Originally posted by MrPenny
You and I both know that's pointless. It's a value statement. And it's you who invited the scrutiny with a thread titled "I Didn't
Vote."
Much like those who author threads regarding the support of their candidate or in disdain of their rejected candidate.
What is the difference?
All three are opinion based. My 'option' is something that the MSM will not encourage...why?
Because of the propagation of the 'illusion' that an average and ill informed American actually has a say. The election, as represented by the
actual vote, seems to have been a foregone conlusion. While we can argue ad nauseam regarding whether or not an American citizen is doing his or her
'duty' by submitting a vote all day long, the reality is that the excercise in many cases represents a hollow and misinformed perspective...which is
encouraged by the current system.
I asked you previously how it was that you could not find anything other than slogans and abstracts from the candidates. I even offered links to
resources with information much more concrete than "slogans and abstracts." The flaw appears to be that you made zero effort to get beyond the
"slogans and abstracts" and instead relied on the soundbite type of information that is supposed to confuse you.
The 'flaw' is in actuality that I don't really see that the promises made by a candidate who is attempting to appeal to the majority of people are
going to be made good on. The President is not the only one who makes the decisions. We have Congress and Senate to assist based on our system of
checks and balances. As well, we have lobbyists who affect how our elected officials will ultimately support.
I ask you, when do we get to vote for the lobbyists?
I certainly have not enough money to sway their opinions. So should I spend time on researching the views of our elected officials wih regards to
their moral faculties on accepting campaign contributions for future favors?
While that would appease my suspicious nature, it would remain that I would be in the
extreme minority of people who actually deigned to look
that far. And as the practice seems acceptable in our current societal structure, I view it as a contradiction and an undermining of the process.
The Electoral College need not vote that which our constituants have voted. As well, there is a lot of money directed towards these individuals.
And the propagation of 'change', while a valid interest in light of the past eight years, is still a rudimentary tactic when trying to gain the
attention and support of the 'average American'.
And that is where the relevance of the distinction between a $25,000 annual income comes into play against a several hundred thousand dollar a year
income - the former must worry about the immediate day to day physical concerns of keeping a home and family, while the latter drinks mimosa's in the
morning discussing how to affect the former.
While I would never assume that I can see into the mind of someone else, I am more than capable of recognizing this dichotomy...
