Give me a reason to care about politics

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand that part of your statement. There are plenty of people that are not affiliated with the 2 major parties, or any party. Voters don't have to declare.

this all goes back to the evil vrses good thing im shure, night vses day, jesus vses satan. people cant seem to function withought two things opposing each other and it seems like it will always be that way

im also a independent

Monty, you are stretching the original meaning of the terms. The features on a car, and the material in the bread are not the same as how a car is made or how bread is baked. I honestly disagree with you though, people have preferences, and it is not my place to dispute those preferences.

An individual vote? No. Frankly though, I am not pro-democracy anyway. Honestly, I think that voting is merely an expression of personal preferences, not all people should have to care about whether we are run by a democrat or republican if that does not enter their lives. They should know the laws that impact them, such as taxes, and various regulations on behavior, but the actual details of the system? Why should they care? The person does not have to make any additional choices involving knowledge about the system, and such learning seems pointless unless they choose to make additional choices.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 20 Feb 2008, 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

McCain doesn't seem that liberal to me, he is less of a supply-sider perhaps, but he does have a reputation as a pork fighter, a hawk, and is definitely more socially conservative than Paul or Giuliani. Shrimp and pork seem quite different to me. Perhaps we have more of a liberal slant than normal, but then again, Bush has not been the most popular president so such a slant seems normal.

I agree with Orwell. True, people should at least be interested in how their country is run, just as we should (obviously) be interested in how our own houses are run, but politics just seems pointless.

One, two, or even a few thousand serious individual voters aren't much against the huge majority who, as I stated in an earlier post, vote not for who they deem better to run the place, but for who makes the most promises. The best well-connected promise-maker takes it.

I don't live in the States. It may be brainwashing (to a small degree) and manipulation, but it's on the news every day.

Another issue is the news. I've heard few families control the major news channels here in Brazil. They tell a sometimes one-sided story, and it's to be taken with a grain of salt. You never really know what's happening, you know somebodies version.

Candidates here switch parties like they switch their clothes. In any country, how can somebody like that be credible?

All that's why you really have to take human nature, best interest, and that whole equation to the best of your ability and, to the best of your ability, by analyzing cause and effect shake out what doesn't make sense and stick with what does. Yeah, you won't always have the full picture but over time you'll be able to see who's at least doing what they can in their power to straight-shoot and who's lying with the thought in their head "the end justifies the means...the end justifies the means".

That's what I think is probably the most important thing you have to understand if you really want to have views that you feel you can be strong and secure in - see human nature as clearly as you can, without rose colored glasses, without a doomsday outlook either, just coldly truthful regardless of what your emotions think of that truth (which you'd probably agree is the closest thing to a scientific method that someone can apply to their own mind, outlook, and beliefs).

It is that slant I'm referring to. Shrimp and pork are in the same category in Leviticus 11. Quite different animals, but still unclean. I want out of this country, especially if Clinton is elected AGAIN.

They cannot be. "I agree with this. Now I agree with that." Doesn't fly too well with me. If there is good reason to change one's mind, that ok. But just being wishy-washy really is repugnant.

[quote="Awesomelyglorious"]
Monty, you are stretching the original meaning of the terms. The features on a car, and the material in the bread are not the same as how a car is made or how bread is baked. I honestly disagree with you though, people have preferences, and it is not my place to dispute those preferences.
[quote]


I don't think I'm stretching things - taking an interest in politics for me means becoming familiar with the candidates and issues, and making an informed vote.

For the cars and bread analogy, does it require that a person memorize obscure statistics on the manufacturing process? No. But if a person is choosing between a Saturn with plastic panels and another car with metal panels, 'how a car is made' might be a factor they really are interested in.

I'm not disputing their preferences - I'm saying that actively learning about cars or candidates can better match a person's values to a choice. People that wander into a car dealership without a knowledge related to features, prices and financing will get skinned. Same thing in an election.

Exactly. It would be a laughing matter if it weren't so sad.

What is a political party worth then? What exactly is important to these politicians? [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]

Just a thought; the problem with corrupt systems is that if you don't adapt to them, they will find a way to kick you out.

There might even be a politician here and there who genuinely want to make their counties better places to live. I had an acquaintance who went into politics with that mindset. He wasn't elected because he was affiliated with a smaller party with less resources.

If a person like that were to get elected and refused to adapt to a corrupted system, those in there will eventually have him removed because their ideologies don't fit in the bigger picture.

I can ramble on and on and not even say exactly what I want to say. Too impatient to edit.

I think you are, because the alternative is simply not voting.
Not really, heck, all they really would want is a recommendation.

Yes, however, there is a major difference. You can choose NOT to vote. You don't get skinned for not voting. Not voting is a legitimate option where a person does not need a lot of information. Now, perhaps I should have used the term "pencil" because choosing between pencils is less of a choice, however, not voting and voting for all practical intents and purposes are the same choice, but for one we must expend more effort.

Sure, some people have determined that their input is so small that it isn't worth bothering with. That's their choice. Not necessarily a good one (like the reluctance of many people to invest in a 401k, or to buy health insurance). But their decision.

And people do get skinned for not voting. Old folks vote in high numbers, and anyone who talks about cutting social security gets zapped - they call it the third rail of politics. Young people, on the other hand, do not participate, and schools do not always get the same lavish attention.

Oh please, to make that comparison is absolutely stupid. A 401k and health insurance both directly impact the individual, a vote entails 0 change in outcome.

No, GROUPS get skinned for not voting. All you are describing is aggregate behavior, not individual behavior. You can say that aggregates are made of individuals but still, the difference of a single person choosing to vote or not to vote is nil, even in politically contested regions of the nation.