Financial Shakeup this weekend

[emayer]

Wellardmac wrote:

let's see...

Two candidates that cannot get a convincing win on the merits of their policies go negative, then attack each other for going negative. Anyone else see the humor in this besides me?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/20/d...index.html

...ahh, and they wonder why voters are turned off by politics as usual.

Steve Colbert had a hilarious take on this as well... Best election coverage out there!

[ccm911]

Hope you all are going to vote today.  I was in and out in ten minutes.....just like my sex life.

[Ccns23]

Ya, so I went to vote today and they didn't have my name listed. Why you ask? Somehow, I got registered as a non-partisan!!!  Can you believe that nonsense? I suppose that when I first registered to vote, I must have been an idealist (at the tender age of 18), registered as an Independant, and I guess I never changed my party affiliation. Since I don't think I ever voted in the Democratic primarys (usually by the time they get to PA the delgate is already selected) so I never bothered to check on it or change it.

D'oh!!!!! hock: 

[Ccns23]

I couldn't agree more. It is just pure nonsense that the candidates feel this need to attack each other every chance they get. Part of me was upset that I couldn't vote this morning and the other half was relieved that I didn't because really neither of them have really swayed me one way or the other. My fear is that once this is over these two will have done so much damage to each other that people will not vote for whichever candidate does win the final nod for President.

 

[emayer]

Seems one of my partners is in the doghouse....  He voted against his wife's choice in the primary.  Oops!

[emayer]

Wellardmac wrote:

emayer wrote:

Seems one of my partners is in the doghouse.... He voted against his wife's choice in the primary. Oops!

...and they didn't discuss their choices in advance?

Duh! What's wrong with this picture?

She was fixed in her decision whereas he was undecided until the last minute. Hey, there's no rule that says that couples need to vote alike as long as they can face the consequences!

BTW- I'm registered independent, and with the actions of these candidates of late I personally did not feel strongly complled to change my affilitation in order to vote. In the end, the distinctions amongst them are not impressive.

[AMoore]

It is the Wednesday after the democratic primary, and its official . . . people are dumb.

[Ccns23]

AMoore wrote:

It is the Wednesday after the democratic primary, and its official . . . people are dumb.

Not true. Depending on your views, either 55% of the people are dumb or 45% of the people are dumb.

Goes back to what George Carlin said and I quote, "Think about how smart the average person is and then realize that half the people are even more stupid than that!"

[AMoore]

Anyone who votes for someone, or against someone, because they are a woman is dumb.  Anyone who votes for someone, or against someone, because of the color of their skin is dumb. 

Anyone who votes for someone just becuase they are a former first lady is dumb.  Would they vote for Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, or Laura Bush.  I think not . . . unless, of course they are doing so because those former first ladies are women. (Note: Clinton has been a Senator only slightly longer than Obama).

Anyone who casts a vote at all, without knowing where their candidate stands on the issues is dumb.

Anyone who casts their vote based on only a sampling of their candidates positions is dumb.  (I'm amazed at how many people choose a candidate based on the abortion / right to life issue, when such a relatively small number of American's are ever confronted with that issue, while we are all confronted with issues such as taxes, war, health care, education, etc.)

This is of course the price we pay for democracy.  If only the learned were permitted to vote, we would have an oligarchy, or an aristocracy.  Such a small electorate would actually be more likely to screw things up than when uninformed (m)asses vote. 

[AMoore]

Wellardmac wrote:

AMoore wrote:

Anyone who votes for someone, or against someone, because they are a woman is dumb. Anyone who votes for someone, or against someone, because of the color of their skin is dumb.

Anyone who votes for someone just becuase they are a former first lady is dumb. Would they vote for Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, or Laura Bush. I think not . . . unless, of course they are doing so because those former first ladies are women. (Note: Clinton has been a Senator only slightly longer than Obama).

Anyone who casts a vote at all, without knowing where their candidate stands on the issues is dumb.

Anyone who casts their vote based on only a sampling of their candidates positions is dumb. (I'm amazed at how many people choose a candidate based on the abortion / right to life issue, when such a relatively small number of American's are ever confronted with that issue, while we are all confronted with issues such as taxes, war, health care, education, etc.)

This is of course the price we pay for democracy. If only the learned were permitted to vote, we would have an oligarchy, or an aristocracy. Such a small electorate would actually be more likely to screw things up than when uninformed (m)asses vote.

So you're making no sense at this point. Are you saying that anyone that is not you is dumb? How would you know that everyone that is not you is dumb unless you interviewed them to find out why they voted the way that they did?

Issues matter and it's important that we all understand why we're voting for someone. Who are you (or anyone else for that matter) to state that someone shouldn't vote for someone based upon their stance on abortion, or any of the other topics that you mentioned? What is important to you may not be important to someone else. We vote for candidates based on where they stand on a balance of issues. I'm not sure that many (intelligent) people vote for someone based on one topic.

I agree that you should only vote if you understand the issues and the positions of candidates - that's the way it should be - but our system allows the uninformed to vote - if it did not, then only three of us would be voting and controlling the fate of this country.

The wonder of diversity of thought is that it results in outcomes that a single mindset would not have conceived. I like that people disagree with me and see it as an opportunity to be educated on a different opinion. If everyone agreed, then we would never develop, mature, or excel. Agreement is the food of mediocrity. Failure is the catalyst for education. Disagreement is the motivator for action.

I'll pick on abortion as a great example of why some seemingly irrelevant issues matter. I'm not a woman. I'll never have an abortion because I'm not biologically equipped. I'll defend to my dying breath the right for woman to control her body and have an abortion. It's a matter of principle that the government should not be telling people what they can and cannot do with their body. I think abortion is sad and should not be used for birth control, but you absolutely should not take away the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Until you have walked a mile in the shoes of a pregnant woman you have no right to tell her how she should and should not feel. You have no right to tell her that she has to carry a baby to term that resulted from a rape, or is defective, or she simply is not physically able to carry to term.

You have no right to tell a woman that she has to carry a baby that she does not want. You have no right to tell her that she has to tolerate the total domination that pregnancy brings on her body. Some women choose (through their actions) to get pregnant when they did not intend. Some women have pregnancy thrust upon them. Some women are put in a position where the child that they want cannot be carried to term either because of it's health, or their own.

What is not important to you may be important to others. You never know when an issue might become important to you in the future and make you wish that you had stood up for the rights of others or paid attention to details that might have helped someone else.

You might not care about stem cell research today, but if you develop a debilitating disease I can bet you'll care tomorrow.

I'm not saying that we don't have a lot of important issues facing this country that need addressing. I am saying that you have no right to tell others what is important to them and how they should be voting - that's the beauty of democracy. Saying that everyone should agree with you is called Dictatorship.

You say I am not making sense when you reiterate my point. Many people cast their vote based on one issue. Often times this is an issue that has no effect on their personal well being. Such a decision is often made at the expense of their well being as related to many other issues that do affect them, such as taxes, health care, education, etc.