Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 5, 2011 at 2:45am

I think when one asks "Why do so many atheists choose not to vote?" it's incumbent to demonstrate that fact in some way. Otherwise it's kind of like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question asked without the prior offer of any evidence of beating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eoganacht on September 5, 2011 at 3:02am

In NZ we have multiple parties (unlike America) so we have a wider scope views represented. I'm elegible to to vote in the upcomming election and I intend to make good use of that vote. Sadly, though, most of the people running in the local elections are hopeless. We've already had a party self-destruct and another have a schism. But I'll still vote, for what it's worth. The lesser of the evils is the only real way to go.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justin gold on September 5, 2011 at 1:39pm

yeh,I to think this would solve a lot of what members are saying on here about the lesser of two evils,also it's very strange that the U.S doesn't have a Labour party as most of the rest of the western world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 5, 2011 at 11:39am

Uhm..? Corporations have votes now?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen Pluckrose on September 5, 2011 at 8:20am

I vote - usually to keep out the BNP - Neonazi party. I am a feminist so believe me, I vote! I would like to be able to vote for the person I want to win rather than to keep out the BNP. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Boy on September 5, 2011 at 11:21am

Helen,

Me too: I always vote and keeping the BNP down is a primary aim (together with UKIP who are the BNP in different clothes).  I'm a feminist too by most definitions... but don't think it changes my voting habits!

I differ from many others here though: I have lots of time for plenty of politicians who I think are conscientious and do a pretty good job.  Of course we have stacks of scum bags too (who were all there during the expenses scandal - with some really depressing surprises).

But I like the system (what else would work better?) and I like the fact that when we have a scandal with our politicians, they are pretty embarressed about it.  That's exactly how it should be - and I will keep voting.

But for those who say that they are all corrupt: well - maybe where you are but definitely not in the UK: that would be an unjust slur.  And ours are definitely not all the same either.  I love the consipracy theories that pop out everytime this subject gets raised though...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Lester on September 5, 2011 at 10:16am

It actually doesn't matter. I've refused to vote since i turned 18 because, well, they're all the same. They're all corrupt and none of them actually decide anything. Obama, Bush.. it's all the same. Why vote for people when they're all just going to get paid off to do what the people running the "Federal" Reserve want them to do anyway? Until Ron Paul came along, i had no reason to vote. If he wins the GOP nomination i'll vote. But if not.. not voting again. I don't agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul says, but at least i know he won't be paid off to just do what "they" want him to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Morgan Matthew on September 5, 2011 at 10:34am

While I vote time to time this is something that rather bothers me a great deal and is simply astounding how nothing is being done about it:

I also dislike these types of statements. Which are more or less litmus tests for their "base"

It's obvious to me the only real candidate that the Republicans even have a chance of winning in 2012 is Ron Paul. But as we all know the media only likes "status quo" runners. Also, Ron Paul is not 100% sure about evolution either. Again, sad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 5, 2011 at 11:49am

"It's obvious to me the only real candidate that the Republicans even have a chance of winning in 2012 is Ron Paul."

That's not at all obvious to me at all. He might have a small, loud and fanatic following, but outside of that he's got very little support. Even Christine O'Donnell has a better shot than Paul, and she's certifiably crazy, which is why she's got a better shot...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 5, 2011 at 12:57pm

I agree. Ron Paul is less attractive to the public the more they hear his views. Also, he has that superior tone like he's come down from the sky to tell us why we're stupid not to think like him. At this moment, barring a dark horse (NJ gov. Chris Christie, for example), it's looking like either Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin. The others are just too obscure at this time (John Huntsman) or too obviously stupid/crazy (Michelle Bachmann) to get the nod. There's still time for things to change, but I think that's the lay of the GOP land as of today. The candidate who can win is the one who gets black and brown Americans and female voters largely aligned. White males, while more conservative than other segments of the population, do not constitute anything like a majority anymore. Obama, should he decide to run for a 2nd term, or else whoever the Dems put up will be the next President.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 5, 2011 at 1:06pm

I really wish the Dems could run Hillary Clinton as POTUS with Obama as VP. In retrospect, that 3 am phone call ad might have been a nasty bit of reality...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 6, 2011 at 1:34pm

So you haven't studied economics, much like Ron Paul hasn't..? And yes, we did have a financial/economical journalism specialization at my college, so I do know a few journalists. Socialists and Marxists are not exactly know for their liberalism, but if you mean liberal as left of center then many (though far from all) journalists might interpret the world that way. It doesn't immediately mean they cannot report unbiased news, there is actually something like professional standards even among journalists. 

As for the 'liberal media bias', it's quite easy to avoid by - taking a crazy idea out of thin air - not following liberally biased media. And it's not just "liberals" which find Ron Paul looney, even The National Interest and The New Republic aren't exactly supportive, neither being known for their pronounced liberal bent. The latter article even being written by libertarian...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page