Giving up voting for Ipods?

[Raiden no Kishi]

@Rai

You DO realize all of what Pascal was saying was a joke, right? XD

Well, I was certainly hoping so, but when Pascal replied to my comment about tax rates, I wasn't entirely sure. XD I figured originally that it was so foolish as to only be a joke, however.

.rai//

[Shao Feng-Li]

Getting rid of abortion simply isn't going to happen anytime soon. Remember there's a system of checks and balances, and there's a little Supreme Court case called Roe v. Wade that you may have heard of. The President can't just up and make a law going against the court's decision in that case. I don't like abortion any more than you do, but the President does not have the authority to violate the rulings of the court.

I don't think voting for a candidate that is Christian is a bad thing. I just think it shouldn't be the only quality people look for in a candidate. I know you aren't saying that it is, but there are people out there who vote for someone just because they're Christian. That's a terrible way of doing things.

Well sure. I know he can't just suddenly change things (unfortunately sometimes ...)

While it shouldn't be the ONLY quality, it ought to be the first, eh?

[Dante]

perhaps the answer to this is not to vote for the candidate who claims to follow the most similar beliefs that you do, but rather to vote accordingly to how the Lord would have you to vote

On a serious note.

I wouldn't reccomend it, I don't believe we're spiritually "in tuned" enough as a nation to ask God about who we should vote for. So far, from what I've seen of religious inspired voting it can get pretty ugly, you've got pastors out there giving their congregation the impression that if the Holy Spirit isn't inspiring them to vote for such and such a candidate they should re-evluate their Christian walk, and you've got churchs splintering on account of political divides... even worse, the very bonds built within families are being stretched and broken on account of the political divides (think of an uncontrolled political forum battle royale occuring in your living room with your loved ones). I'm sure opinions vary about this, but I don't think Jesus is cool with that.

Politicians being what they are I've found that they'll generally lie to anyone and tell them precisely what they want to hear, that especially includes religious groups as we tend to be very gullibale (sorry but its true). My modern German History Class for instance taught me something very important, that Hitler gained power because he was successful at wooing the church and then he turned on the istitution once it gave him that power because they no longer supported his actions.

If we had "real" Christian candidate, I would say that there is not a Christian on CAA even in all of America that would vote for him or her. They wouldn't get any air time because they gave all their wealth to the poor, and who would vote for someone who dressed in used clothing and didn't pay $500 for a hair cut? Even worse, because they kept their good deeds secret unlike the Pharisees lacking trumpets in such actions, their contributions would be ignored.

And then there is their abismal political strategy, which being that they were a really good Christian would follow after the life of Christ even for the whole nation:

1. By the end of their administration America would no longer be the wealthiest nation in the world as we would have given all of our wealth to the poor and hurting and would be living on what God gave to us alone.

2. We would love and bless our enemies around the world and use their hatred against us as a basis to show the love of God to them, even as they hated us and persecuted us.

3. We would disband our military as surely God would send armies of angels to aid us if we asked, but we would not as we would instead use our sacrifice to bring glory to God and gain victory over the world by surrendering to be slaughtered by the sword so that we might better understand the sacrifice made for our salvation and to inspire others to turn to God, even our killers as the centurian did believe at Jesus' death. For there would be none among us that would fight our enemies, but instead we would love them to our deaths.

4. By the end of the four years, we would each face rather painful deaths glorifying God as our nation fell to foreign powers, but having no fear as we would have faith that we would pass from life to life by Jesus' grace alone.

...Yep... I'm sure you all want to go out and vote for this fellow right away! :I wrote it and I admit that I cringe when I look at it: When Christ called us to follow after him, he didn't call us to do the easy things, he called us to do the hard things. To build up wealth, to unleash the sword, to hate your enemies, that's easy... to do the opposite willfully isn't just hard, it feels downright unnatural towards biological self preservation and he said it himself... They that shall live have truly died, and those that give up their life are truly alive. I don't believe anyone here thinks the above looks like a nice walk in the park, do I stand corrected?

We're not going to gain a truly good candidate, because we're not going to get Jesus as our president any time soon... We don't even truly live our lives out now as though Jesus WERE OUR personal leader. Thus, if we can't control the space between our skin without running into sin, it seems to me that stating we can do it as a nation is one of those things that is easily said and basically impossible to do. I give you one clap for effort, but the guy in the white house doesn't change how you and I act as Christians... and so on an eternal front they change diddly squat.

As a general rule, I state the following, choose a candidate you can forgive easily, because he/she is going to mess up BIG TIME somewhere, sometime for someone or everyone when they are in charge... that's just how it is as long as we have humans instead of God in charge. And if you realize this ahead of time, you can at least start the process of forgiving them now before they manage to mess it all up and cause the pig sty they are going to create no matter who they are. And then you won't have to worry about all that unforgiveness eating you up from the inside!

hopefully this isn't going crazy, but these kind of conversations always drag people into oddball places... any further conversation should probobly be kept to PM, and if I get angry please report me to a mod so they can bash me upside the head and remind me that I shouldn't go outside the bounds and break God's law of love thy neighbor for the sake of arguing the laws of men.

-Pascal

[Nate]

While it shouldn't be the ONLY quality, it ought to be the first, eh?

No.

Leadership skills should be first. It is better to have a competent atheist president than a dunderheaded Christian president.

So far, from what I've seen of religious inspired voting it can get pretty ugly, you've got pastors out there giving their congregation the impression that if the Holy Spirit isn't inspiring them to vote for such and such a candidate they should re-evluate their Christian walk

Yes, which is why I really don't care for the church to get involved in politics, not to the level where the pastor says "Vote for x or you're not a Christian!" It frustrates me.

Politicians being what they are I've found that they'll generally lie to anyone and tell them precisely what they want to hear, that especially includes religious groups as we tend to be very gullibale (sorry but its true).

I tried to avoid saying this earlier to avoid getting anyone upset, but I'll go ahead and say it now. While some politicians are Christian, and I do not doubt their faith to God, they are masterminds at manipulating the people into using religion or faith-based issues to get votes. This is why any candidate that claims to follow "God's will" immediately sets off a red flag for me. They're just saying that to get elected.

Hitler

NO DUDE! GODWIN'S LAW! ARGGGH!

If we had "real" Christian candidate, I would say that there is not a Christian on CAA even in all of America that would vote for him or her. They wouldn't get any air time because they gave all their wealth to the poor, and who would vote for someone who dressed in used clothing and didn't pay $500 for a hair cut? Even worse, because they kept their good deeds secret unlike the Pharisees lacking trumpets in such actions, their contributions would be ignored.

Oh wow. That's a good point. Give in secret so that even your left hand doesn't know what your right is doing. A true Christian candidate would never sit there and go "I gave all my campaign money to orphans with diseases!" because that would be using their charity for selfish reasons.

You're pretty on the ball, Pascal. :p I don't know if I completely agree with everything you said in your bullet points (even Jesus told the disciples to buy swords y'know, so a military is a necessary evil in my mind), but I think you got a lot of things spot on.

[Shao Feng-Li]

No.

Leadership skills should be first. It is better to have a competent atheist president than a dunderheaded Christian president.

Nuh huh. You want a guy who at least has his foundations right. In that case, you wouldn't want either.

[Kaligraphic]

(Who would Jesus vote for? Himself, natch. )

The political reality of this country is that the extremely rich rule America. They offer us, every four years, the choice of being ruled through puppet A or puppet B. Sometimes, the rich people compete, to move wealth to their areas. The end result is that you end up with a small pool of real rulers, and a large number of potential proxies. No matter which candidate you vote for, you can't really break out of that small circle.

As a remedy to this situation, I propose that we hypnotize the majority of the population to stop voting until I'm eligible to run, and then I can set this country straight. I will, of course, need new people in the House and Senate, so I will be considering applicants for 535 congressional seats. Selection will be by battle royale, and a siren will sound when the number of applicants has been reduced to 535. Please proceed peacefully to the arena exit once the siren sounds, as no further bloodshed will be required. Cake will be served after the elimination. Now, please select your weapon and enter the arena.

[Raiden no Kishi]

I choose a personal SEP [Somebody Else's Problem] field with an unlimited battery.

.rai//

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Nuh huh. You want a guy who at least has his foundations right. In that case, you wouldn't want either.

Sure we'd all like a President that has his foundations right, but if he's his administration is faulty, then his Christian-foundation doesn't really matter because he's here to run a country, not run a church. After all, we are a democracy, not a theocracy.

Without going too much into detail, I'm just going to say that our current administration is an example that comes into mind. (For me, at least)

[Mithrandir]

I never cared about voting - until I bought a house. Now I want to vote against any and all parcel taxes. I don't need something costing me another $100/mo.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The solution. BUY EVERYONE A HOUSE and then have them pay off the rest of it.

Then they WILL care about voting!

[Bobtheduck]

Wait, what?

In any case, I live in California, so my vote really will mean nothing. California will be blue for the foreseeable future, it's not worth it either way for the presidential election. For other things, i guess... Not for the biggest election. I'd rather have an iPod than have the right to vote for the president in CA... At least until they do away with the electoral college.

[Nate]

Sure we'd all like a President that has his foundations right, but if he's his administration is faulty, then his Christian-foundation doesn't really matter because he's here to run a country, not run a church.

Agreed. As has been said before, the founding fathers may have been religious people (not all Christian, but religious to some degree), but they set up a very secular government. To that end I would rather have a competent atheist President, simply because as far as running the country goes, his religion shouldn't be that big of a deal anyway. Even if we had a Christian president it isn't as if he could pass laws benefiting Christianity anyway...separation of church and state and all that.

[Stephen]

I think...you guys are dragging your anti-government views into the thread too much. It's not good. Keep your government hate rants to yourselves. Also, I don't remember any mention of the 2008 election in the topic. :<

Yes. Because we all know questioning the government means you are anti-government. I am disgusted over the current system, because I care about this country. And I don't want to raise children in a broke down shell of its former self. But, hey. If it makes you feel better to brush off something someone says... that is contrary to your views by making sweeping generalizations....then sure. As for mentioning the 2008 election, I doubt the kids were being asked to give up rights for voting on American Idol.

[rocklobster]

I'm surprised this thread didn't get locked.

[Nate]

All the children are too busy with school to come in here and angrily post stupidity in caps. Us mature adults are able to discuss these sorts of things calmly and rationally.

[Puguni]

ARGH. Had I realized someone actually did read my post...

Anyway, ignore what I said. I take it back?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Yes, calmly, yet hugely off topic. I am cynically amused at how kids and voting turned to a topic only nominally related. It bothers me how this thread turned into everyone's political soapbox, when I'm sure everyone has their own little LJ to do that. Huh.

Also, yes, kids are too busy with school to do much else. Glad you brought that up. We all spend a huge amount of time being concerned about college to think about much else, or at least this generation does.

Well forums ARE about expressing your opinions as well as having discussions. To be frank, I don't think we gone too far into an actual political debate.

[Kaligraphic]

I don't think we're really that far off topic. Examining the effect of one's vote is crucial to weighing the relative merit of that vote against an iPod.

[Puguni]

I stand by what I've said before, the old people rule America, more so than rich people.

Ignore what I said earlier, apologies. :C

Yes. Because we all know questioning the government means you are anti-government. I am disgusted over the current system, because I care about this country. And I don't want to raise children in a broke down shell of its former self. But, hey. If it makes you feel better to brush off something someone says... that is contrary to your views by making sweeping generalizations....then sure. As for mentioning the 2008 election, I doubt the kids were being asked to give up rights for voting on American Idol.

Ok, anti-government was the wrong word. Anti-government would be anarchy. Hope I didn't come off as mindless. Oh wait, too late.

But, political activism wouldn't be the answer to your quips? Maybe I still live in an idealistic mindset alike to Mr. Smith. Grumbling about it here isn't going to do squat, but I'm sure you already knew that. Everyone is right, though; one single vote isn't going to do too much, but if you cared, wouldn't you do more than contribute a vote? [not you, as in Ark, but everyone in general.]

Answer: Everyone is too busy carving a life out for themselves. In this sense, isn't politics like religion?

[mitsuki lover]

If it keeps the morons from voting I am all for it.I think the only people who should be allowed to vote are those of us who actually care what's going on in America.I would hate it if some decent candidate lost a election because some moron thought the other candidate was cooler looking or had more of a babe wife.
Actually when you come to think about it there are too many morons
who would perfer material things over the natural right to have a say in government.Maybe deep down that is what is the matter.
We allow too many morons to vote to begin with!

[Nate]

Yeah, to heck with democracy! Let's burn the Declaration of Independence where it says that all men are created equal! Let's seize away the rights from the American people that the minutemen fought and died for two centuries ago!

mitsuki lover, if you hate America so much, go move to China. Please?

[Roy Mustang]

And we know that China's government is not that great, they can't even get the lead out.

Kiyone: *rim shot*

I will be in Vegas on the 30th.


Now about the topic:

I would like to know what age group in this survey. But looking at the people that we may have to vote for in 2008. Can I get a Mac then an Ipod?

[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

[rii namuras]

[color="Red"](Eh, I wouldn't do that unless I thought all the candidates sucked, in which case I wouldn't be voting anyways. I don't buy the usual reasons for voting when you hate the candidates (I can't even think of what they are...), and I am most certainly not choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to my government. And no one can tell me that it won't make a difference if I don't vote, because the first thing that is said about voting is that every vote counts. If every vote counts, then no vote counts as well.)[/color]

[mitsuki lover]

Nate you are twisting my words.Are you taking lessons from MSP or
K.Ayato?
I only meant that the only people who ought to vote are the ones who take politics and such things seriously.Let the people who only want to play around with their expensive toys do that and then moan and whine when taxes go up because they are too moronic to take politics seriously.

[Nate]

Nate you are twisting my words.Are you taking lessons from MSP or
K.Ayato?

I'm not twisting your words around at all.

First of all, who are YOU to judge who gets to vote and who doesn't? What do you think would happen if people's right to vote was taken away? Hmm, I bet I'll tell you exactly what would happen. The political party in power would take away the right to vote from people who would vote against them, thus ensuring their party would always remain in power. This would more or less be a form of dictatorship even though it wouldn't be one person in power, just one political party.

You sound racist, by the way. I wasn't alive during the civil rights movement, but you know, I can bet that the arguments made against black people having the right to vote had a lot to do with education. "Blacks are uneducated therefore they shouldn't have the right to vote."

Let's not forget that phenomenal idiot Ann Coulter stated that if the right of women to vote was taken away, then the Republicans would have won like every election for the past few decades. So are women too uneducated to vote too?

Hmm. It seems to me that Democrats would declare the religious right too moronic to vote, and that Republicans would declare the secular left too moronic to vote. So whose standard do we use? Huh?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what you're proposing is at worst racist, and at best the exact opposite of why this country was founded. This country was founded as a democratic republic and you're advocating removing the will of the people from the governmental process.

I wasn't twisting your words at all. You obviously hate freedom. So go move to China.

[Kaligraphic]

Whoah, there, Nate. Just because ml has a different opinion than yours, you want to pack him off to China? Maybe you're the sort of person who wouldn't be voting, if you're going to be going around trying to exile people from the country for expressing their opinions.

Seriously, Democracy very easily becomes an ochlocracy - mob rule. Plato listed democracy as one of the corrupted forms of government, precisely because it would give people what most of them think they want, electing popular demagogues without properly thinking through their positions or what they would really do. An idea that cannot be examined becomes a stumbling block. The Founding Fathers were only human, after all, and bound by their own experiences and ideas. They have not created a perfect government, nor did they think that they had. Rather, it was a compromise government, subject to the ideas, needs, and exigencies of their times. To that end, they created a republic, not a democracy. If you believe that a democracy is superior to a republic, it is your right to believe so, but you can't throw people out of the country for sticking with the idea of a republic, for exploring other ideas on government, or even for suggesting that Joshua Norton ought to have been made Emperor for real. The sad fact is that, offered a choice of cake or death, far too many people would choose death if you say it nicely enough. Many of them would do so simply because they have far too much on their plate to understand the entire situation, and many decisions are significantly more complicated than we may initially think.

[Nate]

Whoah, there, Nate. Just because ml has a different opinion than yours, you want to pack him off to China?

It's not because he has a different opinion, it's because he wants to take away rights from the American people. I'd say the same thing if someone said freedom of speech should be rescinded, or that freedom of religion should be abolished. It's not a "difference of opinion," it's oppression.

Maybe you're the sort of person who wouldn't be voting, if you're going to be going around trying to exile people from the country for expressing their opinions.

I don't vote, actually, for reasons I stated earlier. Not because I find the right to vote to be trivial or ridiculous (I think it's extremely important), but because I find the system itself to be flawed and refuse to choose the "lesser of two evils," or three evils, or however many evils are running.

To that end, they created a republic, not a democracy. If you believe that a democracy is superior to a republic, it is your right to believe so, but you can't throw people out of the country for sticking with the idea of a republic, for exploring other ideas on government, or even for suggesting that Joshua Norton ought to have been made Emperor for real.

Uh...did you even read my post? I know we don't have a true democracy, I stated so right where I said,

This country was founded as a democratic republic

Second, I never said a democracy was superior. Third, mitsuki lover never said a republic was best. I don't know what thread you're reading but it isn't this one. Mitsuki lover said certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote, I'm saying that the right to vote is one of the things this country was founded on, although yes, I realize at the time that only rich white landowners were allowed to vote. But through civil rights movements, women's suffrage, groups have fought hard for the right to vote and mitsuki lover would throw away all their work because he thinks they shouldn't have that right?

That's hatred of freedom, and if he hates freedom, he needs to move to China where they don't HAVE any freedom.

Many of them would do so simply because they have far too much on their plate to understand the entire situation, and many decisions are significantly more complicated than we may initially think.

And? That doesn't exclude them from the right to participate in the discussion. Otherwise what's the point of having the right to vote at all? The government should just say "You peons can't possibly understand the intricacies of running a government" and just fully establish themselves as an oligarchy.

The point is that we have the right to participate in our government's runnings, even if often it's not to the degree that I would like us to be able to. Taking away those rights, for such a petty reason as "I think you're stupid" is a huge slap in the face to the people who fought to free this country from that kind of stuff.