Comments on: Don’t Vote?! AAAAAAAHHHHH!

By: ...

... — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:23:31 +0000

i don’t agree that uninformed voters are better than uninformed nonvoters. i’m currently abroad and met another american (who has only been abroad for 3 months) who didn’t even know who was running. that’s not okay. i don’t want her voting when she doesn’t know anything about the issues.

By: Jim C.

Jim C. — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:52:57 +0000

McCain ‘08!

By: Nick McAvoy

Nick McAvoy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:27:42 +0000

I think uninformed voters are better than uninformed nonvoters. I think even if people are voting based on YouTube or what their parents believe or what people on the Walk were shouting, we’re still better off than when all these folks stay home.

Our founding fathers believed that voting could only be trusted to the gentry. In theory we have learned better, but I think we run the danger of saying that voting can only be trusted to a different kind of gentry.

By: Chaia Werger

Chaia Werger — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:51:28 +0000

for whom they vote*

By: Chaia Werger

Chaia Werger — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:49:19 +0000

Will-

It seems that you have misunderstood the point of my blog, and the point that a lot of others are making. Of course I support the American public going out and voting, what I don’t support is the type of decision making that seems to go along with voting. I think that people should decide for whom they vote for based on who they think will best serve our country. I do NOT think that people should blindly follow one candidate based on a song they heard on youtube, or based on who their parents voted for.

When writing my blog, I was trying to call out these “well programmed snobs” here at Penn. I couldn’t put it better, we are programmed. We aren’t thinking for ourselves, which is what I was urging people to do.

Voting is extremely important, and I think that everyone should voice their opinions. But I think when they voice these opinions, they should be their own.

In the future, if you plan on smearing another one of your fellow bloggers’ blogs, you should consider discussing the issue with them first, or at least warning them.

-Chaia Werger

By: Will Steinberger

Will Steinberger — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:01:40 +0000

AH! I definitely just accidentally typed “on” instead of “of,” Derp. My total and sincere apologies, though thank you for highlighting this in your comment. I apologize for the proofreading error. I meant “War of Choice,” as in the Iraq War. I essentially agree with your point about the abortion issue, though again I was not at all referring to it.

Thanks for the comment,
Will Steinberger

By: Derp

Derp — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:41:09 +0000

This is horribly untrue. For instance, there’s not a “war on choice.” Even if the republicans nominated enough conservative justices to overturn Roe vs. Wade, they probably wouldn’t do it anyway. And even if the longshot scenario happened, it would become a states rights issue–meaning that women would simply have to drive across a border to get an abortion. At best it’s a “war on not driving.” Yet, a huge percentages of voters base their choice on this issue–for no reason.

401k’s are in the toilet and gas is pricey, but it has little to do with politics and more to do with the cyclical nature of the economy, supply and demand, and poor economic choices. Every president in the past 30 years has tried to get more people owning homes (which they did and created this mess), and has also pledged to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.