The all-inclusive "Republicans hate everything America stands for" thread

[Loyal]

Voting may or may not bring about positive change, but not voting is of absolutely no benefit. People aren't going to see people not voting and think, "hey, maybe we aren't doing the right things here," nor "hey, maybe this system isn't working out so well." Not voting is only an invitation for the people in power to continue as they are.

It's not like protests where someone (hopefully someone in a position of power) is inconvenienced in any way, or even where people are made more aware of pertinent issues. Not voting only tells people that fewer people are voting. Not voting is by definition not doing anything, and suggesting that apathy is going to change the system is just absurd.

[Steel Shadow]

But voting is essentially you approving the system, and thus validating it. The worse options are already in power, and voting doesn't seem to change that. Kinda tired of the 'not voting makes things worse!' argument, since the idea that if everyone voted then all the magically better third parties would have a chance at government is laughable for just... so many reasons.

Voter turnout is low across the board, and at least some people aren't doing it because they've lost faith in the system in place. I mean, why vote if the only two real options are 'evil' or 'incompetent'? One of them might end up in power, but do you really want your stamp of approval to be on either?

[Ecks]

Nope. But to tell the truth here, I'd rather the incompetent get another shot at trying to figure this whole President thing out than let the evil sonovabitch get his grimy hands on the reins and fuck us over worse than Bush did.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Steel Shadow

But voting is essentially you approving the system, and thus validating it. The worse options are already in power, and voting doesn't seem to change that. Kinda tired of the 'not voting makes things worse!' argument, since the idea that if everyone voted then all the magically better third parties would have a chance at government is laughable for just... so many reasons.

Voter turnout is low across the board, and at least some people aren't doing it because they've lost faith in the system in place. I mean, why vote if the only two real options are 'evil' or 'incompetent'? One of them might end up in power, but do you really want your stamp of approval to be on either?

This view comes from a misunderstanding of what third parties are for in a two party system.

They don't exist to have a chance or to win. They exist as a way for the populace to speak against the major two parties and let the major two parties know that the populace isn't happy with them and that they need to adjust. Like, no, the green party isn't going to win an election even if everyone in the country gets out and votes. At least not within the forseeable future.

However, if a large enough chunk of left-wing voters vote green party, the democratic vote gets split and the democrats are forced to look at this and realize their core constituency is so unhappy with them that not only are they not voting democrat, they are specifically voting for something similar that is not democrat. It sends a message that they need to fix their shit. That the voters are tired of them being republican lite and that they need to be more adamantly left wing to keep their core constituency.

The same thing goes for the right wing voters voting for the libertarian party. The libertarians aren't ever going to win either, but if the libertarian vote splits the republican vote then republicans are going to be looking at this and realize that a large number of their core constituency actually just wants them to get back to the smaller government thing and stop faffing about with being a horrible empire of oppressive shit stains.

Like, I'm not sure that's a thing that's true for the majority of right wing voters, but if the libertarians got enough of a vote to split the republican vote in a meaningful way it would observably be thus even to the republican party leaders.

Voting third party is doing exactly what you're saying not voting at all does, except that it ACTUALLY WORKS, it's been observed to work. It's caused parties to re-evaluate and re-adjust in the past. Voter apathy has never changed anything because it's such an epidemic in the states already that no one pays any attention to it at all.

[Steel Shadow]

This view comes from a misunderstanding of what third parties are for in a two party system.

They don't exist to have a chance or to win. They exist as a way for the populace to speak against the major two parties and let the major two parties know that the populace isn't happy with them and that they need to adjust. Like, no, the green party isn't going to win an election even if everyone in the country gets out and votes. At least not within the forseeable future.

It's a fairly common view though, because third parties are, from what I've seen, continuously promoted as "The guys who might win if you just voted for us come on we're totally gunna get into power!" I'll fully grant that it's not an educated and well informed view, but most people don't really have time/can't be bothered to do research and get well informed. So Apathy.

Voting third party is doing exactly what you're saying not voting at all does, except that it ACTUALLY WORKS, it's been observed to work. It's caused parties to re-evaluate and re-adjust in the past. Voter apathy has never changed anything because it's such an epidemic in the states already that no one pays any attention to it at all.

I wouldn't mind seeing examples of when this has actually worked. Like, anything recent? It's American politics, I'm struggling to stay informed about my own over here.

I hold no illusions about Not-Voting doing anything in the immediate sense, don't get me wrong there. Politicians certainly don't care. What'd happen if the trend continues? Will there be a snap back? Will the system disintegrate? I kinda doubt both. Honestly though, yelling "Not Voting is terrible and you're horrible for doing it!" solves just as much as not voting. Sort out why people don't vote. With the amount of hype and pestering that vote day gets, people who don't attend have likely made the decisioned not to. Telling them off for it's just going to be annoying.

[Loyal]

What'd happen if the trend continues? Will there be a snap back? Will the system disintegrate? I kinda doubt both. Honestly though, yelling "Not Voting is terrible and you're horrible for doing it!" solves just as much as not voting.

You're literally advocating doing nothing on the off chance that somehow, somewhen down the line, something (we don't know what) might happen to the system and that something might be beneficial to us.

And that furthermore, this is preferable to trying to get people to do something, because doing so is kind of annoying to the people who want to do nothing.

With the amount of hype and pestering that vote day gets, people who don't attend have likely made the decisioned not to. Telling them off for it's just going to be annoying.

What does this even mean? That someone who's consciously made a particular decision is automatically correct? That their choice is unassailable and should never be contested?

Also, please refrain from going "I know I shouldn't be here with you experienced debaters and such," because it clearly hasn't stopped you since you're posting here anyway. Also because it makes you look lost and helpless and makes us look like mean old bad guys for opposing you.

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Liz

Nope. They are shit, but they aren't as shit, as many of the recent attempts by the right to limit the voting ability of the disenfranchised and the rights of women have shown.

They're just as partisan as anyone else and the likes of Charles Schumer, Obama, and Rahm Emanuel or just as horrid as John Boehner, Darrell Issa (great on SOPA, horrid on contraceptives), or Chuck Grassley.

Seriously, having one party in Congress is a truly bad idea. I'd rather there be actual Libertarians such as Karen Kwiatkowski, Sheriff Mack, or the the 10 Occupy candidates who won't adhere to the two party system. At least hopefully, they'll do enough to change the rules to be a much fairer system in general.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Jagos

The Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.

Ahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha
Oh I needed that laugh today

Thanks!

EDIT: Because Democrats are like, totally all tryin' to pass state sanctioned rape against women these days

EDIT 2: Also, Obama is no way more intelligent, cautious, discerning or capable of acting as President than George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum

EDIT 3: And oh man, remember when Obama relied on U.S. ground forces to invade Libya? And now he's going to invade Iran!

EDIT 4: And you know how Democrats are totally against homosexual couples existing

EDIT 5: I nearly forgot how Democrats recently led the charge to lower taxes for the richest Americans and eliminate the welfare system

EDIT 6: Oh and did you hear Al Gore recently denied that global warming existed and is avidly campaigning for increased fossil fuel consumption?

EDIT 7: Why just yesterday John Kerry emphatically stated in an interview that he earnestly hoped Obama's new Supreme Court justices would overturn Roe v. Wade

EDIT 8: And Hillary Clinton's been on the record lately as noting that evolution is an unsupported myth, and we need to teach our kids intelligent design theories alongside evolution

[Kim]

Like, the ways in which democrats are terrible are, by and large, ways in which Republicans are also terrible. Except Republicans are terrible in these ways and then like fifty more. Also, the Dems are bad for being partisan? If these last four years have proven anything, it's that they aren't partisan enough.

[Solid Snake]

Personally, I feel that corporate influence in America will prevent any successful political party in America from being totally correct on economic issues, but the Democrats are still better than Republicans there because the Democrats acknowledge that Labor Unions should exist

...And in my opinion, social, environmental, and foreign policy issues are all more important than economic issues, and there the Democrats pretty much have the right ideas. They don't go quite far enough, but that's only because they're chickenshits and/or they still act under the false assumption that Republicans are decent people who can be reasonably negotiated with in good faith. But they still have the correct logical foundations for their positions, ie global warming exists, racial and sexual discrimination exists, women and minorities and homosexuals are people, so there's that.