Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#1 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:19 PM

Many people probably still consider voting patriotic--they say it's your duty as a U.S. citizen to vote, especially in major elections such as the 2012 presidential election. But, really? Is voting really a good thing? What if I don't support the government?

Currently the government taxes us to pay for many things many of us don't support. If I don't support various wars in the Middle East, for example, should I be forced to pay for them anyways?

In the U.S. we have this thing called free speech, in which we can express our disagreement with these wars without being kidnapped and held captive by the government. But, if we wish to follow through with our disagreement by not financially supporting these wars that we don't support, all of a sudden we will get kidnapped and locked in a cage by the government. Why? Why don't we have the right to disagree?

Currently I don't have the right to not pay taxes for the Afghanistan War, but that's a right I think I should have.

In 2012, whether Barack Obama gets reelected or the Republican nominee gains control of the big guns, neither will do any nothing to stop the government from violently forcing me and many other people from paying for these things that we do not wish to support.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?

I think any vote gives legitimacy to the government. Any vote for any candidate is an expression that I support the system. I don't support the system, though. I don't want Barack Obama or any of the Republican candidates to be the President. I don't want anyone to be the President. I don't want anyone to be able to declare war and force me to pay for it against my will.

So I shouldn't vote. I could vote for the lesser of two evils, but that would just perpetuate the government I despise. I think voting IS bad after all.

What do you think? Is voting bad?

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.

Edited by Use the Force, 29 April 2011 - 08:21 PM.

  • 0

#2 maurice

maurice

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3612 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:53 PM

Aaah, so much I can say here, both in agreement and in disagreement. But I will let the smartest man I've ever heard (almost said known, but I guess I didn't "know" him :( ) jump in on this one.

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

Spoiler for For those who don't know and are interested

Edited by maurice, 29 April 2011 - 08:56 PM.

  • 0

#3 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2011 - 09:06 PM

OK UTF Ill play devils advocate here
If you donít vote donít b***H. I understand you like neither of the 2 options that have any hope of winning the election, but there are other people you can vote for or even spoil your ballot. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate or spoil your vote than you have said to the 2 main parties here is someone who takes the time to vote but doesnít like us. they will and trust me they continually do ask themselves the question of how to get you to vote for them. The parties all consider voter participation as a factor. the lower the turnout they have to listen to the population and only have to gear themselves to their "Core" voters. This is the main reason that the republicans and the democrats as parties are drifting farther and farther to the right and left respectively. the Middle doesnít vote so ya gotta get the extremes worked up so that they come and support your side.

Remember if you take the time to spoil your ballot you have said to BOTH main parties I am politically engaged but like neither of your parties. If enough people spoil their ballots the 2 parties will both try and figure out what these people who vote neither Dem nor Rep want and adopt their platforms to try and get you to support them. No political party is likely to ever be 100% in sync with your political beliefs but you hope they come close.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?


So basicall i`m saying vote either for the lesser of 2 evils (as you view them, please I'm not advocating dem/rep), 3rd party or spoil your ballot.

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.


I must say I dislike your use of the term violence here. The govt of does not shoot you with bullets if you dont pay taxes. They will fine you and if you continue to refuse to pay your taxes they can put you in jail but i do not consider incarceration as violence. that is an increadibly broad view of the term you are using and comparing incarceration for unpaid taxes to the horrors of war in afganistan and iraq is well.. unseemly to me.
I also disagree with your point on being forced to pay for wars you dislike. What about things that dont bother you but may bother others. should they have the right to refuse paying taxes on those items? If you go down that road eventually what you get is just anarchy as everyone will refuse to pay taxes on everything.
  • 0

#4 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2011 - 09:10 PM

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."


lol problem with that statement is that it assumes you voted for the party/politicans that won the election. I cant remember the last time i voted for a candidate that actually won. Being canadian we have a different system here and dont directly elect your prime ministers. So far I have only once in my life had the chance to vote directly for the sitting prime minister. I am proud of the fact that I voted against him even though he won his seat anyway. Thefore I can always complain as i never voted for any of the morons running my country just the people who never gotten the chance to prove that they are as incompetant as those who won :)
  • 0

#5 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:34 PM

Before I read all this and reply in full, I just want to say:

Money != Speech :angry:
  • 0

#6 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:53 PM

Personally, I go by what a ancient greek political figure said: (Not a quote, I don't have the exact wording)

If one does not participate in government, does not try to make society better, then they are useless to their country and countrymen.

I follow that idea. I thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US.

I agree with Quag. Spoil the ballot. Or vote for a third party. Of course, i hate political parties but that's another issue....
  • 0

#7 Q-Cumber

Q-Cumber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 12:04 AM

There's no point in evading what you can't evade, so just vote for the candidate that applies to your president ideal.
  • 0

#8 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 12:16 AM

I agree with pretty much everything that Quag said. I have to disagree with George Carlin on this one. Inaction is as much a form of action as voting is. But you proactively removed yourself from the possibility to affect the system. Like Quag said, if you don't vote, then the people in government won't care about you at all. If you vote for the other guy, then they have to start to listen. ( :offtopic: Quag, not sure what your leanings are, but I just read an article that indicated there could be a big shake-up in the Canadian government, if polling stays accurate to the outcome.)

To expound on my earlier post, the idea of equating money with speech has always seemed patently absurd to me. The idea behind "free speech" is that everyone has a voice and has a chance to present their opinion in the public sphere. We all have the same opportunity because we all have the same power behind our voice. If you treat money as speech, then suddenly we are not all equal in terms of "free speech." If I have $500,000 and you have $30,000, do I have more speech than you do? :huh: That doesn't make any sense. It's just an excuse for rich people and corporations to try to influence elections under the guise of "free speech" without being obstructed by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I'll add my own quote to the "Wisest of Political Figures" game: :P

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
--Sir Winston Churchill

I agree that a lot of the time the choices stink and there are definitely flaws in our system of government (relating to political parties in particular, h/t to gvg :D ), but to abstain from the process seems wrong-headed in my view. If you have no ideological bent and no knowledge of the candidates and such, then maybe an abstention would be appropriate (though I would argue you should make yourself knowledgeable of the candidates, but there's no way to compel that in the truly apathetic :( ), otherwise, you should participate in what small way that you can. I would strongly support Instant Run-off voting. In that system, you rank the candidates on the ballot (instead of simply choosing one). They tally the votes and remove the lowest-grossing first-choice candidate from the list. All the people whose first choice was removed get their votes shifted to their second choice and the votes are retallied. This process continues until there is only one candidate left. This won't ever get support of the major parties precisely because it dilutes their power, since people won't be as afraid of supporting third-party candidates instead of the major party ones.

I also agree with Quag's assertion that UtF's system of taxing would equate to anarchy. I don't support the wars either, but had Al Gore been sworn into office in 2001 instead of Bush, I'm confident that the number of wars in which we would have engaged in the last decade (and the amount of money poured into them) would have been greatly diminished. But Bush managed to squeak his way onto the podium and it is what it is. :( If I were allowed to stipulate that I didn't want the government to spend "my" money on X, Y or Z, then soon we would have government unable to do anything (and I mean anything). Everyone would be putting so much red tape on how their money could be used, it wouldn't be possible to use it anywhere (even where it ought to be used and needed to be used). The only sane method for controlling where your money gets used by the government is to help elect people who will use the money as you want it to be used. And helping to get that candidate elected by, I don't know, community organizing or something. ;) :D
  • 0

#9 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 01:38 AM

OK UTF Ill play devils advocate here
If you donít vote donít b***H. I understand you like neither of the 2 options that have any hope of winning the election, but there are other people you can vote for or even spoil your ballot. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate or spoil your vote than you have said to the 2 main parties here is someone who takes the time to vote but doesnít like us. they will and trust me they continually do ask themselves the question of how to get you to vote for them. The parties all consider voter participation as a factor. the lower the turnout they have to listen to the population and only have to gear themselves to their "Core" voters. This is the main reason that the republicans and the democrats as parties are drifting farther and farther to the right and left respectively. the Middle doesnít vote so ya gotta get the extremes worked up so that they come and support your side.


Unfortunately you are entirely incorrect Quag... the parties aren't drifting away from center, they're drifting toward center. Everyone thinks they know the difference between Democrats and Republicans but it has become so convoluted that I challenge you to go to their websites, look at their platforms (in detail, not their broad statements), then the legalese, and try to tell me how different they really are. If you constrict your mind to one of the two main parties, you really are choosing between the lesser of two evils. Though they are both quite evil so it's hard to say what's lesser :lol:

Remember if you take the time to spoil your ballot you have said to BOTH main parties I am politically engaged but like neither of your parties. If enough people spoil their ballots the 2 parties will both try and figure out what these people who vote neither Dem nor Rep want and adopt their platforms to try and get you to support them. No political party is likely to ever be 100% in sync with your political beliefs but you hope they come close.


Agreed. 3rd party is the way to go.



So basicall i`m saying vote either for the lesser of 2 evils (as you view them, please I'm not advocating dem/rep), 3rd party or spoil your ballot.


yep those are pretty much the options haha.


I must say I dislike your use of the term violence here. The govt of does not shoot you with bullets if you dont pay taxes. They will fine you and if you continue to refuse to pay your taxes they can put you in jail but i do not consider incarceration as violence. that is an increadibly broad view of the term you are using and comparing incarceration for unpaid taxes to the horrors of war in afganistan and iraq is well.. unseemly to me.


Sure one is not as bad as the other perhaps but they're both using force to dominate a less powerful. Argue the semantics all you want but the end result is the same, and that's control.


Many people probably still consider voting patriotic--they say it's your duty as a U.S. citizen to vote, especially in major elections such as the 2012 presidential election. But, really? Is voting really a good thing? What if I don't support the government?

Currently the government taxes us to pay for many things many of us don't support. If I don't support various wars in the Middle East, for example, should I be forced to pay for them anyways?

In the U.S. we have this thing called free speech, in which we can express our disagreement with these wars without being kidnapped and held captive by the government. But, if we wish to follow through with our disagreement by not financially supporting these wars that we don't support, all of a sudden we will get kidnapped and locked in a cage by the government. Why? Why don't we have the right to disagree?

Currently I don't have the right to not pay taxes for the Afghanistan War, but that's a right I think I should have.

In 2012, whether Barack Obama gets reelected or the Republican nominee gains control of the big guns, neither will do any nothing to stop the government from violently forcing me and many other people from paying for these things that we do not wish to support.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?

I think any vote gives legitimacy to the government. Any vote for any candidate is an expression that I support the system. I don't support the system, though. I don't want Barack Obama or any of the Republican candidates to be the President. I don't want anyone to be the President. I don't want anyone to be able to declare war and force me to pay for it against my will.

So I shouldn't vote. I could vote for the lesser of two evils, but that would just perpetuate the government I despise. I think voting IS bad after all.

What do you think? Is voting bad?

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.



Aaah, so much I can say here, both in agreement and in disagreement. But I will let the smartest man I've ever heard (almost said known, but I guess I didn't "know" him :( ) jump in on this one.

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

Spoiler for For those who don't know and are interested



I agree with both of the above. I do not support the government either. Let's face it, the government sucks. They've all but drowned themselves in their own red tape. The counterargument to that is "you can't do better, try running a country!" but that's a bunch of bullsh*t. Sure there's going to be red tape, there's going to be corruption, there will be problems. Money, taxes, are always problematic because people like money. But despite all that, I guaran-f*cking-tee you I can run a country better than what's going on right now :duh: :mad: :rolleyes: Any of us here could. Working together is where it gets hard of course, but if we tore it all down and started again it would be so much better, you can't deny that. But I digress. As Charles Beard said, ""It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."



I agree with pretty much everything that Quag said. I have to disagree with George Carlin on this one. Inaction is as much a form of action as voting is.



That's the whole point. By not voting you are making a statement. A statement more powerful than you could make by voting, perhaps. But I don't really believe in nonvoting either. I plan on voting for a third party because that's even more impact... aka, your vote is tallied, but in defiance of the dems/reps, and in favor of something you actually support. When anyone says they've voted for a Democrat or Republican I immediately lose respect for them (political respect at least), though when people say they don't vote I lose a lot of respect there too because I chalk it up to apathy. But when they don't vote as a legitimate statement, I can accept and respect that at least.


To expound on my earlier post, the idea of equating money with speech has always seemed patently absurd to me. The idea behind "free speech" is that everyone has a voice and has a chance to present their opinion in the public sphere. We all have the same opportunity because we all have the same power behind our voice. If you treat money as speech, then suddenly we are not all equal in terms of "free speech." If I have $500,000 and you have $30,000, do I have more speech than you do? :huh: That doesn't make any sense.


Of course it doesn't make sense but it's the unfortunate reality. Money talks and despite the rampant liberalism we still live in a capitalist society, so of course money has found its way into free speech. Whoever has more money, does indeed have more ability to reach more people with their message.




I also agree with Quag's assertion that UtF's system of taxing would equate to anarchy. I don't support the wars either, but had Al Gore been sworn into office in 2001 instead of Bush, I'm confident that the number of wars in which we would have engaged in the last decade (and the amount of money poured into them) would have been greatly diminished. But Bush managed to squeak his way onto the podium and it is what it is. :( If I were allowed to stipulate that I didn't want the government to spend "my" money on X, Y or Z, then soon we would have government unable to do anything (and I mean anything). Everyone would be putting so much red tape on how their money could be used, it wouldn't be possible to use it anywhere (even where it ought to be used and needed to be used). The only sane method for controlling where your money gets used by the government is to help elect people who will use the money as you want it to be used. And helping to get that candidate elected by, I don't know, community organizing or something. ;) :D


That's so distant. Congressmen hardly do what you want them to, and a lot of times they don't even vote. It may be the best way but it still sucks.But the majority of the organized world we have to put up with is terrible in one way or another so what can you do :lol:
  • 0

#10 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2011 - 01:43 AM

Quag, not sure what your leanings are, but I just read an article that indicated there could be a big shake-up in the Canadian government, if polling stays accurate to the outcome.)


im a social liberal fiscal conservative. there is no such party here in canada or it seems in the US either. The shake up mostly seems that the liberals may be back into 3rd place behind the NDP conservative swill probably form another minority govt. here in canada there are 4 parties that get any votes 3 national and 1 silly provincial party that runs in the national electiosn but they get 30-50 seats so they cant be ignored. The NDP are the left leaning party the conservatives are yup you guessedit right leanign the liberals are neither. Often people think they are between the two, sorta middle of the road party but they actuall are just a weather vane party that just says anything to get elected. It has proved very succesfull in the past but the corruption and scandals are still strong in peoples memories which is partially why they may come in 3rd place over all this election. And yes if you havent guessed i do not like the liberal party.

Biggest problem i have now is that the last liberal govt (ie corrupt thieves) changed the rules so now when you vote for a party the govt gives them about 2$. I am strongly against this as I am being forced to pay for a political party even if i only voted for them because they were the only party that could beat the party i hated more in my riding.


gvg:

I follow that idea. I thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US.


couldnt disagree more! perhaps an incentive system like i believe they have in Australia where you get a tax break if you vote would be ok but mandatory no way. If you get people who have no clue, interest or knowledge being forced to vote, you will have even worse govts than you've got now. I think it should go the opposite way, a very simple easy to pass multiple choice exam say 3-5 questions if you fail you have too little knowledge of politics to make an informed vote and thus are denied the right to vote this time around. Again it should be simple and easy. Here in canada it could be who is the prime minister? and who is the leader of the opposition? Basic stuff, unfortunately i know several people who would fail this type of exam but they do vote and always for the same party because thats the party their parents voted for. NO CLUE!!!!! this is the biggest danger to democracy people who vote without bothering to learn even the very basics of what they are voting for.

I do not like instant runoff voting but our system here is different than yours. Seems even down there in the USA it can lead to abuse. You have 2 real parties there, though more could exist they dont atm. Now if i was a politicain say a democrat, Id get a third party to have an even more left wing candidate to run. this would get all the republicans to pick me the democrat over the farther left guy and of course the farther left guy voters would pick me the democrat over the republican on the 2nd round. Seems this would lead to multiple candidates from all sides using this type of strategy. not a particularily honest tactic but then this is politics. (please note i used democrats as an exampele only, same thing work in reverse for republican)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users