Hey that's the way to get your needs met. Don't vote. Brilliant. I'm sure whoever the rethuglican is will move the govt just where you want it. Maybe they'll even shut down medical AND recreational around the country like Christy wants to do. I'm sure that will thrill ya.
A politician's past voting record is the same thing as a phantom apparition in the physical world - it has no weight or substance, so may as well stay dead and buried, as they would have it. A slick politician's denial is otherwise known as tenacity and the general public's mistaken interpretation of the issue to begin with. Anyway, if I've said it once I've said it a billion times, "I never exaggerate", so why don't y'all vote for me
.
Respectfully, it is @Farid's right and privilege to vote should he choose to do so, but it is by no means an obligation. Of course, no vote creates a void or a shift that gets filled by perhaps another even less desirable candidate. If an entire field of candidates proved undesirable by a majority mass electorate, perhaps a referendum should be enacted to go back to the drawing board and draw from the poker deck once more??? Not likely, or practical, I know, but...
I mean no disrespect to either you or Farid, but I disagree. I personally believe that voting IS YOUR ONLY obligation of citizenship. You are given the right to vote with an expectation that you will use it. And if you don't use it, than I think you are obliged to stay out of the conversation.
No disrespect taken. I believe our most principled obligation as citizens is to be as good of a citizen to one another as one's own ability, conscience, and beliefs allow. One's belief disallowing one from participating in something for whatever his/her personal reason should not necessarily disqualify one from contributing 2 cents into the pot. And to force one's strong opinion on another for mandatory acceptance lest he/she be cast out, IMO, is not a worthy demonstration of good citizenry, nor is it wise. There is much to learn from a silent, abstaining, dissenting, or indecisive minority. Though it may or may not be a precise fit for this discussion, it may nonetheless be somewhat apropos i.e., a good rule to consider where an unknown risk is involved is - "if you have to think about it, don't do it".
These are meaningful distinctions indeed, perhaps even profound. What is still unclear to me is who's who behind the masks, and from which side of the aisle do they truly hail.
I can't imagine why you might have difficulty determining that. Even if you don't want to believe what they say, other than the 3 at the top of the republican race they all have records that you can evaluate. And even those 3 have fairly clearly indicated their intentions and desires. If Carson had never opened his mouth we might not have enough info about him, but he has resolved that for us. The other 2 have said enough to disqualify them for me.
The full range. Say, Can I vote for 'none of the above' this election? 
). Sigh.....
While it may not be difficult to come to final judgment for some, I have never really been able to expertly handicap the phillies running in these races predictive of how they will perform once they've passed the finish line. Habitual flip-floppers notwithstanding, few others have shown an opposite proclivity to resist bending to shifting winds and special interests. Perhaps I would be better served by applying a reverse psychology to all candidates, taking what they promise and expecting the reverse. And even if one does make noble effort to stay true to his/her words, even at their best statesmanship, there is no guarantee that they won't incite gridlock with a recalcitrant congress. I wish it were enough to see our candidates posing raw atop their soap boxes and resting on records, but the office of the presidency has turned many a filet mignon into ground chuck, leaving we discerning patrons disappointed at the dining table.
Well, this is only in the primaries, where you are helping to choose the party's candidate. Some states have open primaries where they allow anyone to vote in the primaries, other states are more party centric.Currently, If you want to switch parties, then the factor of different election board rules and time allowed to make the switch from each party. Some boards rules deliberately make you wait for more than a year too be able to switch parties in time. (so their is no chicanery, I guess
Well, don't feel badly about that. Look at how many Supreme Court Justices have turned out to be something other than what their choosers expected. I would suggest that is a much bigger deal than our single votes...
