GG Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Wrong again. I abstained in the last presidential election. Many people who post here didn't vote for either of the top two candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Many people who post here didn't vote for either of the top two candidates. Can you blame any of us? If I lived in a state that wasn't pre-determined, perhaps I would have cast a vote for one of the alternatives but I pretty much knew, at least as far as voting for a president, I was gonna sit this one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Many people who post here didn't vote for either of the top two candidates. Including me. But I voted. Doesn't work like that. Doesn't it? Bitching about what the cook makes when you had an opportunity to contribute and chose not to is pretty lousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Including me. But I voted. how freaky did you get? and another thank you to Nader for messing Florida many years ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 how freaky did you get? and another thank you to Nader for messing Florida many years ago.... I voted for the Johnson. Like I've said many a time. I liked exactly ZERO of the Republican candidates and voting for that vile, criminal, traitorous harpy was never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 I voted for the Johnson. Like I've said many a time. I liked exactly ZERO of the Republican candidates and voting for that vile, criminal, traitorous harpy was never going to happen. Linc says "SOLID!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Respectfully: The people didn't choose this government, the big moneyed interests and oligarchy did by corrupting the courts and ignoring the constitution. We've codified bribery into our political process and squeezed out the voice of the people as a result. We live under a government now that is a plutocracy, not a republic. This wasn't chosen by the people, it was chosen by the big business interests (and others) when they pushed to make speech = money, corporations = people and started shredding basic constitutional protections under the phony guise of the "war on terror". Until the people actually wake up to this reality, and realize that our voices have no say in the process anymore unless we have a certain number in our bank accounts, it's only going to get worse. Wasn't the rise of populism in the last election on both sides proof that a lot of people are waking up to this reality? Bernie's and Trump's biggest selling point was not taking any money from lobbyists or special interests so they won't be owned. Whether or not you or I actually believed their rhetoric is besides the point as many people clearly did. Bernie almost took out the Clinton machine while Trump wiped out the Republican field (despite Superpacs designed to stop him at all costs) and ultimately Hillary. With Trump seemingly doing the opposite of "draining the swamp" for the most part so far, this rebellion against the establishment won't go away any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Wasn't the rise of populism in the last election on both sides proof that a lot of people are waking up to this reality? Bernie's and Trump's biggest selling point was not taking any money from lobbyists or special interests so they won't be owned. Whether or not you or I actually believed their rhetoric is besides the point as many people clearly did. Bernie almost took out the Clinton machine while Trump wiped out the Republican field (despite Superpacs designed to stop him at all costs) and ultimately Hillary. With Trump seemingly doing the opposite of "draining the swamp" for the most part so far, this rebellion against the establishment won't go away any time soon. I hope so. I do. There are plenty of signs of at the very least more awareness of the shenanigans being pulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 While I agree with you on the main point, I disagree that it's from the inside out. We have EXACTLY the kind of functioning government the people chose, the courts permit, and that the Constitution allows. You don't really still believe this, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) Russia did probably change votes, using the hacked emails to run a voter suppression campaign That was the point of creating a rift between Sanders and Hilly's wing of the party. And Trump cheered this on. Why in heaven's name would the Republicans need help running a "voter suppression campaign"? That's what they do and are good at it, right? Edited June 14, 2017 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 The limit goes as far as our laws permit and the ability of the poplulace to understand that. End of story. Rational people understand that. People incapable of rational thought, like this morning's nut job, don't. no. the limit does not go as far as our laws permit. your bull **** thinking that we need to make more and tougher laws is what your'e talking about - to ban guns or whatever bull ****. the guy would have broken any law out there because, as tommy says, fighting nazi's is the obvious reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 they aren't, what's so bad about a picture ID to vote? For how hot a topic issue this is their is a surprisingly lack of peer reviewed studies on whether states with stricter voting ID laws suppress the minority vote. There's just so many outside variables that make it difficult to see a cause and effect relationship. This is the best study I could findhttp://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf The study was done in 2014 and the most interesting conclusion found was that states with strict photo ID laws in the 2012 general election had a 7.7% decline turnout rate for Democrats and a 4.6% decline in Republicans compared to states where photo ID wasn't required. There were also a lot of findings in there, but that one to me was the most meaningful. You also have to take the findings with a grain of salt as their are outside variables that may have influenced those numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) Including me. But I voted. Doesn't it? Bitching about what the cook makes when you had an opportunity to contribute and chose not to is pretty lousy. No, it doesn't. Not in the least. no. the limit does not go as far as our laws permit. your bull **** thinking that we need to make more and tougher laws is what your'e talking about - to ban guns or whatever bull ****. the guy would have broken any law out there because, as tommy says, fighting nazi's is the obvious reason. What the phuck are you talking about? I've never said one word about making tougher laws about guns or anything else. Banning guns? Where the phuck did you get that from anything I posted here? And yeah, the guy would have broken any law, as he proved today. THAT'S my phucking point; that the limit is the extent of our laws and the ability of rational people to abide by them. RATIONAL PEOPLE! There are no limits for people like the nut job this morning. You don't really still believe this, do you? Yes, I do. Somebody voted for every person in office and got them elected. We can blame the oligarchs, the corporations, the lobbyists, yada yada yada, but it's on US to affect change. Period. And the courts, as I've mentioned, have made it easy for corporations to exert undue influence, rendering the concept of "one man, one vote" meaningless. Not to mention various state laws that were passed to hinder voting. Edited June 15, 2017 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Can you blame any of us? If I lived in a state that wasn't pre-determined, perhaps I would have cast a vote for one of the alternatives but I pretty much knew, at least as far as voting for a president, I was gonna sit this one out. Isn't that a defeatist attitude? The system allows for a growth of a third party if enough people invest some time to make their votes matter. Problem for most people is that the process takes a few election cycles. So has time for that, right? Sitting out an election is a cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Isn't that a defeatist attitude? The system allows for a growth of a third party if enough people invest some time to make their votes matter. Problem for most people is that the process takes a few election cycles. So has time for that, right? Sitting out an election is a cop out. I didn't sit out the election; I didn't cast a ballot for president. That's all. And I knew the guy I didn't want had no chance in my state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I didn't sit out the election; I didn't cast a ballot for president. That's all. And I knew the guy I didn't want had no chance in my state. Are you saying that there wasn't a single candidate/party among 15 on the ballot that you didn't want to support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I didn't sit out the election; I didn't cast a ballot for president. That's all. And I knew the guy I didn't want had no chance in my state. This line of thinking is one drawback to the electoral college. I wish they'd separate NYC from the rest of New York when assigning the number of electoral votes after the next census bureau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Are you saying that there wasn't a single candidate/party among 15 on the ballot that you didn't want to support For president, yes, that's what I'm saying. This line of thinking is one drawback to the electoral college. I wish they'd separate NYC from the rest of New York when assigning the number of electoral votes after the next census bureau. I agree with the bold text. Don't agree NYC should be separated from the rest of the state. And I think the electoral college has become passe; at least in terms of why the founders sought that compromise, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 For president, yes, that's what I'm saying. I agree with the bold text. Don't agree NYC should be separated from the rest of the state. And I think the electoral college has become passe; at least in terms of why the founders sought that compromise, imo. i am not going to respond to your other response to me. but imo of the ec i think the 2016 is exactly why the founding fathers wanted it. you'd have had something like less than 10% of the country by size and design controlling the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 For president, yes, that's what I'm saying. . That's where the long game comes into play. If enough people vote for the 3rd party candidates/party they like, it will continue to build support to be formidable in future elections. Most everyone who voted for Johnson or Stein did it with an eye for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts