• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Barack Obama on Excuses for Not Voting

 
 
 
I wish Obama could and would run again. He was an incredible campaigner and oozes charisma and knows exactly what to say and how to say it on most issues. He could have beat Trump. He could now beat Trump. The Democrats need to learn his style and rhetoric if they aren't going to actually reform and put out a positive movement under Berniecrats. Obama has the positive rhetoric that could still win over the middle in 2020.
 
I'm a #3, but I don't consider it "lame" so much as "paid attention in math class".
 
dismal said:
I'm a #3, but I don't consider it "lame" so much as "paid attention in math class".
Click to expand...

The main incentive to vote and to vote as often as possible is to be counted. The money issue aside, politicians will do anything to get elected. They'll even visit low income minority communities if they think it will get them votes. But they don't generally vote, especially in mid term elections. I don't vote in order to be a responsible citizen, or because blood was spilled to protect our democracy, or because I'm inspired by a candidate. Or even that I have any enthusiasm for their promises. I vote even when I know nothing about the local reps. I vote for the selfish reason that I want to be counted so they'll give my concerns more attention and my street will get re-paved ahead of those folks who convince themselves it doesn't matter. People have to stop being pig-headed and quit thinking of it as a patriotic responsibility rather than a right to be jealously protected.

ETA - Better yet, think of your vote as currency. It's something you have to sell in exchange the power of the office.
 
Last edited:
8. as humans are inherently and necessarily fucking idiots, any system of government nominally predicated on tabulating the majority opinions of idiots is going to be essentially destructive and counter-productive to the forward progress of the human species as a whole.
sadly, benevolent dictatorship doesn't work either for the same underlying problem that humans are pretty much terrible.
thus any system of government is a pretty flawed premise to begin with, with the dichotomy being how vitally necessary government is to the functioning of civilization and thus the sustained perpetuation of the human race.
however the US system in particular, which is a rather morally disgusting mix of "lowest common denominator" meets "greaseball politics" crossed with "rampant greed" and "the pompous idea that manifest destiny should be promoted", is damn well near intolerable for how fundamentally broken it is to the core of both its conception and execution.
so while recognizing that government is necessary and that this is the system we have and it must be worked within, i can't in good moral conscience participate in an inherently immoral and broken system, because doing so would tacitly be endorsing it.

what's his rebuttal to that?
 
prideandfall said:
8. as humans are inherently and necessarily fucking idiots, any system of government nominally predicated on tabulating the majority opinions of idiots is going to be essentially destructive and counter-productive to the forward progress of the human species as a whole.
sadly, benevolent dictatorship doesn't work either for the same underlying problem that humans are pretty much terrible.
thus any system of government is a pretty flawed premise to begin with, with the dichotomy being how vitally necessary government is to the functioning of civilization and thus the sustained perpetuation of the human race.
however the US system in particular, which is a rather morally disgusting mix of "lowest common denominator" meets "greaseball politics" crossed with "rampant greed" and "the pompous idea that manifest destiny should be promoted", is damn well near intolerable for how fundamentally broken it is to the core of both its conception and execution.
so while recognizing that government is necessary and that this is the system we have and it must be worked within, i can't in good moral conscience participate in an inherently immoral and broken system, because doing so would tacitly be endorsing it.

what's his rebuttal to that?
Click to expand...

I'd be hopeful you don't live in my neighborhood. But when it comes down to it the main rationale behind democracy is to avoid tyranny. It's like, if I was ever on trial for a crime I didn't commit I'd need a really good case to want it decided by a jury of my peers. But the jury is absolutely a necessary option when faced with a bigotted judge.
 
prideandfall said:
8. as humans are inherently and necessarily fucking idiots, any system of government nominally predicated on tabulating the majority opinions of idiots is going to be essentially destructive and counter-productive to the forward progress of the human species as a whole.
sadly, benevolent dictatorship doesn't work either for the same underlying problem that humans are pretty much terrible.
thus any system of government is a pretty flawed premise to begin with, with the dichotomy being how vitally necessary government is to the functioning of civilization and thus the sustained perpetuation of the human race.
however the US system in particular, which is a rather morally disgusting mix of "lowest common denominator" meets "greaseball politics" crossed with "rampant greed" and "the pompous idea that manifest destiny should be promoted", is damn well near intolerable for how fundamentally broken it is to the core of both its conception and execution.
so while recognizing that government is necessary and that this is the system we have and it must be worked within, i can't in good moral conscience participate in an inherently immoral and broken system, because doing so would tacitly be endorsing it.

what's his rebuttal to that?
Click to expand...

Democracy, and voting, are unimportant when things are pretty good, and the candidates are pretty similar.

They become vitally important when one candidate has demonstrated that they are a real danger to real people.

Not some esoteric 'should we raise taxes by half a percent' or 'should we cut taxes by half a percent' shit; But serious questions like 'should we lock up children in concentration camps because their parents committed a misdemeanor'; or 'Should we allow a known perjurer to serve on the Supreme Court in order to undermine the separation of powers and pave the way to a dictatorship'.

When you are in the habit of assuming that both sides are equally bad, it's easy to miss the inflection point where suddenly one side is equally bad to all the other times, while the other is dangerously evil, right now. History is replete with examples of people missing their chance to chop evil off at the knees. This is your chance.

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean it can't get a LOT worse. The Wiemar Republic was a stinking pile of shit, as political systems go. But it still wasn't Nazi dictatorship.
 
bilby said:
When you are in the habit of assuming that both sides are equally bad, it's easy to miss the inflection point where suddenly one side is equally bad to all the other times, while the other is dangerously evil, right now. History is replete with examples of people missing their chance to chop evil off at the knees. This is your chance.
Click to expand...
if this is directed at me specifically it's misplaced, i'm staunchly liberal vehemently anti-republican.
i simply find the entire endeavor revolting and refuse to participate in it, though of course i have a keen interest in the entire thing being that i live in the middle of it.

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean it can't get a LOT worse. The Wiemar Republic was a stinking pile of shit, as political systems go. But it still wasn't Nazi dictatorship.
Click to expand...
there's a part of me that wants to be activist and work for positive change, and there's a part of me that wants to let humans get exactly what's coming to them and laugh as the world burns even if i burn with it.
when it comes to engaging in politics the latter instinct usually prevails.
 
Number 9. I have been disenfranchised and can't vote.

This might be due to some sort of felony conviction, or GOP voter suppression scheme.

In my case, I no longer have a physical residence in the US. Even though I still visit family in the US every year, and actually spent most of 2017 and 2018 in the US, last year, I sold my home. I was renting-out my house but using it as my "residence" for driver's licence and voting purposes. Now that I am technically homeless in the US, I'm not allowed to get an absentee ballot. I guess the only way for homeless people to vote in the US is in person?
 
Easily fixed. Australia is regarded as a democratic first world nation, and we have " compulsory voting. With this system we usually have a 90% turnout of voters, and is surer way of people having their preferred [at the time] party elected.

Why can't the rest of the democratic world copy our system of electing governments?
 
dismal said:
I'm a #3, but I don't consider it "lame" so much as "paid attention in math class".
Click to expand...
It is lame, because if you had paid attention in math class, you'd learned about induction, and that your rationale leads to one vote may very well matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom