Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The American Voter: Say It Ain't So!

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JasperST4
    replied
    Originally posted by tony.o View Post
    My side has been caving in for the past decade, which includes Bush, so I don't know why you liberal types complain so much, your on your way to getting everything you want, slowly but surely.
    That's a good point there, the term spoiled brats comes to mind. If we had a true conservative at the helm the left would probably implode. What a shame that would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • tony.o
    replied
    Originally posted by DaLAW View Post
    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...
    Its really unfair to denigrate the regular posters here, most are fair, with a few exceptions.
    At least the overwhelming majority of posters here pretty much know about current events and can at least articulate where they stand on issues, no matter what side they are on. The problem comes when people lie to just to win an arguement, as an example, when Obama says he supports gun rights, an outright lie that everyone, including his supporters know isn't true. I like partisanship, we need more of it. My side has been caving in for the past decade, which includes Bush, so I don't know why you liberal types complain so much, your on your way to getting everything you want, slowly but surely.

    Leave a comment:


  • tony.o
    replied
    Originally posted by farewelltonavy
    Instead of the right to bear arms, we should restrict the right to vote.
    Wow, the first post that I can agree with you on. I've said that for years.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Just shows the the electoral college is not unnecessarily outdated. People are just as uniformed now as they where then. I still think we should implement the vote for confidence such as some other countries have. Congress and the President would actually be held accountable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mrs. Hoppes
    replied
    Google trends for 2007:

    http://www.google.com/trends?q=Ron+P...te=2007&sort=0

    Ron Paul held his own and the media washed him out. On purpose.

    http://saintluke.wordpress.com/2008/...and-the-media/

    Leave a comment:


  • MattW163
    replied
    Originally posted by LeanG View Post
    America is too busy watching sports, and entertainment news. We know more about the previous American Idol winner than we do about politics.

    We are to blame. Each and everyone of us. We continuously tell the networks and cable television (through Nielson ratings) that we would rather watch reruns, sit and wonder if Bret Favre will come out of retirement, or what is the latest gossip from the millionaires in Hollywood.

    We don't want to get bogged down with reality. That's too depressing.

    But wait until a candidate slips up and misspeaks. Although an intelligent person can decipher the meaning, and immediately dismiss the momentarily lapse in words, the news will air it and air it and analyze it, and try to break it down and dissect it. Kinda like some of the posters here. And the occasional viewer/reader of politics will look at that and say, wow, because of this 5-second sound bite, I'm voting for the other guy.

    Be careful where you throw those stones, guys.....

    Thank you. Your first sentence reminds me of a comment I once saw written by a Marine currently in Iraq (I saw it on a website): "The news labels America as a whole as being at war. That is wrong. The Marine Corps is at war, America is at the mall." It's not an exact quote, but I think it speaks volumes of truth.

    I'm a very optimistic person, and don't like to just give up on things and label them as a sad, lost cause, but it was pretty sad to see that video posted on this thread. People who obviously are voting for Obama for one reason only: He has more melanin in his skin than John McCain. Wonderful voting strategy, stupid.

    It really stinks to see people older than me (I'm 18 going on 19 soon) voting for the future of this country based on how the guy's picture looks. Just as the one woman said, she's not gonna decide on who to vote because she's gonna do what millions of Americans (that aren't too lazy to actually get off their butt and vote) do: She's gonna go into that booth and say "uh...uh...saw that one on the news last night. I'll pick him." or another might say "Ok, he's a republican. He's got my vote cause I'm not letting those dirty democrats win" and know not one policy that the candidate has. I've seen alot of bashing for the younger crowd lately, that we're all dumber than the previous generation and as a whole screwing up America, but I think I can safely say this one fact: In any whole group, be it race, age, height, weight, blue eyes and green or whatever, there are an equal number of really ignorant people who hold way too much power in one vote than they should be allowed.

    Can we make a test or something to show that a certain voter knows anything about a candidate they're voting for?

    Leave a comment:


  • LeanG
    replied
    America is too busy watching sports, and entertainment news. We know more about the previous American Idol winner than we do about politics.

    We are to blame. Each and everyone of us. We continuously tell the networks and cable television (through Nielson ratings) that we would rather watch reruns, sit and wonder if Bret Favre will come out of retirement, or what is the latest gossip from the millionaires in Hollywood.

    We don't want to get bogged down with reality. That's too depressing.

    But wait until a candidate slips up and misspeaks. Although an intelligent person can decipher the meaning, and immediately dismiss the momentarily lapse in words, the news will air it and air it and analyze it, and try to break it down and dissect it. Kinda like some of the posters here. And the occasional viewer/reader of politics will look at that and say, wow, because of this 5-second sound bite, I'm voting for the other guy.

    Be careful where you throw those stones, guys.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormy
    replied
    Jasper,

    I'm not avoiding you. And, I'm not completely in agreement with you, either. I'm taking a siesta from an interesting, but 'getting complicated' dialogue. I'm enjoying our verbal exchange.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST4
    replied
    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
    Isn't that how medicines are discovered? Remember, the illness came first. Now you've got to replicate the symptoms in order to discover a cure. It's impossible to do research on a dying patient.
    Say what? Where did you get your medical degree? Not all cures are homeopathic and a dying person may well receive the life saving experimental drug.
    Such is the political process; without the original turmoil within the legislative body, the system must continue masking the illness with a hit & miss approach in the hopes of a 'cure'.
    That sounds like some kind of talk at a 1960's bong party. Revolution man....Overthrow the establishment....Down with the system...Don't trust the man...blah blah
    I disagree Ron Paul was a 'nut', as you point out. You may have considered him a nut, and that is your right. As for being unelectable, again, that is your opinion, and, I might add, an assumption. I didn't consider him a nut, nor did the many hundreds of thousands of Americans who voted for him.
    I believe the percentage was somewhere around 2% total support. That ain't gonna cut it. He was definitely unelectable, the figures prove it, he was not shut out, he voiced his opinion and looked increasingly shrill and irrelevant. He did poorly in the debates by every account. There was no way he was going to beat Hillary or Obama.
    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.
    Not many fringe candidates got much air time, that list is endless too. If he lost the spotlight it was his to lose. Try that with a leader and it won't work.
    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?
    I didn't make that claim, you are starting the ole sidestep. It was much more than a financial attack, it could only have been prevented by being more proactive overseas, in direct contrast to isolationism.
    The fact that McCain or Obama were not respective prospects of their party leaders, does not remove the fact that party bosses have complete control of the electoral process.
    That sounds consistent to you?
    Whoever would've been the democratic or republican choice, would've come from one of these partys; it's the 'electable' party, and no other party is electable, as you seem to feel.
    My feelings have nothing to do with it, the facts are on my side unless you know something I don't. Which third party candidate won a national election? And if by some miracle it ever happens he will need support from the party.
    Lots of it. Then we can read about how unfair it was to the fourth party guy who had little support because the third party bosses made backroom deals.
    Voters are given the false impression that a vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, and should be avoided. What the voters fail to see is that, a vote, for whom ever, is not wasted. Voting is not a horse race where the money is on the winner. Electing an candidate for public office shouldn't be viewed as putting money on our table. If it is, then America is in bad shape.
    I wouldn't call it a wasted vote, just a foolish one because a vote for RP is in effect a vote for Obama, who is hardly a conservative.
    The false impression is by helping someone get elected that represents policies farther from your goal and thinking you've done something sensible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormy
    replied
    : 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.
    Isn't that how medicines are discovered? Remember, the illness came first. Now you've got to replicate the symptoms in order to discover a cure. It's impossible to do research on a dying patient. Such is the political process; without the original turmoil within the legislative body, the system must continue masking the illness with a hit & miss approach in the hopes of a 'cure'.

    : 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.
    I disagree Ron Paul was a 'nut', as you point out. You may have considered him a nut, and that is your right. As for being unelectable, again, that is your opinion, and, I might add, an assumption. I didn't consider him a nut, nor did the many hundreds of thousands of Americans who voted for him.

    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.
    The fact that McCain or Obama were not respective prospects of their party leaders, does not remove the fact that party bosses have complete control of the electoral process. Whoever would've been the democratic or republican choice, would've come from one of these partys; it's the 'electable' party, and no other party is electable, as you seem to feel. Voters are given the false impression that a vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, and should be avoided. What the voters fail to see is that, a vote, for whom ever, is not wasted. Voting is not a horse race where the money is on the winner. Electing an candidate for public office shouldn't be viewed as putting money on our table. If it is, then America is in bad shape.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST4
    replied
    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
    [bold highlite mine]
    ...and this is what you fear? Turmoil generates thought. And thought generates responsible legislation.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormy
    replied
    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.
    [bold highlite mine]

    ...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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST4
    replied
    Originally posted by DaLAW View Post
    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...
    Yes, both sides tend to generalize the other but those generalizations aren't without reason. People should be more informed but it isn't conservatives trying to shut down free speech with the "Fairness Doctrine". Those kinds of restrictions and the mindset that accommodates them come from the left, is it wrong to recognize those differences?

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbus
    replied
    Originally posted by DaLAW View Post
    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...
    +1 DaLAW, +1.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormy
    replied
    Originally posted by DaLAW View Post
    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...
    I couldn't agree with you more. As long as you pretend to defend the 'uniter', or pretend to vote for McPain, whatever you post, is alright. It's a big pizzing contest as to who can outridicule the 'lib' post.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 2667 users online. 142 members and 2525 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X