It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Will you be voting against incumbents in November?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 





Do you hire back the employee who has already lied to you and stole your money? or


And that's my problem with that perspective. Just because the guy lied to you and stole from you means you should just automatically hire the next random guy who walks into your place of business? Someone you know nothing about?

I'm not defending incumbents. Hardly. I'm saying that unless you are going to vote for someone specific, who has specific, realistic informed positions that you agree with, then merely voting someone 'out' is not going to do anything.

Ballots dont have a 'none of the above' option. although i think they should.

Again, it takes much more knowledge and effort to be FOR something, than to be against something.

---

I agree with the guy at the top of the previous page who said voting at the federal level is a joke. we still have the opportunity to effect change at the state and local level, but the federal game is all smoke and mirrors.


edit on 24-10-2010 by justadood because: typo

edit on 24-10-2010 by justadood because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 

well, voting for the new guy
does leave you with a 50/50
chance of him being productive.
He either will or won't.
Re-electing the criminal,
you have ZERO chance of him
being productive.

I'll take a 50% chance over a
0% any day.

It's called process of elimination.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


actually, that isn't a fifty/fifty chance. to be able to come to those sorts of odds, you've have to have some details about the specific candidate. IF you know nothing about he candidate, then he could be worse, he could be better, he could be a three-toed sloth. you have no idea.

this is not defense of the incumbent. it is calling into question the idea of voting 'against'.

many voted 'against' bush in the past election, and i suspect you wouldnt argue that outcome was an improvement, would yo?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I too am voting out all incumbants, in all elections local and national. In the name of "AUSTERITY"...let our new mantra be "DRAIN the SWAMP"!



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
What do I do? I cannot bring myself to vote out ALL incumbents!


Oh yeah, I live in Ron Paul's district!!!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bchataroo
 


For all of Ron Paul's good deeds and intelligent stances, there is that nagging question about why he aligns himself with Alex Jones, and allows the anarchists to campaign for him? Why doesn't he take himself seriously?

I mean, if he did fundraisers and campaigned along the mainstream lines, and got involved with "some" of the Tea Party stuff, and if he seized the pulpit away from Fox News, and the Palin debacle, he could be the savior of the nation.

I can't take him seriously, if he refuses to take himself seriously! Vote him out with the rest of the bums!! If he wants to get serious and run for president in 2012, then he won't be an incumbent anymore.



new topics

top topics
 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join