Political Media

[formerly known as hf]

That's a perfectly valid reason.

Though I'm adverse to gender normatives - understanding the potentials for a woman president shows an awareness of what a change might instigate. Furthermore, it's clear there is some understanding of what 'democrat' means.

But you're right.

What is really needed is a group of elitist individuals running the country solely for the benefit of the other elites.

To hell with people that can't articulate rational throught.

What the hell was the Enlightenment for anyway?!

Forward mighty men of rational mind and thought!

[Zanthos]

Well, the extent of the people who try to convince me to vote for her only understand democrat as not bush's party.

I have no problem with people voicing their opinions, i have a problem when people just jump on a bandwagon knowing jack shit about what they are supporting. Hell, these kinds of people would support a child rapist if they were anti bush.

[Tangential]

I agree with you, Zanthos, on the unfortunate fact that there are a lot of voters who do "jump on the bandwagon" without knowing what the hell they are truly supporting.

There are bound to be people who will be voting for Clinton just because she is a woman. Feminist power, right? And there will be people who will be voting for Obama just because "well.. it'd be nice to have a president who's not white." Sorry if any of that offended; my aim was not to be sexist of racist, but it's a blatant fact there will be people voting that way.

But really, how many people research all the candidates of all parties by checking the candidate's voting history on proposed bills, previous actions taken to better the society, or involvement in a community when the camera's not shining on them? Probably not the majority of the voters because a thorough understanding of all candidates will take hours for each one. A small quiz would be nice because it could verify that the voter has at least some knowledge as to what he or she is supporting, but then again I can also see it as a deterrent so that if a quiz were implemented, some people wouldn't even bother to vote. *shrugs*

[Zanthos]

personally, if you can't be bothered to find out what the person your voting for stands for, then i dont think you should even be allowed to vote. I don't care if your knowledge is as simple as "he wants to fight poverty good" or as complex as knowing he supports a change to the income tax to better scale how much someone pays based on how much they make, taking pressure off the middle class.

edit - i'll be honest, i dont know everything about all the canidates, but i do know enough about the people who i would consider voting for.

[DylPickle]

That would bring judgment levels into play way too much for a democracy. You can't fix a democratic system in anyway by imposing a limit on the people's access to the polls.

The problems are all societal. It isn't "cool" to be politically active or informed. That, and the education system is seriously going down hill. You don't fix it by breaking freedom, you fix it by stepping up. Lame as that sounds But hey, it only sounds lame because the Simpsons and Farris Bueller told you so.

Edit: How do you spell that guy's last name? :p Bueller? Or am I way off?

[formerly known as hf]

So, 'not being bush' isn't good enough? Sounds damn fine to me.

It'll do for me. Heck. Last election I didn't care too much who I voted for as long as it wasn't Blair's party.

To be honest, you can find out about their plans and their goals and their spin and PR. But, at the end of the day, whether it's Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories, or Republican and Democrats - their all pretty much of a muchness.

Reasons such as 'he's not white' and 'she's a woman' are perfectly valid. In societies based on identity politics - it's what's to be expected. Those are powerful signifiers of various discourses. Someone might not be aware of their particulars, but they'd be socially aware enough to know what those signifiers represent. That's a perfectly valid judgement.

It's not that it isn't 'cool' to be politically active. It's just that given the current political climates in the UK and US, I have absolutely no surprise that most people are just damned apatehtic.

The attitudes to politics are a result of a shoddy system. There were times, not long ago, when anyone and everyone - from 'learn'd students' to 'workers' would protest.

Now, when you have the biggest public deomnstration in the history of the UK. Involving everyone from lefty pinkos and socialists to Middle Class Telegraph readers. And it does absolutely Jack Shit in regards to the actions of your government. Is it any wonder that the general populace are so damned apathetic?

On top of that, both the US and UK are pretty damned affluent. Everyone's 'all right Jack'. Whoever gets into power, they're still gonna be able to buy TV meals and watch ER. It doesn;t really matter.

If there's any group of people in the US who are gonna be the leaders of any kind of political activism - it's gonna be the vast numbers of immigrants upon which the country relies - and which the govermnet do everything to keep politically and economically immobile.

[Money]

I really understand what you mean by apathy hr half my freinds voted for the conservatives because their canidate had a funny last name