Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

[Stumblingdrunk]

because they're scared the socialist nazi kenyan muslim will abort baby jesus if they lose this election

edit: also, business men are the bestest job creators.

I know it will never happen, but i would absolutely love to see us adopt preferential voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
It'd be really nice to see who people voted for if they didn't have to pick the most electable.

[Yugl]

I can in this instance, his option is to vote for candidates who it would take a monumental idiot to defend, or candidates that share no chance of winning in the current political climate/voting climate of the United States but more to the point are often accompanied by their own craziness, and illegitimate schemes. The not winning part isn't as important as the latter, obviously, because if a candidate possessed no chance of winning but was a good candidate he certainly would not be a worthless vote. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, that's a vote for nothing; it's certainly not a vote for a candidate who will uphold the oath he will take come January.

As far as running, I don't know if it's trolling or not, I risk getting trolled out extensively for saying this but it has been suggested to me in the past. I don't think I'm a very good public speaker though, not in the nervous sense but I think faster than my mouth. I always had a tough time briefing and had to literally index card everything.

I looked back at the opposing argument and I'll agree with the first sentence (That the argument was more than simply "It's stupid to brag about not voting"). However, running for candidacy isn't a troll attempt. If the US conforms with what the "non-voting base" wants, then the issues you list are inconsequential. If the people that are currently "against" government cannot see past irrelevant flaws, then you'll understand why I choose to distance myself from them. If they are insufficient for electing you president, then you do not have the will of the people (Whether that be good or bad). Not accomplishing the road to presidency has dire implications. Restated for clarity, it means the base that is against the current 2-party system is either lazy (They cause their own suffering) or unrepresentative of the majority.

Btw, people complain about 2 party systems and then offer the most obscure solutions when anyone who has taken a politics course should know that Duvergur's Law operates with tenacity in most high-population countries. This goes back to the fact that problems are institutional, not individual. Electing "better" people does not solve the problem.

[Churchill]

And if I say something like, anyone in office should be charged with treason people are like whoa slow down do you hate america

[Yugl]

Don't tell me you're scared of people forming opinions about you as a result of your (Hypothetical) decision to run for office?

[Vincento]

Yugl why do you always argue for the sake of arguing? lol

[Yugl]

Yugl why do you always argue for the sake of arguing? lol

Why do you assume that?

[kuronosan]

This pretty much solidifies my not wanting to vote for Obama next year. I'll either write in "Fuck You" or vote for Ron Paul.

Or, I simply won't vote.

[Churchill]

more or less referring to in general, a public figure would need to have at least began a process in which he has gathered evidence against the individuals in order to make a case prior to any statements like that

[kuronosan]

Also thought I would reply to this one:

No, it really doesn't and people that keep telling themselves this do no one any favors, aside from those currently in power. You can argue what it represents all you want, but what it represents to you, and what it says to others are not the same thing. It says nothing! Nothing at all

Actually, it says everything if enough people do it. I was at a citizenship ceremony recently and the judge presiding welcomed the new citizens, adding that it is their responsibility to vote if they choose; it is also their responsibility to not vote if they are dissatisfied with the system as it sends a message that something needs to change.

So yes, sometimes not voting is better than voting. Voting for whatever candidate just to vote for them doesn't tell anyone anything other than "LOL UR WINNAR".

Like Churchill said, if the news reported only 10,000,000 people turned up to vote out of the 200,000,000 people in the country... I'm sure it would send quite a message of "Okay, people are fucking fed up".

[Eurell]

How low does it have to go before it sends a message? Turnout has not been over 60% in over 40 years. It's was under 50% in 96. That's half the country saying people are fucking fed up, and it didn't do a goddamn thing. Anecdotal evidence of 1 judge agreeing with you is not proof of shit.

[Hyan]

What the hell is happening to this world..

[kuronosan]

Agreeing? I was just telling you that there are people in the government telling you to not vote if you're not satisfied. That's not anecdotal.

[Eurell]

Maybe I'm misusing that word, but I don't think I am...

You just told a story about something that happened to you, about one person having an opinion on something. It's one person in the government giving his own opinion, he isn't stating the governments stance on not voting.

Again though, how low does turnout need to be before it sends a message? It's been under 50% fairly recently, Why is 50% of the country being "fucking fed up" not a big enough of a message.

[Fhloston]

Nice knowing you, internet. Tme for a new system.

http://content.internetvideoarchive..../28974336_.jpg

[Dimmauk]

This pretty much solidifies my not wanting to vote for Obama next year. I'll either write in "Fuck You" or vote for Ron Paul.

Or, I simply won't vote.

Now Obama wont win.

[kuronosan]

Maybe I'm misusing that word, but I don't think I am...

You just told a story about something that happened to you, about one person having an opinion on something. It's one person in the government giving his own opinion, he isn't stating the governments stance on not voting.

Again though, how low does turnout need to be before it sends a message? It's been under 50% fairly recently, Why is 50% of the country being "fucking fed up" not a big enough of a message.

Well, maybe I'm the one misusing it and not you.

I wish I was certain that no voting would send a message for sure, but knowing some of these politicians all they would say is "Well a win is a win lol".

Do you have a source for voter turnouts (which count eligible voters that were registered but did not vote)?

[Eurell]

Here's the one I was using, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

[kuronosan]

That looks like turnout of people who aren't registered but are old enough to vote.

Still, disappointing.

[Yugl]

Agreeing? I was just telling you that there are people in the government telling you to not vote if you're not satisfied. That's not anecdotal.

Reflect upon what you said. You believe something because some judge told you so. What made judges an infallible authority all the sudden? Why would you trust this more than a politician telling you that it doesn't make a difference?

Edit: Also, it's not simply "a win is a win", but political science has studied this issue extensively and there are always alternative explanations for the number. Where there are alternative explanations, you can find people less concerned by the implication one explanation grants. For example, if you look at the trends, the most decline in voting percentage has occurred as political liberties (i.e. the right to vote) increased. In other words, the number of voters (and of a particular demographic) presents confounding variables. If the newly included people had no inclination to vote, then it upsets the base rate. In other words, you go from X% => Y% but do not know what percent of the newly added n sample are inclined to vote (Regardless of who the candidates are).

[kuronosan]

I was mistaken, then. I apologize.