Some personal thoughts about the election.

[xaq_the_aereon]

First off, I'm just gonna come right out and admit that I didn't vote.

As far as I cared, neither candidate was sufficiently qualified for the job. If I were given the choice of 2 buttons...one of which would dump a container of acid on me and the other of which would deploy a guillotine to slice off my legs...I doubt anyone would blame me for refusing to press either. Were I forced to go to the polls today, I'd simply have signed the write-in box for "None of the above."

If anything, I'm only glad that Obama won because the Constitution forbids him a 3rd term; I'd rather take 4 more years of the idiot I know than risk 8 of the idiot I don't.

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~George Carlin, describing one of his many philosophies which I whole-heartedly agree with.


You want me to vote? Give me a candidate worthy of my vote. Elsewise, fuck off.



Anyway, had a thought for the 2016 elections: Have the candidates fill out a resumé showing why they're qualified for the job.

Comments

[davidn]

You could vote for a return to British rule. That would help me out!

[kjorteo]

Unless Scotland stops being British.

[davidn]

...Yes. Thank you for reminding me!

[xaq.livejournal.com]

I've already stated my conditions for accepting that idea before, you know that. :b

[kjorteo]

I voted for Obama because I like him and I think he did a fairly good job, given the circumstances. That's just me, though. If you genuinely and legitimately dislike both candidates, then refusing to support either is just as valid an expression of your opinion, to which you very much have a right. That's the neat thing about a democracy!

[anher.livejournal.com]

He punted all his policies down the road so we have no real gauge on how that will affect things. Not to mention he pulled -less- support this time around, and as an incumbent that's a bad sign. Not since FDR has an incumbent been re-elected with less support than their first election.

So, I'm waiting for his first term to really take effect.

[anher.livejournal.com]

Also, in regards to George Carlin's quote let me put something else up: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Which is essentially what's happening here. You're saying that both sides are evil and in order to feel good about yourself, and what you've done you do nothing, thus allowing the 'evil' (as you perceive it) to win.

Bravo.

[xaq.livejournal.com]

If I felt either side were "evil," I'd have voted against them, if only as a measure of damage control.

I don't view either one as "evil," though. I view them both as unqualified for the job; the analogy I used mentioned "the idiot I know" rather than "the devil I know" for good reason.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in the original post.

[anher.livejournal.com]

Essentially what you're saying is that if you were in a group where to people you felt were unqualified to lead and all other factors except ideology, and you ended up with what could be the deciding vote, You would simply let the one who had been in charge stay in charge, even if the others one's morals mostly lined up with yours just so you could maintain your ability to complain that they are 'unqualified'?

Makes no sense to me.

[xaq.livejournal.com]

That argument kinda lost me at the point about "the other one's morals."

Sounds to me like you're assuming I think Romney's morals were in line with mine, but from what I've seen/read of him, they don't.

In any case, though, lately I find that I tend to look at politics from a business standpoint, kinda like a human resources manager (hence the resumé suggestion at the start).

I look at all the info I can find on Job Applicant A. All in all, looks like he's not the kind of person I want for the job.
I look at all the info I can on Job Applicant B. All in all, looks like he's not the kind of person I want for the job either.
Why the hell would I hire either of them? I'd much rather have neither candidate win, try the election again with two new runners, and let John Boehner and Daniel Inouye run things in the short term until then if that were an option.

Honestly, I'm not gonna waste my time and energy on something like this if I'm not going to be satisfied with either possible outcome. May as well just sit back, ride out the storm for the next four years on the GI Bill's dime, and hope that, maybe, next go-round there's someone I'd actually like to see in office.

[anher.livejournal.com]

I was making a purely hypothetical point about two candidates, not the big two from the election.

As for the HR bit, in that kind of situation you can still hire the one that better suits the corporate atmosphere you're business has and has a passion for doing the job correctly and in line with how you want to be perceived. After you hire them you can always train them to do the job they've been hired for. After all, isn't that essentially what the Navy did with you?

So, you're content to sit around and play ostrich with your situation until the next time comes where you might have to make an uncomfortable decision, and then, if you don't like it bury your head again. Terrible.