This is gonna bump people from all different angles...
Ok, so I'm going to put out my thoughts very systematically. Then I'm gonna soap box for a bit.
This may sound crazy to some people but, I don't vote. I did vote in the 2008 elections but was uninformed. I just voted Republican because I'm pro-life. That's really about it. I've thought about it since and I'm upset I didn't think it through before hand. I head every 4 years that voting is often just choosing the lesser of two evils. There is a third option though...not voting.
Here's my reasons.
1) I'm waiting for someone worth voting for.
If voting feels like choosing the lesser of two evils then I would rather not vote. I don't want to put someone in a position of power just because they are not-as-bad-an-option as the other guy. That's a pathetic excuse in my mind. I chose not to vote in the 2012 elections because I watched interviews and debates with both Obama and Romney. I chose to not vote for Obama because I did not like what he did the previous four years and didn't think it was going to get better. He also pushed a lot of his campaign giving sales pitches toward minorities. Now hear me out: I have nothing against minorities! What I do have a problem with is someone vying for a position of power by using sales pitches and sucking up to a specific people group. I don't want a president who is going to do what is best for minorities in the U.S. I want a president who is going to do what is best for everyone. And yes, they are two different things.
I didn't vote for Romney because of one sentence he said during one interview. Sound a bit extreme? Check this concept. Romney was asked during an interview what his stance was on the legalization of marijuana. It was a hot topic at that point. He interrupted the interviewer with an annoyed look on his face and replied, "do you have anything important to talk about?" I'm sorry, you're running for the president of the United States. Your job is to lead and you cannot lead without knowing or caring about the people you're leading. I do agree that at that time the legalization of marijuana was not the most important topic that could be discussed. But it was what a lot of American people wanted to hear. If the question is important to the people who live in the U.S. it should be important to the people leading it. Also, during a debate Romney was told you will have thirty seconds to answer the next question." He replied with, "I'll take more time than that." Where I respect honesty, something severely lacking in modern politics, I do not respect the arrogance. This is a debate setting and there are rules. If he isn't willing to follow the rules to get the job whose to say he will follow the rules once he gets the job?
2) I'm waiting for someone that doesn't serve their people. I don't want a president that will service a particular group of people. I don't want someone that tries to benefit rich people, poor people, minorities, big companies, private companies, republicans, democrats, sponsors with fat pocket books, etc... I don't want a president that wants to put their own agenda into effect. I want a president that wants what's best for the country. What's best for the country will not always be what is best for me. I understand that. But recently I have seen politicians throwing out sales pitches to a particular group. They think, "I can't please everyone so I'll focus on enough groups to get me the votes." That doesn't help. It perpetuates the ind of bigoted thinking that separates the American people culturally, racially, economically, and otherwise. It does not promote unity. And this isn't called the Divided States of America. Just sayin...
3) I don't think it really matters. Yes, I understand that presidents choose other people that swing power that get some laws made that affects people but for how long? At most, a president is in office for eight years. The established system simply does not allow for massively influential changes to happen that quickly. The system is designed to keep things as middle as possible. And I don't care if anyone reading this doesn't feel that way. It's true. yes it swings one way or the other every now and then but then it always swings back. Look back and look ahead. Get your head stuck out of this past weekend. Everything averages out. Things have come into play since Obama has been president that I do not agree with and I believe have been hurting the country. I give it another eight years before they are undone and something else is put into play. Everything bounces back. When it doesn't is when we will have a problem.
Side note.
To the people who were saying at the beginning of Obama's term (and to other people who have undoubtedly said similar things about other presidents at the beginning of their terms) that he should be given more power to do what he wants and that congress is mean for fighting against his ideas: I cannot put into words how profoundly ignorant that is. Seriously? Give one man more power so he can do what he wants? Just because you think it's a good idea? What if it was the other way around? Did you ever consider that? Did you forget entirely the reason the United States of America was founded? Do you honestly think that any one man is competent enough or caring enough to run an entire country, and an important world power at that, without being challenged? Granted, the game of politics is rude and people from one party will deny actions proposed by the other party for no other reason than the names of the people supporting it. That's unfair and childish. It's pathetic. But you really think the reasonable response to that is to eliminate opposition and just hand out more power?
Too much stupid...
End side note.
My end points are: what's going to happen is going to happen, I hate the game of politics and am tired of people who play it, and I don't have to vote. Voting is a privilege, not a requirement.
I said once that I didn't vote because I didn't really care who was president. Same difference to me. And the response that was thrown back at me was, "well what if everyone felt that way." My response is, "who cares if everyone feels that way?" Voting is for people who care. That's the point. Ever voted on what ind of pizza you wanted and you liked both options? Didn't like either option? Did you vote? Just sayin... I don't care who is in office. What's more, I don't want either person in office! So why would I vote? What sense does it make for me to vote when I don't want either person?
"Then why don't you vote before then for the Republican/Democratic party runner?"
Because I still don't care. And it requires more research and effort than I really want to put into it. My life is too busy too put the appropriate research into every person running for president. Especially in this age of information. Is it easier to get information now than it was? Yes. Is it easier than it used to be to lie and spew out revolting amounts of mindless propaganda to sway those of the populace waiting to be force fed a sales pitch that agrees with what they already think instead of challenging them to think? Also yes.
Was that harsh? Maybe. Was it honest? Definitely.
All the research to find someone I want as president only to see someone else within the next eight years. No thanks. I'd rather play Dark Souls.
(Dark Souls is an epic game of futility that makes you go through endless hours of trial and error just to kill you in a way you couldn't have predicted but is strangely fun so you keep playing it.)
Here's a few things to keep in mind during the upcoming voting season.
Any meme made about the opposing party could be made about yours. Neither party, Republican of Democrat, is exempt from stupid people. Don't bother pretending otherwise.
Liberal and conservative are relative terms. Everyone is a liberal to someone and a conservative to someone else. It's a flimsy label and should not be leaned on.
News stations are not concerned with telling the truth. The are concerned with telling some of the truth. And telling some of the truth for the purposes of swaying opinions or appeasing sponsors is no better than lying. The truth is not the truth until it is shared in its entirety. Don't bother trusting any one source of information. Double and triple check information before running with it. And don't check information from three different sources with the same political bent. That's also worthless. Check information from a more liberal source, from a more conservative source, and from a source that tries it's best to stay neutral. Whatever information intersects between those is the most plausible.
Also never listen to anything said on Fox. They canceled Firefly which makes them immortally stupid and untrustworthy.
I'm kind of kidding...
Don't take things out of context. Quotes make more sense and often have a completely different meaning when in context of the entire conversation.
All memes are taken out of context.
Memes are a REALLY BAD place to get your political information and statistics.
Political statistics are often bogus. Now, I know people who work with statistics and I don't want to offend what they do and make it seem unimportant or false. But most of the statistics you see going around political parties and supporting social ideas are a part of a whole and have been skewed to serve a purpose instead of telling the truth. It is very difficult to tell truth using statistics unless you are asking very specific questions. Any time you put the human equation into the mix it gums things up and bogs things down. You can see one of my earlier posts about racism and police brutality for examples of tweaked statistics.
Here's the thing. I'm cynical. I don't appreciate sales pitches and people who think I'm stupid enough to eat their sales pitch without confirming it. The way I see it, politicians are little better than salesmen. I just get irritated listening to political debates where people are asked questions and don't answer them then get this smug look on their face like, "yes, I am that awesome." Bleagh...
I'm not a republican and I'm not a democrat. (hopefully that's clear by now) I do not believe either party has everything figured out or that either party has more figured out than the other. Therefore, I do not associate with either.
I am pro-life. As a former fetus, I am pro-life. Honestly I could write an entirely separate post on just my thoughts about this but I'm going to simplify. If you get two people from opposite sides of this argument that are sensible enough to genuinely debate the topic it comes down to one issue. Is a fetus alive? From anything I've ever heard or read I believe the answer is yes. My personal convictions say that efforts should always be made to preserve life. Especially life that has not yet had a say whether or not it wants to exist. I do not believe we have the right to choose for someone else.
[The following is not as "nice" as usual. I will state beforehand that if you have a different opinion about the following topic and can explain to me who/how I am wrong I will gladly hear it and change my thinking! The following is my thoughts on the subject. They are thought through as best as I can. This is not ignorance speaking despite the fact it is posted on the internet.]
I am also pro-flat-taxes. (that's a word now) By that I mean I think it is ludicrous, short sighted, selfish, and downright mean to tax rich people more. I have yet to hear a good argument for it and my common sense and though experiments also fail to turn up anything good.
"They have more money and more taxes will do more." Let me introduce how percentages work. 10% of 10 is 1. 10% of 100 is 10. 10 is more than 1. The same percentage out of a higher number equals a higher number. You don't have to tax a higher percentage of people with more money to get more money out of them.
Why take money away from people who are making profit, and a lot of it, and give it to people who cannot keep a budget together? (that would be the U.S. government) What would the government need with the money? Make more jobs to stimulate the economy you say? Ah, yes. Because large corporations making significant profit usually do what they can to stay stagnant, not expand, and thereby limit the amount of jobs available.
That was sarcasm. If I'm to be honest, it was biting sarcasm.
Also, I am poor so I feel I have the freedom to say this stuff. If I was rich I wouldn't be able to talk because it would be "in my own interest." Well it isn't. So there. :P
Well now I have a headache. So I am going to get off and have some water and not think about elections of politics for the rest of the evening...until I get on Facebook. sigh...
No comments:
Post a Comment