Because it does matter Scott, If Gore would have been president there is a really really really good chance we would not be in Iraq right now. While the differences might not be so great all the time, there are differences between the two candidates. Your choice does matter.
It may matter, but your following of it doesn't matter.
You miss the point. We have zero effect on the process, which itself is just a circus at this point. If the candidates all pander, why even pay attention? Just vote.
Scott (paraphrased)It's bullshit that different kinds of apple juice don't list their ingredients. What kinds of apples? It's total shit that one apple juice and another apple juice taste different, yet are allowed to list the same single ingredient: apple juice. We need to do something about this. It's false advertising. How am I supposed to know what's in it? They're labeled the same. It's bullshit.
WTF. Scott, seriously? Never had a red apple? Or a green one? One is sweet, the other is sour, guess where the difference in taste comes from with that knowledge.
Scott, seriously? Never had a red apple? Or a green one? One is sweet, the other is sour, guess where the difference in taste comes from. The apple juice.
You misunderstand. His problem is that all apple juices are labeled the same, despite the fact that they are different.
You miss the point. We have zero effect on the process, which itself is just a circus at this point. If the candidates all pander, why even pay attention? Just vote.
Even then, unless you live in a state where it matters, why bother voting for the presidential election you can't influence? I like how people pay so much attention to the presidential election, the one they have the least influence on. Your vote actually does have an incredibly significant influence on pretty much every other election you can vote on from your local town school board up to the US congress. Those elected officials also have a vastly greater influence on your day to day lives than any US president ever will. Yet, the amount of attention you pay to the elections is inversely proportional to the influence you have on the vote, and the influence the result will have on your life.
But I do live in a state that matters so Suck it :-p
But that's where you are wrong, I do help out with local campaigns. The point is these forums would not be interested in the campaign of Rep Schwartz because she is not their representative. One of the Obama' campaigns goals to to gain support for down ticket races. Obviously a president can't do anything without a somewhat willing congress...
Presidential races are easier to discuss on a world and national level because it effects everyone, You can't really get involved in who is getting elected in Alaska...
But I do live in a state that matters so Suck it :-p
But that's where you are wrong, I do help out with local campaigns. The point is these forums would not be interested in the campaign of Rep Schwartz. One of the Obama' campaigns goals to to gain support for down ticket races. Obviously a president can't do anything without a somewhat willing congress...
Even if you do pay attention, and help out with, local campaigns, is your attention on them proportional to the attention you put on the national campaign?
Scott, seriously? Never had a red apple? Or a green one? One is sweet, the other is sour, guess where the difference in taste comes from. The apple juice.
You misunderstand. His problem is that all apple juices are labeled the same, despite the fact that they are different.
That's because of the apples used for the apple juice. It's still apple juice, so they put that on the carton. I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, it's vague, but it's not wrong, let alone false advertising.
Look, If you would just look at past elections for president. Specifically at the electoral college. Start at 1968 and go up, you'll notice there is times New York has voted for a republican for president in recent history.... It's only the last few elections that have been close... No state is fundamentally safe.
Look, If you would just look at past elections for president. Specifically at the electoral college. Start at 1968 and go up, you'll notice there is times New York has voted for a republican for president in recent history.... It's only the last few elections that have been close... No state is fundamentally safe.
You have successfully argued that your influence on the presidential election is some amount greater than zero. Bravo. It's still not much more than zero. The influence you have on your mayoral election is millions of times more than that. The decisions of your local and state government effect your life thousands of times more than the federal government does. So even if you are pay attention to all levels of politics, you should still be paying a million times more attention towards the lower levels.
If people focused a lot more on the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, we would be in a much better position.
That's because of the apples used for the apple juice. It's still apple juice, so they put that on the carton. I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, it's vague, but it's not wrong, let alone false advertising.
To go a bit farther, it's technically incorrect to get much more specific than "apples." If you only use apples, you can guarantee that your product contains only apple juice. However, if you use large quantities of various apples, you can't really vouch for the specific weighting of any one carton over any other. You might use 20% Granny Smith, 20% Fuji, and 60% Red Delicious, but there's no guarantee (because of the nature of the manufacturing process) that any one carton will have those exact proportions. Making a claim to that level of specificity is usually impossible, so the most accurate labeling is simply "apples."
The problem of information is more about having the critical thinking abilities to correctly interpret the information. Technically, every food product you buy could be labeled to a painstaking level of detail, but all that information is useless in the absence of the ability to properly interpret it. Furthermore, presenting consumers with a wall of information has been shown to actually decrease product confidence, mostly because they lack the specific education to deal with the information.
The problem of politics is that you never, ever, ever, ever, ever have perfect information on any level. It's simply not possible. The only thing you can do is analyze somebody's stated goals, compare it with their record of delivery on previous goals, and ascertain the likelihood of them delivering on their stated goals. This is the same for politics on all levels. You have to at least hear their stated goals to know if they want to put forth the legislation you want to see, and then you have to consider how they've done things in the past. Yes, most campaigning is just pandering, but you need to hear it to dig out any useful information at all. If you don't listen at all, you are not making an intelligent and adequately informed decision.
Also: yes, local politics matter more than national politics, but national politics still matter. Paying too much attention to any political campaign is silly; paying no attention to political campaigns is dangerous.
Scott, I agree with you, Local politics are more important to a individual, but they do not play on a national level, so a discussion of them does not interest as many people who are not from the area that are concerned in. Everyone has some sort of say about the President while I can't vote for Al Franken for senate in MN. We all talk about them here because we can all relate to the national race, the things are playing out on a national and world stage. Local races are more important to an individual but as a society the national elections set the tone.
If Obama wins the election, then US voters have sent a message to their government about the kind of politics they want to see. It's like natural selection...we can only vote for the options we currently have, but if we choose the one that seems more advantageous, then eventually we might be able to shift the population a little in that direction. Then the next small mutation may come along, and we can say we want that too.
Change is a gradual process. We can't vote for it bottom-up if there is no option for it at the bottom. Obama isn't going to revolutionize DC all at once, but voting him into office would tell our politicians that this is the kind of action we want. If they are any good at their jobs, they will use that information to stay in office by adjusting their own actions.
If Obama wins the election, then US voters have sent a message to their government about the kind of politics they want to see. It's like natural selection...
The problem is that, essentially, nothing has changed. The same basic percentages of people still wish to vote Republican as in 2004 and 2000. Almost everyone in the cities wants Obama, and almost everyone outside of the cities wants McCain. The entire election comes down to a very small number of split counties in split states like Ohio and Florida, and nothing else matters. It's been such a small margin, such that Kerry/Bush and Gore/Bush were both effectively tied.
Nothing has changed in the last eight years except an almost imperceptible and statistically insignificant shift in a small number of undecided and split counties in undecided and split states.
Remember. The cities were against Bush before 9/11. They were against the war in Iraq. They wanted Gore to be president. They wanted Kerry to be president. Now they want Obama to be president. Outside of the cities, they wanted eight years of Bush, and now eight years of McCain. The vast majority of voters have not changed, and will vote for the same party they always vote for. Nothing will convince them to do otherwise. We're all basically at the mercy of Ohio, just as we have been for the previous two elections.
but you need to hear it to dig out any useful information at all. If you don't listen at all, you arenotmaking an intelligent and adequately informed decision.
Watch me work.
Let's say I have two jugs of apple juice. Both are opaque, so I can't see the contents. I can shake them, and I know they both contain liquid. I can also weigh them, and verify that they both contain the same number of ounces of liquid, and those liquids are pretty close to the density of other apple juices. Both say "apple juice" on the label. Between the two, choosing between them is arbitrary, as all factors are equal.
Now let's say one apple juice had a label that appealed to me aestetically, and on the label it said "not from concentrate". The other one had a label that was more appealing to some other people, but not me, and on the label it said "natural style".
Alright, so now you have some information to differentiate the products and help to make a decision. However, all the information you have is on the label. The label is 100% untrustworthy. Sure, there might be laws or whatever that suggest there is some connection between the print on the label and the contents of the jug. However, there is no law of the universe that says that the label has anything to do with the contents. The jug could be full of grape juice, water, or even poison. Yet, you would put your faith in that label and make a purchasing decision?
Everything you know about politics is all label. Sure, you can never know something 100%. But you can not know anything at all if you only go by the label. And for such an important decision, who is going to "lead the free world" for four years, how can you even base any of that decision on label? You feel qualified to make such an important decision based on such little information? Even if you have some amount of information to go on, it's not enough. You're going to rest the fate of the free world on the minuscule scrap of information you have, and based on which label pleases you more? Give me a break.
The problem here is that the constitution grants everyone the right to make a decision that nobody is qualified to make. You have to choose a person to do a job that nobody is qualified to do based on how well that person can entertain you via the mass media. The whole thing is a joke, and most of us seem to acknowledge that on some level, but it seems like I'm the only one who laughs while everyone else takes it literally.
This is where your argument falls apart. You are assuming that label is completely untrustworthy. The label makes statements, and those statements can be independently verified. I'm saying that you need to read the label and then assess what it says based on fact-finding. You're telling me to eschew the label entirely and throw away both jugs. I'm saying that there are ways to determine, with confidence, the authenticity of the label. At the shallowest, I could go with, say, the brand name of the label, and find out their apple-juice producing history. If I figure that brand A is apple juice 80% of the time, and brand B is apple juice 15% of the time, I'm going to say that brand A is more likely to be apple juice. I can do further fact-finding past that to gain greater confidence in the odds of there being or not being apple juice in the jugs. That's how skepticism and research works.
I'm all for a political system with far more honesty and integrity, but AGAIN, that can't happen now without a revolution. So, I do the most I can within the system while making note of its weaknesses and exploring ways to improve it. That's how you affect change in any sort of management system.
I'm all for a political system with far more honesty and integrity, but AGAIN, that can't happen now without a revolution. So, I do the most I can within the system while making note of its weaknesses and exploring ways to improve it. That's how you affect change in any sort of management system.
What do you think of European democracies that have many parties, divide parliaments between the many parties based on percentage votes, and have prime ministers that are subject to no confidence votes?
What do you think of European democracies that have many parties, divide parliaments between the many parties based on percentage votes, and have prime ministers that are subject to no confidence votes?
You still need an informed electorate, which may not be possible in the US as it currently exists.
We're all basically at the mercy of Ohio, just as we have been for the previous two elections.
MuhahahaHAHAHA.
Man, I live in NC. My vote has never mattered. We're pretty much talking political theory at this point, anyway.
North Carolina is pretty close, only a bit more work and you might have it flip like Virginia might do this election. Making Virginia more important then Ohio if it does...
What do you think of European democracies that have many parties, divide parliaments between the many parties based on percentage votes, and have prime ministers that are subject to no confidence votes?
You still need an informededucated electorate, which may not be possible in the US as it currently exists.
FTFY
I dare say, as I've said in the past, that we're a very thoroughly informed society. In fact, out education system is based entirely on shoving information into your heads. However, we're severely lacking in the field of equipping people with critical thinking skills.
You'll get information just by existing, but unless we teach people how to process that information, it's all useless.
You can't verify the claims of the label without opening the jug and testing the product inside. If you trust the label, you submit to deception.
Right. You can test the claims of the label. Likewise, you can test the claims of a candidate's platform by checking their voting record and seeing what changes they've actually effected(or at least tried to effect). That is, you listen to what a candidate claims, then do your research to find out what they actually stand for. That's all I've been saying this entire time. Hear the claims, do the research, draw the conclusions. Where are you disagreeing with me?
No, you won't be able to do it perfectly, but that's the nature of the beast. Unless you can figure out a way to read minds, the only thing you can do is match up words with actions and judge accordingly. That's how you assess people.
Comments
But that's where you are wrong, I do help out with local campaigns. The point is these forums would not be interested in the campaign of Rep Schwartz because she is not their representative. One of the Obama' campaigns goals to to gain support for down ticket races. Obviously a president can't do anything without a somewhat willing congress...
Presidential races are easier to discuss on a world and national level because it effects everyone, You can't really get involved in who is getting elected in Alaska...
If people focused a lot more on the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, we would be in a much better position.
The problem of information is more about having the critical thinking abilities to correctly interpret the information. Technically, every food product you buy could be labeled to a painstaking level of detail, but all that information is useless in the absence of the ability to properly interpret it. Furthermore, presenting consumers with a wall of information has been shown to actually decrease product confidence, mostly because they lack the specific education to deal with the information.
The problem of politics is that you never, ever, ever, ever, ever have perfect information on any level. It's simply not possible. The only thing you can do is analyze somebody's stated goals, compare it with their record of delivery on previous goals, and ascertain the likelihood of them delivering on their stated goals. This is the same for politics on all levels. You have to at least hear their stated goals to know if they want to put forth the legislation you want to see, and then you have to consider how they've done things in the past. Yes, most campaigning is just pandering, but you need to hear it to dig out any useful information at all. If you don't listen at all, you are not making an intelligent and adequately informed decision.
Also: yes, local politics matter more than national politics, but national politics still matter. Paying too much attention to any political campaign is silly; paying no attention to political campaigns is dangerous.
If Obama wins the election, then US voters have sent a message to their government about the kind of politics they want to see. It's like natural selection...we can only vote for the options we currently have, but if we choose the one that seems more advantageous, then eventually we might be able to shift the population a little in that direction. Then the next small mutation may come along, and we can say we want that too.
Change is a gradual process. We can't vote for it bottom-up if there is no option for it at the bottom. Obama isn't going to revolutionize DC all at once, but voting him into office would tell our politicians that this is the kind of action we want. If they are any good at their jobs, they will use that information to stay in office by adjusting their own actions.
Nothing has changed in the last eight years except an almost imperceptible and statistically insignificant shift in a small number of undecided and split counties in undecided and split states.
Remember. The cities were against Bush before 9/11. They were against the war in Iraq. They wanted Gore to be president. They wanted Kerry to be president. Now they want Obama to be president. Outside of the cities, they wanted eight years of Bush, and now eight years of McCain. The vast majority of voters have not changed, and will vote for the same party they always vote for. Nothing will convince them to do otherwise. We're all basically at the mercy of Ohio, just as we have been for the previous two elections.
Let's say I have two jugs of apple juice. Both are opaque, so I can't see the contents. I can shake them, and I know they both contain liquid. I can also weigh them, and verify that they both contain the same number of ounces of liquid, and those liquids are pretty close to the density of other apple juices. Both say "apple juice" on the label. Between the two, choosing between them is arbitrary, as all factors are equal.
Now let's say one apple juice had a label that appealed to me aestetically, and on the label it said "not from concentrate". The other one had a label that was more appealing to some other people, but not me, and on the label it said "natural style".
Alright, so now you have some information to differentiate the products and help to make a decision. However, all the information you have is on the label. The label is 100% untrustworthy. Sure, there might be laws or whatever that suggest there is some connection between the print on the label and the contents of the jug. However, there is no law of the universe that says that the label has anything to do with the contents. The jug could be full of grape juice, water, or even poison. Yet, you would put your faith in that label and make a purchasing decision?
Everything you know about politics is all label. Sure, you can never know something 100%. But you can not know anything at all if you only go by the label. And for such an important decision, who is going to "lead the free world" for four years, how can you even base any of that decision on label? You feel qualified to make such an important decision based on such little information? Even if you have some amount of information to go on, it's not enough. You're going to rest the fate of the free world on the minuscule scrap of information you have, and based on which label pleases you more? Give me a break.
The problem here is that the constitution grants everyone the right to make a decision that nobody is qualified to make. You have to choose a person to do a job that nobody is qualified to do based on how well that person can entertain you via the mass media. The whole thing is a joke, and most of us seem to acknowledge that on some level, but it seems like I'm the only one who laughs while everyone else takes it literally.
Why invest so much of yourself into a farce?
I'm all for a political system with far more honesty and integrity, but AGAIN, that can't happen now without a revolution. So, I do the most I can within the system while making note of its weaknesses and exploring ways to improve it. That's how you affect change in any sort of management system.
I dare say, as I've said in the past, that we're a very thoroughly informed society. In fact, out education system is based entirely on shoving information into your heads. However, we're severely lacking in the field of equipping people with critical thinking skills.
You'll get information just by existing, but unless we teach people how to process that information, it's all useless.
No, you won't be able to do it perfectly, but that's the nature of the beast. Unless you can figure out a way to read minds, the only thing you can do is match up words with actions and judge accordingly. That's how you assess people.