Elections

[oldngray]

I am a firm believer that people who don't bother to vote have no right to complain or criticize. I may not agree with someone who votes differently than I would like but I respect their right to have their say if they voted.

 

[Sportello]

I only despise those who vote for a political party just because it's popular without having slightest idea who's on the ballot or what the issues are.
In other words, stupid people who SHOULD NOT VOTE.

Then why do most people Republicans vote against their own interests?

 

[wkmac]

Then why do most people Republicans vote against their own interests?

Those interests are a narrative and not a principle. And from my POV the same applies to democrats as well.

 

[realbrown1]

Then why do most people Republicans vote against their own interests?

I vote for the canidate that I feel believes in the freedom of the individual. Not the greatness of the state.
In 99.9% of the time that canidate will be Republican or Independent.

 

[wkmac]

On a similar note, I love the political contradictions our "leaders" so more often than not place right on the nose of our faces. Even more fun to watch are the apologist gymnastics we do to try and rationalize and reconcile it to fit the political narrative sold to us and that we believe as true.

 

[wkmac]

I vote for the canidate that I feel believes in the freedom of the individual. Not the greatness of the state.
In 99.9% of the time that canidate will be Republican or Independent.

Not that a democratic vote would get you anything but you still must have a very small and narrow ideal of what individual freedom really is given your qualifier of who you do vote for.

Here's something to consider RB and I suspect there will be some points offered in which you agree. Other points will be to take those said points out to their conclusions.

The Philosophy of Liberty

 

[Sportello]

Those interests are a narrative and not a principle. And from my POV the same applies to democrats as well.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Though there are only slight difference between the two parties, there is a distinct difference. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Democrats are incapable of banding together as a block, so little of their agenda gets passed, and that that does, is compromised to the point of having little resemblance to the original intent.

I understand perfectly why a wealthy person would vote Republican, it makes monetary sense for them to do so. It's in their interests socially, and more importantly, financially. We all like to think that we are voting our wallet, but mostly we are victims of propaganda. Note the fear in the last election cycle's ads. I believe Cheryl posted a link to a study that concluded that the conservative mind is more driven by fear.

Know your audience, and motivate them to rally behind your cause. Isn't that pretty much the definition of 'propaganda'?

 

[realbrown1]

The stupid people are the Gruber-ites!! People like Gruber and others rely on people being stupid and bilnd.

People like Gruber are Democrats. Relying on the stupid, naive and the uninformed to win elections.
They stayed home this election and look what happened.

 

[BrownArmy]

People like Gruber are Democrats. Relying on the stupid, naive and the uninformed to win elections.
They stayed home this election and look what happened.

Yes, correct...the dems stayed home for this election...

This current election showed the lowest voter turnout compared to the last 4 or 5 election cycles.

Meaning, lowest voter turnout EVER, dems and pubs combined.

If you want to take these election results as some sort of 'mandate', don't.

I would give the 'mandate' to the folks who didn't vote.

Take that for what you will, but don't take the pubs winning for any sort of 'victory'.

Most people are just really super-bored, and no matter who wins, the people realize that they'll still lose.

No matter who wins, the people lose.

 

[moreluck]

It was pointed out to me that on election day the Democratic vote started out with a pretty healthy lead - and then the Republicans got off work.

 

[realbrown1]

Yes, correct...the dems stayed home for this election...

This current election showed the lowest voter turnout compared to the last 4 or 5 election cycles.

Meaning, lowest voter turnout EVER, dems and pubs combined.

If you want to take these election results as some sort of 'mandate', don't.

I would give the 'mandate' to the folks who didn't vote.

Take that for what you will, but don't take the pubs winning for any sort of 'victory'.

Most people are just really super-bored, and no matter who wins, the people realize that they'll still lose.

No matter who wins, the people lose.

Haven't you been told?
Every election is a mandate.

 

[wkmac]

Haven't you been told?
Every election is a mandate.

If you believe in individual liberty as you claim, you just contradicted yourself. Mandates are nothing more that the right to dominate others as you see fit in opposition to the self interest of others. Individual liberty starts with the ideal that an individual owns themselves first and thus can not be dominated under any means by others.

You clearly want to use an election as justification to dominate others. Domination by political cause being a charge you often level upon those you claim to oppose. From a philosophical position of liberty, this makes you no different than the "TROLLS" you often bash. And no, the "TROLLS" have no right to impose on you either and neither of you have the right to impose on me.

If you truly believe in individual liberty, your first cause would be to crush the State from existence!

 

[realbrown1]

If you believe in individual liberty as you claim, you just contradicted yourself. Mandates are nothing more that the right to dominate others as you see fit in opposition to the self interest of others. Individual liberty starts with the ideal that an individual owns themselves first and thus can not be dominated under any means by others.

You clearly want to use an election as justification to dominate others. Domination by political cause being a charge you often level upon those you claim to oppose. From a philosophical position of liberty, this makes you no different than the "TROLLS" you often bash. And no, the "TROLLS" have no right to impose on you either and neither of you have the right to impose on me.

If you truly believe in individual liberty, your first cause would be to crush the State from existence!

A mandate can be to try and restore individual liberties.
Why are you assuming a worst case scenario?

 

[wkmac]

A mandate can be to try and restore individual liberties.
Why are you assuming a worst case scenario?

Show me where the State has ever retraced its steps? The adage of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has only proven true over time. Only a man on a fools errand would think otherwise.

 

[realbrown1]

Show me where the State has ever retraced its steps? The adage of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has only proven true over time. Only a man on a fools errand would think otherwise.

Go peddle that GIVING UP ATTITUDE to someone else.
You are wasting your time with me.

 

[BrownArmy]

A mandate can be to try and restore individual liberties.
Why are you assuming a worst case scenario?

So you were a Kucinich backer?

 

[wkmac]

Go peddle that GIVING UP ATTITUDE to someone else.
You are wasting your time with me.

You assume I'm talking to you. I'm talking through you.

 

[realbrown1]

So you were a Kucinich backer?

No.

 

[moreluck]

 

[moreluck]