(Quote) Patricia-29176 said: Charles, I can't let this one slide by. Women fought for years to be given the right to vote. I...
(Quote) Patricia-29176 said:
Charles, I can't let this one slide by. Women fought for years to be given the right to vote. If you talk to people who have lived in other countries where they essentially had no right to vote because the country was run by a dictator, they cherish this right and opportunity to vote and cannot fathom why someone would not choose to exercise this right here in the U.S.. To make a statement such as you did trivializes the freedom we have to choose between 2 candidates (even though they would perhaps not be the candidates you would want). Don't you realize how important that freedom is? If you ever lost it, I think you would be saying something completely different. And, if you do not use this right and enough others do not, our country will head much farther down the path toward becoming like the countries that people leave to come to the U.S. so they can have this freedom to vote, along with other freedoms. A decision to vote is absolutely NOT futility in action. And, I'm truly shocked to see something like that said by an intelligent young Catholic man. I must think that you really don't believe this because it is just not true and hopefully never will be true in the United States of America!
People who don't live under democracy may long for what they think democracy is, but that's never what democracy actually is in practice. The two viable candidates that we have right now agree on 90+% of the substantive issues, and that's probably underestimating it. They're both pro-war, they're both pro-corporate bailouts, they're both pro-economic intervention, they're both pro-welfare, they both plan to continue deficit spending, etc, etc. When they actually DO disagree, the disagreements are merely cosmetic rather than philosophical. It's a bit of a stretch to call this election a "choice". The state has already won the election.