|
Election burnout.
|
|
Am I the only one that wants this election over with? I'm almost at the point
of saying that after this one I won't vote ever again I'm that tired and disgusted with it. So am I alone? 
The problem is, no matter who we vote in, the next day I for one am going to be thinking, "Lord Arioch forgive us, what have we
done?!" ----- Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING. 
Don't worry - we vote on Tuesday. It's only the folks in the USA who have another month of this hell.
(Wondering whether I should bother voting. Ever since the last time the riding boundaries were redrawn, the poll here has been to find out who comes second, third, and fourth to the Liberal candidate, so it's not like it'd make a difference...) -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
There are two camps of thought on that. The first camp is 'If you don't take part in the
process what right do you have to complain about how the Goverment is run?' which in my opinion kinda makes sense. The second camp is ' I don't want to vote because I'll make a bad situation worse.' which also makes sense. I like the first one better though.  
Unfortunately, this is what everyone has to deal with when the political body is a veritable snake pit.
If you don't like any of the options, get your arse up and start grassroots support for something you do like. People in Canada have no damn excuse for
this "they're all the same" garbage (if nothing else, your vote gives money to your preferred party, or incrementally increases their chances of getting funding, as well as helping your preferred candidate recoup campaign expenses), and after the last eight years, neither do Americans. 
It would probably be healthier for the country if more people realised that they were picking the less bad choice, instead of convincing themselves that they
were voting for Mr perfect and that anyone who votes for the other guy must be evil, stupid or insane. The level of demonization and spewing hatred you can find is worrying. Cynicism is more reassuring than fanaticism. Quote:It would probably be healthier for the country if more people realised that they were picking the less bad choice, instead of convincing themselves that they were voting for Mr perfect and that anyone who votes for the other guy must be evil, stupid or insane. The level of demonization and spewing hatred you can find is worrying. Cynicism is more reassuring than fanaticism. QFT -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.  Quote:The level of demonization and spewing hatred you can find is worrying.Tell me about it -- I think it was Newsweek last week had an article about how there's a certain undertone of actual rage starting to show up in Republican rallies, with people yelling for Obama's death. I've been a bit distracted this past week+ because of my mom's surgery, but I seem to recall hearing that McCain didn't repudiate them, either, at least for a little while (and then it was mostly too little too late). -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
It goes on on both sides. I can't count the number of times I've heard people being accused of being racist bigots (and worse) for refusing to vote for
the Obamessiah. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Perhaps it would help if you referred to him by his actual name. Like an adult, talking about an adult.
This from the person whose user avatar is a petulant child.
-- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
You stay classy, ECS.
(By the way, my avatar is an SD version of a 23-year-old fanfic character.)
Given that some Obama supporters are describing him like a religious figure, I see no reason why people on the other side shouldn't use it in snark.
On the other hand, I'd be quite happy to see the practice abandoned if people would also stop calling George Bush "shrub". -Morgan.
It's hard to when any sort of criticism is met with an accusation of racism. IE :William Aers and the
response by a 'independant obama supporter' that they were inciting racial hatred. *sigh* Same old democrapic trick of hiding behind race or sex instead of going on merit and logic.
BTw for the record I like Ayiekie's avatar. It fits perfectly with most of his postings
Calling Bush "shrub" is also infantile. And Fidoohki, there has been tons of criticism of Obama (justified and eminently unjustified), which has not
been met by accusations of racism. This "woe is us, hapless victims of the biased media" nonsense really ought to stop. The media chases whatever it thinks the public likes to see, and that even applies to openly biased media outlets like Fox - ultimately, they are beholden to stockholders more than to any ideology. Obama gets a lot of favourable coverage because he is charismatic and likable; McCain also gets a lot of favourable coverage due to his (not exactly factually unassailable) status as a "maverick" and POW history. The race issue has been used against Obama at least as much as it been used in support of him; ignoring that is applying ideological blinders to your vision.
It's interesting, really. I just dropped into a few political threads on RPGNet's Tangency forum, to grab a random sampling of views, and the
overwhelmingly repeated phrase, by nearly everyone who was posting as an Obama supporter, was "Republicans are afraid of Obama because he's black". The accusations of racism were blatant and deliberate. Nothing veiled at all. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
The opinions of some guys on RPGNet's Tangency board? There's conclusive evidence we can believe in!
I notice you didn't actually post a link to the thread in question. I can't imagine why not, so I'll rectify that for you. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=419592 What you neglected to mention, somehow, was that the actual thread was about "what is it about Obama that brings out wingnuts and conspiracy theorists"; not "why do Republicans not like the Democratic nominee for President". I can't imagine why you didn't mention this; I mean, other than the fact that it completely destroys the point you were trying to make. It's... I don't know... interesting, really, how you forget those little details. It is also notable that in the thread, several people take the viewpoint that "it's nothing special about him, there's the same reaction to any Democrat who has a shot at winning" and make direct comparisons to Bill Clinton (who is, as you may know, not black). References to "the far end of the bell curve" and "lunatic fringe" are liberally (har!) peppered in the thread. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost as if ECS was deliberately misrepresenting what was actually said in order to reinforce his conspiracy theories. But don't take my word for it. Look at the thread. Since there's actually a link now, as opposed to taking some guy's word for it. Quote: Ayiekie wrote:Name three justifiable critisms of Barrack Obama. Legitimate specific ones. Not ' he's inexpirienced.' That's debatable whether it is a critism or not given the level of political ineptitude the 'more expirienced politicians have. (( John McCain excluded of course ))And being charismatic and likable does not give you card blanche to ignore negative things about the person while crucifying his opponent.
Three legitimate criticisms of Obama? Sure. Heck, I'll give you four.
- His platform includes an explicit rejection of gay marriage. I do not condone pandering to bigots for votes. - He made a dishonest claim in the primaries about renegotiating NAFTA to gain votes (and got caught at it). I do not condone lying. - Obama ducked the question about $932 million in earmarks during the debates. This is because, whether that was the exact number of not, he certainly participated in this practice. He will almost certainly do nothing about it, either, despite it being a primary cause of waste, corruption and mismanagement in the American government. I do not condone corruption. - Obama has not provided anything even resembling a coherent economic plan, particularly his health care plan - with the American economy in shambles and the debt at unprecedented levels, a straight answer on how he plans to afford things would be appreciated. I do not condone election promises that aren't grounded in a reasonable projection of reality, and there's no proof his are. Once again, you are simply flat-out wrong to say the media has ignored negative things about Obama ("bitter", anybody?) or crucified his opponent. Frankly, if they'd been trying to crucify John McCain, his campaign would be dead in the water by now. Don't blame the media for your candidate's woes in the polls. John McCain is losing because he's a Republican and the public is sick of Republicans, because he has no credibility with the public on economic matters, and because his campaign could be generously described as "uninspired" and less generously as "wacky"; meanwhile his opponent is a Democrat, younger, fresher, a brilliant speaker and has avoided too many gaffes either personally or in his campaign. You don't need a conspiracy beyond that.
Okay now how many of these critisms did you get from websites, debates((we know at
least 'one' of them is from this venue)) or personal deduction (IE: Figured it out for yourself)) And how many have you learned from the newsgroup excluding fox.
I learned all of them from (online) news. I'm not even certain which one you think I found out about here.
I was refering the Debates not here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I was getting
at was most of the mainsteam media is for the most part decidedly Obama. The online media is a little different though. I personally tend to not give Online news as much weight as other media on the grounds of there is little to no accountibility online IMO. But they may have a different slant. *shrugs*
The mainstream media isn't decidedly Obama. If they were, Sarah Palin would have been roundly laughed at as opposed to becoming America's biggest
celebrity. The dreaded MSM also gave McCain much higher marks in the debates than actual viewers of them did in polls. Generally the American media bends over backwards to try and avoid ever being seen as against the Republicans, which of course never stops them from routinely blaming the media's bias for any and all bad coverage. Really, after the years of sloppy blowjobs the media gave George W. Bush, it amazes me that anybody can still believe the media is biased against the GOP. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
