That would be a mistake. Low turnout will give Trump another term, I suspect. Frankly, after last night's excuse for a debate, I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't what happens. It was a free-for-all. The only adults in the room were Klobushar, Buttigieg and Steyer. The rest of them had their talons out and spend the first half hour trying to stab one another. I couldn't listen to anymore of it. Everyone was talking over everyone else and the moderators had absolutely no control over anything.
I didn't even bother. I had no hope it would be any different. Sadly I was right from what I'm reading. They are a buncha babies hissy fitting and completely ignoring the elephant in the room. But even so whichever one is the dem candidate I will vote for. Even if I have to hold my nose. Not voting is not an option. Thank you for your reply L! :)
I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate. I thought maybe after Bloomberg did so badly in the last debate I would watch to see if he did better and if they actually spoke about issues rather than ripping their opponents a new one. I won't make that mistake again.
Me too but well you know that L. We watched as much of the first "debate" as we could tolerate. About an hour and a half into it we bailed. Didn't bother watching the next one. As it turns out we didn't miss anything we didn't already see/hear during the prior "debate". To a one they are all so dumb. I didn't know that before. I know that now. Though a couple were less dumb and maybe that's all we can hope for.HOWEVER I do not believe that "less dumb" even matters to others. I do not believe most people care about intelligence at all. So rule that out as a consideration. Thank you for your reply L! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at February 27, 2020 9:57 AM MST
Because each of us has the constitutional right to vote or not vote as we see fit. Nobody is obligated to explain or defend his or her choice to anybody else.
No it is a right. If someone choices to excercise that right then they have the responsibly to learn about the issues and which candidate most closely matches the voters positions on those issues. www.isidewith.com is a wonderful site for people to use for this process.
No one should vote based on who they "would like to have a beer with".....that is irresponsible in my opinion.
Calling the tail of a dog a leg does not change the number of legs the dogs have---so by analogy, becoming informed and then voting is still a responsibility.
Whom we eat with and whom we refuse to eat with is determined by whether we feel a kinship with those people based on our shared principles (what some people refer to as "fluff")---so I'd never drink anything with Trump unless I were dying of thirst.
Trump's principles are philosophically abhorrent to me.
But if one does not understand the importance of principle, I can see why one might suggest that finding out the candidate whose policies most match the voter's would sound attractive, but that information is not really useful---some policies are definitely worthwhile, but like John Tower, PhD (honorary), Republican Senator from Texas, he was too far ahead of his time.
But by the same reasoning, one might suggest that heterosexual women who want to marry should choose eunuchs so that those women would never have to worry about whether their spouses would cheat on them.
A policy that would absolutely eliminate a woman's concern about her spouse's possibly cheating, but not the philosophical basis in principles for a satisfying intimate relationship.
This post was edited by tom jackson at February 26, 2020 1:31 PM MST
A Presidents personal behavior has no long term effect on a country....unless it effects the laws being passed or not passed. Because those are what matter in the scheme of things. Do Bill's affairs matter now? Or does his signing a bill into law that deregulated the banks? The affair while distasteful is "fluff" or "style" while the law is policy or "substance"? And YES, it is substance/policy that matters. And I will take Substance over style all day long.
This post was edited by my2cents at February 26, 2020 6:45 PM MST
Of course you would take substance over style---those of us who realize that it is style and fluff that determine substance in the long run are those who disagree with your evaluation of what is important.
That's why learning how to think should be a basic requirement along with "readin" and writin" in our schools.
More interesting is how Trump supporters refuse to see the big picture.
I must look up obdurate and intransigent when I get a chance and see if that adds to my understanding of the phenomenon that is apparently sweeping this country.
Thank you for suggesting another path of inquiry for me to explore..
Big picture is the laws passed or not passed. That is the big picture. Why concentrate on a thorny bush in the background instead of the big beautiful forrest that our country truly is and how much fuller and greener it has become recently.
Let me thank you again for suggesting that other path of inquiry---My current hypothesis that I am testing is that failure to realize what the big picture actually contains is possibly a character flaw (at least in some cases) rather than solely an intellectual aberration---I promise to keep you posted on my research.
What you refer to as that "thorny bush" is rooted in place, easily avoidable, and not infectious---unfortunately what you see as a "thorny bush" is actually a highly infectious carrier of a disease that is highly dangerous to the democracy.
I've heard it said that there are no such thing as "stupid" questions---That's not entirely true---Professors use those questions to determine whether the student asking them has the necessary prerequisites in their background to avoid being intransigent and obdurate in persisting in their errors.
And so we professors seldom try to really answer them because it requires a different level of the concepts in play by the person who asks them than the level the professor can reasonably infer from the questions.
I've tried previously in my life to answer them anyway, but I have experienced too few results for the work I have invested to continue to do so.
((hugs)) YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON tom! I am APPALLED at their replies. No wonder we are in the mess we're in. They just don't give a dam*. It is their way or screw it. SIGH. Thank you for your reply. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who feels as I do and that is VERY depressing. Then I encounter someone like you and feel better! Happy Wednesday! :)
I think it's an acceptable reason to not vote but I would still vote anyway. I'd either vote for the other party if one party's nominee was that bad, or I'd vote for the third party candidate or I'd just leave that space on the ballot blank. Why should people have to vote for whoever the party nominates in a general election? Telling everyone they should support whoever the party nominates just sounds like an entitlement complex to me so I didn't think that people who supported Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz had any obligation to vote for Donald Trump the last time around and I don't think Bernie Sanders supporters would have any obligation to vote for Michael Bloomberg if that's how it turns out this time around. Parties just aren't that important to me.
I just see it differently. I vote in every election but if someone doesn't vote because a candidate they supported lost a primary and the major party choices left over are Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich then staying home on election day is their prerogative even though I think there are better ways of handling it. They could vote for a third party. They could also write in someone if their state allows it. They could turn in a blank ballot if their state allows it or they could vote for none-of-the-above if their state gives them that choice.
We have to get behind the nominee now! It's time to support the nominee!
I think that's a game that the Republicans and the Democrats have been playing for a long time. Umm, no. Nobody HAS to get behind either party's nominee. When they say that, what I hear is I'm ENTITLED to have all of the people who voted for my primary opponent vote for me in the general election. They OWE me their votes! THEY OWE ME! Entitled much?
So, good on the Bernie Bros for telling The Party where to shove it if The Party expects them to support someone else just because they nominated someone else.
On second though, why?---does one figure taking a 50-50 shot at making an intelligent decision better odds than one could make if he were an informed voter?
Simply expressing oneself is way down the list of meaningful reasons to vote.
SpunkySenior 