tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156813738805135259.post3129748553713369342..comments2023-04-01T08:49:45.052-07:00Comments on East Bay Conservative: Voting Is A Waste Of Your TimeThe Bosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08650604704513105339noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156813738805135259.post-6775010346618130872008-12-15T07:32:05.000-08:002008-12-15T07:32:05.000-08:00(BTW - to the commenter above - I appreciate the m...(BTW - to the commenter above - I appreciate the mention of Sanjiv. I like that guy. He is intense, maybe a little crazy because of it, but we all benefit from his efforts as a gadfly.)<br><br> To the blogger here however after reading this post I can't find respect for you. To write a politically focussed blog and yet besmirch voting undermines every argument you could possibly put forth here. Yes, one can participate in politics in many ways other than voting, but the majority do not participate at all. In my view apathy is the biggest problem. I'd like to see a study of voter apathy and government corruption.<br><br> A more reasonable approach to your argument would acknowledge that less that a third of eligible voters typically vote in any election. (And sometimes I think it is too bad "volume" doesn't "weight" election results in a similar manner it does the stock market.) If you don't believe me, I suggest a review of the evidence. Check the numbers of registered voters versus eligible voters sometime, and then look at the percentage of registered voters that actually bother to vote. Its pretty clear to me from these numbers that the thrust of this post is pretty much what the vast majority of Americans think.<br><br> From that perspective you aren't an alternative voice at all which renders your claims to being "oppressed" in a more recent post as little more than wishful thinking.<br><br> After all how could an "oppressed" person not really care?Aaron Parrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156813738805135259.post-75142322002894013302008-11-07T01:42:04.000-08:002008-11-07T01:42:04.000-08:00HaHaHa the Oakland voters have once again proved t...HaHaHa the Oakland voters have once again proved their stupidity and voted for OO . This will be interesting to see the ramifications of the stupidest way to budget- ballot box budgeting.<br><br> Local government especially in OAK has a huge credibility problem and budgeting gets decided at the ballot box - mostly b/c we have a bunch of weak, stupid/sleazy elected officials and very very complicated problems, that have been incredibly compounded into massive problems.<br><br> Look for instance at the LLAD bonds- totally corrupt, a BK school system, the Riders case & measure Y, the Raiders, Edgerly, Your Black Muslim Bakery to name a few.<br><br> I guess I should be worried b/c I agree w/ The Boss. The only reason I contemplated voting for OO is to see the budget blow up. I think going BK or putting severe stress may be the only way to solve our problems in OAK. <br><br> It's not an old saw that dems control school districts and large urban centers in America- it is fact, and I do so delight in the limousine liberals who send their children to private school, use no city services but say they trust in local gov't. The fact is that local tax is not based on wealth, the wealthy generally are not invloved in local gov't., (hey I undrstand they have their own lives) local gov't is a huge pot of $ so it attracts the sleaziest, the uneducated and is a huge slush fund. They cannot spend $ in a low cost, concerted manner- it is someone else's money. I guess one has to watch it w a certain amount of humor or it will drive you crazy- look at our friend Sanjiv Handa.SF2OAKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156813738805135259.post-35027572797615867382008-11-06T09:45:27.000-08:002008-11-06T09:45:27.000-08:00I think you speak for most people. I know am in a ...I think you speak for most people. I know am in a minority.<br><br> That said, keep in mind that I do believe local politics has a better chance of making tangible change for people. So, I would agree with you that electing De La Fuente would have been better.TheBosshttp://www.eastbayconservative.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156813738805135259.post-80641298179910171942008-11-06T08:06:19.000-08:002008-11-06T08:06:19.000-08:00Wow. Nihilistic, much? Granted, Oakland could turn...Wow. Nihilistic, much?<br><br> Granted, Oakland could turn anyone cynical but you've gone way the hell over the top here.<br><br> You seriously think De La Fuente as mayor wouldn't have been any different from do-nothing-Dellums? Sure he's probably on the take but at least he wanted the job in the first place. And this year measure OO passed, which'll put us just that much more in the hole. I really hope nobody took your advice.<br><br> I usually like reading your stuff, but I'm starting to think you seriously need to move. Which'd be a shame, cause a conservative voice is needed around here. But I'm a little concerned for your mental health.Matthew Moorenoreply@blogger.com