Vote Catch 22

[Sabre]

So. In the wake of a march that achieved nothing some American polatics crap is happening and of course the Good Ol Boys are claiming everyone in the world should care. I don't.

That's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the people like me, the people who dont vote by choice. Now, it's been claimed that I, and people like me, are killing democracy and blah blah blah.

I'm of the opinion that there is no choice. That one is as bad as the other. No one represents my opinions or interests. Not that it would matter because whatever crap they feed you in the run up to the election they will never act upon it.

Of course, people think I should pick a team to back reguardless, and try to convince me with bollocks, painting the opponant as responcable for all evils and their team for being a faultless beacon of light fighting against the never ending forces of evil.

This brings me to point 2. Why has polatics been reduced to cartoon level?

[Sarita]

So. In the wake of a march that achieved nothing some American polatics crap is happening and of course the Good Ol Boys are claiming everyone in the world should care. I don't.

That's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the people like me, the people who dont vote by choice. Now, it's been claimed that I, and people like me, are killing democracy and blah blah blah.

I'm of the opinion that there is no choice. That one is as bad as the other. No one represents my opinions or interests. Not that it would matter because whatever crap they feed you in the run up to the election they will never act upon it.

Of course, people think I should pick a team to back reguardless, and try to convince me with bollocks, painting the opponant as responcable for all evils and their team for being a faultless beacon of light fighting against the never ending forces of evil.

This brings me to point 2. Why has polatics been reduced to cartoon level?

You have said everything I feel about politics. <3 You win. I don't believe in voting if there's no one worth voting for. I think voting for the "lesser of two evils" is stupid.

As for point 2, I have no idea, haha.

["User"]

Back in the 60's politicians were considered role models and were thought very highly of.  The Kennedy's were a perfect example.  Over time though, that image has eroded and now if you're referenced to a politician it's usually considered derogatory.   

Voting for "none of the above" (which is actually possible in Nevada, at least in the Senate race there) or not voting at all because you don't like any of the candidates is your right and people who tell you that you should vote "just because" are wrong in that regard.

Slightly off topic: That being said, I'm still watching the mid-term elections right now.  I'll have my politically charged opinion tomorrow morning. :P

[Sideways]

I don't vote. They're all crooks.

[Four-eyed Vulpine]

I didn't vote, either.  The vast majority of political ads I saw on television regarding the House and Senate races in Tennessee were nothing but mudslinging.

Why should I vote for people who do nothing but attack their opponents?

[Xortberg]

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to vote for someone you don't like, but I personally would rather have some say in who is in office. If I vote for the lesser of the two evils and he wins, at least the worse candidate didn't win.

[Asper Sarnoff]

It's pretty much impossible to find a party which represents your interests as much as you'd yourself prefer. The trick really, is to decide for a specific "pet cause", and cling onto the party that is most likely to follow it trough and gain a large enough following to have the power to do so.

[Xortberg]

The trick really, is to decide for a specific "pet cause", and cling onto the party that is most likely to follow it trough and gain a large enough following to have the power to do so.

Or just be a politician yourself and hope you get elected. Of course, I'm not nearly interested enough in politics to actually run for office, but that's still always a possibility.

["User"]

Or just be a politician yourself and hope you get elected. Of course, I'm not nearly interested enough in politics to actually run for office, but that's still always a possibility.

You'd be smarter than half the people in office that's for sure. :P

[Robert Monroe]

I don't buy into that whole "lesser of two evils" crap. No, no single politician you are going to agree with 100%. But when you feel forced to vote between "bad guy 1 and 2", then there is little meaning behind it. Politicians should adjust to meet the people's needs, not the other way around.

[Konchaski]

I don't buy into that whole "lesser of two evils" crap. No, no single politician you are going to agree with 100%. But when you feel forced to vote between "bad guy 1 and 2", then there is little meaning behind it. Politicians should adjust to meet the people's needs, not the other way around.

This. Feingold was a good representation of fitting Wisconsin's needs, it wasn't a case of just "voting against the party his vote didn't matter." or anything. If anything, he was one of the most principled politicians and made the right choice - I expect he will be back in Wisconsin politics soon enough. He has a strong sense of justice and knew exactly what he was doing. It's this view of apathy that politicians don't do anything and will never 'work' for you that a lot of colonel clusterfucks get into power.

The fact is, people see it as 'lesser of the two evils' when sometimes there is actually a clear choice - see Feingold and Johnson. Ron Johnson was shown to be incapable by my conservative town, yet he still won because he managed to discourage many democrats from voting. Scott Walker and Tom Barrett meanwhile? Scott Walker has a history of ignoring Milwaukee County, lower taxes to the point of ignoring the fact mental health facilities, over sixty women were being raped a year, there were three that actually were killed by other inmates because he only knew how to cut and spend. He made one of our most beautiful big parks in the nation into some wild and ignored places where he was too cheap to put garbage cans in the place. And he had the gall to blame all of that on Tom Barrett. There is a reason why only less than thirty percent in Milwaukee County voted for him.

...However, I'm rambling. Wisconsin is a purple state - if Ron Johnson and and Scott Walker royally mess it up for us? You can bet the republican party will be pushed out of power in the next round.

I believe if the Republican Party this time doesn't get on the ball on this, particularly the economy? A  lot of states they will see as a joke for the next ten to twenty years. If they do things like ban civil rights for women, want to get rid of the age limit for jobs, and do discriminatory laws instead of focusing on actual jobs? This will hit them back violently the end.

[DZComposer]

Sigh... This is why we fail so much in this country.

Those of you who think they're "all the same" aren't paying enough attention. But, sadly, with the "24/7 news conflictinator" as Jon Stewart put it, finding the truth is harder.

An example of what I am talking about: Most Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits while we still have a very very serious unemployment problem in this county (a common-sense idea). Many of the Tea Party Republicans want to end unemployment benefits all together, and more Republicans still want to block extending unemployment because it makes Obama look better.

And look which side won, ironically due to this very line of thinking that "they're all the same." The unemployed voted Republican because they weren't in power, and they will pay a serious price for it.

If you think they're the same, you just need to get more politically knowledgeable. Asper's suggestion is a reasonable starting place, but follow through deeper.

[Sabre]

The problem there is, even in the few ways they claim to differ, they don't put them into practice or at least not to the degree they claim to.

[Robert Monroe]

Sigh... This is why we fail so much in this country.

Those of you who think they're "all the same" aren't paying enough attention. But, sadly, with the "24/7 news conflictinator" as Jon Stewart put it, finding the truth is harder.

An example of what I am talking about: Most Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits while we still have a very very serious unemployment problem in this county (a common-sense idea). Many of the Tea Party Republicans want to end unemployment benefits all together, and more Republicans still want to block extending unemployment because it makes Obama look better.

And look which side won, ironically due to this very line of thinking that "they're all the same." The unemployed voted Republican because they weren't in power, and they will pay a serious price for it.

If you think they're the same, you just need to get more politically knowledgeable. Asper's suggestion is a reasonable starting place, but follow through deeper.

Most of them are all the same. They just go about it differently. Partisanism is not strong in America, just because Party X is in power doesn't mean party X's agendas will be met, because the American bipartisan system is more focus on candidate responsibilty. In a European nation, this would be different, but in America parties have little power beyond dictating stupid people who to vote for.

In the end, I would bet 80% of politicians are not in it for government service, just in it to sculpt the nation's workways to their personal desires.

[Konchaski]

The problem there is, even in the few ways they claim to differ, they don't put them into practice or at least not to the degree they claim to.

They often can't do this nationally because there are people blocking it automatically simply because it is not in their interests - aka if they don't block it, they could say bye bye to those lobbyists. The most you can see it is if you zoom into the state itself. For example, Wisconsin despite me not liking Doyle? A lot of the problem areas were controlled by Republicans who are out there for Wall Street or something else. The only 'red' area of the state that has done well, to me? Is the 6th district with Tom Petri. The 5th and the 1st District are absolutely terrible, however the 5th district will not ever get that person out of power simply because they're the richest portion in the state - and who cares for the rest who can't drive to vote?

The 1st District is more of a fight, on that note but ever since it got completely readjusted it, this rich portion of the state actually controls it too - making it harder for the working class to vote by spreading misinformation and rumors.  (Like on the door in huge signs saying Republicans vote on November 2nd and Democrats vote on November 3rd.)

Not to mention, there's the case of the Blue Dog Democrats you have to consider. A lot of the people often try to go through with their promises, you just have to study who they are, what they are, and the logical reasoning of what promises are possible to keep.

Example: Walker here promises 250,000 jobs in Wisconsin. Let's break this down - That means 1,200 jobs per week. 170 job  for every day. For four years.

I read his entire plan. Just vague commentary and he even cracked a joke about putting his whole plan in 54 point font, playing us for fools with a plan that was over 40 pages long. I've seen longer plans in high school, three and a half pages if you put down to Tom Barrett's size. Tom Barrett mentioned ideas that would bring us slowly to green energy, it wouldn't be destroying the jobs we have now, but it would be an eventual gradual shift to 2020. He stood for victims rights, particularly in abusive relationships and was absolutely honest for the entire election. He has a solid history as Milwaukee's Mayor compared to Scott Walker who has a very shifty and terrible history as County Executive, even rising his own way to power through cheating, misinformation to the democrats, and said he took 'back' the county of Milwaukee.  To be honest, the only thing I disagreed with on Tom Barrett was gun rights. But I figured he would change that view once he got into office, at least those were my hopes.

Most politics are not concerned with doing their jobs for the people, and merely care about their personal benefits - it just makes me depressed that the many people who worked for our benefits in Wisconsin ended up losing to cooperate machines and shifty criminals. The only thing I'm thankful for is Ron Kind didn't lose to a jackass who literally stole from charities for his own campaign.

A brightside of this outcome - now that Republicans have control of our state - we will just see how good they do.  :D