Am I the only one, or does it seem as though with all the messages we see on television lately, choosing a president this year is kinda like trying to decide between being run over by a steamroller, or thrown in a wood chipper? Neither one sounds to pleasant to me. Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Are there really only 2 choices this election?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The purpose of campaign attack ads is not to win voters over to the candidate sponsoring the ad. The function of mudslinging/negative advertising is to use lies and misleading half-truths to get voters who might support the other candidate to not vote.
If ya wanna let the rat's patooties manipulate you into thinking that "both candidates are bad" or "I'd just be voting for the lesser of two evils", don't bother to educate yourself so that you can detect the falsehoods. Don't check the misleading soundbites with the real facts/quotations. If you want the rat's patooties to win completely -- to gloat over how gullible you are -- don't vote.
[ May 22, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Of course it matters. At the minimum, to reelect Bush would put a stamp of approval on the rather radical changes his administration has made to our nation's policies. To not reelect him would be to reject those changes and call for something new.
Regardless of which side you take, I don't see how this could be interpretted as not mattering, unless you don't believe what our nation does matters.
[ May 23, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by goblin (Member # 6539) on :
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should not vote. I'm not saying that the nation does not matter. The point I was trying to make is that if these are the best we can come up with, then maybe this country is in worse shape then we thought. Just my opinion. It does seem as though we are so used to being lied to and mis lead that we will allow them to do our thinking for us. What happened to the good old days when people were informed, not just buying into the bull that the machine spreads for us? It seems as if the more advanced we become, the less informed we get. I may be wrong. Who knows.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Isn't it interesting that during the information/communication revolution people/we seem less informed and and less communicative?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Compared to when?
This mud slinging is nothing compared to what our "distinguished" founding fathers engaged in. And the misinformation was also much greater back then; politically affiliated newspapers would print pretty much anything about people who opposed them (or supported them for that matter, though for them a different sort of anything). Unlike the current system, where the mainstream news has to use at least some semblance of a source, and on the whole is remarkably balanced.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What fugu said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pretty much the textbook case of negative campaigning was 1884:
quote:Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine! The continental liar from the state of Maine, Burn this letter!
quote:Ma, Ma Where's My Pa?" "Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I would've said 1828 myself...but I guess it's a matter of opinion.
Of course, no one could be elected President today after even almost attacking a heckler...it'd be all over the news.
[ May 23, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Tres is right, voting, no matter which way is very important. Not to mention, people died so you can vote! Exercise your right
Posted by goblin (Member # 6539) on :
The idea of voting being important is sound, except for one minor flaw. The president is not chosen by popular vote, he is chosen by the electoral college, and even though they are supposed to vote the way we, the people vote, they do not have to. There are no rules to make them accountible to anyone. ( If you don't believe me, ask any good government teacher. They can tell you.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, there are lots of rules. Most states make those people vote certain ways by law (possibly unconstitutional law, but details, details). And even if they aren't forced to vote a certain way, they'd be accountable in exactly the same way a directly elected president would be accountable.
Also, the electoral college is absolutely necessary. Imagine what happened in Florida happening in every state, in every moderately close election. Unless we were to completely overhaul our electoral process (likely moving to some sort of run off system combined with a required margin of victory), the electoral college must remain.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote:election: deos it really matter?
Don't you mean: Deus it really matter?
That's hugely deep.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
You'd be surprised, Bush Jr. is only the second worst President. His Supreme Dark POTUS Lord is of course Andrew Jackson.
Posted by Jalapenoman (Member # 6575) on :
Well, you can elect a lying, idiot, puppet of the skull and bones society or a lying, cheating, puppet of the skull and bones society. Does not sound like either choice is much different.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
You could always vote for me, of course...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Well, you can elect a lying, idiot, puppet of the skull and bones society or a lying, cheating, puppet of the skull and bones society. Does not sound like either choice is much different.
...which was the message drilled home over and over again in the 2000 election. So long as Democrats believe neither candidate will work for reform, they'll stay away from the election. Aspectre has the right of this.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)