Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes.
Joel Send a noteboard - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM
Again, in places like NV, where "nobody" is always an official candidate, that's quite viable; if we did that nationally neither Bush NOR Kerry would've been elected in '04 (which might've made Dennis Hastert President; be careful what you wish... ). But in most of the US, not voting, or intentionally marring a ballot so it's unreadable, will be recorded as an over/undervote (if it's recorded at all) then ignored. Unless an election is decided by hundreds of votes and a single FL county has thousands of overvotes due to a confusing ballot, they aren't relevant (most weren't then, since determining which overvotes were actual errors and how many were "corrected" by voters who wanted Gore would be guesswork).
My governor's race consists of dumb and dumber as does my representative's race. I can't in good faith cast a vote for any of them. What a sad state of affairs locally and nationally.
The lesser of two evils is still LESSER. Not voting at all means you don't even bother to comment, and liberals staying home 'cos their guy lost while conservatives do their civic duty, hold their nose and elect the least objectionable candidate. Because of that, they elect the least objectionable RIGHT candidate while liberal anarchist smugly deride the corrupt system they don't bother fixing.
When half the country doesn't bother showing up to say who they want running the whole NATION we don't inaugurate "none of the above" we elect whoever got a majority from the half that bothered to show. If you're not part of the solution you're still part of the problem. I understand and share your frustration with the current system and candidates, but the bottom line is the same as with the people condemnning sex and violence on TV: It continues solely because we tolerate it. Dissenters sitting on the sidelines aren't going to change anything. That simply allows those who created the problem to make it worse (and if you haven't looked around lately that's pretty much what's happened). If you've got time to argue it online, you've got a half hour to an hour (tops) to go vote, and if it's not at least that important to you, why go online and argue about it? I can't guarantee voting isn't as big a waste of time as discussing US politics on a site hosted in the UK, but it's no WORSE.
It's not rocket science, people. If you don't like negative ads, stop voting for people who run them and they'll try an EFFECTIVE strategy. If you don't like crooks and thieves in government, show up and vote someone else. Write in your own name if that's what it takes, but not voting at all isn't "registering your disapproval". It doesn't actually REGISTER anything; that's the problem. It is kinda bizarre though that those with the least faith in government tend to be the most likely to vote, even if it does explain why charges of "socialism" can doom a US candidate.
But don't openly concede you know the system is BADLY flawed, then claim some kind of moral high ground because you don't bother fixing it. Maybe the Little Dutch Boy is better off just saying, "look, I've only got 10 fingers; I can't plug the whole dike" but it wouldn't make him a national hero.
Hopefully, hopefully the democrats will be so worried about losing seats in general that they will coerce their most moderate members into running. And smartest. This election season looks like looming parade of psychotics, but it might actually be beneficial.</unexpected optimism>
My governor's race consists of dumb and dumber as does my representative's race. I can't in good faith cast a vote for any of them. What a sad state of affairs locally and nationally.
The lesser of two evils is still LESSER. Not voting at all means you don't even bother to comment, and liberals staying home 'cos their guy lost while conservatives do their civic duty, hold their nose and elect the least objectionable candidate. Because of that, they elect the least objectionable RIGHT candidate while liberal anarchist smugly deride the corrupt system they don't bother fixing.
When half the country doesn't bother showing up to say who they want running the whole NATION we don't inaugurate "none of the above" we elect whoever got a majority from the half that bothered to show. If you're not part of the solution you're still part of the problem. I understand and share your frustration with the current system and candidates, but the bottom line is the same as with the people condemnning sex and violence on TV: It continues solely because we tolerate it. Dissenters sitting on the sidelines aren't going to change anything. That simply allows those who created the problem to make it worse (and if you haven't looked around lately that's pretty much what's happened). If you've got time to argue it online, you've got a half hour to an hour (tops) to go vote, and if it's not at least that important to you, why go online and argue about it? I can't guarantee voting isn't as big a waste of time as discussing US politics on a site hosted in the UK, but it's no WORSE.
It's not rocket science, people. If you don't like negative ads, stop voting for people who run them and they'll try an EFFECTIVE strategy. If you don't like crooks and thieves in government, show up and vote someone else. Write in your own name if that's what it takes, but not voting at all isn't "registering your disapproval". It doesn't actually REGISTER anything; that's the problem. It is kinda bizarre though that those with the least faith in government tend to be the most likely to vote, even if it does explain why charges of "socialism" can doom a US candidate.
But don't openly concede you know the system is BADLY flawed, then claim some kind of moral high ground because you don't bother fixing it. Maybe the Little Dutch Boy is better off just saying, "look, I've only got 10 fingers; I can't plug the whole dike" but it wouldn't make him a national hero.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
927 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
488 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
350 Views
Now there's an answer
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
453 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
333 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
358 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
317 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM
145 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
443 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
310 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote.
- 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM
310 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting.
- 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM
314 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes.
- 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM
318 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
436 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
431 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
363 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
382 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to
- 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM
357 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM*
- 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM
189 Views
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
456 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
- 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
238 Views
It is on youtube
- 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM
353 Views
Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM
367 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM
322 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
308 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
308 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
395 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
336 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
413 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
331 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
400 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
410 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
317 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
348 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
371 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
310 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
331 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM
126 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
277 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS
- 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM
316 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs.
- 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM
308 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say
- 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM
310 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM
129 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM
127 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake.
- 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM
307 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
281 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
281 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
311 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause.
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
137 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
137 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
288 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
302 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
363 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes.
- 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM
291 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
329 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
280 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
292 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
285 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
290 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
295 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
293 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
128 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
297 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say
- 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM
290 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
394 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true
- 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM
303 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM
115 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
343 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
318 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point
- 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM
441 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
419 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
309 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
313 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM*
- 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM
138 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look.
- 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM
395 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
129 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
126 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
285 Views
