Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't like what I see, I may not vote for any of the candidates of the 2008 presidency.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
I don't like what I see, I may not vote for any of the candidates of the 2008 presidency.

Cool. Why?

I have never voted before, suck on that.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I have never voted before, suck on that. Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? never took the time to.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
never took the time to.

Odd.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Odd. yes I am.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cool. Why?

the games that are being played are too vicious, i don't like it, it's as if they are forgetting that ppl have a choice. now, remember, i'm the one that thinks all of the recent racial problems shown on the news has some sort of link to the candidates wanting ppl to vote based on race. i really do think this, it's happening too much, more then ever. I suspect that if ppl think race, they will be less likely to vote for a different race during elections. I don't want to vote this time around. doing so would just encourage their behavior. crazy, yes, but it makes sense to me.


the frequency of racial issues reported on the news is getting closer and closer, at one time, it was maybe a month apart, then weeks apart, now, it's almost every other day, i suspect that based on this pattern, we are going to hear about more racial issues as we get closer to the elections...and all of those "problems" with nooses, etc. are going to stop once elections are over with.


we just had a recent school shooting, a white guy with the last name "coon", do you know that the word "coon" was used as a racial perjurative to describe african-americans?

i feel that they don't give a shit about us, they just want power that badly and will use whatever games they can to get elected. they forget that without out us, there would be no government.

So becuase you don't like any of the candidates you aren't going to vote right? In Theory a valid point but I doubt anyone will ever find a candidate with who they can totally agree. So you don't have any issue ,on which you favour a particular decision, which you find important enough to go and vote on? Weird, but if you say so.

I never understood why people don't vote. Generally it's those people talking crap about the government or politicians afterwarsd.

what about people who could care less, and who do not talk smack about the government?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what about people who could care less, and who do not talk smack about the government?
Still think it's weird, but atleast they get the idea.

Originally posted by Fire
Still think it's weird, but atleast they get the idea. well color me weird. I dont vote, and I dont go around talking about how fouled up the government is. I will, however, offer up my opinion if asked.

Originally posted by Fire

I never understood why people don't vote. Generally it's those people talking crap about the government or politicians afterwarsd.

Generally speaking, of course, political parties in a nation represent a very narrow point of view. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are now regional to the point that, for example, all Canadian parties, including the conservatives, are socialist, whereas all American parties, including the Democrats, fall WELL to the right of all Canadian parties.

In every nation's democratic system there is an "acceptable" amount of variability between parties that allows them to remain mainstream (North American Democracies at least, Europe is more open and free, but suffers some more interesting problems, like the liberal + fascist + Christian alliances). A good case study in this might be the Canadian Green party. It has lost much of its initial support and members, because it had to sell out most of its extreme views to gain mainstream notoriety. Sure, many more people vote for them now, but their platform is almost identical to our "socialist" party.

Honestly, your comment is so close to "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain." Which is straight bullshit. If you vote you don't get to complain. You bought the system, you gave into voting for someone who doesn't really represent your voice. You are personally responsible for the problems with our democratic system

We should have an Emperor, and he should wear a black cloak and speak all raspy.

I'd vote for him

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
We should have an Emperor, and he should wear a black cloak and speak all raspy.

Would make things simpler, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
racial race race race racial racial white guy "coon" "coon" racial african-americans?



So, what's your angle on this? (And everything)

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So, what's your angle on this? (And everything)
Is "I'm a moron" an angle?

Oh, and:

Would Czarina still have made this thread if Obama wasn't running?

I always vote.

I will vote.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
the games that are being played are too vicious, i don't like it, it's as if they are forgetting that ppl have a choice. now, remember, i'm the one that thinks all of the recent racial problems shown on the news has some sort of link to the candidates wanting ppl to vote based on race. i really do think this, it's happening too much, more then ever. I suspect that if ppl think race, they will be less likely to vote for a different race during elections. I don't want to vote this time around. doing so would just encourage their behavior. crazy, yes, but it makes sense to me.


the frequency of racial issues reported on the news is getting closer and closer, at one time, it was maybe a month apart, then weeks apart, now, it's almost every other day, i suspect that based on this pattern, we are going to hear about more racial issues as we get closer to the elections...and all of those "problems" with nooses, etc. are going to stop once elections are over with.


we just had a recent school shooting, a white guy with the last name "coon", do you know that the word "coon" was used as a racial perjurative to describe african-americans?

i feel that they don't give a shit about us, they just want power that badly and will use whatever games they can to get elected. they forget that without out us, there would be no government.

When have they ever "cared" about anyone?

No one still will discuss the North American Union. I did not know the Attorney General had resigned for a while because the media kept talking about O.J. The race relations are just a distraction so the government may continue signing crap that gives them more jurisdiction to "watch over" domestic terrorists.

It's all bananas right now.

I talked to my old political science teacher, and he says that out of the 18 total nominees, he hasn't found one that even he'd vote for, and that this might be the first presidential election where he won't vote. Crazywazy.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I have never voted before, suck on that.

Yet you're always moaning about how you hate the current U.S government.....

Originally posted by inimalist
Generally speaking, of course, political parties in a nation represent a very narrow point of view. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are now regional to the point that, for example, all Canadian parties, including the conservatives, are socialist, whereas all American parties, including the Democrats, fall WELL to the right of all Canadian parties.

In every nation's democratic system there is an "acceptable" amount of variability between parties that allows them to remain mainstream (North American Democracies at least, Europe is more open and free, but suffers some more interesting problems, like the liberal + fascist + Christian alliances). A good case study in this might be the Canadian Green party. It has lost much of its initial support and members, because it had to sell out most of its extreme views to gain mainstream notoriety. Sure, many more people vote for them now, but their platform is almost identical to our "socialist" party.

Honestly, your comment is so close to "If you don't vote, you don't get to complain." Which is straight bullshit. If you vote you don't get to complain. You bought the system, you gave into voting for someone who doesn't really represent your voice. You are personally responsible for the problems with our democratic system

In my opinion and experience most political parties represent a very broad view. Certainly there isn't going to be The specific party for you. But that won't ever be unless you start your own (and even then...). However people who complain about the system and don't try and change it (either by voting or changing it from the inside, start or join a political party) imo give up a large part of their 'right' to complain.

It's my opinion you don't have to agree with it ofcourse.

Thats exactly why I decided to be a voter. Its the only way I can actively have a say.

LOL

well, maybe you guys live in magic fantasy land, where the political system isn't inherrently a tool of major political parties to keep power, or where minority viewpoints are given a real chance at political power, but in my world, having a say in a system that is designed to reduce what it is you can have a say on isn't really having a say at all, more of a self congradulatory practice of brand loyalty.

Participation is compliance.

Originally posted by inimalist


Participation is compliance.

So you suggest what?

Yes I will vote but on a national level it's pretty much pointless. The only way I see positive changes is if major issues such as immigration reform, trade agreements, healthcare reform, etc etc, are put to a popular vote as is becoming the case on a State level. Under the current system moneyed interests will always call the shots.

How is it not useless on a state, county and city level?

Originally posted by chithappens
So you suggest what?

lol

I don't think there is any real quick fix answer. Its like what Churchill said, "Democracy is terrible, but its the best we have".

Don't get me wrong, were I an American I would have voted against (even though I hate the philosophical idea) Bush. If there were any change I supported (or really at all) being promoted by the parties in power here I would gladly participate.

We just had a provincial election and referendum, so I've been thinking about this a bit. We need a system that can both account for and correct human inadequacies in problem solving and cognitive abilities, be efficent and have a built in conflict resolution mechanism, while maintaining accountability to the general public, who are by and large uneducated and uninterested in the minuta of the political world.

I don't know, a benevolent and accountable fascist state run by a libertarian technocratic ideology Thats what we need

Originally posted by inimalist
a benevolent and accountable fascist state run by a libertarian technocratic ideology Thats what we need

sounds like it could be an efficient form of government but I doubt it would work well in real life.

Originally posted by chithappens
How is it not useless on a state, county and city level?


Because, on state and local levels issues can be put to a direct vote rather than having politicians, which are controlled by corporations, decide.

Ballot initiatives are becoming more and more common on state and local levels, something we desperately need on a national level.

Originally posted by Fire
sounds like it could be an efficient form of government but I doubt it would work well in real life.

I know

Originally posted by inimalist


We just had a provincial election and referendum, so I've been thinking about this a bit. We need a system that can both account for and correct human inadequacies in problem solving and cognitive abilities, be efficent and have a built in conflict resolution mechanism, while maintaining accountability to the general public, who are by and large uneducated and uninterested in the minuta of the political world.



I think democracy is the worst system for this. Greek philosophers discussed what you be best for government but democracy was often left out because it is so easy to manipulate the masses.

There is no good way to account for human greed and the such but oh well

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Because, on state and local levels issues can be put to a direct vote rather than having politicians, which are controlled by corporations, decide.

Ballot initiatives are becoming more and more common on state and local levels, something we desperately need on a national level.

I can attest that this is not the case. In Memphis, TN, mayor Herenton was just voted in again and has been in office for maybe 20 years. There have been multiple scandals with MLGW (Memphis Light Gas and Water) in which everyone knows he is getting kickbacks.

Wanna know how he gets out? He just claims racism.

It is the same at all levels.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Because, on state and local levels issues can be put to a direct vote rather than having politicians, which are controlled by corporations, decide.

Ballot initiatives are becoming more and more common on state and local levels, something we desperately need on a national level.


Thats total bull. People are not educated enough to be handed the reigns of power so directly. There are real answers to real life political problems that are held up by the voting public's lack of awareness of real and workable solutions.

The way people are convinced that A is true and B is not bares no resemblance to the actual validity of A or B. More power by people in voting will increase the "bumper sticker" politics of CNN and Fox News, and not the competency of effectiveness of national or state policy.

Originally posted by inimalist
Thats total bull. People are not educated enough to be handed the reigns of power so directly. There are real answers to real life political problems that are held up by the voting public's lack of awareness of real and workable solutions.

The way people are convinced that A is true and B is not bares no resemblance to the actual validity of A or B. More power by people in voting will increase the "bumper sticker" politics of CNN and Fox News, and not the competency of effectiveness of national or state policy.

What a very linear and arrogant way of thinking. This is what the elite want people to think and it seems you buy right into it. People are smarter than you give them credit for. The only real danger to participatory democracy is apathy but that's pretty much what we have now.

But maybe you're onto something. It seems that trusting our politicians has been good for us. That's why we now have a quagmire in Iraq. A national debt that is only beginning to catch up to us. A healthcare debacle, an immigration nightmare, massive outsourcing of the better paying jobs, etc, etc. Yep, politicians do seem to know what's best for us.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
What a very linear and arrogant way of thinking. This is what the elite want people to think and it seems you buy right into it. People are smarter than you give them credit for. The only real danger to participatory democracy is apathy but that's pretty much what we have now.

But maybe you're onto something. It seems that trusting our politicians has been good for us. That's why we now have a quagmire in Iraq. A national debt that is only beginning to catch up to us. A healthcare debacle, an immigration nightmare, massive outsourcing of the better paying jobs, etc, etc. Yep, politicians do seem to know what's best for us.

Seriously though, how do you get the masses to not be swallowed up by the "halo effect?"

It is not apathy, it is ignorance and blind, loyal support to the paradigm of the masses around you. That is the problem.

Originally posted by chithappens
Seriously though, how do you get the masses to not be swallowed up by the "halo effect?"

It is not apathy, it is ignorance and blind, loyal support to the paradigm of the masses around you. That is the problem.

I'll admit it wouldn't be perfect but It would be preferrable to what we have now.

It can all be skewed. Even a dictatorship could work in an incredibly idealistic situation

Originally posted by chithappens
It can all be skewed. Even a dictatorship could work in an incredibly idealistic situation

A dictatorship is what we have now. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a financial oligarchy.

Touche. Damn Federal Reserve Bank being a private bank.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
What a very linear and arrogant way of thinking. This is what the elite want people to think and it seems you buy right into it.

LOL

aside from it being a logical fallacy, and a good ol paranoia reference to "them", thats just ridiculous.

My opinion on human nature and belief comes not from some ideological commitment to how smart people are, but in fact comes from being exposed to a very signifigant body of research that describes how and why people come to believe certain things and how this relates to their behaviour in the political forum. One of my favorite journals, Political Psychology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/pops) talks specifically about these issues and does so with the experimental method. Human belief and ideology is entirely corrupt and is swayed much more by emotion than reasonable assessment of fact.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
People are smarter than you give them credit for.

1) You have no idea how much credit I give people or why.
2) Can you even remotely back up your statement?

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
The only real danger to participatory democracy is apathy but that's pretty much what we have now.

the ONLY real danger? So, thats ridiculous ideological commitment, akin to communism and anarchy.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
But maybe you're onto something. It seems that trusting our politicians has been good for us. That's why we now have a quagmire in Iraq. A national debt that is only beginning to catch up to us. A healthcare debacle, an immigration nightmare, massive outsourcing of the better paying jobs, etc, etc. Yep, politicians do seem to know what's best for us.

And here is the evidence that proves your idiocy. My argument has been very much that people can be swayed by politicians and that is a core issue with democracy. So, the fact that you leap to this conclusion shows how ideologically primed your biases are cognitively. Someone cannot disagree with any part of your worldview without being instantly labeled as one of "them" and thus sharing in a specific worldview.

Another point, my avatar says that I am from Canada, and I have posted about recent Ontario elections. To then throw American politics at me, especially when I have earlier clarified my stance on that issue, as if it is proof against my argument is so retarded. My assumption is that you are young, which excuses the cognitive priming issue (you will get over it when you experience the real world), but not the fact that you didn't take the time to read what I am saying.

Originally posted by inimalist



My opinion on human nature and belief comes not from some ideological commitment to how smart people are, but in fact comes from being exposed to a very signifigant body of research that describes how and why people come to believe certain things and how this relates to their behaviour in the political forum. One of my favorite journals, Political Psychology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/pops) talks specifically about these issues and does so with the experimental method. Human belief and ideology is entirely corrupt and is swayed much more by emotion than reasonable assessment of fact.

Yes I know people respond emotionally to issues. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Politicians often do the same thing

1) You have no idea how much credit I give people or why.

Your statement that " people aren't educated enough to directly handle the reigns of power" does indeed show how much (or lack of) credit you give most people



the ONLY real danger? So, thats ridiculous ideological commitment, akin to communism and anarchy.

So now I'm a communist? Democracy may indeed be mob rule but as long as people are active participants then they have a say both in their lives and in their society

And here is the evidence that proves your idiocy. My argument has been very much that people can be swayed by politicians and that is a core issue with democracy.

Yes they can, but with participatory democracy politicians can be held accountable BEFORE the fact


So, the fact that you leap to this conclusion shows how ideologically primed your biases are cognitively. Someone cannot disagree with any part of your worldview without being instantly labeled as one of "them" and thus sharing in a specific worldview.

WOW! Look who's talking! You're the one who thinks people are too stupid to be directly involved in the political process yet you think anyone who disagrees with you has a "cognative impairment".

Another point, my avatar says that I am from Canada, and I have posted about recent Ontario elections. To then throw American politics at me, especially when I have earlier clarified my stance on that issue, as if it is proof against my argument is so retarded.

You were the one who initially responded to my post. I'm glad you are from Canada, good for you


My assumption is that you are young, which excuses the cognitive priming issue (you will get over it when you experience the real world), but not the fact that you didn't take the time to read what I am saying.

I'm 44 and I've been a business owner for 15 years, I have a bacholers degree and have traveled extensively throughout Europe, South and Central America, not to mention the US and Canada,
I might know a little more about the real world than you think. I am not the one who is arrogantly spouting about people being too emotional and uneducated to have a direct say in their lives or their society. Participatory democracy is an idea who's time has come. But that would put limits on the power of the wealthy elite who manipulate both government and money and who increasingly owe no allegiance to their country or to it's people.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Yes I know people respond emotionally to issues. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Politicians often do the same thing

Well, when research shows that people are more likely to vote for someone who they deem as nice and similar to them on non-political dimensions than for someone who appears to know what they are talking about...

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Your statement that " people aren't educated enough to directly handle the reigns of power" does indeed show how much (or lack of) credit you give most people

That is actually a statement about the education system, and rampant consumerism pandered to children as entertainment.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
So now I'm a communist? Democracy may indeed be mob rule but as long as people are active participants then they have a say both in their lives and in their society

read what I said. You are as ideologically commited to democracy as one must be to be a communist or an anarchist. I may believe in technocracy and liberitarianism, but I can give you a list of problems with each. If the only problem you see with democracy is apathy, you need to look at it a little closer, or take off the rose coloured glasses.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Yes they can, but with participatory democracy politicians can be held accountable BEFORE the fact

Back that statement up. This is our main point of contention.

I might agree with you if the solution includes a massive restructuring of education, but thats another topic...

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
WOW! Look who's talking! You're the one who thinks people are too stupid to be directly involved in the political process yet you think anyone who disagrees with you has a "cognative impairment".

ah, ok, let me explain that part of my argument to you. You took what I said about people and jumped to the idea that I support a theocratic Christian regieme in America that is at war in the middle east. This shows that the "you support Bush" response has been "primed" in your "subconscious". Being primed means that it is way more likely to be your reply when you are in a scenario that requires a political response.

So, when I disagree with you about the knowledge of political minutia that the general public has, you assume that this also means I disagree with you about all political issues. That is a result of the prime being the most accessable response. This is also a very clear sign of out-group generalization, a well researched psychological phenomenon.

Priming is not a cognitive imparement, I didn't use that term, go look it up, first year psych.

Also, I don't believe your critiscism of me being primed against you is accurate. I have only assumed that you were younger than you were, because of how quick you were to outgroup me (I'm sorry for expecting adults to be more mature than that). While I might like to throw a jab into my points, I certainly have not been arguing against points you aren't making. I take back the comment about you being young.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
You were the one who initially responded to my post. I'm glad you are from Canada, good for you

Ah, see, I mentioned that I was from Canada because you threw the crap that your president has done at me, as if my not voting in Canadian Provincial elections were somehow responsible for the mess you and the rest of your nation allowed yourselves to get into.

See, again, you need to read what I say, and then take the time to put together what the words mean and what I am actually trying to say to you.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
I'm 44 and I've been a business owner for 15 years, I have a bacholers degree and have traveled extensively throughout Europe, South and Central America, not to mention the US and Canada, I might know a little more about the real world than you think.

Cool, whats your bacholers in?

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
I am not the one who is arrogantly spouting about people being too emotional and uneducated to have a direct say in their lives or their society.

I don't think anyone said that. I have said that people are too uneducated to be involved in the finer points of political life. I have said in no uncertain words, in this thread, that a government must be accountable to the people.

If you want my ideological answer to this, it would be that in fact, the government has no right to pass laws that infringe on the lives of the individual, so the idea of people voting for those things is moot.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Participatory democracy is an idea who's time has come. But that would put limits on the power of the wealthy elite who manipulate both government and money and who increasingly owe no allegiance to their country or to it's people.

See, the funny thing is, I agree with your stance on corruption. I can't imagine that MORE of the same is going to fix it. Or, representitive democracy doesn't work, well, lets open it up to the people who we never tought the first thing about economics or foreign policy to.

I w ill vote but for a Republican who is prolife and that is about it.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I w ill vote but for a Republican who is prolife and that is about it.jm

Mothers maiden name?

I don't like anybody.............

Maybe the Green Party.

It's only a little worse than a Czarina thread.

srug The only Republican I would ever vote for is John McCain, the Democrats...eh...I don't know who I like with them...

I heard Hillary wants or might want us to go to war..with Iran.

I'm not voting period.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I heard Hillary wants or might want us to go to war..with Iran.


Because shes probably just beginging to understand the reality that it is a very possible outcome.