The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The brainless abortions AKA undecided voters [SPLIT]
Sentry
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Ah Undecideds... when you have time to go vote... but not enough time to learn to read.
I'm trying to decide which is the bigger threat to democracy... undecideds, or facism.
I'm trying to decide which is the bigger threat to democracy... undecideds, or facism.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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?'
Sentry on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
God forbid folks not make knee jerk decisions.
If it weren't for Gravel, I would have been undecided too.
Somehow this last sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
Isn't being undecided up until the day of the election the very definition of knee-jerk decision making?
Or am I not understanding you?
Gravel was still in the race when I voted.
Not that he had any chance, but I could still give him my vote as a sign of my support for (the majorityof) his platforms.
There may be some people who are legitimately torn on who to vote for, for whatever reason, and are actually well educated.
But the vast majority of people who still don't know who to vote for in a high-publicity campaign like this are still going to be completely ignorant when they walk into the voting booth. They'll probably read the little statements from each candidate discussing their platforms, say, "Huh, they both sound about the same - all those politicians are the same, really, don'tcha know," and then they'll pick Clinton because they recognize the name from that time when the country was doing pretty well.
And if Gravel hadn't been there, you wouldn't have gone to the polls anyway?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
No, I'd say that knee-jerk decision making is just picking a candidate, and sticking only to that candidate, becomingmore concerned withthe politics of who will win, than actually looking at what it is that folks will do once in office.
I'm sick to death of all the emails Iget from Move ON, and Howard Dean, etc. I don't want to be told to vote for one person because the other one is evil; I want to know who is the person who will actually do some good. If it takes me up until the pointwhen I'm in the booth, that's fine.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Being ignorant of the issues doesn't mean that they are idiots.
The campaigns don't do all that much to actually teach folks about the issues; theyjust talk up (or down) a particular candidate.
SIR, would you like the soup or the salad? DECIDE.
You can decide on a candidate, and then change your mind and decide on another, and keep evaluating your position and never at any point be undecided.
Basically the point is retarded monkeys would be better voters than people who are still undecided on election day.
Edit: stupid thread moves too fast
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?
Because name recognition is a terrible way to pick a president? I mean...look at George Bush.
I remain convinced that our country's in this wreck because old Floridians thought they were voting for his dad.
Same thing with campaigners outside a voting booth. There should be no need for signs saying vote for X outside a voting location, by the time you're parking your car, you should damned well know which way you lean. Those signs lack any solid policy information that should sway a vote.
Are you honestly talking up the line that "all motivations for voting are equally laudable," Evander?
Because that's idiotic.
And really if the only thing a voter is going off of when the place their vote is passive exposure to campaign advertisements, I feel okay in calling them uninformed and shirking their public duty.
I'm trying not to be too accusatory here, or anything, but some of you guys arecoming off sounding like you think that everyone otherthan yourselves are just too stupid to vote.
That's not how America works. People who may not have the time to study up in depth on every single issue are still allowed to show up to the polls, and vote on the basis of what little information they have picked up.
Or Pat Buchanan.
I don't care if they fucking vote for the convict who paid the $1000 to get onto the ballot as a joke if they at least know why they're voting for him.
There's a difference between something being allowed and something being a good idea. Personally, I won't vote on an issue or candidate if I don't feel informed enough to make the best choice.
And their reasons are less valid because their reasons are fucking stupid. This is an objective fact: when you're voting based on "oh, I think I recognize that name, and that other name sounds kinda like a terrist," you're a fucking idiot.
I'm not saying all motivations are just as good; I'm saying that there is no such thing as "the right motvation".
My grandmother used to vote for candidates with Jewish sounding names, on thebasis that they'd be more likely tohave her same values. As dishonest as politicians tend to be at election time, I can't really see any reason why her method was wrong.
Because that SOMETHIGN is very likely to be "which name do I recognize more" or "who has better hair" or "who would I rather be at a BBQ with". Not saying that it's completely impossible for someone to make a last-minute decision premised on relevant issues, only that it's statistically very unlikely. Even folks who decide early often make their choices based on spurious issues - voting for Clinton because she has ovaries, voting for Obama because he's black, voting for McCain because he fought in a war.
A high number of last-minute deciders don't even really think about the issue until their hand is poised over the punch-card. Those people are fuckos and contribute nothing but noise. Worse, they perpetuate establishment politics by coming down heavily in favor of the incumbent or more popular name.
The name recognition thing is a strawman. Where are the polls where the undecided voters state that they will either vote for the most familiar name, or the one that looks theleast like a terrorist?
Not to sound accusatory, but your stance is that making a completely random choice is just as valid as decision making process as reading the question.
By this logic, all multiple choice tests should be graded as 100%, because you totally can't make a wrong choice.
I have no issues with someone voting differently than I do. I have issues with people voting without actually knowing what they're voting for. I have the same issues with people signing contracts without knowing what the contract entails, and many other uninformed choices.
Yes they do. That doesn't make it a good idea to actually, you know, do that.
Particularly with how long campaigns are going these days and how every little thing is readily available.
Oh, the all-politicians-are-dishonest-and-pretty-much-the-same argument.
I so love that argument.
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.
Because they vote on name brand reliability usually, and don't use actual sense. This thread isn't for you, evan.
I think you nailed something that gets at the meaning of what I'm trying to say, so I'm just gonna drop it after this.
Plenty of folks make immediate knee-jerk reactions, and stick with them the entire way through the campaign, and I personally see thosefolks as just as bad as theguy who decides in thebooth; if not worth because they don't even give themselves the opportunity to think about it.
Surely the fact that undecideds invariably break for the more widely-known name is just a coinky-dink.
Who here isn't calling those people idiots, too?
Aside from your own arguments, of course.
I don't think anyone is arguing that retarded knee-jerk decisions are somehow better if they're made six months out. I think we're just arguing that they are, in fact, retarded.
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.
Name recognition being the key factor in the votes of low-information voters is pretty common knowledge in politics, Evander. I mean I'm not sure if you're calling out the CW as being wrong or if you just didn't know this.
Scooter
Or to take into account your response to Will, while there may not be a "right" motivation, there are "wrong" ones.
Who here is saying that idiots should be denied the right to vote?
No one's talking about abridging the "right to vote", Evander. I'm taking issue with your full-throated advocacy of voting with low information and/ or on stupid issues.