The Logic Of Not Voting ?
Options
Comments
-
I see a few comments insinuatin some peole think Hillary is as bad as Trump. I think generally most people dont look at it like that. I sure dont. There are people who arent necessarily too excited about her maybe but she has intellience. Decorum. She was actually in the White house for 8 years and saw and even has experience of that job first hand. She was secretary of state. Ive heard her described as more of a centrist. She understands how the whole thin works internationally and domestically. All the things Trump is not. Its cartoonish the difference. Taking emotion out of it and look at it objectively I dont see how it would be hard to understand why someone would see her as qualified and vote for her.
-
There's some logic to it.NoCompetition wrote: »I see a few comments insinuatin some peole think Hillary is as bad as Trump. I think generally most people dont look at it like that. I sure dont. There are people who arent necessarily too excited about her maybe but she has intellience. Decorum. She was actually in the White house for 8 years and saw and even has experience of that job first hand. She was secretary of state. Ive heard her described as more of a centrist. She understands how the whole thin works internationally and domestically. All the things Trump is not. Its cartoonish the difference. Taking emotion out of it and look at it objectively I dont see how it would be hard to understand why someone would see her as qualified and vote for her.
I just explained VERY clearly in this thread why Clinton is worse than trump objectively, and part of that reason is exactly because she was a part of the system for close to 2 decades now so she was actually creating policy to further oppress blacks
And once again, the Clinton's stole the multi billion dollar Haitian earthquake relief fund and made Haiti objectively worse since the earthquake
And I already spoke on the massive student loan debt that the Clinton's are responsible for
I'm not sure why you're defending Hillary, once again she is just as bad if not worse than trump. You're letting the MSM make your opinion for you -
There's absolutely no logic to it.
xxCivicxx is Neo.
But all I needed to hear from you is that issues like:
-Women's rights
-? rights
-Maternity/Patenrity Leave
-Affordable childcare
-Trade Policy
-Clean Energy etc.
Were just "buzz words" because they are either not important to YOU or you mistakenly don't believe that they apply to you
And in your mind, the president only serves to further your own personal agenda and what you deem to be important.
The rest of the country or the myriad of issues that affect them do not exist.
I ask you why you specifically like hillary and dislike trump and you keep changing the subject
You can look at every politician ... every person ... and find a negative consequence or a negative spin on something that they have done.
For Christ's sake, the woman has been in politics for nearly 40 years ... on the front line organizing programs and helping people since she was a damn teenager.
Name your favorite president or historical figure - you don't think someone can find some dirt on them?
Paint them in a negative light?
I'm not under the illusion that she is perfect.
NO ONE IS ...
ESPECIALLY anyone who is a politician.
But since we live in REALITY.. flawed as it may be.
Since we live in the PRESENT and are looking towards the FUTURE ... not the PAST
I am more interested in what she is GOING TO DO.
Let's take a lookLAW ENFORCEMENT REFORM
- Developing national guidelines outlining the appropriate use of force by police officers. A clear set of rules has never existed, instead it has always been completely subjective and up to the officer's discretion as to what qualifies as "imminent danger"
- Acknowledging Implicit Bias and Investing over $1 Billion in state-of-the-art law enforcement training at every level. Addressing issues such as alternatives to incarceration, community policing, use of force, de-escalation, crisis intervention etc.
- Supporting federal, state and local legislation to combat racial profiling
- Strengthening the U.S. Department of Justice’s pattern or practice unit—to better identify and investigate civil rights violations.
- Doubling funding for the U.S. Department of Justice “Collaborative Reform” program. Helping the curation and mobilization of best practices and effective policing strategies.
- Providing federal matching funds to make body cameras available to every police department in America.
- Collecting and reporting national data to inform policing strategies and provide greater transparency and accountability when it comes to crime, officer-involved shootings, and deaths in custody.
COMBAT MASS INCARCERATION
- Reforming mandatory minimum sentencing. Mitigate the excessively long sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders. Effectively fighting against racial inequality in our criminal justice system.
- Cutting mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in half.
• Allowing current nonviolent prisoners to seek fairer sentences
• Eliminating the sentencing disparity for ? and powder ? so that equal amounts of ? and powder ? carry equal sentences, and applying this change retroactively.
• Reforming the “strike” system, so that nonviolent drug offenses no longer count as a “strike,” reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.
- Focusing federal enforcement resources on violent crime, not simple marijuana possession.
- Prioritizing treatment and rehabilitation—rather than incarceration—for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders.
- Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline.
Providing $2 billion in support to schools to reform overly punitive disciplinary policies, calling on states to reform school disturbance laws, and encouraging states to use federal education funding to implement social and emotional support interventions.
- Ending the privatization of prisons. Removing private industry incentives to over-incarceration.
- Promote successful re-entry by formerly incarcerated individuals
•Removing barriers and creating pathways to employment, housing, health care, education, and civic participation, including:
•Taking executive action to “ban the box” for federal employers and contractors, so that applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records.
•Investing $5 billion in re-entry job programs for formerly incarcerated individuals so that individuals can have a fair shot at getting back on their feet and becoming productive, contributing members of society.
•Supporting legislation to restore voting rights to individuals who have served their sentences.
- Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill
Education
- Launch a national campaign to modernize and elevate the profession of teaching.
- State and Shool District funding to provide every student in America an opportunity to learn computer science.
- Rebuild America’s schools.
Double subsidies for efforts to fix and modernize America’s classrooms
- Affordable College Allowing families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities.
•All community colleges will offer free tuition.
•A $25 billion fund will support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions in building new ladders of opportunity for students.
•Borrowers will be able to refinance loans at current rates, providing debt relief to an estimated 25 million people. They’ll never have to pay back more than 10 percent of their income, and all remaining college debt will be forgiven after 20 years.
•Delinquent borrowers and those in default will get help to protect their credit and get back on their feet.
•Significantly cut interest rates to reduce the burden for future borrowers so the government never profits from college student loans.
- ? down on predatory schools, lenders, and bill collectors.
-Executive action to offer a three-month moratorium on student loan payments to all federal loan borrowers.
That will give every borrower a chance to consolidate their loans, sign up for income-based repayment plans, and take advantage of opportunities to reduce their monthly interest payments and fees.
Let's talk about the ISSUES. Not the PEOPLE.
Tell me how the FUTURE of Black people is the same or better with Donald Trump as opposed to Hilary Clinton as President.
Not even mentioning the myriad of other Issues and considerations amongst Americans and other actors on the world stage. -
Boy if Trump wins I better not hear anybody say ? lol. We're ? either way right? I can't wait til election night! I'm going to have my popcorn ready!
-
-
People are going to do what they wany to. I'd rather the uneducated folks not vote but sadly they seem to do most of the voting.
Last night proved the emboldened point to the fullest.
-
I see what u doing ts
Making the non voters vote on why they dont vote or do vote....
Well I was gon vote but now I am not gon vote on why I dont vote.... -
There's some logic to it.I don't understand why so many people have such animosity against people who don't vote. I mean it's one thing if people don't vote out of laziness, but if people have reasons or principles for why they don't vote, they are still exercising a right. A right isn't only a right when you choose to use it. A right is also a right when you choose not to use it.
I didn't vote because 1) I'm not in a swing state or a state in jeopardy, so my vote literally wouldn't have mattered. Everybody can't think that way of course. It would be problematic, but everybody doesn't think that way, so I can. 2) More importantly, I didn't vote because I didn't trust either of the candidates. Trump is bad in just about every way, but what is good about Hillary? All these people riding and dying for her can't even give you a good answer for that question. All they can do is say "She's not as bad as Trump." That doesn't instill confidence in her and I don't even know if it's true.
If I lived in a swing state or one in jeopardy, I would have bit the bullet and voted for Hillary because I think she is the lesser evil. But I don't so I chose to abstain from supporting either of those people. -
There's absolutely no logic to it.can we at least just bump this thread in 2020 instead of starting a new one?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand why so many people have such animosity against people who don't vote. I mean it's one thing if people don't vote out of laziness, but if people have reasons or principles for why they don't vote, they are still exercising a right. A right isn't only a right when you choose to use it. A right is also a right when you choose not to use it.
I didn't vote because 1) I'm not in a swing state or a state in jeopardy, so my vote literally wouldn't have mattered. Everybody can't think that way of course. It would be problematic, but everybody doesn't think that way, so I can. 2) More importantly, I didn't vote because I didn't trust either of the candidates. Trump is bad in just about every way, but what is good about Hillary? All these people riding and dying for her can't even give you a good answer for that question. All they can do is say "She's not as bad as Trump." That doesn't instill confidence in her and I don't even know if it's true.
If I lived in a swing state or one in jeopardy, I would have bit the bullet and voted for Hillary because I think she is the lesser evil. But I don't so I chose to abstain from supporting either of those people.
1. It doesn't only become problematic when EVERYBODY thinks like that. It becomes problematic when the number of people in a state who think like that is enough to determine the winner in that state, which was the case in a lot of states.
2. You didn't like 'either' of the candidates? There were more than 2 candidates and a slot to write in whoever you felt would make the best President.
I'm not one of these people who feel animosity towards non-voters. But let's keep it a buck. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
If I lived in a swing state or one in jeopardy, I would have bit the bullet and voted for Hillary because I think she is the lesser evil. But I don't so I chose to abstain from supporting either of those people.
I agree with this. With that said I still went out there not because I really thought Jill Stein had a chance; but because it was crucial for me to make sure that my congress people and assembly people had a shot at staying in.
Also to make sure I try to help the SC become more balanced for all our sakes. If people didn't take that kind of ? into account than other states like Cali would not have Kamala Harris as a senator. Which truth be told was a blessing in itself.
-
There's some logic to it.mryounggun wrote: »
1. It doesn't only become problematic when EVERYBODY thinks like that. It becomes problematic when the number of people in a state who think like that is enough to determine the winner in that state, which was the case in a lot of states.
2. You didn't like 'either' of the candidates? There were more than 2 candidates and a slot to write in whoever you felt would make the best President.
I'm not one of these people who feel animosity towards non-voters. But let's keep it a buck.
1) The point is that MD is still strongly blue and was never in jeopardy in the slightest. She won it by more than 600K votes, so my vote or lack thereof was trivial.
2) You said "like." I said "trust." You and others keep trying to make this into a matter of whether or not I'd want to kick it with one of them or not, but that's not the case. It's about what I felt like they'd do if they were in office. Trump is a lunatic, and that's bad of course. But Hillary is a corporate shill. That's bad too, and it's not as much better as some people seem to think. As for the two other candidates, both of them were just as unqualified to be president as Trump and neither of them had even a remote chance of winning. And how would be writing in a candidate who also had no chance been any different from simply not voting. There is no logic in the argument you're making. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »
1. It doesn't only become problematic when EVERYBODY thinks like that. It becomes problematic when the number of people in a state who think like that is enough to determine the winner in that state, which was the case in a lot of states.
2. You didn't like 'either' of the candidates? There were more than 2 candidates and a slot to write in whoever you felt would make the best President.
I'm not one of these people who feel animosity towards non-voters. But let's keep it a buck.
1) The point is that MD is still strongly blue and was never in jeopardy in the slightest. She won it by more than 600K votes, so my vote or lack thereof was trivial.
2) You said "like." I said "trust." You and others keep trying to make this into a matter of whether or not I'd want to kick it with one of them or not, but that's not the case. It's about what I felt like they'd do if they were in office. Trump is a lunatic, and that's bad of course. But Hillary is a corporate shill. That's bad too, and it's not as much better as some people seem to think. As for the two other candidates, both of them were just as unqualified to be president as Trump and neither of them had even a remote chance of winning. And how would be writing in a candidate who also had no chance been any different from simply not voting. There is no logic in the argument you're making.
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same. -
mryounggun wrote: »
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same.
Oh please. Keep it 100.
Millions of people saying the same ? ... -
There's some logic to it.mryounggun wrote: »
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same.
1) I do have a way because I actually research and read, not just about what's going on, but also with history. There was 0 chance MD was going to Trump, and it didn't. You can throw your hypotheticals out there all you want. I live in the real world not a hypothetical one. I made my decision based on what the real world data told me and that data was correct.
2) No I didn't vote because there was no one I wanted to vote for. Period. These discussions are only about two candidates so that's why emphasized them, but make no mistake, the other two were not good candidates either. And again, you keep proposing this "write-in" solution as some kind of viable option. You say you don't see how those could be the same. You tell me what is the difference between the end effect of me writing in a name nobody else will vote for and me not voting at all? -
There's some logic to it.
Do you think you're educated? -
There's some logic to it.mryounggun wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand why so many people have such animosity against people who don't vote. I mean it's one thing if people don't vote out of laziness, but if people have reasons or principles for why they don't vote, they are still exercising a right. A right isn't only a right when you choose to use it. A right is also a right when you choose not to use it.
I didn't vote because 1) I'm not in a swing state or a state in jeopardy, so my vote literally wouldn't have mattered. Everybody can't think that way of course. It would be problematic, but everybody doesn't think that way, so I can. 2) More importantly, I didn't vote because I didn't trust either of the candidates. Trump is bad in just about every way, but what is good about Hillary? All these people riding and dying for her can't even give you a good answer for that question. All they can do is say "She's not as bad as Trump." That doesn't instill confidence in her and I don't even know if it's true.
If I lived in a swing state or one in jeopardy, I would have bit the bullet and voted for Hillary because I think she is the lesser evil. But I don't so I chose to abstain from supporting either of those people.
1. It doesn't only become problematic when EVERYBODY thinks like that. It becomes problematic when the number of people in a state who think like that is enough to determine the winner in that state, which was the case in a lot of states.
2. You didn't like 'either' of the candidates? There were more than 2 candidates and a slot to write in whoever you felt would make the best President.
I'm not one of these people who feel animosity towards non-voters. But let's keep it a buck.
#1 is called a swing state, which he spoke on, so your #1 is redundant -
I was educated enough with my voting decisions yesterday to make sound ones that actually made a difference to my state and community. -
mryounggun wrote: »
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same.
Oh please. Keep it 100.
Millions of people saying the same ? ...
So we're in here talking about not voting or voting for a 3rd party, etc, and you decided to join the conversation by basically saying, 'But look, people on Twitter are saying it!!!'.
Seems legit. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same.
1) I do have a way because I actually research and read, not just about what's going on, but also with history. There was 0 chance MD was going to Trump, and it didn't. You can throw your hypotheticals out there all you want. I live in the real world not a hypothetical one. I made my decision based on what the real world data told me and that data was correct.
2) No I didn't vote because there was no one I wanted to vote for. Period. These discussions are only about two candidates so that's why emphasized them, but make no mistake, the other two were not good candidates either. And again, you keep proposing this "write-in" solution as some kind of viable option. You say you don't see how those could be the same. You tell me what is the difference between the end effect of me writing in a name nobody else will vote for and me not voting at all?
The difference is that in one scenario...you've voted. And in the other...you haven't. It's not about if the candidate you write in wins. It's about the democratic process of voting. You seem to think I'm making this some catalytic thing like the world is gonna start turning in reverse if you choose to not vote vs. writing someone in. I'm really struggling because in my mind, this really couldn't be simpler. Why am I having to explain how voting - for a candidate on the ballot or writing someone in - vs. NOT voting, are not the same thing.
But it's pretty clear that you and I aren't gonna see eye to eye on this one. -
mryounggun wrote: »So we're in here talking about not voting or voting for a 3rd party, etc, and you decided to join the conversation by basically saying, 'But look, people on Twitter are saying it!!!'.
Seems legit.
"I struggle with how those two things could be the same." is what you said.
I just came in to say you're the only person who is struggling with that. There's no way in hell you can't put the 2 and 2 together, of someone saying voting 3rd party/write in is equivalent to not voting (in terms of IMPACT).
I just threw in some random tweets to substantiate what I was saying. Would you rather i pull up youtube videos. Or quote ? from this forum. Or record the people from my watch party? It's the overwhelming consensus among most people I've seen/heard/talked to. Who cares from which medium I pull the opinions from? -
mryounggun wrote: »
1. The point is that, while Maryland is still strongly blue, you really have no way at all of knowing who shares your 'Other people got this ? ! I can not vote and we'll still come out blue!'. Enough blues feel like that and red wins. It works out for you guys THIS time. But be wary.
2. Everything before 'As for the two other candidates...' is irrelevant because my point is that your post seemed to indicate that you only had the choice to vote for 2 candidates and that is false. As for the other two not being qualified - per my other point - write in who you DO feel is qualified. As for you feeling that that is no different than not voting, not sure how you could come to that conclusion. VOTING for a candidate by writing him/her in is the exact opposite of NOT VOTING. I struggle with how those two things could be the same.
Oh please. Keep it 100.
Millions of people saying the same ? ...
Not the first or the last time millions of people would be wrong. -
mryounggun wrote: »So we're in here talking about not voting or voting for a 3rd party, etc, and you decided to join the conversation by basically saying, 'But look, people on Twitter are saying it!!!'.
Seems legit.
"I struggle with how those two things could be the same." is what you said.
I just came in to say you're the only person who is struggling with that. There's no way in hell you can't put the 2 and 2 together, of someone saying voting 3rd party/write in is equivalent to not voting (in terms of IMPACT).
I just threw in some random tweets to substantiate what I was saying. Would you rather i pull up youtube videos. Or quote ? from this forum. Or record the people from my watch party? It's the overwhelming consensus among most people I've seen/heard/talked to. Who cares from which medium I pull the opinions from?
If you have to qualify the statement like you just did...that means you know that the original statement was incorrect. Additionally, nothing you posted substantiates anything. If I give my opinion, it's not substantiated just because I can find some people who agree with it. -
Not the first or the last time millions of people would be wrong.
Of course. But if you followed closely, my point in posting those opinions was not to say if they were right or wrong... It was to note what the consensus thought was. -
mryounggun wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »So we're in here talking about not voting or voting for a 3rd party, etc, and you decided to join the conversation by basically saying, 'But look, people on Twitter are saying it!!!'.
Seems legit.
"I struggle with how those two things could be the same." is what you said.
I just came in to say you're the only person who is struggling with that. There's no way in hell you can't put the 2 and 2 together, of someone saying voting 3rd party/write in is equivalent to not voting (in terms of IMPACT).
I just threw in some random tweets to substantiate what I was saying. Would you rather i pull up youtube videos. Or quote ? from this forum. Or record the people from my watch party? It's the overwhelming consensus among most people I've seen/heard/talked to. Who cares from which medium I pull the opinions from?
If you have to qualify the statement like you just did...that means you know that the original statement was incorrect. Additionally, nothing you posted substantiates anything. If I give my opinion, it's not substantiated just because I can find some people who agree with it.
LMAO what? Incorrect.
You are operating under the assumption that I either agree or disagree with the opinions of those I posted.
If my stance is "most people think that voting third party = not voting" then the only way to prove said statement, is with numbers and examples.
Once again, I am not saying they are right or wrong, I am saying that is what MOST PEOPLE THINK. To dispute you originally saying "not sure how you come to that conclusion" to the other dude. I just think it's funny because MOST people came to that conclusion.
