I won't vote in 2010

[bigrebnc1775]

No vote, NO opinion worth listening to.

Clearly the reasoning behind his not voting is just as well thought out as anyone else's decision to vote. Sometimes not voting can be just as important as voting.

True and sometimes you will get an obama or Reid or Poilse when you don't vote

 

[Supposn]

None of the above is a waste of time and money. If none of the above wins then what? Have another election? Elections cost money, and waste people's time. What if none of the above wins the second time around? Eventually people are just going to stop showing up to vote anyways.

Kevin Kennedy, this is a transcript of a post within another group:
. . . When you cast a vote for a single issue candidate, you’re reasonably certain that the candidate WILL NOT be elected to office.

You also have reasonable expectations that the number of votes that candidate attracts will be considered by all competing candidates including the eventually elected officeholder. It is reasonably possible for a comparatively small number of votes cast for a single issue candidate to affect government’s future policy with regard to that issue.

Remember that potential single issue candidate generally don’t run if there's a major party candidate that shares their opinion with regard to the issue.

On the other hand when you voted for a candidate that agreed with you or whose view point on the immigration issue was somewhat similar to yours, there was often little reason for the elected officeholder to have believed that their professed stand on the immigration issue was any more or less cause for his election. There’s little to discourage officeholders to trade what you consider the superior immigration policy to advance their agendas with regard to other issues.

If there’s a single issue candidate, (even a weak candidate) that agrees with you on THE issue, then casting your vote for him is the most advantageous for the advancement of your agenda with regard to that issue.
/////////////////////////////////////////

Kevin, votes for single issue candidates are clearly indications that those votes are probably up for grabs by a stronger party that will join on the particular issue and position in question.

If I had an opportunity to vote for a candidate that approaches my views upon an issue but is not a single issue candidate, I would be advancing my agenda only to the extent that any current or potential future candidates realize that my vote is “up for grabs” based primarily on this issue and position. That’s usually a tough message to get across in any case if you’re not a campaign fund contributor.

If no parties even come close to my views on the issue, or their support for my views are (in my opinion) tepid or almost non-existent, there’s no way my vote can express my views or the extent of my determination and conviction regarding my views.

Opportunities to pro-actively vote for none of the above and deny our vote to all of the candidates would grant non-wealthy and/or minority voters much greater than our present opportunities to express our views and affect elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Since leaving the service in 1959, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Since 2008 I’m no longer voting for the lesser evil and I require a candidate and I (at minimum), to substantially concur upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goals. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since leaving the service in 1959, I’ve voted in every general election and have missed extremely few primary elections. Since 2008 I’m no longer voting for the lesser evil and I require a candidate and I (at minimum), to substantially concur upon at least one issue and methods to achieve our perceived goals. I won’t absolutely always vote for a candidate that simply meets the minimum standard.

I suggest that you better get started with creating a group like the tea party , or the coffee party. Just because you do not like any of the above that is running for office is not a good reason for not voting.

 

[georgephillip]

Rich politicians who serve Wall Street and the Pentagon first aren't worth anyone's vote.

Please click here to see three bar graphs representing actual (2005) US wealth distribution plotted against estimated and ideal distributions.

Notice how the bottom two quintiles (40 ******* PERCENT of all Americans) simply vanish in the actual distribution graph.

I believe this is because we limit our "choice" to Republican OR Democratic candidates when both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street.

This political "system" is designed to produce policies that make America more and more unequal and it doesn't matter which corporate party controls congress.

The solution is to vote Green or Libertarian whenever possible on November 2, and if that isn't available on your ballot, vote AGAINST all DC incumbents.

FLUSH the DC Toilet of all Republicans AND Democrats!

Fire the next shot heard 'round the world.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Democrats have decided to delay the tax cuts bill vote until after the election.
I’ll refrain from voting in general elections until the tax bill reaches the floors of both Congressional houses and the bill is voted upon the House of Representatives’ floor.

Respectfully, Supposn

You 'Baggers are toooooooooooooooooooooooo obvious.

​

 

[dilloduck]

You're free to choose as you will. But I'd go and vote even if i had to write myself in on every position.

and this gives you some right to *****? Come on folks---your vote is only going to make a difference if you live in certain precincts. Lose the fantasy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let the goddamned tax cuts expire. Each and all of them. First step toward fiscal sanity.

Then look carefully at our infrastructure, and repair that which would aid a return to more manufacturing in this nation. That is where long term economic success will be found.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The man is in an interesting fix. He wants accountability, but he is frozen into either voting for people who won't do accountable, or for people who will do the opposite of what he wants.

All the politician cares about is he gets one more than the other guy. Principle shminsiple. He does not care about the votes for the third guy, any more than he cares about the ones who don't show up.

This guy is trying a four year old's tactic. He is saying be responsible, or I won't be. And since the guys he is angry at need him more than he needs them, they really should listen as to why he refused to show up.

I think the tax increase we are facing are dangerous and stupid, and so his non participation is better for me.

The deal with this congress was they were going to be more responsive and play fewer stupid games. Most of the problems people have with this congress is that they are pulling stuff like this, rather than the actual policy. And if it looses them votes, maybe they will learn.

or not.

 

[georgephillip]

Let the goddamned tax cuts expire. Each and all of them. First step toward fiscal sanity.

Then look carefully at our infrastructure, and repair that which would aid a return to more manufacturing in this nation. That is where long term economic success will be found.

High speed freight rail lines paid for with public banking principles modeled on the State Bank of North Dakota would seem like a good place to start. Since 1919 North Dakota has proven Wall Street is NOT the only game in town when it comes to financing infrastructure.

Maybe the Pentagon could manage the project.
Bring the troops home and put them to work building the First REAL American century.

Web of Debt Blog

 

[blastoff]

Great strategery, Sposson. One less Dim vote we have to cancel out. Keep up the good work!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

His argument is "I voted for you because you said you would not be a jerkass.

You are a jerkass

So I won't vote for your. I been had.

But I hate the other guys just as much. And I can't vote for them either.

So I will stay home and sulk."

What really is his third alternative?

vote for the creeps who lied, or the creeps, who if they are honest, will do what he does not want?

 

[Supposn]

BigRebNC1775, I analyze, (some describe my efforts as scheming), and I search for the words and phrases to express my concepts.

I wonder if I’m truly appreciative of the logic and motives of those who I disagree with? If I’m sincere, than why aren’t I a more successful negotiator?

I’m unable to initialize a political movement but I do what I can. Other than what I’m now doing, what else can I pro-actively do? Abstaining from voting is my most honest, respectful and patriotic possible option.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Let the goddamned tax cuts expire. Each and all of them. First step toward fiscal sanity.

Then look carefully at our infrastructure, and repair that which would aid a return to more manufacturing in this nation. That is where long term economic success will be found.

Old Rocks, economics is one of my many interests.

Of all of the political concepts that I advocate, a trade proposal based upon Warren Buffett’s idea is the one that I have ABSOLUTE confidence in.

It would reduce USA’s trade deficit by a half trillion dollars annually and increase the aggregate sum of our imports plus exports. Thus this policy would cause USA’s gross domestic product to be increased more than otherwise. That increase would be well in excess of a trillion dollars. Our GDP bolsters our median wage.

Refer to the discussion threads within the economics board entitled:
. . . “Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”
. . . last posted @ 04-26-2010, 11:10 AM
. . and
. . . “Trade balance’s leverage within the GDP”, last posted @ 09-23-2010, 10:42 AM.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I have to confess that the more I read of this man's ideas, the more I support his principled stand of abstaining in this election.

principles are more important than victory, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I won't be voting this year either.

Not based on principles, but on physical location: I'm a few hundred miles from my polling place, and I'm going to be working a 24-hour day on election day.

Edit: Well, a 20-hour day. The polls close at 8.

 

[2Parties]

I have to confess that the more I read of this man's ideas, the more I support his principled stand of abstaining in this election.

principles are more important than victory, right?

Democracy is a joke anyways. Why should some people be able to force other people to do things because they are the greater number? Why should I, because I can get a larger fan base, force you to do something that you don't agree with?

If anyone believes that democracy (iiiittsssss a reeeeeepuubliiccc ) is either fraudulent or wrong how could they participate in it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigRebNC1775, I analyze, (some describe my efforts as scheming), and I search for the words and phrases to express my concepts.

I wonder if I’m truly appreciative of the logic and motives of those who I disagree with? If I’m sincere, than why aren’t I a more successful negotiator?

I’m unable to initialize a political movement but I do what I can. Other than what I’m now doing, what else can I pro-actively do? Abstaining from voting is my most honest, respectful and patriotic possible option.

Respectfully, Supposn

Sitting back and doing nothing is not what you need t do.. If you don't like either person do a write in who knows someone else may do the samething.

 

[2Parties]

Write-ins are completely pointless.

The only people who see them are the workers and they just think "oh, that's cute" and move along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Write-ins are completely pointless.

The only people who see them are the workers and they just think "oh, that's cute" and move along.

And what would seating back and doing nothing be?