1. Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

I'm NOT voting for president (or anyone else) permanently

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by oregano, May 20, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    What about voting in local elections and state elections? The federal government isn't our only government. If you want major change to happen, it would need to start at the local or state level most likely. Your vote could be more impact full at the local level. Besides, policies at the local and state government probably has a bigger impact on your life than anything done at the federal level.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Shorty

    Shorty Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2019
    Karma:
    +6
    I think OP is essentially entirely correct. It's Mark Twain who said, If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. At least I think it was. The powers that be are entirely entrenched; the system itself is rigged such that progress in any direction besides the pre-determined one set by the men of always will fail or at the very least meet with severe resistance until it is later reversed to whatever it is that benefits the ruling class.

    Sometimes there are arguments that run something like, 'X person is so bad that you are morally obliged to vote against them.' Maybe so, in some extreme cases but this seems like somewhat lousy reasoning to me. The alternative in our political systems often feels like a carbon copy of what we have had numerous times before. It's also not clear to me that voting for someone else you disagree with, think a liar, or question their virtue, simply because you disagree with X person even more, is completely correct. I suppose if we're playing a zero-sum game, abandoning principle and just trying to game politics for the outcomes that are least insulting or negative to us then perhaps there's something to be said for that. If I'm going into the dirty business of casting a vote for a group that are usually pretty dubious characters anyway, I want to be sure I can defend it on terms other than, 'did you see the other guy?'
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mathalamus

    Mathalamus Emperor of the Mathalamus Empire V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    246
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2016
    Karma:
    +288
    that makes sense to me. the electoral college makes voting meaningless anyway. the winner takes all on a state, but not county level makes millions of votes absolutely worthless because the other side got more.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. tree

    tree Blue/Green Staff Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    37,406
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Karma:
    +27,515
    "As one of America’s best known writers, Twain has been misidentified as the source of a lot of quotes, a phenomenon that has mushroomed on the internet."

    "People hold him in high regard, so, if they have something they want to say, they’ll attribute it to Twain to add gravitas..."

    "In a 1905 interview in Boston, he (Mark Twain) told the press: 'In this country we have one great privilege which they don’t have in other countries. When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That’s the finest asset we’ve got — the ballot box.' ”

    Fake Mark Twain 'Quote' Mocks Voting
    FACT CHECK: Did Mark Twain Say, ‘If Voting Made A Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It’?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mary Terry

    Mary Terry Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    1,726
    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Karma:
    +3,075
    If you're not part of the solution (voting), then you are part of the problem (perversion of our democratic republic and the US Constitution).
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    The whole reason the electoral college came about was to give rural states a more equal footing with more populous states. The number of electoral votes a state receives is based on the number of elected seats the state has in Congress. The senate consists of 2 elected representatives from each state. This structure was used to appease rural states who were fearful that the most populous states with the largest cities would rule over the rural less populous states. In other words, within the senate, the rural states had equal representation to states with a larger population. On the flip side, the House was structured to award representatives to a state based on their populous. This was to appease the more populous states with larger cities to give them more representatives. This was the compromise that was struck during the formative years of the U.S.A. W/out it, many of the rural states would not have been willing to join the Union.

    To me this system makes perfect sense. Rural states have much different needs than states with large cities and vice versa. They also offer different resources. The founding fathers did not want to see a country where the city elite's controlled all the power over the rural people. It helps put the rural states on a more equal footing.

    To me, the only reason the electoral college gets bashed is when it doesn't serve one party or another's wishes. The democrats have narrowly won the populous votes in two of the more recent presidential elections. But they lost the election b/c they lost the electoral college vote. As a result, they have attacked the electoral college and blamed it for their losses. I doubt they would have had any problems with the electoral college if the results were different. Seems like the electoral college is working exactly like it was intended by the founders of the country. When the vast majority of states are voting for a certain side, that should play some role in determining the outcome. A small minority of states with very large populations should not solely determine the direction of the country.
     
  7. Nitro

    Nitro Admin/Immoral Turpitude Staff Member Admin V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    10,501
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Karma:
    +19,194
    You obviously need to brush up on politics then.
     
  8. oregano

    oregano Judgment day: 27/9/2021? V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    953
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Karma:
    +1,759
    @tree, Einstein has the same problem-remember that quote about a fish climbing a tree that was first said in 2004 but that is falsely attributed to Einstein? Twain and Einstein are so highly regarded that their names get thrown around way too much, which smears their reputations unjustly IMO. The quote about if voting could change anything it would be illegal probably originated in the far right milieu of the 1980s, in what would evolve into the militia and sovereign citizen ideologies, and is attributed to whoever a person thinks will give it gravitas.
     
  9. oregano

    oregano Judgment day: 27/9/2021? V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    953
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2015
    Karma:
    +1,759
    Hillary Clinton's much touted "3 million vote" margin of victory was based primarily on absentee ballots cast in Los Angeles County, California, many of them mailed several weeks before Election Day. Absentee balloting raises a bunch of valid fraud concerns-for example in California all one has to do is sign the outside of the envelope and mail it. Is the signer the person whose name is computer printed on the envelope? Is that person the one who filled out the ballot? The SCOTUS has never had a case that asked these very important questions.

    The morning after Election Day 2016, Hillary's margin of victory was about 100,000 votes. Trump won the Electoral College however, and I remember a mathematical analysis saying that Trump won by about 38,000 votes if the margin of victory he had in the swing states whose electoral votes gave him the victory were figured in. (California takes several weeks to count absentee ballots, and since Hillary had already won there the ballots wouldn't have made a difference under the current system.)

    My point is that the problem isn't necessarily the voting mechanism itself, but the fact that society has become so rotten that the system is but a symptom of that. Until 1973 there had been exactly ONE presidential impeachment, of Andrew Johnson, and that was a function of the lingering hatreds of the recently concluded Civil War. It was almost unheard of for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.

    Since then we have had two impeachments and a near miss (Nixon resigned in the face of a certain conviction), an election which was decided by the SCOTUS (2000), and a regular divergence of popular and electoral votes, along with a tearing apart of society into far left and far right camps who regularly talk gleefully about a second Civil War that will eliminate the other side. Eventually, there will be just such a war. Well, probably more like the Rwanda Genocide, where lists circulate and the two sides slaughter each other with gleeful abandon. Anybody who thinks that would be wonderful doesn't remember Rwanda.
     
  10. Mary Terry

    Mary Terry Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    1,726
    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Karma:
    +3,075
    Maybe because I'm an attorney or because I've long been a history buff, I deeply value my right to vote. When I think of the people who made sacrifices and even died in order to gain voting rights in the USA, I am appalled that other people throw away that right. I have a personal rule for engaging in conversations about politics with other people - if they don't vote, then I have no interest in listening to their criticism of things in this country that are driven by politics, which is basically everything.

    Apathy has rarely solved anything.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. LucyPurrs

    LucyPurrs NT, INFJ V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2017
    Karma:
    +3,982
    This year it is especially important that all registered voters cast their ballot as the choice is between democracy and dictatorship. If you don't want to end up with a dictator you'd better vote. And you all know who I'm talking about- he's made it plain as day he won't accept any result that he doesn't win and will stop at nothing to retain power. So please vote!
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Magna

    Magna Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    1,147
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2019
    Karma:
    +1,588
    I agree with this and believe the proof is that Trump was never supposed to be elected. The "establishment", the "men of always" as it was put above, the "system", the bureaucracy, whatever else it could be called assumed their chosen candidate (Clinton) would win by a "landslide".

    Like him or dislike him, the fact of the matter is that he wasn't chosen by the "ruling class". They were complacent for many years and were blindsided by the results of their complacency. Again, like him or dislike him, the fact is that the full-on ceaseless attacks on him by the establishment (e.g. government, corporations, academia, media) proves that he's been a direct and real threat to the power structure that among other things, controls, manipulates and benefits directly and greatly by holding that power.

    Does he also pose a real or perceived threat to certain individuals? Certainly. However his direct threat to an extremely powerful, manipulative, exploitive, oppressive and dangerous power structure and his real or perceived threat to individuals are not mutually exclusive. Both can be correct at the same time and the occurrence of both does not negate one or the other.

    In other words, a person who supports abortion rights or stricter gun control can also acknowledge that in addition to Trump posing a threat to those two areas, he also poses a threat to a massive and pervasive power structure that does not have the well being of the common individual as its primary goal or perhaps even a goal at all. When it comes to these kinds of matters, the enemy of your enemy is NOT always your friend.
     
  13. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    So in other words go vote, but only vote if you are going to vote for the same person that I support.
     
  14. tree

    tree Blue/Green Staff Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    37,406
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Karma:
    +27,515
    REMINDER

    Members who participate in the Politics forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other.

    • When you disagree, address the context of the post and not the poster.
    • When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.
    • When you disagree and you find yourself becoming frustrated and angry, step away from the computer and give yourself time to cool down.
    • Always proofread your post before hitting the "Reply" button to make sure you have responded with courtesy and respect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    The way I see it is one side hates America, freedom, independence, and spreads false narratives every minute of the day. They think everything is about race or racism. They ignore history in order to advance their lies. They hate police, and seem to only speak up against violence when it begins to hurt their polling. They support a marxist organization that spreads lies, encourages violence, and supports the destruction of the nuclear family. I know who I support.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. LucyPurrs

    LucyPurrs NT, INFJ V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2017
    Karma:
    +3,982
    mw 2530: Where's your evidence to support what you said?
    I don't hate police at all, I certainly don't hate this country, freedom or independence but I do believe one should not be harmful to one's neighbor in exercising their freedom (e.g. wear a mask to prevent others from being infected by the virus). I don't think everything is about race or racism but I do believe some have been discriminated against and treated unfairly by our society as a whole and that those wrongs should be corrected. There is no Marxist organization fostering violence- just a few bad apples some of whom have been shown to be from extreme right wing groups. I think there are a lot of paranoid people in this country who all too easily buy in to conspiracy theories. If you want a dictator then go ahead and vote for him, that's your priviledge but beware what a dictatorship is like.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. mw2530

    mw2530 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    535
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2014
    Karma:
    +764
    Yes there is a Marxist organization - called BLM. That hates America and wishes to destroy its institutions and systems. A few bad apples? I don't consider mobs of people a few bad apples. Mobs that hit the streets of various American cities on a nightly basis this entire summer and set fires, throw projectiles at police, randomly shoot other pedestrians, or actively seek out and murder police. Maybe the violent ones are a minority, but certainly more than a few bad apples.

    Democratic mayors and city council members did not support their own local police departments at this time of greatest need. Rather some even kneeled to the mob by voting to defund the police. Many police chief's resigned, like the one in Seattle ( a black woman) b/c she was not given the tools she needed to do who job or simply not even allowed to do her job. The local democratic leaders failed to carry out there primary duty of protecting their constituents. They were unwilling to accept help from Federal authorities. In the meantime, people lost their livelihoods with their businesses being burned to the ground. The leadership in cities failed the people they were representing.

    Members of the democratic party, BLM, and mass media continue to spread false narratives that a damaging to many people. For instance, the widespread calls for the police involved in the Breonna Taylor shooting to be charged with murder ignore the facts of the situation. The BLM organization has a statement on their website that they are "disgusted and outraged" and calls what happened as "cold blooded murder". Spoiled, rich, uninformed, crybaby athletes like Lebron James are up in arms because they disagree with the Grand Jury's ruling. Apparently they think cops do not have the right to return fire when someone is shooting at them. They fail to speak out against violence committed against police but instead paint them with broad sweeping generalizations as being racist. Truly a racist act in itself. They jump to conclusions in all of these cases w/out knowing the full story. They assume they know that the police were in the wrong. This is the kind of thing that ruins innocent people's lives.

    I don't really get why you consider Trump a dictator. Seems like you are the one believing in conspiracy theories. While I don't support widespread use of executive orders, President Obama issued plenty of them himself. But apparently he was not a dictator. Last time I checked, we have 3 branches of gov't which is not a dictatorship.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,808
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +34,076
    Imagine walking up to the average BLM protester and asking them about supporting government control of the means of production and distribution. Or the alleged relationship between class and race. Virtually all of them would likely say, "Huh?" Wanting only to be treated equally as a human being. Particularly when it comes to interacting with law enforcement officers.

    Confusing civil rights with political ideologies is just an old failed tactic of conservatives. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover tried in earnest to pin Martin Luther King as a communist, and it went nowhere. Unfortunately as with many public protests, they draw criminals, anarchists and now apparently right-wing private militias who are all bent on death and destruction. Those with a very different agenda from promoting civil rights.

    Yet conservatives are again attempting to label them all as one and the same. To paint your opponent as an extremist even when they aren't. Funny how so many seem to conveniently forget that the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party has now twice in four years turned down a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" as a candidate for president. What does that tell you?

    "People don't want a revolution. They want results." - Vice President Joe Biden

    This election isn't about an ideological struggle between the left and the right. It's simply a fight between those who want to preserve our democracy versus those who want to pervert it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. LucyPurrs

    LucyPurrs NT, INFJ V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2017
    Karma:
    +3,982
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Sapphire K

    Sapphire K Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It) V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    2,448
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2018
    Karma:
    +2,406
    I agree with most of what you are saying. The Electoral College is overrated. And, no, California and New York will not be the ones voting for everything. What states are the most represented in each election shouldn't really matter, anyways, since the people are the ones that should be represented, not states. That's why the Bill of Rights starts off with, "We the People," not "For the States." The country is called the United States, so the states should be represented as one big mass in presidential elections.

    Also, here is the population density by county from 1990 - 2017:
    [​IMG]

    I wonder what went wrong when we started hiring unqualified celebrities instead of intellectuals and experts. I would rather my country be run by somebody with some sort of professional degree, such as a doctor, a computer scientist, or a psychologist or something. Any kind of professional who has a good amount of intellect will do. Electing unqualified celebrities and business men will only harm my country and making it more likely that not much will actually improve.

    I already made a thread stating I don't want Trump to have another term because of his inability to read a document that has a 9th grade reading level (link). If Trump gets re-elected, you can bet your money that I'll be posting a long rant. Trump has lost the trust that the UN and NATO had in America, along with all of Europe. We are the world's laughing stock right now. We do not need him to be elected president again, nor we do not need another president like him.

    However, I do believe that voting against Trump will make some difference, since many have lost faith in him, and he is an all-time low when it comes to his popularity.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.