Indecision 2008: The Political Discussion Thread

[sunb1ind]

Its simple, voting present means you're a waste of space in the senate.

Did you ever take into account that a present vote might mean to abstain? Similar to a judge recusing their place at a trial or appeal because they have a vested interest in the outcome?

I don't believe a recusal is the same as voting present. You don't place a vote saying "I don't agree with this bill guys" that carries absolutely NO POWER. If you don't agree with a part of the bill you don't just sit there and let the shit potentially get passed. That's just plain stupid.

[Shuemue]

why isn't it a shock that sunbl1nd doesn't get subtlety?

[Charla]

I don't believe a recusal is the same as voting present.

Well maybe you can believe someone when they say that it works differently in Illinois. Oh wait, I forgot, nobody but you knows what they're talking about. Never mind.

[sunb1ind]

I don't believe a recusal is the same as voting present.

Well maybe you can believe someone when they say that it works differently in Illinois. Oh wait, I forgot, nobody but you knows what they're talking about. Never mind.

How the hell is it doing anything for ANYONE when that vote holds no power? Please, stop making excuses for this cowardice way of voting.

edit: why the hell am I repeating myself..

[Correction]

why isn't it a shock that sunbl1nd doesn't get subtlety?

He's still in high school. Either his textbooks haven't covered subtlety, or he's failing English. Probably both.

[Charla]

How the hell is it doing anything for ANYONE when that vote holds no power?

a present vote in the illinois state senate is a no vote.

Is repeating someone else better or worse than repeating myself? Let's try it like this now

a present vote in the illinois state senate is a no vote.

And once more with gusto

a present vote in the illinois state senate is a no vote.

Now, if you have some reason for us to believe that he's wrong and you're right and the vote carries no power, by all means let us know about it. That's really what I meant by "evidence", you see, not "it's common sense".

[evilbau]

just back from vacation and wow, another thread ruined by sunblind. do you need to take an adversarial tone in every single post?

[Charla]

Well, we were doing a pretty good job getting a flamewar started before he showed up, he just hurried us along a bit.

[sunb1ind]

Now, if you have some reason for us to believe that he's wrong and you're right and the vote carries no power, by all means let us know about it. That's really what I meant by "evidence", you see, not "it's common sense".

I find it hard to believe that a "present" vote gets counted into the Nays. Why would they have essentially two votes that mean the exact same thing? What's the purpose in having a Nay vote?

[evilbau]

Now, if you have some reason for us to believe that he's wrong and you're right and the vote carries no power, by all means let us know about it. That's really what I meant by "evidence", you see, not "it's common sense".

I find it hard to believe that a "present" vote gets counted into the Nays. Why would they have essentially two votes that mean the exact same thing? What's the purpose in having a Nay vote?

It is functionally the same as a nay, not the same. People vote Nay to be on the record as against something. seems like common sense?

once you have a quorum abstaining from the vote is the same thing also.

[Charla]

Now, if you have some reason for us to believe that he's wrong and you're right and the vote carries no power, by all means let us know about it. That's really what I meant by "evidence", you see, not "it's common sense".

I find it hard to believe that a "present" vote gets counted into the Nays. Why would they have essentially two votes that mean the exact same thing? What's the purpose in having a Nay vote?

That's a pretty good question, and I would presume that the important difference is one of perception. It's easier for someone to spin a no vote against you than a present vote, because it takes more effort to inform and convince the public that they really are functionally equivalent (but only in Illinois). In that respect, you're not wrong in calling the decision to vote present instead of no "politically motivated", but I think calling it cowardace is a bit much. In any event, Amele can probably answer than better than I can.

[sunb1ind]

If someone can show me an official document stating the vote does get toward the pool of Nay votes, then I will wholeheartedly admit my ignorance in that fact. It will still support my view of his character if what you say is true evilbau. Hiding behind important legislation is nothing to be proud of.

edit: I know that probably sounds like an unreasonable task to dig through online databases, but this is basically the reason why I am uncertain about this subject. I'm more focused on his frame of character.

[Shuemue]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/20/ ... 0obama.php

That makes it sound pretty reasonable.

[sunb1ind]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/20/america/20obama.php

That makes it sound pretty reasonable.

We've already discussed most of what that article had to say. The rest was just a bunch of excuses for Obama's decision to hide behind his present votes to help his presidential campaign. He's a smart man, there's a good chance he will come out on top into the presidential election because of that.

[Shuemue]

I wasn't offering that as a means of making a point, just to say I'd read it and that to me, it sounded reasonable that out of over 4k votes he's used a few of them for reasons beyond a simple yes or no.

[evilbau]

Well, i'm not going to look up anything specific regarding Gravel, and I don't know the Illinois State Legislature, but you just have to look at it logically. You need simple majority or 2/3 majority for anything that requires a vote. You need that number of Yes votes, anyone who votes No/Abstain/Present isn't voting affirmatively so they in effect are voting 'No' in not helping something get passed. Which you pick is probably going to be the most politically advantageous or most aligned with your stance on the issue.

Regarding Gravel, I was not impressed by him. He is far too outspoken to be a national figure, another reason I don't think McCain would be a good president. Getting fired up and in people's faces is not very diplomatic. I actually think Gravel is a good analogy for sunblind, everyone wants them out except themselves.

[Charla]

As long as we can agree that the basic facts of the article are correct and that Amele was right about how it works, that's fine. Also, the second half of the article doesn't seem to portray him as a rookie incapable of taking a stand about what he considers important, or someone who will be led solely by his advisors.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I thought a present vote in the Illinois Senate meant you agree with the bill, but disagreed with something specific in the bill. It's a more efficient way of saying you support the bill while not shooting it down. It could also be construed as a way to avoid tough issues though I suppose.

[sunb1ind]

Regarding Gravel, I was not impressed by him. He is far too outspoken to be a national figure, another reason I don't think McCain would be a good president. Getting fired up and in people's faces is not very diplomatic. I actually think Gravel is a good analogy for sunblind, everyone wants them out except themselves.

And this is a bad thing? This is the foundation of America. The only people who want him out are big media and corporate interests. He wants to end America's dependency on oil in 5 years, eliminate big pharm, and empower the people to make law. Why wouldn't they want him out? They don't stand a chance against him if he's elected.

And John McCain is outspoken for all the wrong reasons. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Mike Gravel. That man is as un-american as you can get.

[Keno]

I thought a present vote in the Illinois Senate meant you agree with the bill, but disagreed with something specific in the bill. It's a more efficient way of saying you support the bill while not shooting it down. It could also be construed as a way to avoid tough issues though I suppose.

Hey, you know the Fair Tax is like the opposite of fair and widely considered by economists as a joke, right?