The point is that you're all acting like a bunch of idiotic elitists.
Undecided folks have just as much right to vote as anyone else. Obviously SOMETHIGN will puch them overthe edge in one direction or the other, so why is that reason any less valid than your reasons for voting one way or another?
I suppose you'd also laud the motivations of some who always voted against the Jewish-sounding name because seriously those Jews are trying to take over the world what with their money and sinister connections and shit.
You will NEVER see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't be allowed to vote based on their views. I may find their views offensive, but they have every right to hold them.
I mean, really, Evander, you're not-at-all-subtly implying here that we're saying undecided voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. We're just saying that they shouldn't vote, not that they shouldn't be allowed to.
And as for decided voters making stupid decisions, too, I would argue that:
% of decided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions <<< % of undecided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions.
I suppose you'd also laud the motivations of some who always voted against the Jewish-sounding name because seriously those Jews are trying to take over the world what with their money and sinister connections and shit.
You will NEVER see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't be allowed to vote based on their views. I may find their views offensive, but they have every right to hold them.
Undecided folks have just as much right to vote as anyone else. Obviously SOMETHIGN will puch them overthe edge in one direction or the other, so why is that reason any less valid than your reasons for voting one way or another?
There's what you actually said to people who didn't say a thing about restricting the rights of anyone.
I suppose you'd also laud the motivations of some who always voted against the Jewish-sounding name because seriously those Jews are trying to take over the world what with their money and sinister connections and shit.
You will NEVER see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't be allowed to vote based on their views. I may find their views offensive, but they have every right to hold them.
Who here is saying that idiots should be denied the right to vote?
Where did I say anything them being denied a vote?
The implication being that we are arguing to disallow people from voting.
That wasn't my implication. I'm sorry if you read that in to it on your own.
It's not reading into it. It's reading it. You should have said,"You will NEVERWRAAWR see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't vote based on their views"
To the OP, what a load of tripe! The primaries aren't even over yet. Then there are debates leading up to the general election. Things are discussed. Things are said. It DOES make a difference. My vote was definitely decided in '04 based on statements made in a debate.
Are you advocating blind party-line politics? While I don't think I'm going to be deciding last-minute in the booth, I do think I might be deciding based on one of the many relevant events and speeches that will occur between now and November.
To the OP, what a load of tripe! The primaries aren't even over yet. Then there are debates leading up to the general election. Things are discussed. Things are said. It DOES make a difference. My vote was definitely decided in '04 based on statements made in a debate.
Are you advocating blind party-line politics? While I don't think I'm going to be deciding last-minute in the booth, I do think I might be deciding based on one of the many relevant events and speeches that will occur between now and November.
We're talking about undecided Democrat voters in Pennsylvannia.
To the OP, what a load of tripe! The primaries aren't even over yet. Then there are debates leading up to the general election. Things are discussed. Things are said. It DOES make a difference. My vote was definitely decided in '04 based on statements made in a debate.
Are you advocating blind party-line politics? While I don't think I'm going to be deciding last-minute in the booth, I do think I might be deciding based on one of the many relevant events and speeches that will occur between now and November.
We're talking about undecided Democrat voters in Pennsylvannia.
Although I'd be interesting in knowing what you hope to gleam from debates that could help you make up your mind between Obama and McCain. I can't exactly imagine deliberating anxiously between picking one of them.
To the OP, what a load of tripe! The primaries aren't even over yet. Then there are debates leading up to the general election. Things are discussed. Things are said. It DOES make a difference. My vote was definitely decided in '04 based on statements made in a debate.
Are you advocating blind party-line politics? While I don't think I'm going to be deciding last-minute in the booth, I do think I might be deciding based on one of the many relevant events and speeches that will occur between now and November.
Wow... it's called a thread split, genious... if only it mentioned that in the title... OH WAIT.
Undecided voters in Penn are only undecided now based on apathy and ignorance, and as such, I don't think they should be going into that booth and spewing that ignorance all over my democracy. And frankly, your inability to comprehend this thread kind of makes me feel that way about you, as well.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Go back and read the first several posts and last several posts in this thread. Primaries and PA are not mentioned at all, though "election" comes up several times. The word SPLIT also does not reference PA or primaries to me, either. I really don't think I've made an epic fail here.
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
In short, you are smug and ignorant for claiming some sort of authority on how decisions are to be made or not to be made.
Go back and read the first several posts and last several posts in this thread. Primaries and PA are not mentioned at all, though "election" comes up several times. The word SPLIT also does not reference PA or primaries to me, either. I really don't think I've made an epic fail here.
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
In short, you are smug and ignorant for claiming some sort of authority on how decisions are to be made or not to be made.
Yeah, I guess I am... also, you may or may not notice the word Pennsylvania in the title of the last thread, but whatever...
Give me one sound reason why someone would be undecided at this point. Just one. Are they waiting for Jesus to tell them who to vote for?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Go back and read the first several posts and last several posts in this thread. Primaries and PA are not mentioned at all, though "election" comes up several times. The word SPLIT also does not reference PA or primaries to me, either. I really don't think I've made an epic fail here.
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
In short, you are smug and ignorant for claiming some sort of authority on how decisions are to be made or not to be made.
Yeah, I guess I am... also, you may or may not notice the word Pennsylvania in the title of the last thread, but whatever...
Give me one sound reason why someone would be undecided at this point. Just one. Are they waiting for Jesus to tell them who to vote for?
Go back and read the first several posts and last several posts in this thread. Primaries and PA are not mentioned at all, though "election" comes up several times. The word SPLIT also does not reference PA or primaries to me, either. I really don't think I've made an epic fail here.
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
In short, you are smug and ignorant for claiming some sort of authority on how decisions are to be made or not to be made.
No one is saying you shouldn't be open to hearing something that might change your mind up until the moment you cast your vote. However, if you're a Pennsylvannia Democrat right now, and you don't have any idea who you're going to be voting for when you go to vote tomorrow, you're a fucking ignoramus.
Thanatos on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
Regardless of whether people should have made up their minds already, roughly a tenth of them clearly haven't, hence the campaigning.
At any rate, that entire paragraph does not apply to people who have been paying attention for the past several months. The information necessary to pretty accurately assess all three candidates has been available to anyone who wanted it for months. Unless you think shit like the revelation that Obama and a former terrorist both taught classes at the same university is relevant.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited April 2008
Basically you see about 10% of voters who are willing to change their minds based on fairly minor day-to-day events and about 10% more who are just plain undecided on the fucking eve of the primary. It is difficult for me to understand the minds of large mammals who could have sailed through the past six months and are still wringing their hands.
At any rate, that entire paragraph does not apply to people who have been paying attention for the past several months. The information necessary to pretty accurately assess all three candidates has been available to anyone who wanted it for months. Unless you think shit like the revelation that Obama and a former terrorist both taught classes at the same university is relevant.
It does apply. Every speech is different. Every sentence is different. Maybe under your cynical paradigm of political decision-making it's all the same and all irrelevant, but other people hear things all the time that move them towards or away from a candidate. Perhaps getting a chance to see one of them in person changes it. Perhaps the manner in which Obama takes on "god guns and gays" changes it. Maybe Hillary cries and it changes something. I'm not saying I agree with every one of those points as relevant, but some of them are. Hillary is plastered up on CNNHN right now saying all kinds of stuff.
Often in answering a rather typical question with a rather typical response, a candidate will phrase the response slightly differently in such a way that suddenly reveals something about how they think about the issue that wasn't clear before, positive or negative, that maybe only certain people are tuned into. I'm speaking from experience here.
Knowing full well that my vote has been switched in past elections due to a telling twist of phrase that 99.99% of people didn't notice or care about makes me very confident in being "undecided" for quite a while and furthermore makes me feel more intelligent than the rest of you for it.
(But I'm not undecided. I voted for Obama in the Dem primaries in GA.)
It seems a bit silly to go after people for being undecided in the current Dem primary.
The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are realitively minimal (healthcare for all vs healthcare cost reduction, etc). More often than not they're pretty much on the same page. I honestly think there's legitimacy in someone's claim that they're undecided because they're indifferent (as opposed to apathetic, which be dumb).
At any rate, that entire paragraph does not apply to people who have been paying attention for the past several months. The information necessary to pretty accurately assess all three candidates has been available to anyone who wanted it for months. Unless you think shit like the revelation that Obama and a former terrorist both taught classes at the same university is relevant.
It does apply. Every speech is different. Every sentence is different. Maybe under your cynical paradigm of political decision-making it's all the same and all irrelevant, but other people hear things all the time that move them towards or away from a candidate. Perhaps getting a chance to see one of them in person changes it. Perhaps the manner in which Obama takes on "god guns and gays" changes it. Maybe Hillary cries and it changes something. I'm not saying I agree with every one of those points as relevant, but some of them are. Hillary is plastered up on CNNHN right now saying all kinds of stuff.
Often in answering a rather typical question with a rather typical response, a candidate will phrase the response slightly differently in such a way that suddenly reveals something about how they think about the issue that wasn't clear before, positive or negative, that maybe only certain people are tuned into. I'm speaking from experience here.
Knowing full well that my vote has been switched in past elections due to a telling twist of phrase that 99.99% of people didn't notice or care about makes me very confident in being "undecided" for quite a while and furthermore makes me feel more intelligent than the rest of you for it.
(But I'm not undecided. I voted for Obama in the Dem primaries in GA.)
Again, if you're going into the voting booth on the day of (or even the day before) the election, and you don't have someone in mind who you're going to be voting for (again, it doesn't mean that you aren't changing your mind no matter what), you're a fucking idiot.
Waiting until you're standing in the voting booth to make a decision doesn't make you insightful, intelligent, or superior to the people who have already made up their minds; in fact, you should probably get tested for clinical retardation.
What part of being 'decided' means you can't change your mind later on? That would just mean you went from being 'decided' to being 'decided' as a result of a slip or what have you, only now you like Obama instead of Clinton/McCain, or vice versa.
I can actually, to some degree, understand Undecideds in something like a Primary. To take the Obama/Clinton example, there's not alot different between them policy wise. Most of what people are voting on is the person. Leadership style, personality, shit like that.
Where it boggles the mind is in something like the General Election. When your choices are as different as they are in the US, there's no excuse for being undecided. The truth is, at that point anyone with even a hint of intelligence has already figured out or has had the opportunity to figure out which side matches their point of view.
Undecideds, Swing voters, whatever, these are the morons. The people either too lazy to learn anything, but not lazy enough not to vote. Or the people for whom "Which candidate looks better sitting in a tank" is the most important issue. These people are, in short, the stupidest people any country has to offer. And they are the ones who decide elections.
Undecided means that for the duration of the primary thus far, you haven't picked (or did pick and now can't pick again).
It doesn't mean you keep changing your mind, it pretty much means "I dunno what button I'll press tomorrow". That either means you lack enough information to make a choice, or you're the dipshit who can't pick what he wants on the mcdonalds menu.
This thread split is mostly people who Do follow the elections expressing frustration that people who are militantly unaware of what's going on are likely going to decide the winner. That's frustrating, because it means no amount of policy or campaigning matters, and these are people you can flat out LIE to and it won't have a negative repercussion. I can make up any scandal I want and put it in front of these people five minutes prior to the vote, and they'll have lacked enough information going into the situation to understand it's bullshit.
It's a voting block that thrives on shitty politics. On the anti-intellectualism that seems to be pervasive in parts of this country. Yeah, I'm a little annoyed when they're the swing choice, because logic and reason go right out the window. I Do have the same issue when people are blindly loyal to something, be it a choice they made 7 months ago, or a race, a gender, or a party. I have the same dislike of people who just check D or R the whole way down a ballot. If you are unaware of the questions being asked, please either get informed, or skip the question. This isn't a rights question, it's simply asking that you not risk fucking other people over for less than a policy disagreement. Hell, if you voted because you honestly believe everything Lou Dobbs says, I value your input more than someone who simply checks D all the way down a list without even figuring out what's going on. :x
How would you even decide if someone is 'informed' enough for their opinion to matter?
Them having someone they are going to vote for would be a great first step.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
How would you even decide if someone is 'informed' enough for their opinion to matter?
Them having someone they are going to vote for would be a great first step.
So if they wake up that morning and go "OhfuckitVOTEOBAMA" it's somehow more relevant than if they got to the booth and thought "Well, from what limited bit of news I have seen I think Obama would be a better President?" And these are both less relevant than if they had watched 45 minutes of news that week, and decided for Obama 5 days before the vote? Which would in turn be less relevant than 30 minutes of what some people consider 'better' news, or maybe both of those would be trumped by 2 hours of Google?
You're either trying to basically nail down what is informed vs. not informed, or you are complaining about retards being retarded, one of those is an excercise in futility and the other one is just a waste, and if we just made a thread every time we felt the need to vent then the front page of DnD would be loaded with "LOLBUSH" "LOLFUNDIES" "LOLFURRIES" posts and you wouldn't be able to find any sort of discussion.
How would you even decide if someone is 'informed' enough for their opinion to matter?
Them having someone they are going to vote for would be a great first step.
So if they wake up that morning and go "OhfuckitVOTEOBAMA" it's somehow more relevant than if they got to the booth and thought "Well, from what limited bit of news I have seen I think Obama would be a better President?" And these are both less relevant than if they had watched 45 minutes of news that week, and decided for Obama 5 days before the vote? Which would in turn be less relevant than 30 minutes of what some people consider 'better' news, or maybe both of those would be trumped by 2 hours of Google?
You're either trying to basically nail down what is informed vs. not informed, or you are complaining about retards being retarded, one of those is an excercise in futility and the other one is just a waste, and if we just made a thread every time we felt the need to vent then the front page of DnD would be loaded with "LOLBUSH" "LOLFUNDIES" "LOLFURRIES" posts and you wouldn't be able to find any sort of discussion.
You're meta moderating a mod-split topic? Okay!
The actual cutoff for an informed voter is very hard to pin down. We've pretty much been discussing it in the "if you're answering a survey the night before a vote with "uh, I dunno", you probably should sit down right then and read up on it. If you show up to a polling station and still don't have a clue? You're probably not an informed voter.
Antisemitism aside Evander, who is it that said people shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Cause I feel that's the more important subject here.
No one said that, and I never accused anyone of saying that.
You said you don't agree with racist voters, but wouldn't deny them the right to vote.
Others said the same thing about undecided voters.
Since everyone's saying the same thing about people who vote based on something that has nothing to do with the actual views and capabilities of the candidate himself or herself, you have no basis for disagreement unless you believe we said something different about our feelings regarding undecideds.
I stopped disagreeing with anything before the racism even came up.
If you show up to a polling station and still don't have a clue? You're probably not an informed voter.
That's my personal cutoff point. For this year's primary, I knew who I was voting for the Dem nomination, but I didn't know much about the local elections. I spent about four hours that morning researching all of the local races that I was eligible to vote for, and had my list of chosen candidates ready when I went to the voting place.
It's not "You aren't an informed voter", it is "I don't think you are as informed of a voter as I think I am" which is much different.
When have we been discussing low information voters as opposed to uninformed voters? Low information voters are aggravating, but the thread started and continued to be about the undecided at the minute of the button push types. Which is pretty heavily skewed in favor of the No Information Voter.
The point is that you're all acting like a bunch of idiotic elitists.
Undecided folks have just as much right to vote as anyone else. Obviously SOMETHIGN will puch them overthe edge in one direction or the other, so why is that reason any less valid than your reasons for voting one way or another?
I suppose you'd also laud the motivations of some who always voted against the Jewish-sounding name because seriously those Jews are trying to take over the world what with their money and sinister connections and shit.
You will NEVER see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't be allowed to vote based on their views. I may find their views offensive, but they have every right to hold them.
I mean, really, Evander, you're not-at-all-subtly implying here that we're saying undecided voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. We're just saying that they shouldn't vote, not that they shouldn't be allowed to.
And as for decided voters making stupid decisions, too, I would argue that:
% of decided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions <<< % of undecided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions.
I said NOTHING about being allowed to vote period. I was talking about what their votes were based on. Rewrite the sentance as "base their vote on their views" if that works better for you.
Evander, it was very obvious that whatever you MEANT, what you typed indicated differently. Instead of arguing that you never did anything of the sort for 4 fucking pages you should just go "Oh, my bad, here is my original point"
Nobody has "No information" regarding a potential candidate unless they have been living inside the moon for the past 3 years.
Are you sure you want to say things like that?
I don't know what half the shit on my ballot was. I didn't vote on it. I knew the presidential candidates, that was it. I follow the race FAR closer than my friends, who had such notions as not knowing who Obama was (even as "that black dude"), and thinking Ron Paul just wanted to lower taxes.
I live in a relatively intellectual town. You're telling me all of Rural America pays a shitload of attention to anything other than the names of candidates they see in signs? It seems no matter where you poll, ~10% will be militantly ignorant.
Evander, it was very obvious that whatever you MEANT, what you typed indicated differently. Instead of arguing that you never did anything of the sort for 4 fucking pages you should just go "Oh, my bad, here is my original point"
I did that many pages ago already. Before the thread was even split, in fact.
I don't blame folks for maybe misinterpretting something I said, but if they want to start up a debate with me, they ought to at least read through my other posts, and see where I clarified what I was saying, and bowed out.
I'm just here now to clarify, and talk about my grandmother.
Nobody has "No information" regarding a potential candidate unless they have been living inside the moon for the past 3 years.
Okay, since you're Captain Answer today, you can answer my post from last page.
Give me one reason, one freaking reason, why someone would step into a polling booth as an undecided voter.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Posts
And as for decided voters making stupid decisions, too, I would argue that:
% of decided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions <<< % of undecided voters who make retarded, uninformed decisions.
There's what you actually said to people who didn't say a thing about restricting the rights of anyone.
It's not reading into it. It's reading it. You should have said,"You will NEVERWRAAWR see me saying that anti-semites shouldn't vote based on their views"
On the black screen
To the OP, what a load of tripe! The primaries aren't even over yet. Then there are debates leading up to the general election. Things are discussed. Things are said. It DOES make a difference. My vote was definitely decided in '04 based on statements made in a debate.
Are you advocating blind party-line politics? While I don't think I'm going to be deciding last-minute in the booth, I do think I might be deciding based on one of the many relevant events and speeches that will occur between now and November.
Still, though.
Although I'd be interesting in knowing what you hope to gleam from debates that could help you make up your mind between Obama and McCain. I can't exactly imagine deliberating anxiously between picking one of them.
On the black screen
Wow... it's called a thread split, genious... if only it mentioned that in the title... OH WAIT.
Undecided voters in Penn are only undecided now based on apathy and ignorance, and as such, I don't think they should be going into that booth and spewing that ignorance all over my democracy. And frankly, your inability to comprehend this thread kind of makes me feel that way about you, as well.
Someone breaks into both campaigns and publishes audio on youtube of all their internal meeting minutes?
Anyway, I guess if your reasoning were sound, then Obama and Clinton would both stop campaigning altogether. But no, they are constantly making their voice heard, and while they might not be announcing whole new policy platforms, each sentence has the potential to reveal something about their mindset, values, or intentions that you didn't catch before.
In short, you are smug and ignorant for claiming some sort of authority on how decisions are to be made or not to be made.
Yeah, I guess I am... also, you may or may not notice the word Pennsylvania in the title of the last thread, but whatever...
Give me one sound reason why someone would be undecided at this point. Just one. Are they waiting for Jesus to tell them who to vote for?
If your Cheerios spell out O, it's an Obama day.
Regardless of whether people should have made up their minds already, roughly a tenth of them clearly haven't, hence the campaigning.
At any rate, that entire paragraph does not apply to people who have been paying attention for the past several months. The information necessary to pretty accurately assess all three candidates has been available to anyone who wanted it for months. Unless you think shit like the revelation that Obama and a former terrorist both taught classes at the same university is relevant.
this is not a photoshop
Often in answering a rather typical question with a rather typical response, a candidate will phrase the response slightly differently in such a way that suddenly reveals something about how they think about the issue that wasn't clear before, positive or negative, that maybe only certain people are tuned into. I'm speaking from experience here.
Knowing full well that my vote has been switched in past elections due to a telling twist of phrase that 99.99% of people didn't notice or care about makes me very confident in being "undecided" for quite a while and furthermore makes me feel more intelligent than the rest of you for it.
(But I'm not undecided. I voted for Obama in the Dem primaries in GA.)
The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are realitively minimal (healthcare for all vs healthcare cost reduction, etc). More often than not they're pretty much on the same page. I honestly think there's legitimacy in someone's claim that they're undecided because they're indifferent (as opposed to apathetic, which be dumb).
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Waiting until you're standing in the voting booth to make a decision doesn't make you insightful, intelligent, or superior to the people who have already made up their minds; in fact, you should probably get tested for clinical retardation.
Where it boggles the mind is in something like the General Election. When your choices are as different as they are in the US, there's no excuse for being undecided. The truth is, at that point anyone with even a hint of intelligence has already figured out or has had the opportunity to figure out which side matches their point of view.
Undecideds, Swing voters, whatever, these are the morons. The people either too lazy to learn anything, but not lazy enough not to vote. Or the people for whom "Which candidate looks better sitting in a tank" is the most important issue. These people are, in short, the stupidest people any country has to offer. And they are the ones who decide elections.
It doesn't mean you keep changing your mind, it pretty much means "I dunno what button I'll press tomorrow". That either means you lack enough information to make a choice, or you're the dipshit who can't pick what he wants on the mcdonalds menu.
This thread split is mostly people who Do follow the elections expressing frustration that people who are militantly unaware of what's going on are likely going to decide the winner. That's frustrating, because it means no amount of policy or campaigning matters, and these are people you can flat out LIE to and it won't have a negative repercussion. I can make up any scandal I want and put it in front of these people five minutes prior to the vote, and they'll have lacked enough information going into the situation to understand it's bullshit.
It's a voting block that thrives on shitty politics. On the anti-intellectualism that seems to be pervasive in parts of this country. Yeah, I'm a little annoyed when they're the swing choice, because logic and reason go right out the window. I Do have the same issue when people are blindly loyal to something, be it a choice they made 7 months ago, or a race, a gender, or a party. I have the same dislike of people who just check D or R the whole way down a ballot. If you are unaware of the questions being asked, please either get informed, or skip the question. This isn't a rights question, it's simply asking that you not risk fucking other people over for less than a policy disagreement. Hell, if you voted because you honestly believe everything Lou Dobbs says, I value your input more than someone who simply checks D all the way down a list without even figuring out what's going on. :x
Them having someone they are going to vote for would be a great first step.
"Do you know who you are going to vote for in 3 minutes?"
"No"
"Then go back outside and think about it for a bit, we'll be here"
Anyways, it's a moot point. Expressing frustration != Banning from Voting.
So if they wake up that morning and go "OhfuckitVOTEOBAMA" it's somehow more relevant than if they got to the booth and thought "Well, from what limited bit of news I have seen I think Obama would be a better President?" And these are both less relevant than if they had watched 45 minutes of news that week, and decided for Obama 5 days before the vote? Which would in turn be less relevant than 30 minutes of what some people consider 'better' news, or maybe both of those would be trumped by 2 hours of Google?
You're either trying to basically nail down what is informed vs. not informed, or you are complaining about retards being retarded, one of those is an excercise in futility and the other one is just a waste, and if we just made a thread every time we felt the need to vent then the front page of DnD would be loaded with "LOLBUSH" "LOLFUNDIES" "LOLFURRIES" posts and you wouldn't be able to find any sort of discussion.
You're meta moderating a mod-split topic? Okay!
The actual cutoff for an informed voter is very hard to pin down. We've pretty much been discussing it in the "if you're answering a survey the night before a vote with "uh, I dunno", you probably should sit down right then and read up on it. If you show up to a polling station and still don't have a clue? You're probably not an informed voter.
I stopped disagreeing with anything before the racism even came up.
Read the thread.
When have we been discussing low information voters as opposed to uninformed voters? Low information voters are aggravating, but the thread started and continued to be about the undecided at the minute of the button push types. Which is pretty heavily skewed in favor of the No Information Voter.
I said NOTHING about being allowed to vote period. I was talking about what their votes were based on. Rewrite the sentance as "base their vote on their views" if that works better for you.
Are you sure you want to say things like that?
I don't know what half the shit on my ballot was. I didn't vote on it. I knew the presidential candidates, that was it. I follow the race FAR closer than my friends, who had such notions as not knowing who Obama was (even as "that black dude"), and thinking Ron Paul just wanted to lower taxes.
I live in a relatively intellectual town. You're telling me all of Rural America pays a shitload of attention to anything other than the names of candidates they see in signs? It seems no matter where you poll, ~10% will be militantly ignorant.
I did that many pages ago already. Before the thread was even split, in fact.
I don't blame folks for maybe misinterpretting something I said, but if they want to start up a debate with me, they ought to at least read through my other posts, and see where I clarified what I was saying, and bowed out.
I'm just here now to clarify, and talk about my grandmother.
Okay, since you're Captain Answer today, you can answer my post from last page.
Give me one reason, one freaking reason, why someone would step into a polling booth as an undecided voter.