McCain suspends campaign (walls of text ITT)

[Cvstos]

I tried reading what Alondro wrote, but it was long, and tedious, and saying the exact same things that he's said the last three times (in the last two debate topics), and since we answered those points, and he hasn't moved on... it just didn't seem worth it.

And I'm still waiting for direct answers to my questions!

Moving them to the recent page...

Yes, over the last several years regulations had been loosened and the SEC and the executive branch completely ignored those problems and look what happened.  Which party and president controlled the SEC during this time?

So what are your thoughts on the GOP and the Bush administration lying to start a war and then once at war handing the most excessive and unenforced no-bid contracts in history to Bush and GOP cronies to "rebuild" Iraq, a job that still not even close to done?

Do you support that?

Would you support re-electing the people that handed those contracts out?

Would you support electing someone whose campaign is run by the same people who ran the campaign that got the guy who first gave out those contract elected?

What if they had the same big donors?

What if the people that benefited the most from the war had at LEAST 15 of their lobbyists performing important functions of that person's campaign?

[superluser]

What I love is the fact that Obama called McCain's bluff, and now McCain has no choice but to look like an idiot.

McCain probably expected Obama to cancel the debate, or at the very least to have the bill wrapped up in time to get to the debate.  But he didn't count on the House Republicans (who try to attach capital gains tax cuts to every bill) to try to attach a capital gains tax cut to the bill, and spoil the whole process in doing so.

So now, the legislation is less likely to pass than when McCain suspended his campaign, and McCain can either piss everyone off and skip the debate, or contradict what he said earlier and attend the debate, pissing off the people who believed him when he said that the legislation was more important than the debate.

Now comes the big news.  Not only has McCain gone back on his word and is now stating that he will attend the debate, but McCain is already running advertisements declaring that he won the debate he promised not to attend, even though the debate hasn't happened yet.

[Valynth]

That's why voting is often choosing between the percieved lesser of two evils.

However, to not vote when you're old enough, and able, is selfish and shirking your public duty.  I personally am of the opinion that if you do not make your wants known, then you have no space to complain about the state of the country.  By checking out, you lose your ability to have an opinion.  You had your opportunity to make a difference, even if the choices aren't great, and chose not to.

And that should be enough of a punishment, but apparently Australia adds a fine for not voting.  Thank God nobody listens to them.

Anyway, right now in my mind it's a battle between complete random chance(Obama) and known failure(McCain).  Not really a contest.  I had hopes for McCain due to him being considered a maverick by the GOP, and might have actually tried to changed the system intelligently, but now he looks like another student of the unchanging.  In a time where the system is screwing itself over BADLY we really need change of some sort and McCain just doesn't have it.

-on another note-

This economic crisis will get WORSE if congress allows the bail-out since it absolves the companies of any wrong doing and as a capitalist I'm against that.  They dug their own damn finacial grave, let them sleep in it, not the tax payers.  The average American won't feel the effects since I believe the first 100,000$ deposited in a bank is insured by the Feds.  Instead, the ones who will feel the effects are the rich investors who apparently more money than sense.

[Janus Whitefurr]

That's why voting is often choosing between the percieved lesser of two evils.

However, to not vote when you're old enough, and able, is selfish and shirking your public duty.  I personally am of the opinion that if you do not make your wants known, then you have no space to complain about the state of the country.  By checking out, you lose your ability to have an opinion.  You had your opportunity to make a difference, even if the choices aren't great, and chose not to.

And that should be enough of a punishment, but apparently Australia adds a fine for not voting.  Thank God nobody listens to them.

The fine is because voting has been ruled mandatory. But you and I have argued this before, and I believe no one got anywhere after you called the whole populous being 'forced' to vote 'undemocratic'. But this isn't the time nor the place, so I'm just going to wander off again now.

[superluser]

And that should be enough of a punishment, but apparently Australia adds a fine for not voting.

As I said before, I disagree in principle about this.  But I'm not going to fault Australia for what doing what, in good faith, they think to be right.

I do remember a story on NPR about someone who became a resident of Australia, but not a citizen, and he had to register to not vote.

One more thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ

Edit:

Wikipedia writes, ``In Australia it is a legal offence to fail to vote (or at the very least, attend a polling station and have one's name crossed off the roll)''

Now, *that* is a good idea.  I think we should do that in the US.

[Alkarii]

Well, just because someone decides not to vote on something does not mean that they are not allowed to say later on "Why the hell did you ask for this crap?"  If something sucks all around, a person should not be forced to be responsible, in whole or in part, for the entire country getting screwed over.  We vote for someone we know will not win the election, we've wasted our vote, we've wasted our time, we've accomplished nothing.  Why should we be forced to either waste a vote, or pretty much pick out which bullet gets chambered first?  This particular election, I shouldn't vote, because of the only candidates with a shot at it, I have one thing I know I don't want, and someone kissing my ass, which makes me suspicious, and since I don't know what the hell they're up to, they could be even worse.  This is a country, not a casino.  We don't need to be flipping coins or rolling dice on whether or not this guy we don't know isn't going to mess everything up.  If we don't want to choose to be responsible for screwing up the nation, we shouldn't be forced to risk it.  2012?  Well, if Obama wins this one, and things go good for this term, then yeah, I'll vote then so he can keep fixing things.  But right now, I'm not doing it.

[superluser]

Well, just because someone decides not to vote on something does not mean that they are not allowed to say later on "Why the hell did you ask for this crap?"

I agree.

If something sucks all around, a person should not be forced to be responsible, in whole or in part, for the entire country getting screwed over.  We vote for someone we know will not win the election, we've wasted our vote, we've wasted our time, we've accomplished nothing.

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.

Do you know what people who vote think about people who don't vote?

I'll tell you what we think of you: nothing.  Your opinions do not register on our thoughts.  We simply ignore you because there is no point in listening to someone who does not vote.  Your opinions do not matter to our elected officials and will never have any impact on the direction of the country, so why should we care what you think?  If indeed, you do think--which I cannot determine if you don't tell me what you want by voting.

When I hear people say they don't vote, I wonder what crucial masturbating they had to schedule in such that they couldn't make it to the polls.  The non-voter is essentially, to my mind, a member of Ferris Bueller's fan club: sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads.  There is no way for me to tell what not voting means to you unless you vote.  I'll just assume you don't care.

If you want to make a difference by not voting, go out and register to vote, get to the polls on election day, and cast your vote for no one.  Or write someone in.  Or write none of the above.  Your vote will then get counted, and I'll have something to care about.

If the results show that 220 million people show up at the polls, but only 122 million people vote for president, that will tell me and the leaders in Washington that 220 million people care enough to turn out to vote.  They're not lazy.  It will also tell me that 98 million people are so dissatisfied with the choices of candidates that they are unwilling to vote for anyone, despite having made the effort to vote.  The candidates will run studies to see how they can best appeal to these people.  After all, all they have to do is convince you to pull a lever.  You're already in the voting booth.

This is a country, not a casino.  We don't need to be flipping coins or rolling dice on whether or not this guy we don't know isn't going to mess everything up.

Okay.  I assume you mean Obama, here.  You don't have to flip a coin.  You don't have to roll any dice.  All you have to do is look at his voting record.

You can do that by clicking here.

I've got one more point before I sum up.  I'm a bit concerned that you want to join the military, but are opposed to voting.  The United States military was formed for one purpose: to give Americans the right to vote.  We're sending bullets to Iraq and Afghanistan because we want to send them ballots next.  Many of the wars we have fought were fought for the purpose of giving people the right to vote.  If you don't use the single greatest gift that the United States military has given to the country, and to many other places in the world, I question why you think you should be serving in its ranks.

Do me a favor: just register to vote and complete a ballot.  Even if the ballot is empty, I don't care.  I don't know what incentives I can give for getting you to vote, but I'll do what I can.  Just vote.  It's your duty.

[Darkmoon]

Yes, over the last several years regulations had been loosened and the SEC and the executive branch completely ignored those problems and look what happened.  Which party and president controlled the SEC during this time?

I know this one: no one. The SEC isn't run by the executive branch.

[Damaris]

Even if you vote for someone who has no hope of winning a presidential election, your vote isn't wasted.  In order to qualify for government matching of funds in the next presidential election, a party must receive something like 3% of the popular vote.

By choosing to support a small party or less popular candidate, you could be adding a party to the two-party clusterfuck we currently are forced to call a political system.

Also, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.  One would think that after the 2000 election that people would actually know that.

[superluser]

Yes, over the last several years regulations had been loosened and the SEC and the executive branch completely ignored those problems and look what happened.  Which party and president controlled the SEC during this time?

I know this one: no one. The SEC isn't run by the executive branch.

Not quite.

Wikipedia: The SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Their terms last five years...

So, even though it's not a part of the executive branch, the President and the Senate are responsible for appointing its members.  All of the current members were appointed by a Republican president, though it appears that only two commissioners were confirmed by the Republican Senate.

So, yes.  You're right to say that the SEC isn't under the control of the Executive Branch, but you can't let the people who nominated and confirmed them off the hook.

[Cvstos]

*opens mouth*

*starts to speak*

*closes mouth*

Well, dang, superluser beat me to it.  Generally speaking the President has the most sway over the SEC and appoints members there that will carry out his economic philosophy, which for Bush basically means opening up the Treasury and yelling to Wall Start "Come and get it!" See Bush admin and this $700B "bailout".

Also, most appointees from a President are confirmed without too much fuss (save SCOTUS) - unless they're really, really awful choices. Again, see Bush admin.

[Tapewolf]

The fine is because voting has been ruled mandatory.

They still do that?  Cool.  I think it's a good idea, though I wonder what would have happened five years ago or so when I didn't vote because I somehow managed to fall off the electoral register during a house move.

The only vote wasted is the one not cast.

Do you know what people who vote think about people who don't vote?

Do me a favor: just register to vote and complete a ballot.  Even if the ballot is empty, I don't care.

Supposing I were to turn up at the polling booth and the only option I was given was to vote for the incumbent government whom I loathe?  What would you consider to be acceptable in those circumstances?

Earlier this year we had a local byelection to pick the councillors for the local council.  I was supposed to pick three out of the following.  It would have done Robert Mugabe proud:

• The Labour Party
• The Labour Party
• The Labour Party
• Some unknown guy who lives down the road.

I came very, very close to spoiling the ballot paper and/or losing my faith in the entire electoral process.  As it happens, I cast one vote out of my three, for the Other Guy.  I felt a little better the following day when, although the Labour guys had won their council seats in my ward, in the rest of the province they had got the shit kicked out of them.

[superluser]

Supposing I were to turn up at the polling booth and the only option I was given was to vote for the incumbent government whom I loathe?  What would you consider to be acceptable in those circumstances?

You can still write in, right?

I dunno.  In cases like what you describe below, I think leaving a ballot empty is preferable to not voting at all.

I felt a little better the following day when, although the Labour guys had won their council seats in my ward, in the rest of the province they had got the shit kicked out of them.

I'm currently living in a fairly liberal area of one of the most liberal states in the US.  Politics gets nutty around here.  I used to be a Libertarian (until they nominated Bob Barr--now I don't know what I am), so I'm pretty disappointed in who is in office, but even more so about who gets on the ballot.  My choices for major party candidates tend to be hard left (by American standards) or incompetent moderate right.  No one who has any aspirations of making it to political office would ever consider running as a Republican, so the only people left for the Republicans to nominate are the looneys.

A couple years ago, we had a Republican running for mayor who went to a Hispanic group meeting and told the people ``You need to learn to talk English...as good as or better than the whites.''  And then there was the Republican candidate for Senate.

So I understand what it's like living in an area where everyone's politics conflicts with your own.  To be honest, I know that I can make my voice heard, but I still don't know an effective strategy to make it more likely that the leaders will listen.  Any advice from anyone reading this is welcome.