• Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it.

Elections Is your vote set and ready to go for November?

Is your vote set and ready to go for November?

  • Yes, it's been set for awhile now, virtually nothing won't change my mind.

    Votes: 51 53.7%

  • Yes, it's been set for the past weeks or so now.

    Votes: 12 12.6%

  • No, I'm still undecided.

    Votes: 9 9.5%

  • I can't vote.

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • I can vote, but I don't plan to vote.

    Votes: 12 12.6%
  • Total voters
    95
Barteh said:
Didn't vote for him but he's okay.
Click to expand...
Dunno much about him other than he’s not a fan of free speech. Off topic, he’s also 6’5, wtf is he not doing in the NBA, lebron needs him now
 
filthybliss said:
Dunno much about him other than he’s not a fan of free speech. Off topic, he’s also 6’5, wtf is he not doing in the NBA, lebron needs him now
Click to expand...

He's not a fan of free speech? He's the one that got fined for saying we want less Morrocans lmao. He does want to ban islam, which I agree with. But that doesn't have much to do with free speech.
 
Anybody that bothers to actually vote has been propagandized for years already and almost zero chance they're going to change their vote.
 
filthybliss said:
I’ve been for terminating the 2 party system. There is so much infighting and variations within 2 parties. Ideally, 4 parties would be more ideal. 1 Far Left, Center Left, Center Right, and Far Right party.
Click to expand...
I think if you care about policy, parties are kind of essential, and if you have plurality, winner-take-all votes, you're inevitably going to have only two parties.

I think a bigger problem is that our culture encourages a mindset that is less conducive to responsible voting. People feel entitled to a candidate who perfectly represents their views, which is impossible in a democracy with millions of people. Voting isn't a tattoo or a statement about your personal brand; it's just deciding, for the good of the country, which of the candidates is the best. And most people don't follow politics that closely, but they broadly know what each party stands for.
 
Barteh said:
He's not a fan of free speech? He's the one that got fined for saying we want less Morrocans lmao. He does want to ban islam, which I agree with. But that doesn't have much to do with free speech.
Click to expand...
Banning the quran and religions qualifies as limiting free speech for sure if people are prohibited from expressing their doctrines.
 
filthybliss said:
Banning the quran and religions qualifies as limiting free speech for sure if people are prohibited from expressing their doctrines.
Click to expand...
That post was a classic illustration of the rightist view of freedom of speech. "Free speech is when no one is allowed to disagree with rightists."
 
filthybliss said:
Banning the quran and religions qualifies as limiting free speech for sure if people are prohibited from expressing their doctrines.
Click to expand...

Classifying islam as the genocidal idealogy it is instead of pretending it's a religion is completely fine.

According to your logic wanted murderers arrested makes people "against freedom of movement".
 
Jack V Savage said:
I think if you care about policy, parties are kind of essential, and if you have plurality, winner-take-all votes, you're inevitably going to have only two parties.

I think a bigger problem is that our culture encourages a mindset that is less conducive to responsible voting. People feel entitled to a candidate who perfectly represents their views, which is impossible in a democracy with millions of people. Voting isn't a tattoo or a statement about your personal brand; it's just deciding, for the good of the country, which of the candidates is the best. And most people don't follow politics that closely, but they broadly know what each party stands for.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't naturally having 4 "parties" sort of fix that. There is so much variance within them. On the right, you got Trump, MTG, and the Boeberts in the same party as Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley and McCain. On the left, you got the Biden, Harris, and Whitmer in the same party as AOC, Omar and Tlaib.

With that kind of variance and difference within the two parties, it seems more productive to diverge them into atleast 2 more. I agree with the premise that people are not too stingy with voting in only the "perfect candidate" but this seperation gives them more opportunity in terms of options to find one that fits the bill "closer" to perfection.
 
Last edited:
Barteh said:
Classifying islam as the genocidal idealogy it is instead of pretending it's a religion is completely fine.

According to your logic wanted murderers arrested makes people "against freedom of movement".
Click to expand...
Wow, way to miss the mark horribly if I am trying to defend Islamic Extremism or terrorism. Yes, Islam is a religion. If you want to cherry pick phrases and instances to villanize it, you can do it with any religion in the world. People should be able to read any books that they want and practice any religion that they want. They should be only faulted for commiting crimes....not for praying 5 times a day or wanting to read a book.

If you believe in freedom of speech then this is not controversial.
 
Last edited:
filthybliss said:
Wouldn't naturally having 4 "parties" sort of fix that. There is so much variance within them. On the right, you got Trump, MTG, and the Boeberts in the same party as Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley and McCain. On the left, you got the Biden, Harris, and Whitmer in the same party as AOC, Omar and Tlaib.

With that kind of variance and difference within the two parties, it seems more productive to diverge them into atleast 2 more. I agree with the premise that people are not too stingey with voting in only the "perfect candidate" but this seperation gives them more opportunity in terms of options to find one that fits the bill "closer" to perfection.
Click to expand...
We have multiple parties now. But they don't get traction because people know that voting for them makes it more likely that the outcome they want least becomes more likely (and if they don't know that, they just make it more likely that the outcome they want least actually happens). If we had a system where Executive Branch leadership comes from votes in Congress, we could have more viable parties, but they'd just end up aligning, and we'd have less substantive change (related to that fact--it would lead to it being easier to pass legislation and maybe some other changes).
 
scoopj said:
You should edit the first option. “Virtually nothing WILL change my mind.”
Click to expand...
I get why people don't vote, there are always 2 final candidates running and neither seems like a good choice. IMHO voting for who will do the Least Damage to your country is what everyone should do - If you care about the land that you live in. George gives his thoughts on it, realizing decades ago his sad reality on "choices" and on "voters".

 
LangfordBarrow said:
And this here is what Democracy is all about... <LikeReally5>
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's fucking bizarre. I could understand if he said he was willing to fight for tax cuts for the rich or making sure women can't get abortions or something, but just to worship an individual person you don't even know is disturbing.
 
filthybliss said:
Banning the quran and religions qualifies as limiting free speech for sure if people are prohibited from expressing their doctrines.
Click to expand...
It's literally in The Constitution, the right to practice or not practica any religion.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Yeah, that's fucking bizarre. I could understand if he said he was willing to fight for tax cuts for the rich or making sure women can't get abortions or something, but just to worship an individual person you don't even know is disturbing.
Click to expand...
Ooh I dunno, I've never met Bono but I've worshipped him since I was a little girl.
 
Who am I supposed to vote for, the democrat who’s going to blast me in the ass or the republican who’s blasting my ass?
 
I was waffling between not voting and Biden, with a heavy lean to not voting. Primarily because I needed convincing on Biden's competency. Now that he's dropped out, I'm pretty certain I'm voting Harris.

Not because of her policy, I don't think I could write a coherent post covering what she wants to do in power.

But I think Trump is bad for the country, particularly on a foreign policy level. His posturing weakens our relationship with our allies and I think it encourages developing world nations to value aligning with other hegemonic powers over us. Essentially, I don't think he makes American "great", I think he weakens us because he doesn't understand the type of political sausage making required for global positioning.

He thinks it's transactional at that level (they want X from us, we have to get Y first) when it's really more about creating situations where people owe you favors and will cooperate with you as a way of paying you back (they want X from us, we give it freely because in 2 years we need them to work with us when we pursue Y).

He doesn't get that. He would rather get paid $10 today than $100 next year. And that's a bad posture for foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,256,635
Messages
56,787,431
Members
175,407
Latest member
sanduy

Share this page

Back
Top