User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 48 of 48

  1. #41
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Ayrab View Post
    I am now convinced that most of you have not done anything other than skim over what I have written instead of actually analyzing it.

    I have stated over and over again that as of this year, you are going to get either a McCshit or an Otrasha in office for this election, if anyone else wins I will lop off my left nut and donate it to science. Unless you truly think that both of them will fuck up the country equally, It should be a concerned citizens duty to pick the candidate which would help the country (or in your belief case... Fuck it up less) most. This is others have already stated should only be applicable if your vote actually counts for shit. In my state the vote was decided by a very small number of people so my vote really does matter. I personally believe that Obama (out of the two) will do a much better job for the future of the country. I am human and I could be wrong.

    My next point that I have mentioned already, is the idea that a concerned citizen that has trouble with the two party system that has been forced on us, should start working to change that from now for the upcoming elections, as it really is too late for this one. Now as I said earlier also, this is a free country, so feel free to do whatever you want, and don't worry about anyone elseís opinion of your actions (don't get your panties all tangled in a bunch over what I said). This is just my opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt.

    Just to let you guys know, my original intention for the topic was how can you be undecided between Obama and Mccain when they obviously represent two really different sides (if you want to argue this point feel free, but they are different). The person who wins this thread was Proteanmix with the awesome analysis about voter apathy.

    Thank you all for voicing your opinions and remember to not give a shit what anyone thinks of you and to try and keep your panties strait and loose while you are getting all heated up and sweaty. Take care and I do really love you guys.

    If you keep voting for people you know aren't the best for the country, you do more harm than you would by staying home. And Obama and McCain aren't all that different.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #42
    Senior Member Angry Ayrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Lol, I honestly believe Obama to be the best out of anybody for the country, but if you insist that they will both damage the country, then I understand where you are coming from. Just to let you know, damage control is an actually valid military strategy that is implimented in desperate times.

  3. #43
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Ayrab View Post
    Lol, I honestly believe Obama to be the best out of anybody for the country, but if you insist that they will both damage the country, then I understand where you are coming from. Just to let you know, damage control is an actually valid military strategy that is implimented in desperate times.
    Most politicians do more harm than good. U.S. Presidents more than most. "Damage control" isn't an apt analogy for voting "the lesser of two evils." There are more options available. What you're describing is more like picking sides halfway through a war that should never have been fought in the first place.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #44
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You really have to reassess this, because you couldn't be more wrong. It is not "spitefull" (sic) to vote for someone you believe in. We absolutely, positively DO NOT have to vote the lesser of two evils. Not at all. Stop telling us that we must, because you have no business telling us to do that. I find that highly offensive. "morally obliged," my ass.
    I agree, but I think it also behooves third-party supporters to remember that people are not morally defective for supporting the lessor of two evils. To a large extent, it depends upon how much difference you believe there is between the two "evils", or whether or not the "system" is so broken that participating in it is not worth the loss of moral integrity. For example, I often wonder if people are aware that there is usually an inverse relationship between the number of (effective) parties and the independence of politicians from the dictates of party bosses? Any ruling coalition is just that; a coalition comprised of the minimal number of disparate interests and passions necessary to achieve majority rule (for the sake of arguement, lets assume enough classical liberal safeguards are in place to ensure basic minority rights). Two-party presidential systems (the combination of a presidency with single-member districts ecourages a two-party system) simply make that process more transparant than is the case with multi-party Parliamentary systems.

    Basically, I think there is enough difference between the two parties to "make a difference" (especially on the Supreme Court), and that relative similarities between the two parties (compared to other countries) is mostly a reflection of the fact that both operate within a state-nation that is ostensibly based on classically liberal norms and principles, limiting the extent to which each party can (overtly) deviate from the same.

  5. #45
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    I mostly agree with Angry Ayrab, although I can understand the other side's POV. ( At other times I feel like it is as though someone were reminding me with a smirk that there is no Santa Claus nor was Christ born on Dec. 25 etc. when they see me buying Xmas presents. I'm like "yeah, yeah, whatever." Technically they're right, but so what ? )

    I even voted a third party protest a couple times. I felt very dissatisfied afterward when I noticed how few votes the third party candidate(s) got.

    Short of actually going out and joining or starting a grass roots cause that would make politics my life, I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Knowing that a protest vote would maybe stack up to something someday ( be meaningful in retrospect as "one of the pioneers who died on the way towards the promised land we have today" etc. ) it may not affect much in my lifetime. And I am interested in changing conditions ( ( in some cases half is better than none ) during my lifetime. But then I'm older and don't have that many years left. A protest vote seems to make more sense if you're young. I don't think I'd go so far to say that it's "morally wrong", though.

    All of the above statements of mine don't necessarily have to affect waiting for the last moment to decide which of the two majors to vote for, even if I know I am already leaning heavily towards one, though.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  6. #46
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I agree, but I think it also behooves third-party supporters to remember that people are not morally defective for supporting the lessor of two evils. To a large extent, it depends upon how much difference you believe there is between the two "evils", or whether or not the "system" is so broken that participating in it is not worth the loss of moral integrity. For example, I often wonder if people are aware that there is usually an inverse relationship between the number of (effective) parties and the independence of politicians from the dictates of party bosses? Any ruling coalition is just that; a coalition comprised of the minimal number of disparate interests and passions necessary to achieve majority rule (for the sake of arguement, lets assume enough classical liberal safeguards are in place to ensure basic minority rights). Two-party presidential systems (the combination of a presidency with single-member districts ecourages a two-party system) simply make that process more transparant than is the case with multi-party Parliamentary systems.

    Basically, I think there is enough difference between the two parties to "make a difference" (especially on the Supreme Court), and that relative similarities between the two parties (compared to other countries) is mostly a reflection of the fact that both operate within a state-nation that is ostensibly based on classically liberal norms and principles, limiting the extent to which each party can (overtly) deviate from the same.
    The United State is operating under "classically liberal norms and principles?" The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in Washington certainly are not.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #47
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    I can see honest undecidedness if the person cares enough to vote, but not to do any research on the candidates at all. So basically all they hear are the most popular sound bites and talking points from each side.

  8. #48
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The United State is operating under "classically liberal norms and principles?" The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in Washington certainly are not.
    Everything is relative, and I'm referring more to the justifications (which I genuinely believe to matter in the long-run) provided for enacted policies than the immediate policies chosen. More broadly, the more I learn about the political system/conditions of other countries, the more appreciative I am for my own country's sorry institutions. I can honestly say that no other country in the world reflects my personal principles better than the United States, and like anybody who considers Edmund Burke (along with Madison, Mill, and Hayek) to be one of their personal heroes, I am extremely leery of attempts to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or attempts toward radical "reform" over piecemeal reforms. I'm not asking that you (as a third-party supporter) share my priorities or perspective, merely that you understand the reasons for them and refrain from suggesting that people are morally or intellectually inferior for choosing between "a douchebag or a turd-sandwich" (incidentally, I loved that episode of South Park).

Similar Threads

  1. How can inferior functions be developed?
    By GZA in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 07:32 AM
  2. [INFP] INFP: how can you start being decisive & not putting-off your life?
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 11:40 AM
  3. [INTJ] How can you tell...
    By girlnamedbless in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 05:25 PM
  4. How can you tell?
    By Rainman in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-10-2008, 08:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO