View Story | 112 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Obviously you won't be voting for one. But many -- including myself -- would argue that withholding a vote the Dem (any Dem) is de facto supporting the Republican.
"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller
by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud
by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM PDT
Not voting (or voting third party) doesn't help or hurt anyone. It's a neutral action.
If Hillary has 50 votes and McCain has 50 votes, voting for McCain gives him 51, and he wins. Voting for Hillary gives her 51, and she wins. Not voting has no effect whatsoever. It's like yelling at a 17 year old that he's responsible for a candidate winning or losing by not voting.
Make your voice heard! MichiganDecides.com!
by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM PDT
when good men do nothing.
by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:12 PM PDT
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those, who in time of crisis, remain neutral." - Dante
You can have your "Under God" back when I get my "Liberty and Justice For All" back.
by karateexplosions on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM PDT
Presidential elections, that is? Your attitude reflects lack of inexpereince.
True progressives rarely get their choice in presidential elections. Don't you know that yet?
Good luck on that third party vote. They rarely, if ever, get any traction. It sucks, but there it is. Reality bites you in the ass every time. Grow up and quit whining.
I supported Edwards, and will hold my nose and vote for either your centrist, or the other centrist, depending on which of the two wins.
by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM PDT
Meant to say, "reflects lack of expereince," not "inexpereince." Its what happens when posting with the flu.
by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM PDT
Not counting the little ones. :)
by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM PDT
Sorry to have come across judgmentally. I'm tired of all the hatred and divisiveness. I've felt my share of those feelings, too. But I'm thinking of the people in need in Iraq, in New Orleans, the homeless, the starving, the childen.
Fuck the candidates. But lets all come together and do the right thing for the oppressed.
by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM PDT
...and you and one friend decided to sit the election out? Guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty. When that 17 year old turns 18, I'd make sure they understand that silence is consent.
by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:23:24 PM PDT
What you're actually referring to is a form of Fascism, not Democracy. In your framing, my vote is Hillary's to lose, not mine to give. In Democracies, everyone starts with zero votes, and earns more. Your way presupposes that my vote is hers to begin with, and I'm taking a proactive step in taking it away from her. That's decidely not what happens when a voter chooses to stay out. It is not "consent", it is the lack of consent. In this scenario, my lack of consent for McCain is equal to that of Hillary, and therefore, does not help, nor harm.
by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:42:23 PM PDT
Not making a choice is making a choice. Doing nothing is doing something.
I'm sorry, but I can't see your civic absolution, here. I think you need to seek another answer.
by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:57:24 PM PDT
Not making a choice IS making a choice, but it is NOT the same as making a choice to, say, vote for McCain.
Suppose an armed madman, giddy with the idea of forcing you to make a decision that, either way, you'd hate yourself for, gives you two choices:
If you decline either option, leaving it up to the madman, and he chooses #2, are you responsible for killing the child, because you could have chosen "just" to torture him?
The fact that killing the kid is worse than torturing him doesn't increase your liability. You chose not to play the madman's game. It was a choice, as you say, and it did in fact result in a worse outcome for the kid. BUT, and this is important, it did NOT actively endorse either option. And, for the same reason we don't negotiate with terrorists, it doesn't reinforce the bad behavior of the madman -- which will, hopefully, reduce the likelihood that the man will try this failed game again.
by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM PDT
You were given two choices, and as much as you might rationalize, you chose the second choice -- killing -- over torture. Now, you might argue that killing a kid is better than torturing a kid, but you cannot argue that you just "chose not to play" the game. Your decision not to play the game was still playing the game, and the results are no different.
by karateexplosions on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 112 comments