If you watch this short video, you will see how ordinary Americans explain why they're voting for a particular candidate. If you think this is an anomaly, you would be wrong. How can the American people be so uninformed?
NEW Welcome Ad
Collapse
Leader
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The American Voter: Say It Ain't So!
Collapse
300x250 Mobile
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by farewelltonavyInstead of the right to bear arms, we should restrict the right to vote.
I believe voting rights are more important than background checks for carry permits. (here come the spitballs)
Comment
-
Moreover, many aren't any better at navigating the political map -- some people don't even know the name of our vice president (hard to believe, but true). Despite this, there still are those who would convince the uninformed to vote, even though when pulling the lever at a polling place, the latter have no more grasp of the consequences of their actions than if they were to pull one in a casino.
Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the "process," it's just that their process -- that "systematic series of actions directed to some end" -- probably isn't the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.
The people I refer to are liberals.
Comment
-
Of course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stormy View PostNot restrict; control who gets the right to vote based on issue knowledge. A voter needs to summarize the issues presented by the candidates. If you have no knowledge of the issues, you have no right to cast a vote. Period.
I believe voting rights are more important than background checks for carry permits. (here come the spitballs)
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaLAW View PostOf course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaLAW View PostOf course most American voters are ignorant. Anybody whose followed any election could tell you that. People don't know whats important, they just know about partisanship. We see it on here. Dummies more concerned about 'Libs' and making simple stereotypes, etc. Liberals do it too, but since the overwhelming majority here are Conservative, just pointing out the obvious. So the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaLAW View PostSo the political process here in America, its just a two-party system so people are so stupid, they allow themselves to get caught up in it. Sad but true...
I also disagree that the two party system is flawed, look at European countries that have multiparty systems, they are always in turmoil, have little unity and swing to extremes rather quickly. The two party system insures a steadier course with changes taking place within the parties. It takes longer to move the people within a party than to overthrow smaller party denominations.
It isn't a law here but a status quo, any group can form a party but no third party has really done well. They don't have the power base to compete and I don't see it as a bad thing because I recognize that the masses are too easily manipulated. If we have alot of ignorant voters, how is the situation going to be better if we have alot of ignorant voters with more choices?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JasperST4 View Post
I also disagree that the two party system is flawed, look at European countries that have multiparty systems, they are always in turmoil, have little unity and swing to extremes rather quickly. The two party system insures a steadier course with changes taking place within the parties. It takes longer to move the people within a party than to overthrow smaller party denominations.
...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation. I like that.
It isn't a law here but a status quo, any group can form a party but no third party has really done well. They don't have the power base to compete and I don't see it as a bad thing because I recognize that the masses are too easily manipulated. If we have alot of ignorant voters, how is the situation going to be better if we have alot of ignorant voters with more choices?
Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.
I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?
So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stormy View Post[bold highlite mine]
...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation.
Ignorant voters we have plenty of. Especially those, who if they understood the system better, would understand the immense difficulty third partys face in being placed on primary ballots. Not only difficulty from the rules established by the two partys, who work diligently placing obstacles in their path, but from the main stream media, who will avoid press coverage of the third party candidate at all costs; a media blackout of a candidate.
Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.
I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?
So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.
Blaming party bosses is just a simple way to answer a complex issue.
Comment
-
: Stormy
...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation.: Jasper
It can. It can also lead to bloodshed and misery. I wouldn't invite turmoil, that's sort of like deliberately infecting yourself with a illness so that you can enjoy the healing process.
: Stormy
Ignorant voters we have plenty of. Especially those, who if they understood the system better, would understand the immense difficulty third partys face in being placed on primary ballots. Not only difficulty from the rules established by the two partys, who work diligently placing obstacles in their path, but from the main stream media, who will avoid press coverage of the third party candidate at all costs; a media blackout of a candidate.
Ron Paul is a perfect example of a candidate who was well loved by a huge portion of the population, having raised $4 million dollars in one day, but was ostracized for his 'too conservative' views on the Federal Reserve, the Fedearl Reserve notes, and the IRS. His strength was in knowlege of the Constitution, which by the way, irritates and scares the hell out of neocons.
I ask, how can a candidate be 'too conservative' for a neocon? Am I missing something? Or, are neocons not the true republicans they pretend to be?: Jasper
Ron Paul was largely ignored because he's a nut and was unelectable to the office he was seeking. He was on the debates as I recall, no one blocked him, it was just that the more we got to know him the worse he looked. Yes, he has some good ideas, and it was smart to try to win in an electable party instead of running as a third party candidate like last time but his isolationist views probably hurt him the most. It won't work anymore, too many people remember 9/11. Even most liberals aren't that naive. Many of his views are Libertarian, why blame Conservatives for not being Libertarian, labeling them neocons just makes you look bitter.
Yes, he was blocked. Either the cameras weren't on him during the debates, or questions were not put to him, or he wasn't given the time to answer the questions that were asked, or commercials would cut off portions of his talk, or the main stream media wouldn't carry any of his speeches. The list is endless.
What does isolationism have to do with 9/11? I strongly believe America should've reinforced their borders, strenghtened the dollar, and stopped driving manufacturing to China. For starters. What does 9/11 have to do with that?
: Stormy
So, let's not speak of a 'no power base' when we speak of a third party. Let's instead speak of eliminating the stranglehold the democratic and republican power bosses hold over a two party(?) system.: Jasper
Well, since neither McCain nor Obama were the respective prospects from most of their party leaders I don't believe their stranglehold is as severe as you think. They couldn't stop Perot from spoiling the election for Republicans or Nader for Democrats either, third parties can lose or cause others to lose but they haven't won a national election yet.
Blaming party bosses is just a simple way to answer a complex issue.
Comment
MR300x250 Tablet
Collapse
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 4213 users online. 230 members and 3983 guests.
Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.
Tag Cloud
Collapse
Welcome Ad
Collapse
Comment