The last subject head was misleading ...
Nov. 2nd, 2004 12:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
spirithorse21My head actually hurts too much to write a diatribe about the election bullshit, but I have a few thoughts anyway.
For the first time in my life since I was allowed to vote, I don't feel compelled to do so. Funny how that has happened during such an important election year. It kills my journalistic heart to say that I may not vote (and, I know I can't really skip) but I have to ponder what it's worth.
The vote is decided by the electoral. It's a shitty system, and it means that, for the most part, the public's vote is lost unless the election is incredibly close and the electorial is tied. So, we have millions of people voting, and it may mean nothing. I'm not usually so pessimistic about this stuff, but it just seems futile this year.
And another thing ... the candidate for President both suck. I know there are some of you who will disagree with me, but hear me out here. Bush: He's an idiot. He can't admit when he's wrong, and he's ignored the fact that a large majority of the world hates him. He handled 9/11 well, but has since tried to obliterate the middle east for all the wrong reasons (never mind that fact that with a little research there could have been right reasons!) The economy sucks, but I'm not sure that's his fault. Economists will tell you that all the time, and I'm inclined to agree with them. However, I think he could have done more to lower the cost of medical expenses. Kerry: The man can' make up his mind, and on a public, bi-partisan platform, he isn't consistent, nor does he firmly stand by any particular issue. He has spent most of his campaign merely saying how bad a job Bush has done. What I'd like to know is how in the name of God does he expect to fund all these new programs without raising our taxes, like he propsed in debate no. 2. And, I'm not sure I see the difference between Bush, who supposedly rushed in to destroy Iraq, and Kerry, who proposes to solve a conflict that dates to biblical times in four years. They both appear to need a lot of gun power.
So, what to do? Vote for Bush and keep an idiot? I can at least predict his actions. Or, vote for Kerry in hopes that change is good? I have no clue what this man is going to do to "reverse" Bush's idiocy. It could be a lot worse. It could be better. I have no faith in either, so I can't, with a clear conscious, vote for either of them. What then? I should (and have said I would) vote for Nader. But that really is a waste of time. I don't think he'll get enough of the popular vote to get federal funding for the next campaign (that was my whole reason for voting for him), and that just takes a vote away from Bush or Kerry, and what if my vote decides the whole thing? Ha! Fat chance!
So see, it's quite a delima. I shall have to think long and hard as I stand in line for two hours to cast my pointless vote. God help us all!
BTW: I've been on hold with the Marion County Board of Voter Registration this entire time in hopes of learning where I vote. If they don't answer, my delima is over.
For the first time in my life since I was allowed to vote, I don't feel compelled to do so. Funny how that has happened during such an important election year. It kills my journalistic heart to say that I may not vote (and, I know I can't really skip) but I have to ponder what it's worth.
The vote is decided by the electoral. It's a shitty system, and it means that, for the most part, the public's vote is lost unless the election is incredibly close and the electorial is tied. So, we have millions of people voting, and it may mean nothing. I'm not usually so pessimistic about this stuff, but it just seems futile this year.
And another thing ... the candidate for President both suck. I know there are some of you who will disagree with me, but hear me out here. Bush: He's an idiot. He can't admit when he's wrong, and he's ignored the fact that a large majority of the world hates him. He handled 9/11 well, but has since tried to obliterate the middle east for all the wrong reasons (never mind that fact that with a little research there could have been right reasons!) The economy sucks, but I'm not sure that's his fault. Economists will tell you that all the time, and I'm inclined to agree with them. However, I think he could have done more to lower the cost of medical expenses. Kerry: The man can' make up his mind, and on a public, bi-partisan platform, he isn't consistent, nor does he firmly stand by any particular issue. He has spent most of his campaign merely saying how bad a job Bush has done. What I'd like to know is how in the name of God does he expect to fund all these new programs without raising our taxes, like he propsed in debate no. 2. And, I'm not sure I see the difference between Bush, who supposedly rushed in to destroy Iraq, and Kerry, who proposes to solve a conflict that dates to biblical times in four years. They both appear to need a lot of gun power.
So, what to do? Vote for Bush and keep an idiot? I can at least predict his actions. Or, vote for Kerry in hopes that change is good? I have no clue what this man is going to do to "reverse" Bush's idiocy. It could be a lot worse. It could be better. I have no faith in either, so I can't, with a clear conscious, vote for either of them. What then? I should (and have said I would) vote for Nader. But that really is a waste of time. I don't think he'll get enough of the popular vote to get federal funding for the next campaign (that was my whole reason for voting for him), and that just takes a vote away from Bush or Kerry, and what if my vote decides the whole thing? Ha! Fat chance!
So see, it's quite a delima. I shall have to think long and hard as I stand in line for two hours to cast my pointless vote. God help us all!
BTW: I've been on hold with the Marion County Board of Voter Registration this entire time in hopes of learning where I vote. If they don't answer, my delima is over.
