Voting for Bush = stupid

[Seshat]

I will only say that I didn't vote at all, and don't foresee myself doing so until such time as it actually can make a difference. I'm in a state that has traditionally voted one way (which way doesn't even matter). It's done so by a large majority for over 20 years.

Actually, you can do something effective in such a situation. You can use your vote to make your electorate one step closer to a marginal electorate. (Electorate, state, whatever you guys call your electoral divisions.)

Okay - it's not an easy thing to achieve. It takes a lot of people who are willing to go ahead and vote despite being in a traditional 'safe' seat. But if you can do it, it's well worth it.

Being marginal - as in, one that can go to either party with a small change in voting trends - brings an awful lot of benefits. Politicans pay attention to you.

Plus, of course, your vote matters.

Spread the word: make your local electorate a marginal one! Bring back choice!


(This has been an unpaid announcement on behalf of the Marginal Electorates Party. Seshat speaking.)



(For those who don't know: Aussie political messages have to have that sort of declaration-of-interests in them. So to the other Aussies here, that was probably funny. Probably. Maybe?)

[Pedersen]

It takes a lot of people who are willing to go ahead and vote despite being in a traditional 'safe' seat. But if you can do it, it's well worth it.

True. Now, I just have to get about 500,000 people to agree with me, which equals roughly 1/5 of the average total voter turnout.

So, between now and the election, I have to persuade 500,000 people to vote against the direction they would normally vote.

While I'm dreaming, I want a pony.

Plus, of course, your vote matters.

You want to see voter turnout skyrocket? It's easy: Of the people who don't vote, a major portion of them don't vote because (like me) they know their vote does not matter. I don't have numbers, just anecdotal evidence to back up that statement.

I nearly never hear "Oh, I don't have time to vote". I almost always hear "I disagree with all of them, and it's going to the same candidate who my state would always vote for, so why bother?"

If you would like to see voter turnout skyrocket, make the votes matter. Give us a "None Of The Above", and make it binding. If "None Of The Above" wins, a new election is held requiring new candidates.

I guarantee a much larger turnout for the next election. A huge segment of the population exists that doesn't want any of these candidates to win, because they are all bad choices. These people will show up in droves specifically to vote against all of them.

Personal speculation? Voter turnout will at least double.

Of course, since this method would allow voters to specifically say no, rather than forcing them to choose the lesser of all evils, this method will not be made into law.

This would give voting power back to everybody. It would actually mean something.

Again, though, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

[Boozy]

The only reason your vote doesn't matter is because you choose not to use it.

[ebonyknight]

EK, read our Declaration of Independence. It's well within our duty to defend our rights, and when those rights are violated, and when the contract is broken, we are well within our rights as human beings, not just Americans, to rise up and change it.

*sigh*

And you believe I haven't read it because????

I tried to let this go, because I obviously have some kind of talent pissing people off with a "formal" debate style. I have this thing about people "proving" their points. So sue me.


Are you willing to prove to me that you have a "right" to life? Are you willing to debate an abstract idea against the real world? If so, let's pursue this. If not, don't get mad at me and tell me things about your life I really don't want to know.

So, what do you say?

Tell me, if my right to life is violated (and I am dead) who do I complain to to get my life back and defend my "right" to life?????

[ebonyknight]

We can't put all the blame on Bush for Iraq. What about *Congress* who voted to give him the war authority? Shouldn't they (including one John Kerry, "I voted for the war before I voted against it?") take some of the blame?

As has been shown by history, politicians will do what they think will get them re-elected. Bush is the commander-in-chief. He has the expressed duty to protect and defend the constitution of the US.

Congressmen take the oath to SUPPORT and defend the Constitution. Not quite the same commitment. Not surprising since they don't have the same responsibility.

Also, we must consider another thing; even though it was well-known that Bush wanted to go after Saddam... most of that could have been stopped. However, at the time, given Iraq's suspicious behavior concerning possible WMDs or nuke programs, was it any surprise that we thought they existed? At the time, quite a bit of intelligence hinted at it. However, once it came out that there weren't any WMDs, the calls for war should have stopped. It didn't though--couldn't Congress have put their collective feet down?

As I said be for they decided to do what was best for their own careers and to support the Constitution by supporting the President in his decision. Until 2006, the Congress had a Republican majority. The one's who questioned him, were patriots in my opinion. The others did what their office (and party) required. The President was required to make these decisions, not the Congress. You can't tell me that if it wasn't for the President, Congress would have decided to override the President and declare war on Iraq (which is Congress's right).

I knew when Powell showed us the picture of an "Iraqi terror training base" that he was pulling my leg, when he was speaking to the UN. Even Clinton had no compunction about firing a cruise missile at suspected terrorist bases. Do you expect me to believe that cowboy Bush restrained himself long enough to get a picture of the base? It was shown that this was not an accurate picture. I realized that night, that Powell's argument just didn't make sense. Am I smarter than all of Congress? They did what they had to do to retain power. Evidence since and BEFORE proves that Bush intended to remove Saddam. You want it in black and white? Read Bush at War. He states that he intended regime change in Iraq BEFORE he got elected.

As for the terror ratings, consider those a knee-jerk reaction. They simply provided the *illusion* of security, and were largely ignored.

Ignored? It got them re-elected in my opinion. I have heard plenty of stories of older Americans who believed that they were sacrificing Liberty for security and then regretted their decision based on Bush's later actions.

On voting for him, I think that too many people remembered the Clinton years for all the wrong reasons. (I'm not trying to attack Clinton here, folks.) They might not have liked the sex scandals, Whitewater, the fact that his Balanced Budget Act drove several hospitals into bankruptcy, etc. and felt that Kerry might (not would) have perpetuated the same things. Plus, they might not have liked the drama surrounding his military service.

I don't understand Clinton's relevance here.

The way he balanced he budget was to take money from Social Security (which isn't counted in the budget) and applied it to the deficit. He robbed Peter to pay Paul. He got a blow job in office. What he didn't do, was to plunge the country into war and then bankrupt the country and mortagage it to foreign interests.

[Pedersen]

The only reason your vote doesn't matter is because you choose not to use it.

Perhaps you missed my explanation? It's not at the level of being a formal mathematical proof, I admit that. But it does explain in pretty black and white terms why my one, singular vote is absolutely 100% irrelevant in the state in which I live.

If I lived in a state that could vote either way, I would vote.

If I lived in a state where I could say "None of the above", and make it stick, I would vote.

Instead, with the state I live in, my vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I choose to vote or not.

At least I'm honest about it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm not seeing much defense of Bush. Its more, 'Yeah, he's a right dick, but so are the Democrats."

That's a sad state of affairs.

fine you want someone to defend him-I'll be your lightning rod of hate

On May 25, President Bush signed a spending bill that, among other things, amended the FLSA to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.-----the last raise in federal minimum wage was back in 1996.


from Human rights watch

this is why I don't believe in the "this war is about oil" BS-meaning oh since the WMDs didn't exist we should let the genocide continue-and yes there was a genocide-just like germany in WWII-just not on as large of a scale yet.....


Jawhar Namiq Salem, the speaker of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Irbil, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on March 10, 1999 urging a U.N. investigation of the "ethnic cleansing" policies of the Iraqi government.

The U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq, in his February 1999 report to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, reported having received the names and background information regarding more than 200 prisoners executed between October and December 1998, making a total of some 2,500 executed since the last months of 1997. Human Rights Watch received reports of more than 600 detainees who were reportedly executed in the first four months of 1999, many by name and date of execution. None of these reported executions appeared to follow from any judicial due process.



this is from 1992

At least 105 Shi'a clerics, some of them very elderly, were rounded up in Najaf and Kerbala after the March 1991 uprising. They were not seen again by friends or relatives; nor did the government respond to enquiries from abroad as to their safety
(this was done because of their religious affiliation-so the next time I hear any religious group whine about "being persecuted"-these people are(presumed)dead, at the least they have been incarcerated since 1991-simply due to religion)

Based on the rough estimates of Iraqi human rights organizations located abroad as well as information from opposition political parties, the total number of persons being detained without charge was estimated conservatively by Middle East Watch at 10,000 to 12,000. The majority were probably Shi'a men, detained on the grounds of their beliefs, and not because of any specific crimes. However, an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 Kurds-men, women and children-taken into government custody during the Anfal military operations, in 1988, and not seen again also remained to be accounted for. Most are believed to have been executed.


this is from 1993

Human Rights Watch´s comprehensive report “Genocide in Iraq - The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds,” originally published in July 1993, details the systematic and deliberate murder of at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The killings occurred between February and September 1988. “Genocide in Iraq” shows that the Kurdish victims were targeted on the basis of their ethnicity.



if you didn't know about the genocide in Iraq that has been stopped now-now you do.

and this is from the wall street journal in 2002

[CancelMyService]

Don't forget that genocide in Iraq came from the post Gulf War promise of George HW Bush that we'd back up the Kurds if they rose up against Saddam. They did, we didn't, and well....we found the results when the mass graves were uncovered.

Personally, I don't blame Bush voters. The GOP has done a remarkable job in getting people to vote against their own interests to the point where you have to be in awe of it. I mean getting lower-middle class folks struggling to make ends meet vote in the party of Big Business is quite a feat.

[Amethyst Hunter]

this is why I don't believe in the "this war is about oil" BS-
if you didn't know about the genocide in Iraq that has been stopped now-now you do.

Nope, the genocide hasn't stopped. It's moving right along, now that we have al-Sadr to take Saddam's place. Al-Sadr is Saddam Part II...maybe even worse. That so-called 'truce'? That was him consolidating his power in the interim and killing off everybody in his circle who wasn't completely loyal to him. He's openly said he's declaring total war on *any*one who supports US troops, and as for the troops themselves...yeah.

Don't believe the war's not about oil, eh? One word - no, actually, I'll give you two: Halliburton and Blackwater. I wonder why these two corporations - at least one of whom Cheney has serious stakes in - are raking in the profits like mad and none of the 'little people' that were promised money aren't getting any?

Blackwater is even scarier, given that there are reports that this bunch not only counts dominionists, foreign mercenaries and hardcore criminals in its ranks, but also may literally have been given carte blanche to rape and murder at will both abroad and during the crisis of New Orleans; when news of alleged Blackwater misdeeds surfaced people - foreign and domestic - wanted them out, gone, like yesterday. Not surprisingly, this didn't happen. These guys get paid more than our own soldiers, who are the ones doing the vast majority of the ass-busting work and getting little help in return from their own government.

Hell, John McCain all but admitted himself that the war was a front for global hegemony.

And it was well-known even before Bush stole his first election that he was planning to take out Saddam, one way or another. He had a hate-on for Saddam the size of friggin' Texas, in no small part because of Saddam's failed attempt to get rid of Bush I. I find it very curious that once his fate was decided there was a rush to execute him despite our supposed stance against the death penalty in general (don't get me wrong, I think Saddam deserved to dance on the end of that rope and then some for all the evil he brought to the world, and I sure won't waste any tears on him) - he could have been a wellspring of information concerning his dirty dealings with the government. It looked more to me like he was killed to shut him up and keep him from ever talking.

So you add up the vengeance and the greed, and throw in 9/11 which offers up the perfect excuse to justify the war in Iraq, and there you have it. (If Iraq was such a Super Terrorist Haven at that point in time, how come the overwhelming majority of the 9/11 scumbags were *Saudi* in origin? Oh, wait, the Saudis are our Best Friends! NOT. I'm sure it'll come as no surprise whatsoever that the Bushes have closer-than-normal ties with the Saudi royals...)

I had no problem with the war in Afghanistan when that started, because hey - that's where the scumbags were at the time. But when the war drums started pounding for Iraq, that made me go WTF. There was NO solid proof that Iraq was a threat to us; it's been shown that the "evidence" they used was either fake or incomplete. Now what we have is al-Qaida streaming in to take advantage of the chaos, and their numbers are growing where previously there weren't any problems. And Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, being that we've shunted our attention from them to the Iraq disaster, and the scumbags are regrouping there as well. Way to spread democracy and peace.

Now the war drums are focusing on Iran - DESPITE, again, the lack of concrete proof that they are a threat. Their government is a problem, yes, and I don't believe that the hardcore nuts over there are being totally honest with us about some of their programs and their reputed backing of Syrian-based smugglers supplying insurgents with weaponry - but I also don't believe that the entire country is as Pure Evil as it's being made out to be. (Iranian citizens, as a general whole, are very friendly and hospitable towards Americans. It's only the US *government* that they don't like.) And, how convenient - Iran just so happens to be sitting on top of some sizeable oil and natural gas reserves, both of which have been courted by our two biggest competitors Russia and China, and it controls a key access port through which most of the Western world's oil supplies are shipped!

In contrast, we know *as fact* that North Korea has:

- WMDs
- Batshit crazy ruthless dictators
- A record of dishonesty on their weapons programs and staving off inspections at nearly every turn
- A close proximity to a strategic location of importance (South Korea)
- A history of doing some pretty nasty shit, including genocide (I would count starving your own people to death a genocide)

Yet somehow we don't seem very inclined to want to rush right over there and Liberate The People/Fight Teh War On Terrah. Could it be, perhaps, that North Korea doesn't have anything worth getting our mitts on, no known way to be exploited? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven there.

Ask yourself who's benefiting the most from all this mess. It sure as hell isn't the Iraqi citizens, and it sure as hell isn't the US citizens.

[AFPheonix]

Perhaps you missed my explanation? It's not at the level of being a formal mathematical proof, I admit that. But it does explain in pretty black and white terms why my one, singular vote is absolutely 100% irrelevant in the state in which I live.

If I lived in a state that could vote either way, I would vote.

If I lived in a state where I could say "None of the above", and make it stick, I would vote.

Instead, with the state I live in, my vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I choose to vote or not.

At least I'm honest about it.

I read your previous post, and I also read where at least anecdotally you admitted that quite a chunk of the people not voting are doing so because they think they don't matter. Now, if that larger chunk decided to say "fuck it, I'm voting for who I want regardless of who gets in", don't you think that might push the margins a little closer to where you'd like them?

[DarthRetard]

*sigh*

And you believe I haven't read it because????

I tried to let this go, because I obviously have some kind of talent pissing people off with a "formal" debate style. I have this thing about people "proving" their points. So sue me.


Are you willing to prove to me that you have a "right" to life? Are you willing to debate an abstract idea against the real world? If so, let's pursue this. If not, don't get mad at me and tell me things about your life I really don't want to know.

So, what do you say?

Tell me, if my right to life is violated (and I am dead) who do I complain to to get my life back and defend my "right" to life?????

Alright, look, I didn't mean for you take that as an insult, as opposed to just a reminder that it's something we based our desire for independence on, first of all. Second, I don't have a formal debating style, argumentation is argumentation, and I don't type like I speak, believe me. Thirdly? It's a farking debate/discussion forum, so I thought points were meant to be proven, or otherwise left uncontested and thus voided by lack of support.

As for the the rights to life, liberty, and property, as Locke states it, and as it pertains to you or I, it is our sovereign duty as individuals to protect and maintain our rights as they belong to us. Life, Liberty, and Property go hand in hand, and we don't just defend one or the other, we defend all. Bear with me here.

Liberty is a part of our life, and how we live. When our liberty/property is threatened, so is our livelihood.

I mean simply that if your life is threatened, you defend it. Why do we have a murder trial? That person denied the other his/her right to life.

Martin Luther King, Jr. protested the violation of his rights as a human being, as did our founding fathers when this nation was formed. That's how the social contract works. We submit to government in the agreement of sorts that they protect our rights inherent to us. The government doesn't GIVE us those rights, nor can they absolve us of them. Those rights are OURS, and it is up to us to maintain and defend them.

[ebonyknight]

Dude. Let's drop it. I didn't think you insulted me and it's really irrelevant to the discussion. No hard feelings.

[ebonyknight]

On May 25, President Bush signed a spending bill that, among other things, amended the FLSA to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.-----the last raise in federal minimum wage was back in 1996.

Do you know what the ramifications were of that? Quite a few small businesses went under because of this. They couldn't afford (when cumulated together) what amounted to a massive increase in employee pay. Of those that didn't go under, lots of people lost their jobs for the same reason. An increase in pay is only good if you keep your job.

Now with the increase in food prices, the problem for the small business owner (for restaurants in particular) has compounded the problem. In order to keep their businesses running owners no longer offer free condiments or larger portion sizes. While they acknowledge that food prices are a major problem, the increase in minimum wage initiated the cutbacks.

Now what I do give him credit for is the tax cuts. I thought it absolutely mad to cut taxes during a war, but damned if it didn't work. Unfortunately, that is the only thing I believe he has gotten right.

War for oil? I am not going to touch that. Despite everything that has happened, despite the reasons for the war LITERALLY changing weekly, people were/are going to believe what they want. Frankly, I believe that some people just couldn't believe (not you in particular) that they were hoodwinked, so they come up with any excuse to give Bush a pass.

This is especially true of the Conservative pundits (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc). They rail on and on about inequities in the government and how the country is going downhill and morals are gone, etc, etc. Yet somehow forget that the country has been (except for the last year and a half) COMPLETELY in republican hands since the turn of the century. The hypocrisy boggles my mind.

[IDrinkaRum]

If we were able to mine for oil in our own country (or in countries that are friendly to us), we wouldn't have to be dependent upon the oil supplied by unfriendly/want to kill us countries.

The minimum wage needed to be raised. Yes, there was some fall out with the mom & pop shops, but sometimes some sacrifices need to be made in helping the economy & the people of the country. And small business owners are always complaining whenever the minimum wage is raised, so to say Bush is responsible for the fall of so many small businesses is ludicrous. 1996 would have been Clinton's fault for small businesses going out of business.

Also, with the minimum wage increase, it helps some people to get off of supplemental government help. Not all, heck not even half, but some. But then again, I think we need to get rid of welfare completely and other supplemental programs that put a drain on our resources (it wasn't until the Democrats & the Great Depression & the New Deal acts that created Social Security & Welfare and other stuff). Before all those programs, people either failed or succeeded based on their merits & their abilities.

Why yes, I am a conservative, why do you ask?

Bush has been better than other politicians and worse than others. Can we really say he's the worst? What if Gore had won the 2000 election? Would we have gone to war? Would 9/11 have happened? We don't know. And don't forget: Al-Quida tried to bomb the Twin Towers during Clinton's administration. They don't hate just a specific US President, they hate America for what it stands for: Freedom. Freedom of our citizens to believe what they want, do what they want (within reason of course) and to vote for whomever they want to represent them. We can raise and fall on our own merits. If we don't like something, we can change it. We have different religions living side-by-side (fragilely).

I think that's what everyone is forgetting. Bush is a good man, he's intelligent (yes, I do believe that, I have been known to turn a phrase oddly, mispronounce certain words, but does that make me stupid? So why does it make President Bush stupid?)

Again, just my 2 cents.

[ebonyknight]

The minimum wage needed to be raised. Yes, there was some fall out with the mom & pop shops, but sometimes some sacrifices need to be made in helping the economy & the people of the country. And small business owners are always complaining whenever the minimum wage is raised, so to say Bush is responsible for the fall of so many small businesses is ludicrous. 1996 would have been Clinton's fault for small businesses going out of business.

True, but because Bush has not tended the needs of THIS country, inflation on all fronts HAS caused these small businesses to go under. Not just because of the wage increase.

Bush is the ultimate anti-conservative. He literally spends like we can print all the money we want (definition of inflation, anyone?). While we cut programs (yes a lot are unnecessary, but a lot are), like eduction to continue the war, our country continues to suffer, while we help another. There has been NO fiscal common sense employed by Bush. At every turn (with the exception noted) his plan has been to spend away the problems of the world, and YET, "conservative" pundits still give him a pass.

He has to date only vetoed 1 spending bill. Where are his "conservative" roots? For every reason the conservative pundits hated on McCain, Bush has done during his Presidency, yet no bad words for him. Now it appears that we are going to get Bush 2.0 elected to office. Do we not learn????

It's quite maddening.