keithpence

keithpence-deactivated20140620  asked:

Regardless, I'm not voting for anyone because I don't support the American electoral system. It's highly flawed in that we have to vote for two parties that in no way fully represent the American public. Hopefully Barack gets reelected and will stand up for what he actually believes in, rather than keeping close ties w/ Wall St. and not pushing legislation for Gay Marriage.

Boooooooo. Booooooooooooooooo. You’re not voting on principle because the system’s flawed? You acknowledge that one candidate would be better than the alternative, but refuse to cast your vote anyway because “the two party system is broken?” Do you know what that does to solve the problem? Nothing. 

As flawed as the electoral college is, the system is designed so that if fewer people vote, each vote is more powerful, and if everyone who recognizes that the system is flawed just didn’t vote out of spite, we’d lose the entire left wing and most of the moderates and end up with President Santorum. That is what happens when people intentionally do not vote to prove a point. The message won’t be received and will do nothing but benefit the people you’re trying to send it to. 

I’m staunchly of the opinion that people who do not vote forfeit their right to complain about politics. You shouldn’t be allowed to complain about the problem if you are actively refusing to be a part of the solution

I reiterate: Booooooooooooooooooooo.

keithpence-deactivated20140620  asked:

i'm not sure if that was you who originally responded to that "Why are you voting for Obama" question, but we've never had a billionaire president...

I’m well aware. However, since the point would have stood even if I had said “millionaire,” so anyone who uses that simple typography error in an attempt to discredit my logic or voting choice is using an ad hominem argument (“you chose a single word poorly, therefore everything you’ve said here is suspect”)

Oh, and anyone hoping to make the argument “Well, Obama’s a millionaire,” sure, he is now, but that wasn’t really the case until after he was on the road to the presidency. My point had nothing to do with the actual net worth of the candidates, my use of the word “billionaire” was intended to highlight the fact that a hell of a lot of our presidents were born rich and only got richer, and how since most (approximately 99%) Americans don’t have a similar situation, maybe we should just stop electing people like that because they’re not representative of their constituents. 

Anyway, I’ve changed it now. Maybe that will make it so I don’t have to hear this response for a fifth time.