not more.
When people don't vote: it's a message that they're doing ok and not overly concerned. That's a sign of stability.
You know who votes in high numbers? South Americans. They're pretty damn worried about what's next.
Low turnout means things are doing ok.
the ones who agree with me. On everything.
So there.
I agree with you for the most part, but in our current situation I think it's the opposite problem. People are really worried about what's next on both sides, but nobody likes the options presented. It's gone past "lesser of two evils" approach because both choices are so bad.
And before all of the Biden folks start going crazy, I get that you think Trump is so bad it's not a comparison, but let's be fair. Biden is out of it and has done some things that are reprehensible (e.g., Afghanistan withdrawal, student loan theft, etc.)
I can't stand either one of them, and I will 100% be staying home this November.
It's normal vs. abnormal.
It's not the lesser of two evils. It's evil vs. not evil.
As bad as Biden may be, and while there are reasons not to vote for him, make no mistake, there's no equivalence here. There's a bad option. There's a horrific, absolutely unacceptable option. There's nothing bad enough about Biden that makes voting for Trump acceptable.
Signed,
Not a Biden Folk
EDIT - “If you vote Democrat as a Christian, I think you can no longer call yourself a Christian” - Charlie Kirk. There's nothing normal about that statement.
Or Nikki Haley?
C'mon. Republicans and Democrats have policy differences. That doesn't make the opposition 'evil'. I don't know if I would even consider Trump 'evil'. In addition to being incompetent, intellectually deficient and immoral, I do think his Presidency would be dangerous. But mostly due to the people in his orbit who would be placed in positions of power. At least in Trump's first term, those that surrounded him were more or less establishment Republicans who were able to restrain Trump's worst natures. That won't be the case if he wins a second term. Only MAGA loyalists need apply for spots in the Trump administration. And based on what I've read in the Project 2025 plan, he intends to place loyalists throughout every level of government.
...and a threat to the union.
I think a case can be made regarding Biden's competence. He is absolutely no threat and has expressed, implied or done anything that makes him a threat.
Trump reminds us daily that he is a threat to the American experiment. Trump's words aren't my opinion. Trump's insurrection isn't my opinion. Trump's liability for sexual assault and fraud is not my opinion. His failure to accept the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power are not my opinion.
Biden wants to make access to abortion a constitutional right. The Democratic Party has one position. Abortion is the single most important right. It can not be limited in anyway. The first and second amendments can be limited or eliminated.
So some of us do see a reason not to vote for Biden and other Democrats.
Just to be clear, I am not saying anything positive about Trump.
what is the Republican party position on the death penalty?
These were convicted criminals judged by a jury of their peers who exhausted their due process appeals and did not receive clemency.
On the other hand, more than 600,000 babies were aborted.
I am Pro-life to include being anti-death penalty. I had a change of heart about 10-12 years ago. So I see the point you're trying to make.
However, the magnitude of evil and injustice between the effect of legalized capital punishment is not comparable to the evil of abortion.
None of what I wrote is to be construed as political or Trump vs Biden. Just a pet peeve of the abortion vs cap punishment comparison.
and I'm anti-death penalty. I'd add that to compare a serial rapist-murderer's life being ended to that of a perfectly innocent and helpless baby is not a strong argument. The rapist-murderer gets free legal counsel, endless appeals, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The baby gets "we're not sure when life begins, so it's between a woman and her doctor."
I am also pro life and anti death penalty. I'm also an advocate for smarter gun safety rules. In general, I think that we have an unhealthy obsession with death and killing in this country; the "culture of death" that the holy Father John Paul 2 warned about.
That said, I despise when people pick and choose which teachings of the Church to use as a defense and when a person intends to label an entire group of people the way that the OP did, it bugs me.
If Dems were pushing to replace the death penalty to life without parole in a manner that could be stomached by those concerned with heinous criminals walking the streets again, I think Catholics in good conscience would have to take those proposals seriously. Alas, I'm not aware of that being a significant part of any current policy debate.
Catholics should rejoice when there are fewer babies aborted however that occurs whether its through education, crisis pregancy centers, policies that support mothers facing violence, etc. The same can be true for the death penalty, which has been relegated to an extremely unlikely to be used tool. Catholics should also be worried about policy blow back. If they were able to successfully get rid of legal abortion or death penalty in all circumstances, isn't it quite possible that the rope gets pulled back too strongly in the other policy direction? That should be considered.
"Catholics should rejoice when there are fewer babies aborted however that occurs whether its through education, crisis pregancy centers, policies that support mothers facing violence, etc. " -- Yes. Support of families in poverty, economic opportunity, etc
One group only supports cutting supply while, apparently, not caring about demand.
I'm anti-abortion (while recognizing the medical need for it to exist) and anti-death penalty, while being in support of programs to assist moms and moms-to-be, provided stats show they make a difference.
I think you're using it as an excuse to vote for Trump.
Your First and Second Amendment comments are laughable. Though, I don't think there's anything intrinsically evil about limiting the Second Amendment, even if I don't agree with it. I have seen it used to commit a lot of evil.
I think the Democrats are evil rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. To justify supporting someone they know to be evil.
not evil. I mentioned them to compare the Democratic Party's radical position on abortion to two fundamental rights actually listed in the Constitution.
of the position of Democrats on abortion is incorrect.
I have also missed the Democratic calls for eliminating the First Amendment,
edit: It is true that the parties have staked out their positions on abortion. There are few, if any, pro-life Democrats left and few, if any, pro choice Republicans left. If you view abortion as the deciding issue for you, it’s plausible that you don’t want to vote for any Democrat.
However, I think you can make that point without grossly distorting their position.
amending the constitution to change the second amendment. Some calling for repeal or sever restrictions.
Regarding the first amendment there have been many calls for restrictions.
The DHS was planning on creating a group to handle disinformation and misinformation. The FBI told the social media companies to clamp down on COVID and Hunter's laptop posts.
I only mentioned them to compare to the Democratic Party's strong abortion policies. I have said abortion is the most important, to the point it is greater than 50% weighting, on determining who I will vote for.
The accusation is that it is merely an excuse to vote for Trump. I voted against Hillary, I voted against Biden and I will vote against Biden again.
is what supports your claim that Democrats want to “eliminate” the first smendment?
Abortion is important to you and on that issue, you don’t intend to vote for Democrats. Perhaps you could stop there rather justifying your choice with unsupported apocalyptic claims.
The point I am trying to make is abortion appears to be more important to Democrats than the first and second amendments. People can vote against Democrats on policy.
The poster I responded to said evil. And accused me of using it as an excuse to vote for Trump.
You seem to have missed mine: That your claims, as they apply to the position of the Democratic party on the first amendment spring pretty much from your determination to believe them.
about, but having someone like Trump (who has already shown his colors) is preferable to something that doesn’t affect you?
I’m not saying vote for Biden, but I don’t see why you’d vote for Trump.
Board need to learn the value of an unexpressed thought.
I don't love drive buy poster slams. I see you've indicated you were joking, so my apologies.
Jerry Falwell?
Like many here, I am a practicing Catholic. Like many here I went to Notre Dame knowing it was a Catholic school. Fr. Hesburgh liked to say "The Catholic university is where the Church does its thinking." I assumed he included ND.
So, is the fact that I follow the Church's teaching, on one of the most important issues, make me out to be Jerry Falwell?
Do you believe the Church is wrong on abortion? Do you think it is no big deal?
although some people are into that sort of thing, I suppose.
abstention is a valid choice, the right to vote is also a right not to vote, and because the odds of mandatory voting improving American governance is vanishingly small.
You want them voting? We should require that voters pass some basic knowledge tests.
Fat asses.
Rules are rules.
...and then realize half of them are stupider than that.
(RIP George C)
That was a way to exclude black voters in the South for about a hundred years.
Brilliant.
"Who won the 2020 US Presidential Election?"
Answer wrong, you're out.
The nice part is, the wrong answers usually include a ton of batshit crazy to further support the decision.
are torsos
Cut off your left side and you're all right.
Exactly half are below median intelligence, not average.
I'll go ahead and give myself the pedant of the day award.
The mean is the mode is the median.
It is normally distributed, and in a population as large as the US, we should expect 1/2 the population above and half below.
It's not like wealth where the average is further to the right than the median due to extreme wealth.
I actually know next to nothing about IQ, so I had no idea.
I never use those little fuckers.
As we only had ANSI keyboards and none of this UTF-8 nonsense.
*<:->
;-)
etc.
Why did we hate ourselves?
type classes. I remeber being asked it a long time a go in a galaxy far far away. The authors of the question believe that it creates reasonable ground for someone to choose either side and make a reasonable argument drawing from knowledge about the constitution as well as more contemporary American politics.
I continue to believe that mandatory voting laws would ultimately be found unconstitutional under the 1st ammendment as a form of government compelled speach.
how those seem to go?
For a great number of people, it seems they feel their vote doesn't impact the outcome and things won't change anyway.
And that's the subject in this thread.
Per below, people showing up because of an incentive, whether positive or negative, isn't going to drive good results.
I would prefer there be more interested, informed voters, especially when it comes to primaries. IL had one of its lowest turnouts ever, probably because the Presidential primary was already decided. I think having all the primaries on one day would help this.
Iowa, NH, and SC deserve no special consideration whatsoever.
Perhaps randomize the order and announce it 3 months beforehand?
Everyone still only gets one ballot but unaffiliated voters are not excluded from the process.
I get that the answer may well be "you don't" but the fact that the Dems fed 2 million to Moreno's primary campaign is both stupid and playing with fire. I despise the idea of "prop up the weakest candidate so we win in the general", because it can backfire and get you a lot of what we have today.
So I'm having a hard time indulging the fantasy.
I'm perplexed over the pushback of requiring IDs.
...to show up at the polls without threat of financial penalty to have more influence on our lives?
People stay home for primaries. Do those go well? Do you think we'd benefit from increased voter turnout in the primaries?
How many people on this board talk about staying home out of disgust with all the candidates?
We know some people, for a multitude of reasons, just struggle to get their vote in. Whether it's health, wealth, sadness, or forgetfulness, I'm not sure why society shouldn't do our best to get their input.
This process seems to work well enough for Australia. Plenty of people there just get their name marked off without selecting candidates. It does not seem overly burdensome to do a mail in vote saying "No one".
Come on.
…don’t care about the outcome. I’m not sure how we better reflect that will by either (a) forcing them to check a box that confirms what their non-participation already would have told us or (b) having them randomly choose a candidate because as long as they’re forced to be there they may as well pick someone.