In 2004 we had a prime example of why some people shouldn't vote. The fact that sKerry got as many votes as he did shows the level of stupidity those on the left suffer from. Over and over I heard the same thing. "I'm just voting for sKerry because he isn't Bush".
You vote for someone only because he isn't the other guy? This someone being the man who will be running our entire country???? What the heck???? Listen people, that is not a valid reason to vote for someone. If you can't say, "I'm voting for this guy because...." and list at least 3 reasons, you should not be able to vote at all.
The reason I bring up voting, is because here, in San Diego, we've got a big fight between 18 different candidates for the 50th congressional district. One, Brian Bilbray, is being touted as the guy to vote for, if you are a Republican, and I can see people jumping quickly on this bandwagon. I myself am researching further. I don't think you should just vote for whom you are told to vote for. I've never been a straight party ticket voter, but the Democrat front runner, Busby, she's a joke.
Too many people are like my husband, who thankfully can't vote yet. He says I should vote for Alan Uke, because his name is pronounced U.K., as in the place he's from. Sorry honey, that's just not good enough for me.
I think too, you've got to like the person you're voting for, even a little.
So, I will take my time and really give thought to the person I want to fill the vacant spot the "Dukester" left. It's vitally important that we elect someone who isn't a corrupt scumbag, as the "Duke" turned out to be. And it's equally important that we elect someone with some thought.
Again, if you can't list at least 3 reasons for voting for a specific candidate, you should not be able to vote at all.
5 comments:
This is almost unbelievably stupid.
Let's take an extreme example. Let's say we have two choices for city councilman; Bob, the Republican, or Satan, Prince of Darkness League. Satan is the incumbent, obviously, since I live in ultra-blue New York City. Now, I know that Satan has voted sixteen times against adequate funding for the sewer system and I also know my street smells awful in the rain, supposedly because of this. I further know that Satan suggested no fewer than sixteen times this year that my district be granted autonomy from the larger city. Also, I know from a local news story that Satan also frequents strip clubs and leaves I.O.U. slips in strippers' underwear.
Bob does not advertise, but Bob has been in local government before. Satan said that Bob was pretty awful, but I know just how freaking bad Satan has been for my district.
So I vote against Satan.
Irrational? No. The fact is, I should have researched Bob more, but I didn't. That's a wonderful freedom I have.
A lot of people voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush, but not all of us did. Saying that "the fact that sKerry (?) got as many votes as he did shows the level of stupidity that those on the left suffer from" is just another way of saying "the fact that Bush got as many votes as he did shows the level of stupidity that those on the right suffer from." How many people voted for Bush because you shouldn't change horses in midstream? Or, because he was resolute? Or, because he was a Christian. A lot.
You're right that people SHOULD be more active and participatory; but I can give you three reasons why I would have voted for Kerry regardless of his stances on anything:
1) Iraq
2) Deficit
3) Defense of Marriage proposal
Is it really illogical to say, "I do not support the actions of this current President, and while I do not know everything about this other guy, I DO know that people I trust support him." No, it's not.
Hey davejoch,
So Kerry's plan for Government run health care is going to help the Deficit?
... maybe if taxes were adjusted properly and the economy improved, yeah, government run heath care would be fine.
What would help the deficit is controlled spending and a repeal of the tax cuts, or a lessening of them. I know most Conservatives and Republicans are for controlled spending, but as far as I can tell the two largest deficits in American history have been under the watch of two supposedly conservative Presidents.
I'm not for universal health care; but I am for health care for those who cannot afford it, and we generally have that. There should be government involvement in the health care system, because there is a basic market failure intrinsic to the insurance market. I don't necessarily think the government should provide it "free of charge," but the government should be more involved to help the almost 50 million uninsured.
Well now Dave that's just fine. You were able to give your three reason to vote.
Mostly I wrote that article a bit tounge in cheek, but I see sarcasm is beyond your control.
I feel strongly, that voting for a person only because he is not the other guy is bad. Voting for a guy because he has a cool name, voting for a candidate because you like his posters????? Come on.
Kerry was, and remains an ass. 98% of the people I talked to back in 2004, voting for Kerry, stated that they were voting for him because he wasn't Bush. When faced with the challenging question of what policies, or beliefs he held that they liked, NONE could answer anything but, "He's not Bush".
That is not how you elect the leader of the free world.
A clearer message would have been sent had they voted for an independant, or no vote.
"I do not support the actions of this current President, and while I do not know everything about this other guy, I DO know that people I trust support him."
No, Dave, that's not illogical, but that is not what people said.
Come on, the left constantly accuses the right of being brain-dead-kool-aid-drinking-sheeple, do you think it's a good idea to admit that that really applies to the left? I mean voting for a guy only because others are doing it.
If everyone told you it was cool to jump off a bridge......
My sarcasm is indeed a wild bear whose thirst for the blood of innocent straight-laced comments knows no limits.
I understand you feel strongly, so I appologize for being a little bit of a dick before. But, I still disagree, and here's why.
Voting for a person because you like his posters or because his name is Awesomealot is not at all comparable to voting for someone because he isn't GWB, or more generally, because he isn't the incumbent. My argument is that Kerry presented an alternative to Bush, and obviously 48%ish of the voters said that alternative was favorable to the Bush choice. As far as no one answering anything but Bush (except for 2% you mention earlier in your 4th paragraph), you're either not friends with really politically active Democrats or you're not friends with many Dems. Again, I think it's pretty fair to say that a lot of people DID vote for him because he wasn't Bush and a lot voted for him because we agreed with the things he WAS actually saying. Kerry proposed a less unilateral option to dealing with rogue states, he supported health care for Americans, he wanted to help solve the outsourcing problem, he wanted to fully support the education programs suggested by Bush, he supported a balanced budget, he was pro choice, he was anti-discrimination but not pro-gay marriage, etc. etc.
And some of us knew that stuff two years ago. There were more than 2% of us.
Why was Kerry an ass?
Abstaining from voting in an election that is fair and legal wouldn't have proven anything, especially if you were vehemently opposed to Bush. This is just a difference of opinion, I guess, but here's why I think that: The national American election system has two parties, and the other candidates leech some votes off the big guys. Sometimes this works out well for my side (1992), and sometimes it doesn't (2000). You cannot vote "I'M ANGRY AT THE LACK OF CHOICES," and not voting just means you have no say. Better to say what you don't like than nothing at all.
The fact is that what applies to one side applies to the other. The far left is as crazy as the far right, the people who vote Democrat just because they are Democrats are just as uninformed as the people who vote Republican just because they are Republicans.
I think your last paragraph really sums it up. I think people who are interested in the system and feel it is important have a higher standard to live up to. We both agree that people SHOULD be well informed and if they just choose to make decisions we disagree with, at least they are informed about it. Voting blindly IS bad. I will certainly agree with you there.
But I really don't think seeing second-term elections as at least in part a decision about the incumbent is a bad thing.
Post a Comment