Non participation in the system is one of the main causes of what we have today. Those who don't bother to participate have no right to complain.
Michigan Primary
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Non participation in the system is one of the main causes of what we have today. Those who don't bother to participate have no right to complain.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
So goes the conventional wisdom, which, as I pointed out, is wrong. The country is in the state it's in because of what's been done, not what hasn't been done. We'd be in much better shape without half of what's been done. Think the welfare crowd, almost half the electorate, has made good choices at the ballot box the last 50 years? Would you like more of that, or less?
You're just repeating the same false CW that I've debunked. It perpetuates the system that's gotten us to the brink of The Collapse of Western Civilization, which officially begins the day someone other than Ron Paul is sworn in as president.
We had our chance to stop it and we passed it by because Sean Hannity told us to.
2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I have no idea what Hannity said. I can't even comment on the rest. There is no point.
Talk about a narrow victory - after looking at the numbers and the congressional districts won, it looks like a pretty weak showing for Romney in his "home state". He takes away 14 delegates, Santorum gets 12, with two undeclared delegates left over.
http://www.freep.com/article/201202...gressional-district-results-prove-to-be-close
Take a look at the map on this link - orange denotes Santorum, red is Romney:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120228/SPECIAL01/120228003/Interactive-map-Primary-election-results-by-congressional-district?odyssey=mod|mostview
As expected, Gingrich and Paul failed to even make a blip on the radar even in an open primary where crossover voting was allowed. If Newt fails to make any progress next Tuesday, he should seriously consider moving aside and let the remaining primary contests proceed on a two man basis.
http://www.freep.com/article/201202...gressional-district-results-prove-to-be-close
Take a look at the map on this link - orange denotes Santorum, red is Romney:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120228/SPECIAL01/120228003/Interactive-map-Primary-election-results-by-congressional-district?odyssey=mod|mostview
As expected, Gingrich and Paul failed to even make a blip on the radar even in an open primary where crossover voting was allowed. If Newt fails to make any progress next Tuesday, he should seriously consider moving aside and let the remaining primary contests proceed on a two man basis.
Those who vote, and those who do not vote, all have an equal right to complain, as all have participated equally in the process. Some people think that if you vote, then you've participated, and therefor have the right to complain, while those who haven't voted do not have the right. They also think that if you haven't voted, then it absolves you from responsibility or any consequences of the results of the elected leaders. Some even think that if they didn't vote for the winner then they can't be held responsible for how bad a leader the winner turns out to be ("I didn't vote for him, he's not MY president!"). Some even think that if you haven't voted then you haven't participated in getting us to where we are.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who do not vote play an equal role in steering things, both in the past and in the future, just the same as those who do vote. Everybody has the same responsibility as everybody else, just as everybody shares the same consequences. It's true that "the country is in the state it's in because of what's been done, not what hasn't been done," but not voting is an action just as real and just as affecting as voting is. Every vote cast, and every vote not cast, has precisely the same impact on the outcome.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who do not vote play an equal role in steering things, both in the past and in the future, just the same as those who do vote. Everybody has the same responsibility as everybody else, just as everybody shares the same consequences. It's true that "the country is in the state it's in because of what's been done, not what hasn't been done," but not voting is an action just as real and just as affecting as voting is. Every vote cast, and every vote not cast, has precisely the same impact on the outcome.
Romney had a few obstacles here in Michigan. For one plenty of Democrats scurriously voted for Santorum so as to try to embarrass Romney in his "home" state. Most of these Democrats would no way vote for any republican otherwise. Obama also had commercials running in Michigan only attacking Romney. As far as this being his "home" state. Yes this is his native state,but he moved away long ago and was'nt really involved in politics in Michigan. His father was governor of Michigan over FORTY years ago. A long time ago and probably most voters didn't use the fact his father was governor as any deciding factor in voting for him. Anyway he won Michigan that was his "home" state. He won New Hampshire,which was considered his "home" state. Maine was called his "home" state and he won there. Another "home" state of his is Mass. coming up where he is favored to win. Im sure all of the states that touch Mass and all of the Northeast states are considered his "home" state. So he must be expected to win those too. I think he is building a house in California too so that probably is considered his "home" state.
Possible outcomes are:
1. You don't bother to vote because you don't care or don't pay attention or whatever.
2. You intentionally vote for the obviously worst choice, in this case the incumbent.
3. You vote for a third party to make a statement, knowing full well the incumbent is a disaster and knowing full well your feel good vote is also a vote for the incumbent since it will not help remove him and will help him win by taking a vote from the better choice.
4. You vote for the challenger who may be only marginally better but still at least takes you from a four to a 39 on a scale of 100.
All are participants.
None outside option 4 have any right to complain because they purposely brought about the evil that needs to be complained about. Disagree if you want and all you want. You have every right to be wrong.
1. You don't bother to vote because you don't care or don't pay attention or whatever.
2. You intentionally vote for the obviously worst choice, in this case the incumbent.
3. You vote for a third party to make a statement, knowing full well the incumbent is a disaster and knowing full well your feel good vote is also a vote for the incumbent since it will not help remove him and will help him win by taking a vote from the better choice.
4. You vote for the challenger who may be only marginally better but still at least takes you from a four to a 39 on a scale of 100.
All are participants.
None outside option 4 have any right to complain because they purposely brought about the evil that needs to be complained about. Disagree if you want and all you want. You have every right to be wrong.
Oh, I'd give anything for another choice that's both good AND capable of winning. Ron Paul isn't it. Never has been. Never will be. Not that he wouldn't be marginally better overall but he will only be a spoiler ala Perot. Given that certainty, I dislike the lesser evil less than I dislike the greater evil.
Actually Ross Perot changed the debate in DC for a few years. If the people had opened their eyes and seen the positive of what not voting for the lesser of two does, I don't believe we would be in this position now.
Remember that the two major parties control the election laws. There is a reason why third parties have little to no influence. It isn't because they don't have the right message. It is because of the two majorly corrupt parties!
It also isn't the person either. Jesus wouldn't make the cut today in either party!
Remember that the two major parties control the election laws. There is a reason why third parties have little to no influence. It isn't because they don't have the right message. It is because of the two majorly corrupt parties!
It also isn't the person either. Jesus wouldn't make the cut today in either party!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
As much as you want to believe that you vote is binding it is not and because Michigan was a declared state for a long time, independents don't vote in primaries. The RNC will not care who gets what if they want Obama jr on the ticket.
By the way Romneys home state is mass not michigan.
By the way Romneys home state is mass not michigan.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
greg wrote:
The media has created that situation , but even most here understand that Romneys home state is Mass. but beyond that, back in post #26.....
Muttly wrote:
The media has created that situation , but even most here understand that Romneys home state is Mass. but beyond that, back in post #26.....
Muttly wrote:
Jesus would be persecuted as a rabble rouser and a revolutionary.
Come to think of it, that's exactly what happeded.
Yes, but in the end, he rose above it all.
Jesus would not run for political office. His kingdom, and power, were not of this world.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
There's another reason. "The lesser of two evils is still evil." If both candidates are going to lie, cheat, murder, steal, and violate their oath of office immediately, and I voted for them anyway, I'm a partaker in their crimes and sins. Additionally, I cannot grant someone a power that I don't have. So if it's wrong for me to steal, I can hardly vote for someone who is going to do so.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.