Why do you not want to concern yourself? Choosing to be ignorant about politics means that you will be uninformed when you vote. To me, choosing to be ignorant is worse that being informed and choosing to be a republican.
So you'd rather have an evil genius run your country than an idiot? It's interesting to think about if Hitler was a better leader than Bush.
Why do you not want to concern yourself? Choosing to be ignorant about politics means that you will be uninformed when you vote. To me, choosing to be ignorant is worse that being informed and choosing to be a republican.
I don't really care if people are ignorant of politics as long as they don't vote. Leave the voting for those of us who care enough to learn about the issues.
I'm going to start off by saying that I pay very little attention to politics. I try not to concern myself with things that I'd rather not bother getting into, so I really don't know much about the current election aside from the candidates. For the most part, I'm pretty much clueless. However, if I had to say I leaned anywhere, I'd say that I'm closer to being liberal than conservative.
Why do you not want to concern yourself? Choosing to be ignorant about politics means that you will be uninformed when you vote. To me, choosing to be ignorant is worse that being informed and choosing to be a republican.
I'd put them on equal grounds, actually. If you choose to be Republican, that means that you've seen the facts yet you STILL want to go the ignorant route. That's pretty bad.
I'm going to start off by saying that I pay very little attention to politics. I try not to concern myself with things that I'd rather not bother getting into, so I really don't know much about the current election aside from the candidates. For the most part, I'm pretty much clueless. However, if I had to say I leaned anywhere, I'd say that I'm closer to being liberal than conservative.
Why do you not want to concern yourself? Choosing to be ignorant about politics means that you will be uninformed when you vote. To me, choosing to be ignorant is worse that being informed and choosing to be a republican.
I never said that I plan to vote. I've already decided that if I never get around to learning and subsequently caring about politics I will simply refrain from voting, since it isn't required by law.
I'd put them on equal grounds, actually. If you choose to be Republican, that means that you've seen the facts yet you STILL want to go the ignorant route. That's pretty bad.
Or perhaps you don't follow the whole Republican party line.
Or perhaps you don't follow the whole Republican party line.
There is almost nothing of merit in the Republican party line. What little there is, few Republican leaders follow, and thus voting for them on these grounds is laughably idiotic.
I'm going to start off by saying that I pay very little attention to politics. I try not to concern myself with things that I'd rather not bother getting into, so I really don't know much about the current election aside from the candidates. For the most part, I'm pretty much clueless. However, if I had to say I leaned anywhere, I'd say that I'm closer to being liberal than conservative.
Why do you not want to concern yourself? Choosing to be ignorant about politics means that you will be uninformed when you vote. To me, choosing to be ignorant is worse that being informed and choosing to be a republican.
I'd put them on equal grounds, actually. If you choose to be Republican, that means that you've seen the facts yet you STILL want to go the ignorant route. That's pretty bad.
The republican route isn't the "ignorant" route, it is a route based on differing values. While I consider these values to be disgusting, I consider willful ignorance worse.
I never said that I plan to vote. I've already decided that if I never get around to learning and subsequently caring about politics I will simply refrain from voting, since it isn't required by law.
If you can vote and choose not to, you have no grounds to complain about your government.
I never said that I plan to vote. I've already decided that if I never get around to learning and subsequently caring about politics I will simply refrain from voting, since it isn't required by law.
If you can vote and choose not to, you have no grounds to complain about your government.
Thats what I told my sister. She's also choosing not to vote. Me, I can't choose who to vote for. I don't like how Obama is trying to socialize our government with his health care system, but he's my man on the war and net neutrality. And I like McCain's gun policies, but his plans for the war and views on net neutrality are appalling. I also cant decide based on how they want to fix the economy because I don't know enough about economics to figure out who's better.
Maybe I'm reading too far into the comments or being too defensive or something, but I think it should be said that there are more than plenty of intelligent, well-informed people (even by the standards of the people on this forum) who consider themselves conservative (not necessarily Republican) and are voting for McCain. Whenever I read something political nowadays, I feel a sort stigma toward the fact that all Republicans are hillbillies who aren't able to construct grammatically correct sentences and I don't believe that is the case.
That being said, I have had my share of family stuff, and disagreeing politically was never a problem for me, but if my experience with religion is any indicator, just don't get your parents too riled up about it and everything will be fine. Then, go to college and express your views as you please and enjoy the freedom.
So you'd rather have an evil genius run your country than an idiot? It's interesting to think about if Hitler was a better leader than Bush.
Scarily, this may be the case. If we consider basic leadership skills such as charisma, the ability to motivate people, etc, then Hitler was not only a better leader than Bush, but than most modern leaders. Any man who can manipulate people to achieve that degree of power has got to be pretty intelligent. The problem, obviously, is in the methods used by Hitler.
Maybe I'm reading too far into the comments or being too defensive or something, but I think it should be said that there are more than plenty of intelligent, well-informed people (even by the standards of the people on this forum) who consider themselves conservative (not necessarily Republican) and are voting for McCain.
I'll say this. I have never read an intelligent defense of support for McCain or any of his platforms where they differ from Obama's. Not once. No one here has provided even a simulacrum of a rational defense.
Maybe I'm reading too far into the comments or being too defensive or something, but I think it should be said that there are more than plenty of intelligent, well-informed people (even by the standards of the people on this forum) who consider themselves conservative (not necessarily Republican) and are voting for McCain.
I'll say this. I haveneverread an intelligent defense of support for McCain or any of his platforms where they differ from Obama's. Not once. No one here has provided even a simulacrum of a rational defense.
Because you're a Democrat, nothing we say is ever going to make sense to you. We have very different ideologies.
No, I'm not. I'm most definitely not a member of the Democratic party.
nothing we say is ever going to make sense to you.
I will always consider the rational discourse of the opposition with an open mind. You have not provided any yet, nor has anyone in this forum. The arguments presented thus far make perfect sense: they're simply unsupported and laughable.
We have very different ideologies.
I don't mean to sound rude, but from what you've said about your stances in this forum to date, your opinions seem extremely short-sighted and based on dubious backing and ignorance of the issues. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but so far you've provided no backing whatsoever.
No, I'm not. I'm most definitely not a member of the Democratic party.
You expressed interest in going to Democratic National Convention. Admittedly not much of a defense on this issue, but it's one of the few things that lead me to believe you a Democrat. Whatever, sorry, I'm wrong, you're not a Democrat.
nothing we say is ever going to make sense to you.
I will always consider the rational discourse of the opposition with an open mind. You have not provided any yet, nor has anyone in this forum. The arguments presented thus far make perfect sense: they're simply unsupported and laughable.
Alright then, here's the foundation of my support of the Republican party. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." According to the numbers the wealthiest 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes, the wealthiest 5% pay 60%. I believe that if you're going to cut taxes it should be some sort of percentage cut across the board, fair to everyone. The wealthy don't sit on their money, they invest it. Providing the investment capital to grow our economy and create jobs.
So taxes are my main issue, and I want as little government as possible. On this issue, I have no party. Republicans have run a foul on this and I'm looking into political outlets to right this.
We have very different ideologies.
I don't mean to sound rude, but from what you've said about your stances in this forum to date, your opinions seem extremely short-sighted and based on dubious backing and ignorance of the issues. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but so far you've provided no backing whatsoever.
No, it's mostly that I'm Republican and I get thrown in front of every grip people here have about the GOP. I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or sex ed in schools. I'm graduating college, these aren't issues to me. I think the religious right is freaking crazy. I believe in evolution, because if there is a God, it only started the big bang at the beginning of time and certainly didn't hand craft our pitiful little planet in its imagine.
Scott was right in the other thread, I'm disenfrachised, I have not party anymore. The GOP gets more crazy everyday, but Democratic ideals grate against what I believe. So I'm stuck supporting a party I only half believe in or backing the Democrats which I more than half disagree with.
Alright then, here's the foundation of my support of the Republican party. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." According tothe numbersthe wealthiest 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes, the wealthiest 5% pay 60%
So, how do you propose we pay for the basic services that our government provides? Without progressive taxation, there is no possible way to pay for even our roads, police, and schools without placing a crippling burden on the poor. What is your alternative? What do you propose? McCain certainly hasn't made any promises to end progressive taxation.
I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or sex ed in schools.
Even if you don't care, you support a party that unilaterally opposes all of these, effectively making you against them. You support a party that wants to deny homosexuals the civil rights that heterosexuals have, deny women the right to control their reproduction, and prevent children from being properly educated in regards to sex and sexuality. Say you "don't care" all you want, but by supporting the Republican party, you have cast your vote on all of these issues. You are a force of social regression.
So, how do you propose we pay for the basic services that our government provides? Without progressive taxation, there is no possible way to pay for even our roads, police, and schools without placing a crippling burden on the poor. What is your alternative? What do you propose? McCain certainly hasn't made any promises to end progressive taxation.
Back up a moment, I didn't say I wanted to kill progressive income tax just yet. I'm just opposed to Obama's restructuring of the tax rates so it ramps up slower up to the $250,000 and then ramps up a lot faster. As for alternatives, I'm looking into the Fair Tax, but I don't know enough about it to throw my support behind it just yet.
Even if you don't care, you support a party that unilaterally opposes all of these, effectively making you against them. You support a party that wants to deny homosexuals the civil rights that heterosexuals have, deny women the right to control their reproduction, and prevent children from being properly educated in regards to sex and sexuality. Say you "don't care" all you want, but by supporting the Republican party, you have cast your vote on all of these issues. You are a force of social regression.
Again, I'm kinda stuck in the middle. For now I'm going to support these guys and I'm trying to figure out how to recreate my party from within.
Maybe I'm reading too far into the comments or being too defensive or something, but I think it should be said that there are more than plenty of intelligent, well-informed people (even by the standards of the people on this forum) who consider themselves conservative (not necessarily Republican) and are voting for McCain. Whenever I read something political nowadays, I feel a sort stigma toward the fact that all Republicans are hillbillies who aren't able to construct grammatically correct sentences and I don't believe that is the case.
While it may be true that there used to be smart, sophosticated republicans, the brand that they have been selling for the last eight years is the redneck hillbilly republican. The republicans can't complain about that being their image, because they are consciously selling that image.
The wealthy don't sit on their money, they invest it. Providing the investment capital to grow our economy and create jobs.
Do you have any sort of proof or is this just what you like to think?
f you can vote and choose not to, you have no grounds to complain about your government.
This is complete bullshit. Every citizen has a right and grounds to complain if their representative government is not representing them as they would like, regardless of whether they voted or not. Due to the media and political landscapes we have a system which largely only allows for two sets of political ideologies and disenfranchises all others. It also falsely associates completely unrelated issue stances with each other.
What if someone is a super socialist, but also super bigoted? Regardless of what we might think of such a person, the fact is there is nobody for them to vote for. There isn't a single candidate, and especially not a viable candidate, that they can vote for any office that will represent their views.
If this person thinks like you, and votes anyway, they'll be falsely representing themselves. Let's say they vote for Obama. Then they complain because gays are marrying. You'll be able to easily shut this person down in an argument because they're just getting what they voted for. In fact, not voting is the only way they will be able to complain without also making themselves into a hypocrite.
It's unrealistic in anything other than a direct democracy to have your ideologies represented in government perfectly. Your representatives will always differ from you on some level. When there is a candidate available who has stances similar enough to your own, you should probably vote for them. Who are you supposed to vote for if you hate all the choices? Let's even give the benefit of the doubt and say you agree with one candidate 5% of the time, and you agree with the other one 4% of the time. Are you really going to suggest that it's a good idea to vote for a candidate you disagree with on 95% of the issues?
My suggestion is to disenfranchised people is to not vote, and complain that there is nobody to vote for. However, you shouldn't just stay home. You should go to the polls, and vote with a blank ballot. Just pull the lever without selecting any candidates. Put a blank ballot in the box. It won't mean anything, but in our system it is the only way you have to politically express your distaste for all of the available choices.
But who do I complain to? I get what you're saying, and there's a couple guys from the RLC who I'm going to support.
Whoever wins. Even if you didn't vote for them, your representative still represents you. It's their job. You can't complain to the president, but your local and state legislatures will surely respond to you if you contact them. Also, your representative in the house will most likely respond to you. You'll be very lucky if your senator responds.
Alright then, here's the foundation of my support of the Republican party. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." According tothe numbersthe wealthiest 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes, the wealthiest 5% pay 60%.
I am tired of hearing conservatives quote the fact that the wealthiest one percent of Americans pay nearly 40 percent of the taxes. Here is where your "redistribution is bad" nonsense breaks down.
Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.
The top five percent of income earners in the country own more than half the wealth, according to Wolff. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.
Do the math. The top one percent pay the most because they earn the most; this is not unfair taxation. In fact, they are undertaxed, thanks to the magic of capital gains, lobby connections, and copious tax breaks. If you believe they are being taxed unfairly under Obama's proposal, you simply cannot calculate ratios. You are a mathematical cripple.
Whoever wins. Even if you didn't vote for them, your representative still represents you. It's their job. You can't complain to the president, but your local and state legislatures will surely respond to you if you contact them. Also, your representative in the house will most likely respond to you. You'll be very lucky if your senator responds.
QFT.
Just pull the lever without selecting any candidates. Put a blank ballot in the box. It won't mean anything, but in our system it is the only way you have to politically express your distaste for all of the available choices.
You can also write in a candidate of your choice.
If this person thinks like you, and votes anyway, they'll be falsely representing themselves. Let's say they vote for Obama. Then they complain because gays are marrying. You'll be able to easily shut this person down in an argument because they're just getting what they voted for. In fact, not voting is the only way they will be able to complain without also making themselves into a hypocrite.
However, not voting isn't necessarily the answer. I want to be able to express my voice, and if bigotry is my most important worry, I think I should be justified in voting for a candidate who may not align with my views on other policies. That being said, by choosing to compromise your ideals you aren't hypocritical if you complain about the externalities of your vote. It's kinda like a bill in the Senate. Sure there are pork-projects and some wasteful spending plans included, but in the end if the bill achieves what it's meant to, then the system works and we can solve those other problems later.
Comments
At least, not yet.
That being said, I have had my share of family stuff, and disagreeing politically was never a problem for me, but if my experience with religion is any indicator, just don't get your parents too riled up about it and everything will be fine. Then, go to college and express your views as you please and enjoy the freedom. Scarily, this may be the case. If we consider basic leadership skills such as charisma, the ability to motivate people, etc, then Hitler was not only a better leader than Bush, but than most modern leaders. Any man who can manipulate people to achieve that degree of power has got to be pretty intelligent. The problem, obviously, is in the methods used by Hitler.
So taxes are my main issue, and I want as little government as possible. On this issue, I have no party. Republicans have run a foul on this and I'm looking into political outlets to right this. No, it's mostly that I'm Republican and I get thrown in front of every grip people here have about the GOP. I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, or sex ed in schools. I'm graduating college, these aren't issues to me. I think the religious right is freaking crazy. I believe in evolution, because if there is a God, it only started the big bang at the beginning of time and certainly didn't hand craft our pitiful little planet in its imagine.
Scott was right in the other thread, I'm disenfrachised, I have not party anymore. The GOP gets more crazy everyday, but Democratic ideals grate against what I believe. So I'm stuck supporting a party I only half believe in or backing the Democrats which I more than half disagree with.
What if someone is a super socialist, but also super bigoted? Regardless of what we might think of such a person, the fact is there is nobody for them to vote for. There isn't a single candidate, and especially not a viable candidate, that they can vote for any office that will represent their views.
If this person thinks like you, and votes anyway, they'll be falsely representing themselves. Let's say they vote for Obama. Then they complain because gays are marrying. You'll be able to easily shut this person down in an argument because they're just getting what they voted for. In fact, not voting is the only way they will be able to complain without also making themselves into a hypocrite.
It's unrealistic in anything other than a direct democracy to have your ideologies represented in government perfectly. Your representatives will always differ from you on some level. When there is a candidate available who has stances similar enough to your own, you should probably vote for them. Who are you supposed to vote for if you hate all the choices? Let's even give the benefit of the doubt and say you agree with one candidate 5% of the time, and you agree with the other one 4% of the time. Are you really going to suggest that it's a good idea to vote for a candidate you disagree with on 95% of the issues?
My suggestion is to disenfranchised people is to not vote, and complain that there is nobody to vote for. However, you shouldn't just stay home. You should go to the polls, and vote with a blank ballot. Just pull the lever without selecting any candidates. Put a blank ballot in the box. It won't mean anything, but in our system it is the only way you have to politically express your distaste for all of the available choices.
Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.
The top five percent of income earners in the country own more than half the wealth, according to Wolff. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.
Do the math. The top one percent pay the most because they earn the most; this is not unfair taxation. In fact, they are undertaxed, thanks to the magic of capital gains, lobby connections, and copious tax breaks. If you believe they are being taxed unfairly under Obama's proposal, you simply cannot calculate ratios. You are a mathematical cripple.