PDA

View Full Version : I no longer want to vote



myke1072
09-19-2008, 11:10 PM
All the mudslinging from both sides is just utter bull crap. If I owned a company and was hiring an employee, do you think I'd hire you if you spent more time talking bad about the other applicants than telling me why I should hire you ? Why is it okay to allow these potential presidents to sling mud like they do ? Why do we vote for any of these people ? Would we raise our kids to act this way ? I certainly don't. Where has ethics gone ? Maybe that's what the problem is with this country. We tend to vote more so based on who comes out of it with less mud on them, instead of who is truly the best person for the job. We should demand more of our presidents. I know we should vote....and I still could, but it's really hard to vote for either one of them when their campaign runs in such an unethical manner. This is every election. Not just this one. Maybe we are the problem. We allow this. We feed into this. We fall for this ignorance. They are just doing what they know works. We should demand more. We should consider it an insult to our intelligence to think we will allow such stupidity to sway our votes. Maybe they have got it right. Maybe we just aren't as intelligent as we all think we are.

ih8brady
09-20-2008, 12:45 AM
Well, the PP will do whatever wins. Recently, dirty and dishonest campaigns win elections. People hear a campaign commercial and believe it, especially when it is an obvious distortion. Most voters are rather dim and want their politicians to be just like them and to have interesting and "heartwarming" life stories.


What they want to do as POTUS? An afterthought at best.

Eshlemon
09-20-2008, 05:10 AM
I understand and sympathize with your frustrations and have had many similar rants. Unfortunately negative campaining and mudslinging is nothing to American (or any politics) and isn't going away. Some classic negative ads from history are Millard is a *****(another word for kitty cat), Lincoln goes both ways, and Jefferson sleeps with slaves...well that one proved true but at time it was just for slander.

It's said humorusly the first thing on the internet was porn, the second thing was probably a political blog smear. Technology has provided advancements for exposure of things, both good and bad, on a level never seen before. Adaption is always out paced by inovation. And while we're seeing more of the bad, we also are seeing the vetting of the negative which never existed before. Poltical activism is also probably the higest ever. And while I have no proof, has this activism not lead to a time where we are demanding more ethics from our politicians than at any other time in history?

"Maybe we aren't as intelligent as we all think we are." is a good introspection everyone should apply to themselves. But also make it "We're not as stupid as they think we are." and ignore the smears and vote.

Unless it's who I'm voting for, email me first and I'll let you know if you should go vote or not.;)

ih8brady
09-20-2008, 07:51 AM
Lincoln did go both ways :)

MoFinz
09-20-2008, 08:55 AM
Lincoln did go both ways :)


That's true...he screwed every man woman and child in this country without any discrimination whatsoever:(

poornate
09-20-2008, 10:30 AM
Lincoln did go both ways :)

There is no proof about this... not that it would diminish him in any way... The "proof" is nothing out of the ordinary for sleeping arrangements in that time... You have one man that tried to form a reputation and career off of unprovable allegations... The historical record shows nothing unusual about Lincoln's relationship with JS... If the burden presented in that one book is true, it could be applied to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and a host of other men from our past as well...

It reminds me of the book about sharks following the route of slave ships even now... about how that shows how ingrained in them that people would be tossed overboard... ignoring the fact that ships travel the same currents that sharks do... It is filtering our social mores into another time period where things were not quite the same...

Eshlemon
09-20-2008, 02:33 PM
There is no proof about this... not that it would diminish him in any way... The "proof" is nothing out of the ordinary for sleeping arrangements in that time... You have one man that tried to form a reputation and career off of unprovable allegations... The historical record shows nothing unusual about Lincoln's relationship with JS... If the burden presented in that one book is true, it could be applied to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and a host of other men from our past as well...

It reminds me of the book about sharks following the route of slave ships even now... about how that shows how ingrained in them that people would be tossed overboard... ignoring the fact that ships travel the same currents that sharks do... It is filtering our social mores into another time period where things were not quite the same...

True...just as a book 'proving' Obama's a Muslim.

Here's my reference for those negatives and more if interested at looking at some historical smearing:

http://www.radaronline.com/photos/2008/04/negative_campaign_ads_george_washington_thomas_jefferson_01.php

:lol: We get to blame a Clinton for the first presidential negative add.

FinFatale
09-20-2008, 02:40 PM
True...just as a book 'proving' Obama's a Muslim.

Here's my reference for those negatives and more if interested at looking at some historical smearing:

http://www.radaronline.com/photos/2008/04/negative_campaign_ads_george_washington_thomas_jefferson_01.php

:lol: We get to blame a Clinton for the first presidential negative add.

thanks for the link......nice to see some humor relief in a link these days....thanks........

PressCoverage
09-20-2008, 05:25 PM
That's true...he screwed every man woman and child in this country without any discrimination whatsoever:(

What does this even mean? How did he "do" this?

Dolphan7
09-22-2008, 06:18 PM
When you force voters to choose between two candidates, and not give them a third choice, or a fourth, they end up voting for the lesser of two evils so to speak.

If we had a none of the above box on every ballot, I think you would see a different tone in our political elections.

Because then every candidate wouldn't be so focused on making his opponent out to be the evil one, instead he would have to also keep people from pushing that NOTA button at the polls, which means he would have to promote himself (oh what a thought!), which takes time and money away from the mudslinging.

That little idea right there changes everything.

Ferretsquig
09-22-2008, 06:25 PM
Does having multiple candidates stop European political hopefuls from slinging mud? Go look at the last Italian election.....our candidates are amateurs compared to those guys.

Dolphan7
09-22-2008, 07:20 PM
Does having multiple candidates stop European political hopefuls from slinging mud? Go look at the last Italian election.....our candidates are amateurs compared to those guys.Yeah but how can you sling mud at "NOTA"?

Eshlemon
09-22-2008, 08:21 PM
When you force voters to choose between two candidates, and not give them a third choice, or a fourth, they end up voting for the lesser of two evils so to speak.

If we had a none of the above box on every ballot, I think you would see a different tone in our political elections.

Because then every candidate wouldn't be so focused on making his opponent out to be the evil one, instead he would have to also keep people from pushing that NOTA button at the polls, which means he would have to promote himself (oh what a thought!), which takes time and money away from the mudslinging.

That little idea right there changes everything.

:(I miss Richard Pryor.

Ferretsquig
09-22-2008, 08:33 PM
Yeah but how can you sling mud at "NOTA"?

The same way people berate those who choose not to vote in this election. Call them unpatriotic, say they are not carrying out their civic duty, etc... Not voting is a vote for none of the candidates, and when turnout gets low enough, it is noticed.

Dolphan7
09-22-2008, 08:50 PM
The same way people berate those who choose not to vote in this election. Call them unpatriotic, say they are not carrying out their civic duty, etc... Not voting is a vote for none of the candidates, and when turnout gets low enough, it is noticed.Not if you put in place a requirement that the winning candidate must carry it by 50% plus 1. If none of the candidates carry it by that margin, you re-vote with all new candidates.

Ferretsquig
09-22-2008, 09:09 PM
Noone comes anywhere close to 50% in this country. Bush/Kerry got all of 60.7% of the voters to turn out. The only way you get half the voters to vote for one candidate is if you force people to vote, and believe me, you don't want that.

Dolphan7
09-22-2008, 10:05 PM
Noone comes anywhere close to 50% in this country. Bush/Kerry got all of 60.7% of the voters to turn out. The only way you get half the voters to vote for one candidate is if you force people to vote, and believe me, you don't want that.It isn't 50% plus 1 of all voters registered, just those that voted.

For instance in 2000

Bush = 47.9%
Gore = 48.4%

2004

Bush = 50.7%
Kerry = 48.3%

Under this scenario in 2000 neither candidate would win and a re-election would be necessary.

However in 2004 Bush would have clearly won having over 50% plus 1.