Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does that have to do with my post? What do you think would actually happen if all government spending ended tomorrow?
Prosperity for all those that want it, and know they have to work to get it.
With government in the way, and making so many choices for us from the unlimited choices they deny.
Government is never there to help. They only get involved to get their cut off the top.
Voting for or against a candidate are both legitimate strategies, as is not voting at all. It annoys me when people say that not voting is lazy or apathetic. If someone doesn't care or doesn't know the issues, they shouldn't vote. If someone thinks all of the candidates are losers or doesn't believe in the system to begin with, not voting is a legitimate expression of that person's political views.
Voting for or against a candidate are both legitimate strategies, as is not voting at all. It annoys me when people say that not voting is lazy or apathetic. If someone doesn't care or doesn't know the issues, they shouldn't vote. If someone thinks all of the candidates are losers or doesn't believe in the system to begin with, not voting is a legitimate expression of that person's political views.
I disagree with that last sentence in particular. If you really don't want any of the candidates or the system at all, at least show up to write-in the vote like this: 'None of the above' or 'I don't support this system of government'.
I disagree with that last sentence in particular. If you really don't want any of the candidates or the system at all, at least show up to write-in the vote like this: 'None of the above' or 'I don't support this system of government'.
Why would someone participate in the system even to do that if they think the whole system is a sham? Seems hypocritical to me.
I'm just philosophically opposed to the idea that everyone needs to vote. I think only people who care should vote. Ideally, they should also have educated themselves on the issues, but that might be asking too much of the modern doofus American.
This is factually false. At a minimum, it's an overstatement. There have only been a small handful of times since WWII when Republicans controlled both houses, and some of those periods featured longs stretches with a Democratic President:
1947-49: Unemployment skyrocketed in 1949. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't have available data prior to 1948, but unemployment went from under 4% to almost 8% in 1949 alone.
1953-55: Unemployment went up
1995-2001: Unemployment decreased until 2000 and then increased through 2001. Guess who was president from 1995-2000? Bill Clinton.
2003-2007: Unemployment decreased
So, more often than not, unemployment has gone up when both houses are controlled by Republicans. Now, to be fair, I think you are vastly overestimating the effect Congress has on unemployment. More importantly, the economy is a slow-moving machine. It is also very cyclical. But nonetheless, your "facts" are incorrect.
Whenever this subject rears it's head, I immediately think of what you said that I've bolded and underlined above in your comments.
You could double taxes on every person and business today, and the final (and disastrous) results wouldn't be fully felt for quite a number of years. Sure, there would be some fairly quick negative things that would happen, but the ship of state takes a very long time to turn bad from good, or good from bad.
So that being said, argue away over who has improved the economy most, D or R, but it's so much more complicated than just parroting who was in office when times were good or when times were bad.
Why would someone participate in the system even to do that if they think the whole system is a sham? Seems hypocritical to me.
I'm just philosophically opposed to the idea that everyone needs to vote. I think only people who care should vote. Ideally, they should also have educated themselves on the issues, but that might be asking too much of the modern doofus American.
Yeah, maybe you're right about those who genuinely don't believe in the system in and of itself.
I'm mostly referring to people who care enough to be mad about the choices offered by the Dems and Reps, and think that not voting is the best way to convey that. That goes double if there are actually candidates they like running third party, but won't vote for them because it'd "throw away their vote". To those people I say, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
I'm mostly referring to people who care enough to be mad about the choices offered by the Dems and Reps, and think that not voting is the best way to convey that. That goes double if there are actually candidates they like running third party, but won't vote for them because it'd "throw away their vote". To those people I say, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
I agree with that. The "throw away your vote" argument is stupid for several reasons, the main one being that people constantly complain about only having two choices, but then won't take a proactive step to officially show there is support for alternatives.
Or, Hillary will be microwaved again before the election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To those people I say, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
