Do you vote?

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning. I'm being serious. My mother abstained from voting and my father voted for Obama. My cousin didn't care either way but I convinced him to vote McCain. Not ideal but good enough.

 

[dimensional]

I like many others live in the UK and have voted once and tbh it was pretty boring (dont know what I was expecting though) and why the hell isnt there a box saying none of the above it just seemed I was given an ultimatum rather than a choice.

Last few times I havent bothered im not a huge fan of politics it bores me rigid and people get really snarky about it although that does make them easy to rile up which can be fun still the system seems to be doing fine without me, no matter who you vote for the government always gets in anyway.

Oh and if anyone takes politics seriously saying that last phrase to them will cause their mind to momentarily disassemble is kinda fun if you want to see some fallout (and dont mind being lectured), man do they get defensive.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

If you don't vote, YOU are the problem. Not the politicians, not the special interest groups and not the lobbyists, YOU. You're the reason my generation constantly gets crapped on by policy makers. You're the reason OWS is laughed at by congressmen. You're the reason why I have to pay for tax breaks for hedge fund managers. It's your fault my country is fubar, no one else's.

Stop whining, stop playing the victim, stop being a narcissistic prick, and just go vote. Get your whiny narcissistic friends to vote too.

Do you know why government works for old people and not young people? They vote.

We could be a powerful voting block. We could get our voices heard. Want a more equitable distribution of funds for primary education? Vote. Want more government assistance for higher ed programs? Vote. Complaining gets you nothing.

Obama is pro college. McCain less so. Would things be better for college kids under McCain? Sometimes it's not the voting it's the candidates that represent your values. Besides, I foresee a lot of spending cuts in the future assuming Obama isn't elected again. The next few years won't be the greatest for college students. Besides there are bigger problems. Trillions in debt and people want more spending while reducing the deficit?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Let's see; 3 parties, one of whom is never capable of winning and has now denigrated themselves as the nation's Judas, so that leaves me with the Conservatives and Labour. I'm sure to be rewarded with incompetence abound with either choice, but at least given my general centre left leanings, I'll find the latter a hell of a lot more palatable. Lesser of two evils and all that, essentially my vote was cast more so keep the Tory's out rather than to keep Labour [i/]in[/i]. But what can you do? Apparently Cameron just isn't transparent enough and the working class are fucking masochists, easily led astray by demagogic rhetoric. >.> You've got nothing to lose, yet very little to gain, but some chance is better than no chance and that feeble strand of hope is essentially my reason for voting.

 

[Muspelheim]

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning. I'm being serious. My mother abstained from voting and my father voted for Obama. My cousin didn't care either way but I convinced him to vote McCain. Not ideal but good enough.

But again, it doesn't really provide any evidence for Obama being a socialist. It's really rather peculiar from an international perspective.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Nope, I'm 17, however I also have no intention of voting. I don't agree with this kind of government system, it doesn't work as well as everybody thinks it does. It's the fallout of the 20th century, everybody still fucks democracy up the arse and thinks there are no improvements to be made.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning. I'm being serious. My mother abstained from voting and my father voted for Obama. My cousin didn't care either way but I convinced him to vote McCain. Not ideal but good enough.

But again, it doesn't really provide any evidence for Obama being a socialist. It's really rather peculiar from an international perspective.

Well there's no concrete evidence of him being socialist but many of his spending policies are just so...welfare state-y. Redistribution of wealth is especially moronic. He doesn't understand business very well which is what made America so rich in the first place. Socialist may not have been the word but if anything Obama is suitable as a "good times" president. Perfect for if much of America's problems were solved. He's not a problem solving president. My point is welfare state=bad. Just look at Greece.

 

[davros3000]

I'm Welsh and I vote every time I can. I have never voted for anyone who has won. I tend to prefer a spine in my candidates. Several times I've spoilt my ballot out of disgust. N/A (or some variation) should appear so that peoples dislike of available candidates can be counted better.

 

[Gerishnakov]

Let's see; 3 parties, one of whom is never capable of winning and has now denigrated themselves as the nation's Judas, so that leaves me with the Conservatives and Labour. I'm sure to be rewarded with incompetence abound with either choice, but at least given my general centre left leanings, I'll find the latter a hell of a lot more palatable.

What's keeping you from voting Lib Dem? We've already covered earlier in the thread how you don't vote for a party in the UK, you vote for your MP, so it depends where you live for the Lib Dems to have a chance of 'winning'. If everyone who could elect a Lib Dem MP did so there'd probably be over 100 of them.

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning.

High spending does not a socialist make. GW Bush was one of the highest spending presidents of the modern era.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Let's see; 3 parties, one of whom is never capable of winning and has now denigrated themselves as the nation's Judas, so that leaves me with the Conservatives and Labour. I'm sure to be rewarded with incompetence abound with either choice, but at least given my general centre left leanings, I'll find the latter a hell of a lot more palatable.

What's keeping you from voting Lib Dem? We've already covered earlier in the thread how you don't vote for a party in the UK, you vote for your MP, so it depends where you live for the Lib Dems to have a chance of 'winning'. If everyone who could elect a Lib Dem MP did so there'd probably be over 100 of them.

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning.

High spending does not a socialist make. GW Bush was one of the highest spending presidents of the modern era.

High spending on welfare does.

 

[Sethzard]

I will vote simply to stop the BNP and UKIP from gaining any significant momentum. I vote Conservative because they're better than labour in my opinion.

 

[Gerishnakov]

Well there's no concrete evidence of [Obama] being socialist but many of his spending policies are just so...welfare state-y.

Redistribution of wealth is especially moronic. He doesn't understand business very well which is what made America so rich in the first place. Socialist may not have been the word but if anything Obama is suitable as a "good times" president. Perfect for if much of America's problems were solved. He's not a problem solving president. My point is welfare state=bad. Just look at Greece.

Welfare state = bad? The UK, France, and Germany all have a form of welfare state that far outdoes anything the US has ever instituted. I can also point out that the UK has never had a truly socialist government. Labour may call itself socialist, but it has always been much closer to merely the far left of social democracy.

Greece is not a good example of anything, except skapegoats.

 

[davros3000]

I saw Obama's socialism immediately and my parents didn't listen to me.

I don't know if you're just trolling mate, but Obama socialist? Please.

Not everyone understood what his spending plans were when he was campaigning. I'm being serious. My mother abstained from voting and my father voted for Obama. My cousin didn't care either way but I convinced him to vote McCain. Not ideal but good enough.

But again, it doesn't really provide any evidence for Obama being a socialist. It's really rather peculiar from an international perspective.

Well there's no concrete evidence of him being socialist but many of his spending policies are just so...welfare state-y. Redistribution of wealth is especially moronic. He doesn't understand business very well which is what made America so rich in the first place. Socialist may not have been the word but if anything Obama is suitable as a "good times" president. Perfect for if much of America's problems were solved. He's not a problem solving president. My point is welfare state=bad. Just look at Greece.

Sir, you are so ill informed about the nature of the welfare state, the problems of lopsided economies and their social effects, what socialism is, and the problems affecting Greece (I mean more than just reading a newspaper once in a while), that it is difficult to know where to begin correcting the flaws in your knowledge and logic.

 

[Gerishnakov]

High spending on welfare does.

No it doesn't. Would you really argue that Margaret Thatcher was a socialist? Thatcher kept on funding the UK's national (though you would probably call it 'socialised') health service and welfare state, with perhaps some minor cuts to the latter. That system still carries on receiving funding today. In fact, social welfare is the single biggest recipient of UK government funds. Would you call our current government socialist?

 

[Gerishnakov]

Sir, you are so ill informed about the nature of the welfare state, the problems of lopsided economies and their social effects, what socialism is, and the problems affecting Greece (I mean more than just reading a newspaper once in a while), that it is difficult to know where to begin correcting the flaws in your knowledge and logic.

Typical Americans eh? Now I will prepare for a deluge of abuse.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Well there's no concrete evidence of [Obama] being socialist but many of his spending policies are just so...welfare state-y.

Redistribution of wealth is especially moronic. He doesn't understand business very well which is what made America so rich in the first place. Socialist may not have been the word but if anything Obama is suitable as a "good times" president. Perfect for if much of America's problems were solved. He's not a problem solving president. My point is welfare state=bad. Just look at Greece.

Welfare state = bad? The UK, France, and Germany all have a form of welfare state that far outdoes anything the US has ever instituted. I can also point out that the UK has never had a truly socialist government. Labour may call itself socialist, but it has always been much closer to merely the far left of social democracy.

Greece is not a good example of anything, except skapegoats.

I don't believe welfare states are sustainable and still America's isn't like the ones in Europe. Spending more and more doesn't make sense with an anti-business president and trillions in debt. That's my main problem with Obama. Far left may be more appropriate than socialist. Under Obama's presidency more people are using food stamps than ever and people who don't need them have them. Pointless spending is what I hate the most. Food stamps are also easier than ever to get.

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

I'm in Canada and I've voted in every federal and provincial election and almost every municipal election(which typically get less than 30% turnout in every town I lived in) since I turned 18 many, many moons ago. The few muni elections I missed were because of me not getting to the early ballots fast enough if I was going out of town.

I'm of the opinion that unless you vote, you have no right to complain about the government at all. Whether the party/politician you voted for got in or not you've done what your constitution allows you to do and what countless soldiers/citizens have died to give you the privilege of doing in relative safety.

 

[Something Amyss]

Especially when said classmate goes on to discuss how our politicians were doing such a bad job at running the country.

There's this dude around town who's a big Ron Paul fan. Every time he runs for President, he gets really pissed that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

"Well, did you vote for him?"

"Voting is for sheeple!"

Yeah. Just amused me in relation to your guy.

Hey, there's this awesome guy who will change America, but I don't vote. WTF WHY DOES NOBODY VOTE FOR HIM?????

The philosophy I was brought up on is that if you don't vote, then you have little to no right to complain about how those who are elected are doing a poor job.

If you're an American, and your profile says you are, complaining is part of your inalienable right to free speech. Everyone has a right to complain.

After all, your best method of fixing the problem of someone doing a bad job as an elected official is to simply vote for their opponent or threaten to do so in a letter or phone call.

I would say your best option is to find a candidate you actually support and help him get elected, even if it means volunteering yourself. Even if that means you have to go long-term, which is why most people don't do it. Specifically America. We as a nation are very short-term and reactionary (and many other nations are, so it's not like I'm picking solely on the USA).

Not voting is the same as voting for them, it's an affirmation that you feel things are just fine as they are and that your elected officials can continue to do as they please. (or worse that you just don't care how they run things)

Well, not really, no. It is the same as saying you're okay with the majority, who may or may not vote for the same person. Not to mention, voting doesn't really tell the people in power what they want. You can complain that people are saying they support the policies or that you feel they can continue to do as they please.

Plus, consider the alternative. By that logic, aren't you therefore endorsing the policies of the people you vote for? Sneding the message that you're okay with it?

For example, I live in the state of Senator Pat Leahy. He's been behind some pretty destructive legislation, including the Patriot Act, the Induce Act, and PIPA. Now, under your model of " vote for the other guy, or threaten to," my option is then to threaten to vote for a guy who not only supports those options but believes in the Tea Party. Any affirmative vote seems to be destructive, n'est pas?

Or, in another fashion, look at Bush in the 2004 elections. The exit polls showed people overwhelmingly didn't support him on the economy, on the war, on spending, etc. They voted for him because they didn't like the thought of consenting adults having relations with the same sex. What's really the message here, aside from the fact that if you can push one issue, you can win?

tl;dr: Do you vote, why or why not?

I vote, and I try and be active in my local and state political communities.

Why? I'd rathe do something than nothing, at the most basic level.

 

[Aulleas123]

Yes, I vote. I use national elections to vote for my principles, I use local elections to vote for what actually affects me.

In other words, I'll vote libertarian in the national election. For local elections, I actually see who is running and what they will bring to the table if/when they are elected. The same goes for issues, but those are usually from local politics too. I try not to vote along one party line locally because it's not as much about the politics of a large national organization as much as it is about the qualities of the individual candidates (at least in my area).

 

[Gerishnakov]

I don't believe welfare states are sustainable and still America's isn't like the ones in Europe.

If welfare states are unsustainable why does the UK have a better credit rating than the US and a lower debt-to-GDP ratio? Yes, the US 'welfare system' isn't like those in Europe, it's much worse and costs a fraction of the amount. US spending is so high because of the military. Having the world's most kick-ass, technologically advanced military has to come from somewhere my friend.

Spending more and more doesn't make sense with an anti-business president and trillions in debt. That's my main problem with Obama.

What does that sentence even mean? How is Obama anti-business? You never explained that original point of yours. There is a great deal of evidence that increasing government spending on the right things actually stimulates an economy. I assume you've heard of FDR's New Deal, right? That helped you guys go into, and come out of, WW2 pretty sweetly.

Far left may be more appropriate than socialist.

Far left on what? Economics, society, the street?

Under Obama's presidency more people are using food stamps than ever and people who don't need them have them. Pointless spending is what I hate the most. Food stamps are also easier than ever to get.

So you're going to blame that on the current guy, not the president before him who spent 8 years and more money than you had on two wars, one of which is widely recognised as illegal by the rest of the world.