It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


To vote or not to vote...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:30 AM
I just turned legal age to vote. I deciding to vote or not to vote cause both candidates in my mind are not fit to be president.

McCain is basically a bush clone, minus the oil money. Obama is basically if you question me, you are a racist. I can go on and on how I think both candidates are morons. But I seen so much garbage on both candidates here and else where. I will not sleep at night if I vote for either of them. This country is already dysfunctional piece of work cause of bush greed and love of oil. But on the bright side of this election, bush will leave office.

Ill look at the independent party's now...

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:50 AM
i don't think i'm going to vote. the candidates seem way too set-up for me to even start making a decision. my un-educated theory is that both obama an mccain are secretly for the same team, so whichever one makes it to office will do whatever he is being used for, if not on the same team the new pres. is still going to do whatever he wants, including f'in over the small guy. they both have sketchy backgrounds, and i believe both are elitists under it all. and don't get any one started on the voting machines, i saw a docu. on the diebolds and it is unbelievable the amount of bs these guys are feeding us. so i think that voting is just another useless thing in an ever growing list. my idea is to let one of them get elected, then keep a very close eye on whoever it is. we can't let another "bush" worm through two terms while we sit with our heads in our respectable asses and back down from every "no, didn't happen." as we get stripped from the very rights we were built on.
in the end they're all bullsht artists...

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by Files

no matter when you decide to vote - the candidates will always be the same.

A simple rule of thumb to live by

you have the right to vote or not to vote

if you choose to exercise the right to vote: Vote wisely and with confidence.

if you choose to exercise the right NOT to vote: you are not allowed to complain at the results.

nobody can stop you from complaining, but that doesnt make it right

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:29 PM
As far as I'm concerned you always have to vote if you are able. Being able to vote is our Constitutional right and I don't think we should abuse that or take it for granted.

If there is nobody whom you really want to vote for...find someone. Surely there is a third party candidate out there who suits you. And don't feel that just because the person you are voting for "doesn't have a chance", that you shouldn't vote for them.

Vote based on what your heart and mind leads you to, regardless of whether or not that candidate can win. That is the only way you will be at peace with your decision.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by Files

Files, I really hope you decide to vote. Congratulations!

By the way, neither Obama, nor anyone in his campaign, has ever called anyone racist, for questioning him or for any reason (unless you've heard something I haven't?). Some of his supporters have, but I'm not sure how you can hold that against him...

And you supporters who are calling people racist, this is how you're actually hurting Obama. So knock it off!

I hope you guys both decide to vote. Do some research and pick somebody.
If you don't, you have little room to complain about what happens.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:34 PM
First of all, you're not limited to two candidates. There's a l o n g list of those who want a crack at being president. Have a look here:

Second, whether or not you think your vote is counted is irrelevant to deciding to vote or not. When deciding whether to vote or not, you only need to ask yourself one question. As yourself "Do I wish to have the right to vote?". If yes, then get your arse out and vote. Like muscles, rights that aren't exercised wither and disappear.

Hell, write you're own name in if you have to, if nothing else it's a vote of no confidence.

edit for typo

then, edit to add:
Note at the link provided neither of the top candidates are willing to take the Political Courage Test... wouldn't want to have one's stance on an issue recorded now would we... that makes it much more difficult to flip flop... Some might even go so far as to say that one who's not willing to disclose their positions, just may be planning to well, separate their words from their actions.

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Unit541]

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Unit541]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:39 PM
I'm not sure how you would go about voting for anyone other than the choices presented to you ion the ballot. There seems to be no 'write-in' option as many claim. If I am mistaken, someone correct me, please.

see my signature...

PS - I noticed Dr. Paul's name wasn't on the list.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:14 PM
I don't want to sound bitter, BUT, I still blame the non-voters for allowing Bush to reign for nearly 8 years now.

I believe there are many posters on ATS that bash Bush on a daily basis and they even use the defense...."I didn't vote" so it isn't my fault.

I wonder how the 2000 election would have worked out if every able person of voting age, would have taken 30 minutes out of their hectic day and voted?
Would we be fighting in Iraq right now under Gore? Even if you hated the guy or hate liberals......but wait! You non-voters don't have that issue though do you? You see ALL politicians from BOTH parties as being the same wolf in different color clothing.

What would happen if every non voter, voted for Ron Paul?

What if there was no such thing as a non voter? What in the hell would the candidates do then? How could they focus on appealing to the left or the right? Who would their base be? To think that someone like Ron Paul could be a viable candidate or anyone else that wasn't a Dem. or Rep. insane!

No, it is the apathatic that these 2 parties need.
They know who their base is and so can just tell them what they want to hear.
These perhaps "poor" choices that non-voters use as an excuse to not vote, are created by...."non-voters" They don't need to appeal to you, they don't need you, in fact they need you to do just what you do....and that is to not vote.

So, perhaps some of us are a bit "put off" by non-voters and especially so when we get stuck with a Bush and then "you, non-voters" want to join in on the complaining? It is just sardonic to me.

I do sound bitter don't I? My apologies but I re-live 2000 all too often and how different this world would have been had the "non-voters" shown up.

I wonder how many of them would like to go back in time and cast a vote?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:20 PM
I hear you Res, however don't fool yourself into thinking anything would be different if more people had voted. Both elections were decided before the first vote was cast. Kind of makes you wonder now, about McCains top political adviser also sitting on the board of directors of the Diebold corp. (who produce and manage the electronic voting machines). That said, don't even try to fool yourself into thinking anything would be different if Kerry had been elected, or Gore for that matter. These were simply horrible presidential terms for us and the world, regardless of the face attached to them.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:27 PM
i have to agree. Neither Obama nor McCain are valid choices for me, and Ron Paul already told everyone not to waste time writing in his name...

so looks like I'll be saving gas money that day, or maybe I'll just leave work early and say I voted.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

now i know i went at it with you earlier and at the risk of just sounding like im trying to be contrary.

i think you don't vote and the pres sucks, you have more of a right to complain about him than the people that voted him into office. i mean basically you had nothing to do with him getting elected to office while the people who voted for him did

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by SRTkid86

You also had nothing to do with keeping him out of office. Your argument is invalid.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:24 PM
but you didnt vote in opposition of electing the said official into office

its like.....

your wife asks you what you want for dinner

you say "i dont care, suprise me"

and she brings you .... a salad with a glass of water and a rice cake

you can't complain because you didnt voice your opinion

atleast...thats just my opinion

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:33 PM
Vote. Always vote.

Research the candidates and pick the "lesser of two evils." Yeah, I hate having to do that too, but as I don't agree with the two candidates on center stage at the moment, I'm going to choose the one who I think will do less damage to the country.

As to whether to vote independent or third party. In a way, I think voting independent or third party is throwing your vote away down the tubes. Most of the people in the country will vote either Republican or Democrat and the Independents or third parties don't get nearly enough votes to make them viable as candidates. On the other hand, if people don't vote for Independents or third party, their candidates will NEVER be viable. So, I'm kinda torn on that issue.

I would definitely make sure that your vote matters. If you definitely don't want one of the Republican or Democrat candidates, then I'd vote for the other. *shrug* Unfortunately, that's what I'm going to have to do this year.

Good luck and happy voting!

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:34 PM
Elections are the ONLY time you get to actually give input to your right of voice in the gov't. It's up to you to use that voice. The "big two" don't do anything for you? What's wrong with voting outside the elephant/ass? The more people that do will show a trend. Trends run elections. See Obama. If more Americans see that there is another option, maybe more Americans will see that there is another choice than being raped by their gov't.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:54 PM

I'm begging you!

If you don't know who to vote for, you haven't been paying attention to your options. We Americans, regardless of who's "fault" it could be said to be, virtually handed our government over to the businessmen of America because they convinced us we "had no third option".

I would rather have 10,000 candidates for president to choose from than 2. The more there are they greater the chance they will not be controlled or unduly influenced by unpopular ideology.

Vote, if for no other reason than to cast it to 'the other guy' - and there is always one of those out there. It won't matter if he can't win, does it?

We MUST keep the 'third' option alive. It is virtually dead in this country - I won't begin a digression from the thread explaining why.

Locally, vote for the youngest candidate. The younger weasel can do more more damage than the older, and they MIGHT surprise you and do some good.

Most importantly, vote for a strong leader in your state. The states are the targets now, and if we populate them, the way we've populated the Federal government, we're doomed.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
I don't like/agree with everything, 100%, a candidate has to offer, but a choice must be made, and I will choose a candidate who most represents what I want.

With rights come responsibilities. We have the right to vote and a responsibility to do so. Citizenship.

One might hate "studying", but, really it is our duty as a citizen to study party platforms, study candidate proposals, talk to others about the candidates/issues, discuss with others the candidates/issues.

When you're first starting out, it might seem overwhelming, but it gets easier the more you do it. Voting at the local level is a great way to introduce oneself to voting. Also, even though it was fun to go to the polling stations, I switched to absentee ballot the last few years.

In my view, apathy about voting, not morals, will cause a nation to rise or fall.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

if you choose to exercise the right NOT to vote: you are not allowed to complain at the results.

If you choose to take part in a corrupt game, and corruption is the effect, those that took part are to blame. The vote of the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil. If you are under the illusion that there are only two possible choices (Dems and Reps) than the everything is already rigged.

I vote no confidence. LINK

If the majority of Americans voted no confidence, then that would be a real CHANGE(to steal Obama's buzz word).

In my view, apathy about voting, not morals, will cause a nation to rise or fall.

I agree with this statement, but I could argue that most people that vote (for the two big parties) are apathetic to what it means to vote in the first place, and this is where the problem lies, not in those that do not vote.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by Files

what do you think about Ron Paul coming back?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:56 AM
For an American, it's selfish not to vote. Since your country's politics doesn't only affect itself but is a key player in the international spectrum, you are responsible for putting the right man in the office, one who wouldn't be apathetic or cause millions of dead bodies in third world countries, which is clearly what is happening now (even besides its foreign policy concerning the Mid East, its lack of action in Africa is terrible).
It's usually a matter of picking the least worst than the best. Let's face it, if mcCain comes along, I wouldn't cancel out the chances of America bombing Iran and being dragged into another war. (However, this time, it would be much more serious).

So what I'm trying to say is, don't be selfish and think "Well I hate both candidates so ah, I'm just not going to vote" because this isn't just about you but also millions.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in