12 ms·

Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-

by kgosser 16y ago

Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.

jbooth 16y ago
Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).
- achompas 16y ago
  Unfortunately Nate Silver puts Feingold at a 3% chance of winning. [1] That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades. [1] http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin
  - hnal943 16y ago
    High turnout will ensure his defeat. He's not listening to the Wisconsin electorate and they noticed.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, if it has anything to do with politics. IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Sorry that you've been brainwashhed. "Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, " Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines: Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies. Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing. Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" (Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      That's both a red herring and a straw man. It's a straw man because not only does McCain-Feingold forbid behavior like you illustrate, but also perfectly reasonable advocacy. So the NRA can't say "don't vote for Mr. X because he's against the 2nd Amendment". Pro-choice people can't say "don't vote for Mr. Z because he's voted for blah blah". These are precisely the types of speech that the 1st Amendment was intended (in part) to protect, and McCain-Feingold eviscerates it. It's a red herring, because it's attacking something that's not wrong anyway (and fails to attack what I believe you thing is wrong). It fails to address the implied corruption, bribery, and lobbying. McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with that stuff, yet it's the central evil in your little play. And the last line of your play: Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" is not wrong. Every person has the right to put up a sign on his front door, or put up a web site, describing his own political views, and advocating for or against specific candidates. Every one of us also has the right to associate with who we wish, and in so doing, pool our funds to make that web site even spiffier, or buy a TV ad. I believe that your objection to this is completely content-based: you dislike the kinds of messages that are being commnunicated; you think they're dangerous, and want to stop them. But even if I'm wrong, your argument otherwise serves to bolster my original point ("don't vote unless you know the issues"). We all have the responsibility to understand what's going on. We're supposed to be adults with a conscience and the ability to weigh and judge the merits. If you don't do so, you've got no business voting.
- hnal943 16y ago
  No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed, because he felt that was the last straw. Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think my fellow Wisconsinites have either. This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill. Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it.. This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining that it wasn't expensive enough. if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country. I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101
      - jbooth 16y ago
        No, democrats were primarily complaining that it was outrageously expensive, budget busting, and didn't even do any good because all of the money went straight to the drug companies (see my above comments on lobbyists). RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided to support it.
dkl 16y ago
In fact, in CA not understanding a proposition is grounds for voting "No", because a No vote keeps the status quo. If the people framing the debate haven't done a good enough job, then they deserve the No vote.

by kgosser 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).

achompas 16y ago
Unfortunately Nate Silver puts Feingold at a 3% chance of winning. [1] That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades. [1] http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin
- hnal943 16y ago
  High turnout will ensure his defeat. He's not listening to the Wisconsin electorate and they noticed.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, if it has anything to do with politics. IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Sorry that you've been brainwashhed. "Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, " Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines: Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies. Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing. Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" (Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    That's both a red herring and a straw man. It's a straw man because not only does McCain-Feingold forbid behavior like you illustrate, but also perfectly reasonable advocacy. So the NRA can't say "don't vote for Mr. X because he's against the 2nd Amendment". Pro-choice people can't say "don't vote for Mr. Z because he's voted for blah blah". These are precisely the types of speech that the 1st Amendment was intended (in part) to protect, and McCain-Feingold eviscerates it. It's a red herring, because it's attacking something that's not wrong anyway (and fails to attack what I believe you thing is wrong). It fails to address the implied corruption, bribery, and lobbying. McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with that stuff, yet it's the central evil in your little play. And the last line of your play: Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" is not wrong. Every person has the right to put up a sign on his front door, or put up a web site, describing his own political views, and advocating for or against specific candidates. Every one of us also has the right to associate with who we wish, and in so doing, pool our funds to make that web site even spiffier, or buy a TV ad. I believe that your objection to this is completely content-based: you dislike the kinds of messages that are being commnunicated; you think they're dangerous, and want to stop them. But even if I'm wrong, your argument otherwise serves to bolster my original point ("don't vote unless you know the issues"). We all have the responsibility to understand what's going on. We're supposed to be adults with a conscience and the ability to weigh and judge the merits. If you don't do so, you've got no business voting.
hnal943 16y ago
No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed, because he felt that was the last straw. Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think my fellow Wisconsinites have either. This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill. Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it.. This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining that it wasn't expensive enough. if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country. I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101
    - jbooth 16y ago
      No, democrats were primarily complaining that it was outrageously expensive, budget busting, and didn't even do any good because all of the money went straight to the drug companies (see my above comments on lobbyists). RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided to support it.

dkl 16y ago

In fact, in CA not understanding a proposition is grounds for voting "No", because a No vote keeps the status quo. If the people framing the debate haven't done a good enough job, then they deserve the No vote.