Alright, let's say you have two candidates.
Choice A takes a stance that benefits you on most issues. You get a bigger tax cut in your bracket, less user fees for the public school you attend for your income bracket, subsidizes your business, ect. However, deep down, you know that even though you're getting ahead, his taking office would affect a good portion of the population negatively.
Choice B, however, can make the economy better on the whole, will overall reduce government waste, but your taxes won't go down, and you won't directly prosper from it.
What is your pick and why?
O noes!
It doesn't matter, at least 75% of campaign promises fall flat.
since when does a person need to be altruistic when voting? you are completely within your rights to vote for a candidate that will benefit YOU.
Hey, vote selfishly... vote with a conscience... vote for the guy with the best hair.
You don't have to put in an essay when you cast your ballot...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Smokey wrote:Alright, let's say you have two candidates.
Choice A takes a stance that benefits you on most issues. You get a bigger tax cut in your bracket, less user fees for the public school you attend for your income bracket, subsidizes your business, ect. However, deep down, you know that even though you're getting ahead, his taking office would affect a good portion of the population negatively.
Choice B, however, can make the economy better on the whole, will overall reduce government waste, but your taxes won't go down, and you won't directly prosper from it.
What is your pick and why?
Maybe your taxes wouldn't go down if choice B were elected, but you may prosper with the improving economy and reduction of waste. It's rarely a clear picture where any leader will take us in the long run. Vote for who's behind door #1 or door #2. It's your choice as to who you vote for and the reasons you chose to vote for them.
.
I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
That is what they were voting for...one group voting for a good looking president and the other a spanish speaking president. It's perfectly within their rights to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose. You may not agree with them with what's important, but they actually knew exactly what they were voting for.
Labotomi wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
That is what they were voting for...one group voting for a good looking president and the other a spanish speaking president. It's perfectly within their rights to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose. You may not agree with them with what's important, but they actually knew exactly what they were voting for.
Of course it's within their rights to vote that way. But I don't agree they know what they are voting for. You're voting in a whole being with a whole set of opinions and policy, not just their looks.
There is no way you can justify buying a car on color alone. This is no different.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:Labotomi wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
That is what they were voting for...one group voting for a good looking president and the other a spanish speaking president. It's perfectly within their rights to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose. You may not agree with them with what's important, but they actually knew exactly what they were voting for.
Of course it's within their rights to vote that way. But I don't agree they know what they are voting for. You're voting in a whole being with a whole set of opinions and policy, not just their looks.
There is no way you can justify buying a car on color alone. This is no different.
Actually I could justify buying a car on just color alone even if you don't agree with it. I would never do it. Everyone has their own reasons for voting how they wish and it's not up to you to judge their reasons no matter how ridiculous they seem.
My wife needed a laptop. We shopped around and she chose a macbook only because it was white and cute. Since it would do everything she needed for her work, that's what I bought her. She's still happy with her decision and I actually like it enough that I probably will buy one for myself eventually. Even though she was just buying a white computer she actually was buying the whole package as you put it.
You stated that these people were "wrong" to base their votes on these things. I'm saying that there is no wrong reason for voting for one or another candidate, just reasons you or others disagree with
I personally don't agree with voting based on looks or being able to speak spanish, but if others do then whatever, I don't care. I don't think people that base their choices on these types of attributes really affect the results of the election anyway.
There are many americans these days that are so ambivalent towards what really matters in the elections that they just vote based on their registered political party. Some vote based on one issue alone.
"This one goes to 11"
Perfectly valid reason.
.
AGuSTiN wrote:I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
ill agree. voting with reason is one thing. voting for aesthetics is another.
even in your example, labotomi, your computer does everything you need it to do. the appearance was above and beyond its mechanics--an afterthought, if you will. by the same extension if a candidate does what you want or think is right, then vote for them. if there are two that do the same thing, then go for the one who has a prettier smile, or is from a certain demographic.
it may be a persons right to do vote based on anything as ambiguous, but that doesnt make it right. thats not how or why the voting system was put in place.
(tabs) wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I think the only thing that bugs me about some voters is they vote shallow.
Like all the women who voted for Clinton because he was handsome. Or my fellow latino's who voted for Bush simply because he speaks spanish. I think voting without having even the slightest idea of what you're actually voting FOR is wrong.
But that's just my two dollars.
ill agree. voting with reason is one thing. voting for aesthetics is another.
even in your example, labotomi, your computer does everything you need it to do. the appearance was above and beyond its mechanics--an afterthought, if you will. by the same extension if a candidate does what you want or think is right, then vote for them. if there are two that do the same thing, then go for the one who has a prettier smile, or is from a certain demographic.
it may be a persons right to do vote based on anything as ambiguous, but that doesnt make it right. thats not how or why the voting system was put in place.
I think is one purpose of the Electoral College
I think the electoral college was put in place so RI would have as much a say as CA for who is President... which to me is pretty odd... less than a million people have as much say as 30,000,000 people? WTF is that?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think the electoral college was put in place so RI would have as much a say as CA for who is President... which to me is pretty odd... less than a million people have as much say as 30,000,000 people? WTF is that?
its because originally the states were meant to function independently of each other and only under an umbrella from the federal government. so to keep one state from railroading another state, they were all given an equal vote (pretty much anyway) to help even things out. of course when the system was developed PA or VA was the biggest state, so something like TX or CA was unthinkable. the EC should be redone somehow...but im not sure exactly how.
hrmm...
GAM's Electoral College Reform Plan:
Step 1: Graduate those people to regular voter's status, give them diplomas.
Step 2: Take original Electoral College idea, and toss it into recycling bin.
Step 3: Do the environmental thing, burn it.
Yeah... if Arnie runs for President, I'm SO THERE.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The only voting issue I have is when someone votes for a candidate or an issue that has a stance that can violate the bill of rights or the constitution.
Like, those who voted for Bush because he is Christian and pushed and Christian agenda--much to the detriment of all of us non-Christians.
Same for someone who'd vote for a president or a congressional representative who's stance is to censor the airwaves "for the protection of our children."
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Choice A:
More income tax return
less money the public schools
would affect good portion of the population negatively? (like the poor population?)
Choice B.
Less income tax return
reduce government waste but taxes won't go down
depends,
I would go with Choice A because the less the government is involved in our personal lives, the better.
if people can't afford kids, then they should have no more than one kid.
The government should only get involved with home land security, protect our constitution, civil rights, protect our freedom, keep us from living in fear from anyone- stuff like that
I think you have the right to vote for whoever you want, well obviously... but for whatever reasons you chose.. It would be nice if people made educated votes but like the point was brought up... how many campaign promises usually come true?
Personally I have yet to vote.. im 21 and this upcoming election will be my second chance to vote and im not sure if i will be or not. Last election I did not because I didn't consider myself able to make an educated decision as I don't follow it much although this year I have been more...
Although I would lean towards someone who benefited me PERSONALLY the most... I could care less if immigrants get health care, or lazy people that sit on their ass and have 10 kids, get money from the state. I work my ass off for those BENEFITS and I DO NOT want to be paying for someone else who doesn't deserve it....
I worked with a girl that quit her job because she was making too much money to get help from the state......her motto, although not spoken, was
why work if you dont have to
Hillary wants you, me and everyone else to pay for everyone's health care.
even for those lazy people that sit on their ass and have 10 kids.
she also said
"I believe the American people are going to make this an issue," said Clinton. "I believe we're in a better position today to do that than we were in '93 and '94. ... It's one of the reasons I'm running for president."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
I would have to pay for crack heads, murders, criminals, ect.. their health care too.
I'm paying for my own health care because Ism responsible and I do not need the government to make that decision for me.
so the government has to decide who's going to live and who's going to die.
if your wife or girlfriend gets pregnant, and your child is born with a birth defect, the government will let the baby die for "natural reasons" because it will cost too much money.
what if I'm having heart surgery. and the heart pump stops working and they don't have a back up heart lung pump, ooops! sorry.
not enough money to buy a second pump so I guess you're going to die.
She should not touch the heath care system because we have the best health care in the world.
People from other countries come to the United States of America to receive heath care because their government takes all the money and spends it on God knows what.
Universal Health Care Will Be Her Goal as President
as long as you cast an intelligently researched vote then no, it is not wrong at all
universal health care is a joke. i love how she always fails to mention how she would put it into place......oh thats right, because if she did, all her votes are lost. we'll be paying out MORE of our checks to fund degenrate losers healthcare.
I work full time, have good health care, why the @!#$ should I lose more of my money to pay for crack fiends and scum bags to get care?
You have to understand something first Joey:
- As the pool of premium payers increases, the total fees they have to pay decreases.
- You're already paying a HELL of a lot of money to look after the crackheads etc.
It will work when someone pushes hard enough to make it happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada <-- It didn't just happen in Canada in 1867.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The economy is the most important issue and honestly its the only one that is important
abortion, gay marriage, religion none of those things matter and shouldnt even be brought up
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Rodimus Prime wrote:The economy is the most important issue and honestly its the only one that is important
abortion, gay marriage, religion none of those things matter and shouldnt even be brought up
ok so what you think is the only important issue is the only one that should be brought up?
the economy is important, and is maybe the most important issue
i honestly think people are panicking and doing stupid @!#$ because of a possible recession
to say none of the other issues are not important is ludicrous because to some people, they are well off enough to know their job is secure or they are financially secure enough to get through this
also a candidate is not going to get elected because of their stance on one issue. once they fix that issue, then what?
you pin all your hopes on one thing, and you fail at that one thing, or do not succeed as planned but still do well in it, people will remember that and it will make or break you
i think a lot of issues are important, and just as important as the economy
but i guess that makes me wrong and they shouldnt be brought up cuz you said so
that's what I'm afraid of, it would be total disaster.
what if there's not enough medicine for everyone? where would the money come from? where would the government get our medicine from to lower the cost? China probably?!? what if they recall it after a few people already took it?
hospitals would be trashy and everyone will demand their health care because they think is free!! and the truth is, is not free, is coming from our pay check.
All Hillary want is the health care profits, only a small % will go to health care. I'm not that dumb
