I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
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.
Cute with the Captain Answer thing. I never said they wouldn't / shouldn't, I said having a fucking thread dedicated to it is about as worthwhile as a thread about how much you hate getting cut off in traffic, or how you really don't like how restaurants put that little bit of garnish on the end of your plate when you just end up throwing it away anyway.
I also pointed out that alot of people here are equating "Only heard the occasional commercial and maybe saw 5 seconds of CNN @ work" to "As completely uninformed as someone who has been living in a sensory deprivation chamber for their entire life"
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.
Whee did I say that anyone was looking to deny anyone those rights? I brought up the rights to illustrate equality, not to accuse anyone of trying to deny them.
My point was that there are idiots on all sides, and undecided voters are no worse than knee-jerk voters who pick a candidate early on based on something inane and then stick to it, and merely rationalize it later. Anything else I said after that initial point was meant to go towards that point; not to break off as some seperate point of its own.
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
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"
Again, you're misreading it.
It IS NOT "shouldn't vote, based on their views", it is "shouldn't vote based on their views"
It had nothing to do with whether or not they vote, but with what they base their vote on.
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.
Cute with the Captain Answer thing. I never said they wouldn't / shouldn't, I said having a fucking thread dedicated to it is about as worthwhile as a thread about how much you hate getting cut off in traffic, or how you really don't like how restaurants put that little bit of garnish on the end of your plate when you just end up throwing it away anyway.
I also pointed out that alot of people here are equating "Only heard the occasional commercial and maybe saw 5 seconds of CNN @ work" to "As completely uninformed as someone who has been living in a sensory deprivation chamber for their entire life"
I vaguely recall an entire thread here about how much people hate Bikers/liked bikers.
Anywho, if you hear the occasional commercial and mostly tune it out and see 5 seconds of CNN, chances are you're a no information voter when you walk into a voting booth. Can you actually state what policy you're voting in favor of. What reason you're voting for someone. Or you could stop outside the voting location and ASK someone and learn the issues at stake.
Pulling a lever without knowing the information behind it is about as wise and informed a choice as not asking what any of the terms on a lease are when signing it. It's silly, and you should avoid doing it.
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
So the fact that I can easily walk into a voting booth not knowing who the hell the city council members are who are up for election or understand what the holy fuck Prop 22 is means I can't read directions to a voting booth?
I don't know what to say beyond "wow, you're amazingly incorrect"
Let me put it to you this way: I do not, at any point in my day, listen to the Radio. I watch Comedy Central, SciFi, and Cartoon Network. I get my news online. I can be at any point unless I go out of my way to research it Completely oblivious to my local surroundings and goings-on. In the instance of town/city votes, I am a No-Information-Voter. Which is why I do not vote on things I do not understand. I have a right to vote, I do not need to use said right irresponsibly.
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.
Cute with the Captain Answer thing. I never said they wouldn't / shouldn't, I said having a fucking thread dedicated to it is about as worthwhile as a thread about how much you hate getting cut off in traffic, or how you really don't like how restaurants put that little bit of garnish on the end of your plate when you just end up throwing it away anyway.
I also pointed out that alot of people here are equating "Only heard the occasional commercial and maybe saw 5 seconds of CNN @ work" to "As completely uninformed as someone who has been living in a sensory deprivation chamber for their entire life"
Meh... I'm chalking you up to a worthless troll and ignoring you now.
Nice job not answering my question, again.
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?'
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
I think the issue is that people are seeing the "I have the information, but can't make up my mind" voter, and confusing them with the "who's running again?" voter.
Like I said earlier, without Gravel, I would have had a VERY difficult time this election. I absolutely hate Clinton, but I refuse to vote, in a Primary, based on who I don't like. Not that I have anything against Obama, but he has yet to convince me that he's the man for the job.
I'm far from uninformed, it's an issue of too much politics, and not enough policy
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
I think the issue is that people are seeing the "I have the information, but can't make up my mind" voter, and confusing them with the "who's running again?" voter.
Like I said earlier, without Gravel, I would have had a VERY difficult time this election. I absolutely hate Clinton, but I refuse to vote, in a Primary, based on who I don't like. Not that I have anything against Obama, but he has yet to convince me that he's the man for the job.
I'm far from uninformed, it's an issue of too much politics, and not enough policy
And what makes you an idiot, as with all undecided voters, is your inability, laziness, or ineptitude to go seek out the answers to your questions.
Gee, if only Obama's policy positions were written down somewhere....
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?'
I have a right to vote, I do not need to use said right irresponsibly.
Propositionssaside, I would argue that part of the reason we have a representative democracy is in order to ALLOW you to have a political say without having to study all the issues.
You vote for the candidate who you feel the most positive towards, and you let them be informed and make decisions for you.
I vaguely recall an entire thread here about how much people hate Bikers/liked bikers.
Anywho, if you hear the occasional commercial and mostly tune it out and see 5 seconds of CNN, chances are you're a no information voter when you walk into a voting booth. Can you actually state what policy you're voting in favor of. What reason you're voting for someone. Or you could stop outside the voting location and ASK someone and learn the issues at stake.
Pulling a lever without knowing the information behind it is about as wise and informed a choice as not asking what any of the terms on a lease are when signing it. It's silly, and you should avoid doing it.
Look it's really simple:
There are the people making the ''Stupid people should not do stupid things" argument (like your post quoted, I mean really, you should totally not make uninformed choices? And it's unfortunate that people do? And they could potentially affect others? Shocker.)
Or you have people saying "I deem you uninformed because I don't think you have been exposed to as much information as me" which is rediculous, because then you are basically asking that they make a choice on a candidate for similar reasons to your own, or at the very least reasons that you proclaim are 'informed'. Saying "I vote Obama because I think a Democrat be a better president" is just as valid as "I think Obama will be a better President because I agree with stricter terms on aid money sent to Middle Eastern countries, a strive for independence of foreign oil, and tighter regulation and transparency of organizations like NASA"
I have a right to vote, I do not need to use said right irresponsibly.
Propositionssaside, I would argue that part of the reason we have a representative democracy is in order to ALLOW you to have a political say without having to study all the issues.
You vote for the candidate who you feel the most positive towards, and you let them be informed and make decisions for you.
Ethically, a positive feeling with no information to back it up is the same as a net blindness.
Now, a positive feeling tipping the scales when you do have even one issue to contrast I'm perfectly fine with. I just dislike voting blind. Even if you're a single issue voter, or voting based off some strange gaff that made the news and makes you really uncomfortable with them, whatever. The only people I have an issue with are walking into a room and checking a box without knowing jack all about the item that box represents. Because your choice can have a noticeable effect on other people, you should know what you're doing.
If it was just something that would be a personal effect? Be ignorant. Whatever. I'll whine a bit about thinking ahead, but whatever. Ethically if given a choice between two board of education candidates I know nothing about, I won't check either box. It just wouldn't be right for me to make a choice with no factual information.
I vaguely recall an entire thread here about how much people hate Bikers/liked bikers.
Anywho, if you hear the occasional commercial and mostly tune it out and see 5 seconds of CNN, chances are you're a no information voter when you walk into a voting booth. Can you actually state what policy you're voting in favor of. What reason you're voting for someone. Or you could stop outside the voting location and ASK someone and learn the issues at stake.
Pulling a lever without knowing the information behind it is about as wise and informed a choice as not asking what any of the terms on a lease are when signing it. It's silly, and you should avoid doing it.
Look it's really simple:
There are the people making the ''Stupid people should not do stupid things" argument (like your post quoted, I mean really, you should totally not make uninformed choices? And it's unfortunate that people do? And they could potentially affect others? Shocker.)
Or you have people saying "I deem you uninformed because I don't think you have been exposed to as much information as me" which is rediculous, because then you are basically asking that they make a choice on a candidate for similar reasons to your own, or at the very least reasons that you proclaim are 'informed'. Saying "I vote Obama because I think a Democrat be a better president" is just as valid as "I think Obama will be a better President because I agree with stricter terms on aid money sent to Middle Eastern countries, a strive for independence of foreign oil, and tighter regulation and transparency of organizations like NASA"
I'm of the opinion that straight ticket voting D or R without caring who they are is just as stupid as voting based on someone's last name. But you're pretty well entrenched in.. I don't even quite grasp your position beyond "this shouldn't be a thread, so I'll post in it."
I don't know where my sentence indicated that "Rural americans pay a significant amount of attention to things other than signage" so I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
I think the issue is that people are seeing the "I have the information, but can't make up my mind" voter, and confusing them with the "who's running again?" voter.
Like I said earlier, without Gravel, I would have had a VERY difficult time this election. I absolutely hate Clinton, but I refuse to vote, in a Primary, based on who I don't like. Not that I have anything against Obama, but he has yet to convince me that he's the man for the job.
I'm far from uninformed, it's an issue of too much politics, and not enough policy
And what makes you an idiot, as with all undecided voters, is your inability, laziness, or ineptitude to go seek out the answers to your questions.
Gee, if only Obama's policy positions were written down somewhere....
Because no politician has EVER changed their stance on anything in the course of four years?
I've read his platforms, believe you me. They were dissimilar enough from my own views that I feel it neccessary to take more time to study him, to see if he changes, which way he's likely to go.
Of course, I didn't bother going through with that, because I agreed far more with most of Gravel's stances, as well as his political history (which Obama simply doesn't have the benefit of having. not a knock against his ability to lead, but it does make it more difficult to study him.) so I never needed to look too fa in to Obama, since I already knew I was voting for Gravel. Had Gravel dropped out prior to the vote, I would have gone and done some deeper digging at that point.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
I have a right to vote, I do not need to use said right irresponsibly.
Propositionssaside, I would argue that part of the reason we have a representative democracy is in order to ALLOW you to have a political say without having to study all the issues.
You vote for the candidate who you feel the most positive towards, and you let them be informed and make decisions for you.
Ethically, a positive feeling with no information to back it up is the same as a net blindness.
Now, a positive feeling tipping the scales when you do have even one issue to contrast I'm perfectly fine with. I just dislike voting blind. Even if you're a single issue voter, or voting based off some strange gaff that made the news and makes you really uncomfortable with them, whatever. The only people I have an issue with are walking into a room and checking a box without knowing jack all about the item that box represents. Because your choice can have a noticeable effect on other people, you should know what you're doing.
If it was just something that would be a personal effect? Be ignorant. Whatever. I'll whine a bit about thinking ahead, but whatever. Ethically if given a choice between two board of education candidates I know nothing about, I won't check either box. It just wouldn't be right for me to make a choice with no factual information.
This is the "Stupid people should not be stupid" argument I am talking about. You would be hard-pressed to find somebody that said "You know those people who don't know anything at all, ever? You know, the ones that do stuff that influence people negatively anyway? Those guys are awesome."
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"
Again, you're misreading it.
It IS NOT "shouldn't vote, based on their views", it is "shouldn't vote based on their views"
It had nothing to do with whether or not they vote, but with what they base their vote on.
Gee, maybe if you'd written that, that's what people would have read.
Instead, you used the word "allowed." I suggest you go look it up.
I vaguely recall an entire thread here about how much people hate Bikers/liked bikers.
Anywho, if you hear the occasional commercial and mostly tune it out and see 5 seconds of CNN, chances are you're a no information voter when you walk into a voting booth. Can you actually state what policy you're voting in favor of. What reason you're voting for someone. Or you could stop outside the voting location and ASK someone and learn the issues at stake.
Pulling a lever without knowing the information behind it is about as wise and informed a choice as not asking what any of the terms on a lease are when signing it. It's silly, and you should avoid doing it.
Look it's really simple:
There are the people making the ''Stupid people should not do stupid things" argument (like your post quoted, I mean really, you should totally not make uninformed choices? And it's unfortunate that people do? And they could potentially affect others? Shocker.)
Or you have people saying "I deem you uninformed because I don't think you have been exposed to as much information as me" which is rediculous, because then you are basically asking that they make a choice on a candidate for similar reasons to your own, or at the very least reasons that you proclaim are 'informed'. Saying "I vote Obama because I think a Democrat be a better president" is just as valid as "I think Obama will be a better President because I agree with stricter terms on aid money sent to Middle Eastern countries, a strive for independence of foreign oil, and tighter regulation and transparency of organizations like NASA"
I'm of the opinion that straight ticket voting D or R without caring who they are is just as stupid as voting based on someone's last name. But you're pretty well entrenched in.. I don't even quite grasp your position beyond "this shouldn't be a thread, so I'll post in it."
My position is "You don't have a position that isn't shared by everyone else in the world that isn't deliberately set on being a fringe lunatic" You even narrowed down your argument to "As long as someone feels someway on something, I am cool with them voting."
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
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"
Again, you're misreading it.
It IS NOT "shouldn't vote, based on their views", it is "shouldn't vote based on their views"
It had nothing to do with whether or not they vote, but with what they base their vote on.
Gee, maybe if you'd written that, that's what people would have read.
Instead, you used the word "allowed." I suggest you go look it up.
I also placed mysyelf as an authority in that sentance.
As in, even if I had complete control over those people, I would not stop them from voting their views, which are something that offends me personally. That's how strongly I feel about people's right to vote being their own to make of it what they will.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, but devolving an argument in to semantics, when I've already explained my statement five times, really is poor form. At no point did I ever accuse anyone else of anything. You picked up a false implication some where, which happens, but when I assure you that it was indeed false, THAT is the point to drop it. Not AFTER proceding to shit on the discussion.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If only they had had 16 months to make up their mind. Those fools at the DNC, when will they learn?!
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
So, how long after Obama becomes president should it be until we have an election?
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?'
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
And the solution is to allow them more time to talk during the course of their campaigns?
You haven't followed this argument through to its conclusion, have you?
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.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, but devolving an argument in to semantics, when I've already explained my statement five times, really is poor form. At no point did I ever accuse anyone else of anything. You picked up a false implication some where, which happens, but when I assure you that it was indeed false, THAT is the point to drop it. Not AFTER proceding to shit on the discussion.
It's not a fucking false implication when that's what you fucking said. You pull this shit all the fucking time. "Oh, that's not what I said, you just read it wrong," when it very clearly is what you said.
If you don't like it, next time, fucking apologize for saying the wrong fucking thing, but I'm sick and tired of your bullshit.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future? Psychic visions? Dreams?
Oh, that's why it's reasonable to be undecided going into the voting booth! The psychic visions don't come along until after you've closed the curtain!
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"
Again, you're misreading it.
It IS NOT "shouldn't vote, based on their views", it is "shouldn't vote based on their views"
It had nothing to do with whether or not they vote, but with what they base their vote on.
Gee, maybe if you'd written that, that's what people would have read.
Instead, you used the word "allowed." I suggest you go look it up.
I also placed mysyelf as an authority in that sentance.
As in, even if I had complete control over those people, I would not stop them from voting their views, which are something that offends me personally. That's how strongly I feel about people's right to vote being their own to make of it what they will.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, but devolving an argument in to semantics, when I've already explained my statement five times, really is poor form. At no point did I ever accuse anyone else of anything. You picked up a false implication some where, which happens, but when I assure you that it was indeed false, THAT is the point to drop it. Not AFTER proceding to shit on the discussion.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Except that opponents campaigning do touch on the recorded pasts of their opponent, and nothing is stopping you from looking shit up on your own from before the campaigning began, or, in the case of McCain, when Pangea broke up.
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
Exit polling numbers for 'decided on voting day'
Right on, thanks. Someone earlier in the thread said it was ok to vote in this manner because they would have spent a couple hours reading up on the issues before they went into the voting booth. In fact, I imagine anyone that did some good, solid research the day of the polls would show up like this.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Except that opponents campaigning do touch on the recorded pasts of their opponent, and nothing is stopping you from looking shit up on your own from before the campaigning began, or, in the case of McCain, when Pangea broke up.
This post agrees with my post, but you wrote "except" which makes it seem like it is supposed to refute my post. Could you please explain?
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Except we're discussing undecided voters on election day. So, is the idea that the candidate will somehow go back in time, and say something before he or she started campaigning that would influence the vote? That Obama and Hillary are going to go have a debate before they started campaigning right before the person walks into the voting booth?
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
Exit polling numbers for 'decided on voting day'
Right on, thanks. Someone earlier in the thread said it was ok to vote in this manner because they would have spent a couple hours reading up on the issues before they went into the voting booth. In fact, I imagine anyone that did some good, solid research the day of the polls would show up like this.
A few hours of good, solid research appears to have an extremely high correlation with voting for Hillary.
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
Exit polling numbers for 'decided on voting day'
Right on, thanks. Someone earlier in the thread said it was ok to vote in this manner because they would have spent a couple hours reading up on the issues before they went into the voting booth. In fact, I imagine anyone that did some good, solid research the day of the polls would show up like this.
A few hours of good, solid research appears to have an extremely high correlation with voting for Hillary.
Because if there's anything Americans are known for, it's their predisposition for taking a few solid hours out of a work day to do research.
Posts
You said there's no such thing as a no information voter. I disagree. I fail to see the logical disconnect, here.
Cute with the Captain Answer thing. I never said they wouldn't / shouldn't, I said having a fucking thread dedicated to it is about as worthwhile as a thread about how much you hate getting cut off in traffic, or how you really don't like how restaurants put that little bit of garnish on the end of your plate when you just end up throwing it away anyway.
I also pointed out that alot of people here are equating "Only heard the occasional commercial and maybe saw 5 seconds of CNN @ work" to "As completely uninformed as someone who has been living in a sensory deprivation chamber for their entire life"
Whee did I say that anyone was looking to deny anyone those rights? I brought up the rights to illustrate equality, not to accuse anyone of trying to deny them.
My point was that there are idiots on all sides, and undecided voters are no worse than knee-jerk voters who pick a candidate early on based on something inane and then stick to it, and merely rationalize it later. Anything else I said after that initial point was meant to go towards that point; not to break off as some seperate point of its own.
There is a 'no information' voter, but the people that have the mental capacity to understand something like ''directions to the voting booth'' are not them.
Again, you're misreading it.
It IS NOT "shouldn't vote, based on their views", it is "shouldn't vote based on their views"
It had nothing to do with whether or not they vote, but with what they base their vote on.
I vaguely recall an entire thread here about how much people hate Bikers/liked bikers.
Anywho, if you hear the occasional commercial and mostly tune it out and see 5 seconds of CNN, chances are you're a no information voter when you walk into a voting booth. Can you actually state what policy you're voting in favor of. What reason you're voting for someone. Or you could stop outside the voting location and ASK someone and learn the issues at stake.
Pulling a lever without knowing the information behind it is about as wise and informed a choice as not asking what any of the terms on a lease are when signing it. It's silly, and you should avoid doing it.
So the fact that I can easily walk into a voting booth not knowing who the hell the city council members are who are up for election or understand what the holy fuck Prop 22 is means I can't read directions to a voting booth?
I don't know what to say beyond "wow, you're amazingly incorrect"
Let me put it to you this way: I do not, at any point in my day, listen to the Radio. I watch Comedy Central, SciFi, and Cartoon Network. I get my news online. I can be at any point unless I go out of my way to research it Completely oblivious to my local surroundings and goings-on. In the instance of town/city votes, I am a No-Information-Voter. Which is why I do not vote on things I do not understand. I have a right to vote, I do not need to use said right irresponsibly.
Meh... I'm chalking you up to a worthless troll and ignoring you now.
Nice job not answering my question, again.
I think the issue is that people are seeing the "I have the information, but can't make up my mind" voter, and confusing them with the "who's running again?" voter.
Like I said earlier, without Gravel, I would have had a VERY difficult time this election. I absolutely hate Clinton, but I refuse to vote, in a Primary, based on who I don't like. Not that I have anything against Obama, but he has yet to convince me that he's the man for the job.
I'm far from uninformed, it's an issue of too much politics, and not enough policy
And what makes you an idiot, as with all undecided voters, is your inability, laziness, or ineptitude to go seek out the answers to your questions.
Gee, if only Obama's policy positions were written down somewhere....
Propositionssaside, I would argue that part of the reason we have a representative democracy is in order to ALLOW you to have a political say without having to study all the issues.
You vote for the candidate who you feel the most positive towards, and you let them be informed and make decisions for you.
Look it's really simple:
There are the people making the ''Stupid people should not do stupid things" argument (like your post quoted, I mean really, you should totally not make uninformed choices? And it's unfortunate that people do? And they could potentially affect others? Shocker.)
Or you have people saying "I deem you uninformed because I don't think you have been exposed to as much information as me" which is rediculous, because then you are basically asking that they make a choice on a candidate for similar reasons to your own, or at the very least reasons that you proclaim are 'informed'. Saying "I vote Obama because I think a Democrat be a better president" is just as valid as "I think Obama will be a better President because I agree with stricter terms on aid money sent to Middle Eastern countries, a strive for independence of foreign oil, and tighter regulation and transparency of organizations like NASA"
Ethically, a positive feeling with no information to back it up is the same as a net blindness.
Now, a positive feeling tipping the scales when you do have even one issue to contrast I'm perfectly fine with. I just dislike voting blind. Even if you're a single issue voter, or voting based off some strange gaff that made the news and makes you really uncomfortable with them, whatever. The only people I have an issue with are walking into a room and checking a box without knowing jack all about the item that box represents. Because your choice can have a noticeable effect on other people, you should know what you're doing.
If it was just something that would be a personal effect? Be ignorant. Whatever. I'll whine a bit about thinking ahead, but whatever. Ethically if given a choice between two board of education candidates I know nothing about, I won't check either box. It just wouldn't be right for me to make a choice with no factual information.
I'm of the opinion that straight ticket voting D or R without caring who they are is just as stupid as voting based on someone's last name. But you're pretty well entrenched in.. I don't even quite grasp your position beyond "this shouldn't be a thread, so I'll post in it."
Because no politician has EVER changed their stance on anything in the course of four years?
I've read his platforms, believe you me. They were dissimilar enough from my own views that I feel it neccessary to take more time to study him, to see if he changes, which way he's likely to go.
Of course, I didn't bother going through with that, because I agreed far more with most of Gravel's stances, as well as his political history (which Obama simply doesn't have the benefit of having. not a knock against his ability to lead, but it does make it more difficult to study him.) so I never needed to look too fa in to Obama, since I already knew I was voting for Gravel. Had Gravel dropped out prior to the vote, I would have gone and done some deeper digging at that point.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
This is the "Stupid people should not be stupid" argument I am talking about. You would be hard-pressed to find somebody that said "You know those people who don't know anything at all, ever? You know, the ones that do stuff that influence people negatively anyway? Those guys are awesome."
Instead, you used the word "allowed." I suggest you go look it up.
My position is "You don't have a position that isn't shared by everyone else in the world that isn't deliberately set on being a fringe lunatic" You even narrowed down your argument to "As long as someone feels someway on something, I am cool with them voting."
I also placed mysyelf as an authority in that sentance.
As in, even if I had complete control over those people, I would not stop them from voting their views, which are something that offends me personally. That's how strongly I feel about people's right to vote being their own to make of it what they will.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, but devolving an argument in to semantics, when I've already explained my statement five times, really is poor form. At no point did I ever accuse anyone else of anything. You picked up a false implication some where, which happens, but when I assure you that it was indeed false, THAT is the point to drop it. Not AFTER proceding to shit on the discussion.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
If only they had had 16 months to make up their mind. Those fools at the DNC, when will they learn?!
What specifically makes you think it is ineffective?
So, how long after Obama becomes president should it be until we have an election?
Except that it isn't ineffective unless you're being extremely passive or are intentionally blind.
And the solution is to allow them more time to talk during the course of their campaigns?
You haven't followed this argument through to its conclusion, have you?
If you don't like it, next time, fucking apologize for saying the wrong fucking thing, but I'm sick and tired of your bullshit.
Oh, that's why it's reasonable to be undecided going into the voting booth! The psychic visions don't come along until after you've closed the curtain!
This is quite a thing to behold.
On the black screen
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Exit polling numbers for 'decided on voting day'
On the black screen
Except that opponents campaigning do touch on the recorded pasts of their opponent, and nothing is stopping you from looking shit up on your own from before the campaigning began, or, in the case of McCain, when Pangea broke up.
Right on, thanks. Someone earlier in the thread said it was ok to vote in this manner because they would have spent a couple hours reading up on the issues before they went into the voting booth. In fact, I imagine anyone that did some good, solid research the day of the polls would show up like this.
This post agrees with my post, but you wrote "except" which makes it seem like it is supposed to refute my post. Could you please explain?
A few hours of good, solid research appears to have an extremely high correlation with voting for Hillary.
On the black screen