of others holding office.
-WE- THE PEOPLE are!

By choosing to remain silent, you have said "We will do what everyone else decides. We have decided not to decide."

Well, Majority of the Speaking People have decided that they, and you by default, wanted George Bush to be The Peoples Voice for the next 4 years.

If you wanted something else, then they should have spoken up when it counted.

I will end with 2 quotes, 1 from song, and one from literature.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - RUSH

"Dissent without action is consent." — Henry David Thoreau

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A truth I found on a sales website:

Truth #3: Even when you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice.

For too many of us we just hope things get better. We hope to become healthier, thinner or we hope we earn more. We have wishes and dreams but no commitment or definitiveness to change what we are doing to ensure the desired result. We fail to take action on what we know we need to do now.

Many of us can vacillate over a decision for days, weeks, months or even years. We must realize that by not making a decision we have essentially made a choice. We end up making decisions by default that because we did not decide and act, the decision was made for us.

 

[Darksoul]

-I have not once complained about the outcome. I have simply stated that I hate Bush and dislike Kerry and I was aware of other parties and candidates in this election. I'm not here to complain, merely to learn from others and offer my views and suggestions. I also know what my shortcomings are, and work on them everyday. Life is a work in progress, and it takes time to learn somethings. Bester is right concerning lazy Americans, but does he mean everyone of us? Maybe in terms of political activeness, but that may be it. I graduated from highschool and college. Been working security for almost 6 years, often putting in long work weeks. I study kung-fu. I pay my bills. I go out and party at the club, spending most of my time on the dancefloor.

-My point is this: you cannot force people to see things from another point of view or change their ways. Thats a path of conflict. To be involved in something important like politics, one should really understand what they are doing and why. Many people have come to the realization that participation, regardless of level, is necessary as a citizen. And yet, some may take longer to fully understand that. People rarely change overnight. Some may have to wait till their rights are taken away, for example, before they see the light.


A---)

 

[Bester]

I will be honest, my ire is directed more at people elsewhere than here. I am simply just more than annoyed that everywhere I turn all I can see is the bashing. Too many people can not see past their own narrow viewpoints.

You're right, I can't force anyone to change, mature, grow, etc.

But I do not want to wait for them to wake up before MY rights are taken away. Ground lost is too often retaken with high losses. My ancestors paid the price once with the intent that I wouldn't have to pay it again. I simply do not want their sacrifices to have been wasted.

The moron that took his own life at such a young age, what did he really accomplish? He is just a blur, a footnote now. He could have turned the tide. He could have spoken out, raised issues, promoted a candidate or been one himself. Now, he is biodegradable.

It is a waste. It could have been so much more.

 

[Bester]

Oh, and to the nice person who dinged my rep.....only 276 more points to go before it matters. :wavey:

 

[Mark Weiser]

I did a quick add up of all the votes that did not go to the two main parties. They voted for third party choices.

1,064,615 people voted against Republican and Democrats. I would be interested if someone could find how many voted for third party choices in the last two elections to see if it is growing? This number is nearly 1% of the total votes cast.

I would love to have a great Independent Candiate that would be able to draw votes from both Republican and Democratic choices.

 

[Tgace]

You now have the keys to power. You guys have Congress. You have the White House. You have the majority of the governorships. Anything that goes south from here on in is your responsibility and takes place on your watch. We're going to remind you of that every step of the way.

This viewpoint is where I see trouble. The US/YOU thing. Democrat or Republican we are all Americans. Just because somebody voted for Bush doesn't give him any more "power" or responsibility than somebody who voted for Kerry. If you want change call your representative and work for your cause. Thats how we as "Americans" have a voice. Selecting a President only happens once every 4 years. Being a citizen is 24/7/365.

 

[Tgace]

Otherwise all this is just.....

Welcome to Democracy.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Just because somebody voted for Bush doesn't give him any more "power" or responsibility than somebody who voted for Kerry.

It does make them, at least partially, responsible for the actions of their administration. I mean, after all, it was those votes taht allowed the administration to do what they do.

I say partially, though, because obviously if the candidate promises one thing (compassionate conservatism, no nation building) and then acts completely different afterward, can that really be faulted to the people who voted based on what they said?

 

[Tgace]

So what will Bush voters face that Dems. wont? As the whole concept of "you will be responsible" usually implies some sort of "punishment".

And by this standard, are Clinton voters responsible for 9/11 since he failed to actively persue Osama and AlQueda?

 

[Rich Parsons]

I did a quick add up of all the votes that did not go to the two main parties. They voted for third party choices.

1,064,615 people voted against Republican and Democrats. I would be interested if someone could find how many voted for third party choices in the last two elections to see if it is growing? This number is nearly 1% of the total votes cast.

I would love to have a great Independent Candiate that would be able to draw votes from both Republican and Democratic choices.

Well, I have voted in 6 presidential elections. Three times for the major parties, and three times for independants or third parties. Mostly because of the BS and the influence of religion on the two main parties. One is so far one way and the other is made out to be completely on the other side. They have lost my support and lost my respect. Now if you voted for one of the two major parties, becuase you found that they represented you, on the najor issues that you were concerned about then fine. Good for you. I am glad you voted, for your view point should be represented as well.

Get people to vote. It is not that hard. I know you have the option to not vote. I ust think you should take you responsibilities seriously as well as many take their rights. :asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Tgace:

I don't know if any punishment should be involved. But lets face it, Bush brought us into an unjustified war based on laughable evidence, and thanks to him, a thousand and counting soldiers are dying in a country they shouldn't be in. Still, 51% of voters decided he should stay in office, continuing with his current agenda. They shouldn't be punished for exercizing their basic right, but when you decide to keep the President in office knowing such a history, you are responsible for it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just a clarification here: Bush did NOT bring us here, we allowed ourselves to be brought here. Without the support of both houses of Congress, Bush can not do much. It is not fair to blame all the ills of this nation on 1 man, bufoon though he is.
The President only has the powers we, and our voices in Congress give him. There are checks and balances. The War in Iraq could not have been launched without the support of Congress. When you say "George Bush is killing our troops" you really mean "Our Congress and our President are killing our troops."

Check the records and you'll see that Congress has basically allowed these abuses to happen, and "We The People" just gave them bonus points to do it again by reelecting and expanding their control.

We have a Republican President.
We now have I believe a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.
The people not only rejected John Kerry, but they rejected the Democratic Party by an large amount. I voted for 2 Libertarians, 1 Democrat and 2 Republicans this year myself. Why? Because those candidates were the ones that fit my "wants list".

98% of those voting wanted something different for this country than what I did.
85% of those voting in my local area wanted a different vision for my home.

If you want to make a change, you have to get involved.
There are 4 years before the next rgime change is available.
In those next 4 years, you have -4- opportunities to change the face of both the House and the Senate.

Do it.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

1) I do think people should vote and participate, and, ideally, be intelligent and informed

2) Comments like

Can any of the rest of your whiners do more than complain like cramping old women?

are not going to endear what you are saying, Bester, to me, other women, or lots of men. Name-calling does not help get people involved. I *was* involved, I *did* volunteer, and my guy lost. I'm allowed to whinge and moan about the fate of the country I love for a few days without being called a "cramping old woman".

3) Yes, people who voted for Bush are in some way responsible, tgace, although it does not mean that people who voted for Kerry (like me) are not responsible for what happens in the future, too. The majority of voters who selected our President for the next 4 years had a responsibility - just like all of us. You cannot select someone and then wash your hands of your choice.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And by this standard, are Clinton voters responsible for 9/11 since he failed to actively persue Osama and AlQueda?

If you want to start a thread on that, do so. We can discuss how Bush et al refused to listen to Richard Clarke's exhortations to take Osama seriously. The attack happened on Bush's watch, so surely you can provide us with some incredibly weighty facts absolving Bush of any responsibility for failing to pick up these folks.

And you can continue to blame Clinton, too. That always works. Rumsfeld didn't do it for Abu Ghraib...saying he accepted responsibility for the event as it occured during his service. Bad on Rumsfeld. Perhaps he should have ducked responsibility and pulled out the Clinton excuse as you seem to advocate? Clinton in his two terms didn't insure the troops were properly trained in prisoner handling and administration? I've heard this proposed elsewhere as an excuse for the prisoner abuse scandal.

By your reasoning, TGace, we get to blame Bush for things that go wrong well past 2008. Gee, thanks.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Some thoughts here on voter ignorance.


Voting Without the Facts

By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 8, 2004

The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.

Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. ...If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. ... Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. ...

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.

 

[Tgace]

If you want to start a thread on that, do so. We can discuss how Bush et al refused to listen to Richard Clarke's exhortations to take Osama seriously. The attack happened on Bush's watch, so surely you can provide us with some incredibly weighty facts absolving Bush of any responsibility for failing to pick up these folks.

And you can continue to blame Clinton, too. That always works. Rumsfeld didn't do it for Abu Ghraib...saying he accepted responsibility for the event as it occured during his service. Bad on Rumsfeld. Perhaps he should have ducked responsibility and pulled out the Clinton excuse as you seem to advocate? Clinton in his two terms didn't insure the troops were properly trained in prisoner handling and administration? I've heard this proposed elsewhere as an excuse for the prisoner abuse scandal.

By your reasoning, TGace, we get to blame Bush for things that go wrong well past 2008. Gee, thanks.


Regards,


Steve

Hey, i didnt open the "if you voted for Bush than you are responsible for everything he does that turns out bad" can.....various presidents can take the blame for many ills.