What is Your Stake in Politics?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by NotCranky on October 20, 2010 - 9:35am

I thought Xboxboy's recent question regarding what to do with suffrage in light of this gawd awful political landscape was interesting. Yours truly has abstained from voting for decades.I think of it as modest revoltionary response. Filling out a blank ballot is interesting.

I don't have much of a direct stake represented by red or blue. Democrat rhetoric sentimentally represents me more than Republican, but their actions always amount to so much destruction in the end.

Seeing the political landscape as hopeless, I wonder what do other piggs have at stake that pushes them Republican or Democrat,if anything... .Why be content not to revolt, at least to the extent of not endorsing anyone?

Did I ask that correctly?

Is it that;

* I am a good boy or girl and do these political things just like mommy and daddy do, or did.
*You believe the system works pretty well?(just better with your party)
*Love of country? (as best supported by your party)
*Love of people? (as best supported by your party)
*Perception of Racial or gender power?
*Is it for support of religious convictions?
*Supposed Hawkish vs. Dovish tendencies?
*Greater access to money?
*Are you a paid shill directly or indirectly?
*Are you afraid to look apathetic and unsophisticated by dropping out?
*A combination of these things and some others?

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 10:24am.

To me, it all about the love of your fellow humans.

Love is a actually too strong of a word because I certainly don't love strangers that I don't know.

For me, it's a all about social equity and inclusion.

For example, I support including unauthorized immigrants who have been here for years or decades into our society. They are already here.

The alternatives of keeping on excluding them (as in apartheid) or deporting them are inhumane.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 20, 2010 - 10:49am.

We may not realize it but we are one of the most fortunate people living on this plant - ever!!!

Generations before us endured wars, famines, tyrants, slavary, bigotry, genocides, diasters and god knows what to bring us to this point.

In that context the system we have today works pretty well. Sure there are minor issues that we debate and don't like. But hey, we have our life and liberty and freedoms. Our forefathers could only dream of those.

But nothing should be taken for granted. If we don't vote and wisely choose and actively participate as much as we can in this system, then we can't expect the system to survive.

So while I may be frustrated with both parties and politicians, I still do my best to choose lesser of the evils and make sure that there are checks and balances in the system. If we all just gave up, how long before we will descend into anarchy (historically the most common state of humanity)?

So I have decided to become a "checks and balances" voter. If Dems are capturing congress I would vote for a republican president and vice versa. The gridlock seems to serve the system well.

Submitted by UCGal on October 20, 2010 - 10:42am.

I vote, every election, for a few reasons:

- There's usually a lesser of evils choice... While I might not like either candidate - typically one is significantly worse, in my view.

- I want to cancel out the vote of one specific coworker who is just wrong on most everything. He votes - so I have to vote to cancel his vote. This is a surprisingly strong motivation. Petty? Probably. But it gets me to the polls.

- I feel like if I don't vote - I can't gripe about the politicians that got into office despite my vote against them. I feel more vested in the system, and less hypocritical about griping about the idiots knowing I voted against them.

Submitted by afx114 on October 20, 2010 - 10:50am.

I feel as if I owe it to people throughout history who thought and fought and died for our right to vote, in addition to the people in this world who still don't have the luxury.

Even though the system may be schmacwhackled and the results might not always be there, it's a lot better than a lot of people throughout history and in this current world can say they've ever had. I'd feel like an asshole if I didn't participate.

Submitted by no_such_reality on October 20, 2010 - 10:53am.

I vote for one reason. By not voting, you are increasing the power of the stupid fanatical extremist fringes. The two major parties love people dropping out because then they only have to worry about making sure they serve 1 more 'core' than their opponents.

Nothing is more powerful than voting 3rd party. 3rd party scares the two major parties because they know the other party could appeal to those voters.

I frankly, think the current system is broken. You win with a plurality, not a majority. If you don't have a majority, frankly, you should be forced to do a run off against #2. With everybody getting to vote for their perceived lessor of two evils.

i.e. Imagine the shift in the politics if you could really voice your opinion for candidates without the fear that major party candidate is going to go into office with 43% of the vote.

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 10:56am.

(Putting on flame shield)..

If the current government was balanced ineffective at change, I could care less about who was in office and I would vote for someone that is neither rep or democrat...

Unfortunately, for me, the at the Fed level...government is so lopsided right now, that pragmatically, I feel voting for a third party is throwing away a vote....At this point I will be voting simply to vote anti-democrat to reduce the dominance of a one party government...The person could be black/blue/purple/green/racist, anti-asian/fundamentalist/pornstar/or half dead wearing depend garments, so long as the person has a shot at defeating their Democrat counterpart. I could care less. Even if, rep's manage to gain senate or house (highly unlikely), we have another 2 years of Obama to even things out with appropriate checks and balances.....
I feel we need some of those seats restored and balanced, as screwed up as some of those senators/representatives might be and as disgusting as some of those candidates might be....

Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 20, 2010 - 10:56am.

I vote because it gives me a small voice that I otherwise would not have.

While also believe in the paradox of democratic divergence (think France in the 1800's), I believe that exercise of democracy is better than the alternative.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 20, 2010 - 11:01am.

flu wrote:
Even if, rep's manage to gain senate or house (highly unlikely), we have another 2 years of Obama to even things out with appropriate checks and balances.....
I feel we need some of those seats restored and balanced, as screwed up as some of those senators/representatives might be and as disgusting as some of those candidates might be....

Flu, I see that you and I vote with the same philosophy. However, when you want to vote for the senator you might also want to think about who the president will be in 2012!

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 11:01am.

Quote:
- I want to cancel out the vote of one specific coworker who is just wrong on most everything. He votes - so I have to vote to cancel his vote. This is a surprisingly strong motivation. Petty? Probably. But it gets me to the polls.

This is just too funny (and spot on) not to get highlighted... It reminds me of the T-shirt that says,

For every animal you don't eat, I will eat three!

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 11:13am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
flu wrote:
Even if, rep's manage to gain senate or house (highly unlikely), we have another 2 years of Obama to even things out with appropriate checks and balances.....
I feel we need some of those seats restored and balanced, as screwed up as some of those senators/representatives might be and as disgusting as some of those candidates might be....

Flu, I see that you and I vote with the same philosophy. However, when you want to vote for the senator you might also want to think about who the president will be in 2012!

Fight today, worry about tomorrow later :) The sad part is that I use to not care about politics...Then I started to after Bush(it)

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 11:48am.

flu wrote:
The person could be black/blue/purple/green/racist, anti-asian/fundamentalist/pornstar/or half dead wearing depend garments, so long as the person has a shot at defeating their Democrat counterpart. I could care less.

That's how people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin get into power.

With obstruction, you can kiss goodbye to progress and to an effective and coherent industrial/economic policy. As other nations advance their economic agendas, we'll just stagnate.

In any race, I look at the specific race and I compare each candidate's ideas. I vote for the best ideas.

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 12:02pm.

I apologize in advance for following you (brian) from thread to thread with sarcasm...but you leave me no choice.

Quote:
In any race, I look at the specific race and I compare each candidate's ideas. I vote for the best ideas.

I vote purely on emotion! Anyone who says they want to help me I believe, and I have never heard of unintended consequences. I am incapable of reason and argument, so emotion all the way!

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 12:13pm.

jstoesz wrote:
I apologize in advance for following you (brian) from thread to thread with sarcasm...but you leave me no choice.

Quote:
In any race, I look at the specific race and I compare each candidate's ideas. I vote for the best ideas.

I vote purely on emotion! Anyone who says they want to help me I believe, and I have never heard of unintended consequences. I am incapable of reason and argument, so emotion all the way!

I don't mind at all. I appreciate the sarcasm and humor. ;)

But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 12:30pm.

briansd1 wrote:
flu wrote:
The person could be black/blue/purple/green/racist, anti-asian/fundamentalist/pornstar/or half dead wearing depend garments, so long as the person has a shot at defeating their Democrat counterpart. I could care less.

That's how people like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin get into power.

With obstruction, you can kiss goodbye to progress and to an effective and coherent industrial/economic policy. As other nations advance their economic agendas, we'll just stagnate.

In any race, I look at the specific race and I compare each candidate's ideas. I vote for the best ideas.

HA HA HA....

Think about what you just said because it's contradictory... Our current governement made progress, effective, coherent industrial/economic policies????
Are we talking about the United States??

All else being equal, the best policy is to neuter the government's ability to make change.

Quote:

But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Personally, I find the intellectual snobbery quite funtertainment.... (Oh shit, there I go again, making up words like Palin)

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 1:00pm.

Quote:
But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Here is one kind of Dem voter
Using my reason and immense gray matter, I have determined only to vote for those who can give me stuff...basically those who steal for me...

Here is another
I vote for stuff because I want to save the planet. I know that if I vote for (insert dem name) that it will be the moment that the rise of the oceans slowed and the planet began to heal. This is my well reasoned position.

Granted Reps have there fair share of these
I am old, gray and long toothed, and I just hate queers...can't stand em.

I would say both parties are awash in stupidity...

[edit]Actually the first voter mentioned is probably the most well reasoned of us all!

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 1:06pm.

flu wrote:

Quote:

But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Personally, I find the intellectual snobbery quite funtertainment.... (Oh shit, there I go again, making up words like Palin)

If you are happy being on the same intellectual level as Palin and her supporters, then all the more power to you.

You are clearly not the kind of conservative for whom good manners and impeccable upbringing are important.

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 1:06pm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101020/ap_o...

It's definitely going to be interesting...

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 1:08pm.

briansd1 wrote:
flu wrote:

Quote:

But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Personally, I find the intellectual snobbery quite funtertainment.... (Oh shit, there I go again, making up words like Palin)

If you are happy being on the same intellectual level as Palin and her supporters, then all the more power to you.

You are clearly not the kind of conservative for whom good manners and impeccable upbringing are important.

Ouch.... That hurts. BTW, where did you go to college, since you did sort of bring up this up?

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 1:11pm.

jstoesz wrote:

Here is one kind of Dem voter
Using my reason and immense gray matter, I have determined only to vote for those who can give me stuff...

That's very rational to vote for people who will give you stuff that you want.

Give me a RATIONAL reason why red-state working-class voters, who live in poverty, support the politicians who will withhold things that they need.

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 1:18pm.

flu wrote:

Ouch.... That hurts. BTW, where did you go to college, since you did sort of bring up this up?

College does not make upbringing. The parents and the grandparents do.

As I said, I'm still waiting for some rational reason why working-class right-wing voters vote the way they do. I'm talking about the Palin/O'Donnell supporters who show up at rallies wearing sweats and pajamas.

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 1:18pm.

you missed something in that quote...

Quote:
...basically those who steal for me...

I think there rationale goes something like this...
If people steal (arbitrary tax laws I classify as theft) from my company I am screwed. Theft is the quickest way to loose what little POS job I have.

One note about a pet peeve I have..."need" is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal...

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 1:37pm.

briansd1 wrote:
flu wrote:

Ouch.... That hurts. BTW, where did you go to college, since you did sort of bring up this up?

College does not make upbringing. The parents and the grandparents do.

As I said, I'm still waiting for some rational reason why working-class right-wing voters vote the way they do. I'm talking about the Palin/O'Donnell supporters who show up at rallies wearing sweats and pajamas.

Hmmm. Interesting...Ok, if you want to go there...then let's talk about parents and upbringing... What do your parents do and where did you grow up, demographicswise (darn, I keep inventing new words)? I really find it interesting about your obsession with "class" and "intelligencia/elitism". Hopefully this doesn't end up being a my daddy's better than your daddy's sort of discussion. But if you want to go there..

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 1:55pm.

jstoesz wrote:

One note about a pet peeve I have..."need" is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal...

That's the difference between you and me.

When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.

When a person must get to work to a job that doesn't pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 2:05pm.

flu wrote:
I really find it interesting about your obsession with "class" and "intelligencia/elitism".

We have to understand class and sociology to understand the motivation of voters. Are the motivations rational or emotional?

I understand the motivations of working-class liberals who want more social benefits.

I'm still trying to grasp the rational motivations of working-class conservatives.

The reality is that without the working-class conservative votes, the right would never win.

flu wrote:

Hopefully this doesn't end up being a my daddy's better than your daddy's sort of discussion. But if you want to go there..

I'm not the one asking personal questions and making it personal.

Submitted by Coronita on October 20, 2010 - 2:11pm.

briansd1 wrote:

We have to understand class and sociology to understand the motivation of voters. Are the motivations rational or emotional?

I understand the motivations of working-class liberals who want more social benefits.

I'm still trying to grasp the rational motivations of working-class conservatives.

The reality is that without the working-class conservative votes, the right would never win.

flu wrote:

Hopefully this doesn't end up being a my daddy's better than your daddy's sort of discussion. But if you want to go there..

I'm not the one asking personal questions and making it personal.

Maybe I missed something in translation....

briansd1 wrote:

You are clearly not the kind of conservative for whom good manners and impeccable upbringing are important.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 20, 2010 - 2:27pm.

briansd1 wrote:

I'm still trying to grasp the rational motivations of working-class conservatives.

Because "they are bitter"? :)

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But America is a land of optimists and positive thinking. True or not - most people believe that there is a good deal of meritocracy and class mobility here. I may be broke today but I truly believe that in this society I can move up and join the ranks of the rich. Therefore, I would not support policies that advocate taxing their wealth away.

In most of the world elsewhere people view things differently. Rich/aristocrats are a separate class - one can never join them. So it is OK to tax their wealth away.

Because of our limited history most people also believe that the rich earned their fortune fairly. In most other places, people think that the rich became what they are by stealing from others.

And finally, working class conservatives probably feel threatened by the elitist leaders of social liberalism. GOP candidates probably do a better job connecting with them on some level.

Submitted by UCGal on October 20, 2010 - 2:21pm.

jstoesz wrote:
Quote:
But emotions does seem to drive many votes, especially among the working-class in the Red States and in the red areas along the coasts.

Here is one kind of Dem voter
Using my reason and immense gray matter, I have determined only to vote for those who can give me stuff...basically those who steal for me...

[edit]Actually the first voter mentioned is probably the most well reasoned of us all!

Hmmm. Using my reason and immense gray matter, I have determined to only vote for those who give my company specific benefit - like medicare part d if I'm a pharma company, or TARP if I'm a bank, or defense contracts if I'm a defense company...

(I doubt those are dem's making that argument.)

My point - people of both parties often vote with their bottom line in mind - whether it is business opportunities, tax policies, etc.

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 2:22pm.

Quote:
Thats the difference between you and me.

Translation: I am so high minded and noble, I care so much about "poor" people that I am willing to rob others to pay for their "needs"

I do not want to get into the merits of nationalized health and the like. I think reasonable people can disagree. But with our tax code the way it is (picking winners and losers and taking it in clandestine ways), our treasury is filled with stolen money.

If everyone has to cut a check every month to the treasury...you can be sure our government would act a good bit differently. At that point if the populous votes for free busing...who am I to disagree.

Bit of introspection for those libertarian types (myself included)...Do you give significantly to charity?

Submitted by jstoesz on October 20, 2010 - 2:26pm.

UCCal,

Totally agree. Thats why we either have to deadlock government (a la flu), so they can stop picking winners and loser. That means we have to live with the crappy picks we already have. Or we can limit government to the basic necessities, thereby reducing the number and magnitude of their picks...

The second option is just a dream I have from time to time. Its kind of like unicorns and leprechauns...

Submitted by briansd1 on October 20, 2010 - 2:33pm.

flu wrote:

Maybe I missed something in translation....

briansd1 wrote:

You are clearly not the kind of conservative for whom good manners and impeccable upbringing are important.

That's because you put yourself in the same class as Sarah Palin. My comment was more about Sarah Palin's family.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.