The price of admission is our very precious individual vote

[Stinky The Clown]

It is common to hear that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. Mostly, that's true. Not in the absolute sense. At least as far as the United States is concerned, if you're a citizen, you have the absolute right to complain. It is more the case that not voting makes your exercise of that right pretty impotent.

The reverse is also true. If you voted, you get to complain. If you voted for the loser, you still get to complain, but your motives are a bit more suspect.

If you voted for the winner, then you have every right to complain, or perhaps more accurately, to criticize. Some would say you have a *duty* to criticize. And NO ONE has the right to tell you that you can't. You paid the price of admission. That's the system works. That's the way it was intended.

[HereSince1628]

1. .

[Stinky The Clown]

2. ..

[HereSince1628]

8. ... (?)

maybe should typed !

But I thought you said it all. Period.

[Catherina]

3. Damn Skippy, yo! rec'd n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Thank you. This doesn't seem to be a widely held view.

[Catherina]

9. My observation is that certain people sense how precarious things are

and they're desperate to keep anyone else from questioning things. If you can keep the voters in la-la land, it's easier to get their vote with cheap words. If critics make those same people think, that could be a vote lost on principle next election.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Those who feel it's their duty to "criticize"

should be able to take it as well as they dish it out.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. You're correct, Gitter

But you're framing it as a schoolyard game. It isn't.

What would be wrong with criticizing - or complimenting - without the need to try to argue with the person.

I like strawberry ice cream and you like rocky road. Why do you (the figurative "you", not the literal "you") feel the need to tell me I can't be right because I like strawberry ice cream? I see and hear a lotta that kinda stuff. Then it gets even more absurd. A statement or point of view is always imbued by the reader with a second motive. Some "A" just sucks all on its own.

[Dr Morbius]

6. Does it matter that people don't know the difference between...

fair, rational and respectful criticism and pithy name-calling and rash accusations?

Is it morally correct for people to hide behind the right to criticize in order to snipe and blather? I have no problem with any argument provided there's something to back it up. But too few people understand the difference between argument and ad hominem.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. There are plenty of examples where people try to do what you suggest and the ad homiums follow ....

.... not lead.

Rules prevent pointing out examples right here in River City. But it is far beyond River City.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Yet, some believe that it's not our vote but is owned by a particular politician or party.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Yeah, there's that.

[LWolf]

11. Why would motivation be suspect

if you voted for one of the losers? It seems pretty legitimate to me that people would complain about the policies they didn't vote for, especially if they are issues/policy, rather than party voters. If they supported those policies, they WOULD have voted for them.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. That's a fair countervaling perspective.