The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[Theo Goodman]

lets go for lowest turn out ever!
Obama is horrible, Rmoney is horrible too.
Not voting is a better option than voting and sends a stronger signal. If you must vote then just put a big X on your ballot or write in your best friends name. There is ZERO logic in voting for any of these guys.

 

[enlytend]

lets go for lowest turn out ever!

That will accomplish nothing - one of them will still win. Even if the only person who votes is someone living in the middle of nowhere with no TV/internet. You've handed over 4 years for a message that most people won't hear and which won't make one bit of difference to the big players. Your efforts would be better spent researching someone who you think is a good and viable candidate for 2016 and start supporting them. Now.

If you're going to waste your vote for President, at least vote for the people who best represent you for house and senate seats. That's where the bulk of the power lies.

If you don't like them either, see paragraph #1.

 

[eyedomainous]

Whether you vote for or against, one or the other. Stay silent in apathy, or give voice to voter suppression. Your selling something. Life is a campaign. Every decision, a vote.

I took issue with the "No Difference" ploy behind your voter suppression campaign. Its as dishonest as the Republican "voter fraud" excuse behind their VOTER SUPPRESSION campaigns. Which, by the way, is another BIG difference issue.

One party seeks to deny access to the voting booth, the other party took to the courts to prevent it. But, again, that does not affect the iPad demographic, so... what difference does it make to you?

Another issue is MARRIAGE EQUALITY. One is for it. The other, against. Another BIG difference, on a BIG issue, affecting MILLIONS.

Personal apathy, because their both "horrible", in your view, is one thing. Campaigning others not to turn-out for an election, especially when critical issues concerning rights for 'foreigners' (immigrants), minority groups, gays and women, are at stake... reminds me of Taliban (and Tea Party) tactics.

 

[Theo Goodman]

The democrats are guilty of voter fraud and "suppression" they use just as much dirty tactics or more, than the repulblicans. If you belive otherwise you are in neverneverland and there is no need to go on discussing about it.
No, in fact voting is what will do nothing, by voting you are giving an "OK" to the system that is clearly beyond "flawed". In fact what is truly personal apathy is voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" . Personal apathy is not thinking outside the box of voting for one of the two parites. I am not sure what your argument is with the Taliban and the Tea Party? So funny "critical issues are at stake" yep thats right, and neither of the canidates are going to be your savior. Personal Apathy is voting and then thinking you did some major "civic duty" and then go on and live your life, do what your told, and vote for another lesser of two evils 4 years later. I am sure that voting will help all of your "critical issues". Just to be clear, define "Taliban" tactics, I am interested to know what that exactly is. Perhaps it is something like presenting you two piles of crap and telling you to choose one? Tea Party tactics? Please define your idea of "Tea Party Tactics" What do you think that is?
Please explain this so called "ipad demographic" are you going on a personal attack? I have not done so to you, why attack me as an "ipad demographic" why would I be concerned about an ipad anyway?

 

[enlytend]

In fact what is truly personal apathy is voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" .

Apathy: "Lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern."​

If you vote and make a decision, you're showing interest and concern.

OTOH, it's a pretty good description for choosing not to vote. Other words that would fit are "inertia" or "avoidance"

Both candidates are NOT the same, and as eyedomainous said, the choice will affect millions of people.

If you think your vote doesn't count, look at what happened with Bush vs Gore in 2000.

And as I said before, if you think both candidates are "two piles of crap", get to work NOW on finding and promoting ones you like for 2016. If the candidates are bad, its because that's who people allowed the parties to choose. No excuses.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Apathy: "Lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern."

If you vote and make a decision, you're showing interest and concern.

- You are saying that the system is legit. A rubber stamp.

-Basicly this is labeling all and every boycott as "Personal Apathy". So because someone thinks something deserves boycotting they are in fact just expressing personal apathy? I think not. Choosing NOT to do something is an action.



Both candidates are NOT the same, and as eyedomainous said, the choice will affect millions of people.

-No there be very little difference after either are elected. The difference between them is small at best.

If you think your vote doesn't count, look at what happened with Bush vs Gore in 2000.
-Both sides manipulate votes/voters.

And as I said before, if you think both candidates are "two piles of crap", get to work NOW on finding and promoting ones you like for 2016. If the candidates are bad, its because that's who people allowed the parties to choose. No excuses.

-
? Hahha you really think it works like that? That people can really make a change by voting? Get your millions and billions behind the canidate that you want, right? "the people allowed the party to choose" ah ha, yes and guess who keeps giveing them rubber stamps? Voters. You have the most power by not going to the polls, make this election the one with the lowest turn out. Say no to choosing crap over crap. Saying no is an action, not apathy.

 

[DU]

Apathy: "Lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern."

If you vote and make a decision, you're showing interest and concern.

- You are saying that the system is legit. A rubber stamp.

-Basicly this is labeling all and every boycott as "Personal Apathy". So because someone thinks something deserves boycotting they are in fact just expressing personal apathy? I think not. Choosing NOT to do something is an action.



Both candidates are NOT the same, and as eyedomainous said, the choice will affect millions of people.

-No there be very little difference after either are elected. The difference between them is small at best.

If you think your vote doesn't count, look at what happened with Bush vs Gore in 2000.
-Both sides manipulate votes/voters.

And as I said before, if you think both candidates are "two piles of crap", get to work NOW on finding and promoting ones you like for 2016. If the candidates are bad, its because that's who people allowed the parties to choose. No excuses.

-
? Hahha you really think it works like that? That people can really make a change by voting? Get your millions and billions behind the canidate that you want, right? "the people allowed the party to choose" ah ha, yes and guess who keeps giveing them rubber stamps? Voters. You have the most power by not going to the polls, make this election the one with the lowest turn out. Say no to choosing crap over crap. Saying no is an action, not apathy.

I think most people confuse general party politics with local politics. You can change the platform at the lowest level...but its not easy.

Billy Bragg thought the same thing as you in 1978. There was not a good choice for the anarchist/socialist (bad words in the US) so why bother?

Margaret Thatcher. 1979.

A boycott of 1 doesnt work. If you believe in a boycott you need to work just as hard (harder) to make it work.

A personal boycott is just abstaining from making any effort so for 4 years you can say 'told you so' regardless of who is in power.

At least try and move local politics because you can influence your own back yard.

 

[Theo Goodman]

If I wanted a boycott of one why would I encourage others to not go to the polls? If I am active in local politics or not is another discussion, this is about the national election. In that case there is a lose lose situhation. Therefore not voting is the best option. A historical low voter turn out would be the best signal. A "I told you so" can and does happen from voters from all parites and those that did not vote, therefore it is not exclusive to non voters. In fact the one that votes for a party is imo more likely to " I told you so" about the other party. "I told you they would block this or that" " I told you that they are commiting voter fraud" ect.

This is a nice video, check it out no matter what party you favor.
http://www.upworthy.com/wouldnt-it-...romney-denouncing-his-own-pro-life-agen?c=la1

 

[eyedomainous]

The democrats are guilty of voter fraud and "suppression" they use just as much dirty tactics or more, than the republicans. ... Please explain this so called "ipad demographic" are you going on a personal attack?

The need for the Voting Rights Act is clear. It documents attempts by conservatives to suppress the minority vote by restricting access to the polling booth. Can you document ANY case where liberal democrats used legal impediments to restrict conservative Republican access to the polling booth?

Because color and gender based discrimination was outlawed, "clever" conservatives began using economic discrimination tactics, like mandating citizens buy a product (such as a State ID). The "iPad demographic" is an economic reference to folks above the poverty line - so Not impacted by recent Republican voter suppression actions).

Just to be clear, define "Taliban" tactics, I am interested to know what that exactly is.

The Taliban tactic of using wall posters and 'night letters' warning people not to vote, because those standing for election are "slavish and corrupt". Their stated goal is to "suppress voter turnout to undercut the legitimacy of the election". So, yes, your tactics, and goals, reminded me of the Taliban --(and the Tea Party pox politics).

--Sources: Proud, defiant Afghans trickle to polling booths
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g92sfFbM-P5oW4zgZfzkmtZs_xDA | http://www.afghan2010.com/media-summary/local-news-summary-sept-17 | http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917231,00.html

No, in fact voting is what will do nothing, by voting you are giving an "OK" to the system that is clearly beyond "flawed". In fact what is truly personal apathy is voting for the "lesser of 2 evils".

Taking the dimes bit of difference between the lesser of two evils is what progress is all about.

If no one voted, Then you have nothing. Ironically, the world you seek... where voting does something... is a country where everyone voted.

 

[JB Lions]

The First Presidential Debate is on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 9:00pm–10:30pm ET.

1 more week.

 

[Theo Goodman]

"Taking the dimes bit of difference between the lesser of two evils is what progress is all about."
This is where I disagree and still think that lowest turnout ever would make a much bigger impact. This is not "suppressing" votes by threat, or passive threat of violence as in the taliban ref, again then all boycotts of any kind could be called "Taliban" tactics.

I am sure I can "document" liberal voter fraud, but it would be from a conservative website Same goes for the other way around.
Conservatives would site the "New Black Panther Party" outside polling centers threating people(that is documented). So that is "one" example.


Boycotting an election has nothing to do with the "ipod vote" but rather with how you define "progress".

How big or the method of promotion do not change the merit of something.

When the bad outweighs the good in such an extreme way then how can you vote for Obama or Rmoney?

Voting FOR Obmama is Voting for war, but we could discuss who should be allowed to marry who, if God is in the platform or if the president can overturn roe vs. wade.

 

[GILSAN]

Now here's 1 of 47 (a very popular # used by the Liberals for the past 2 weeks) good reasons for voting for Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

:talk: :talk: :talk:

 

[RogueWriter]

The First Presidential Debate is on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 9:00pm–10:30pm ET.

1 more week.

Can't wait to see it. Will the moderators be from Entertainment Weekly or maybe The View?

 

[JB Lions]

Can't wait to see it. Will the moderators be from Entertainment Weekly or maybe The View?

Not sure, maybe Clint sitting at an invisible table or Chuck Norris (the guy who thinks the world will end if Obama gets reelected, looks like we're all doomed).

It's actually going to be Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)- Focused on Domestic policy

Then the next 3 will be:

Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent) - October 11, 2012 - VP debate

Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent) - October 16, 2012 - Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy

Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS) - October 22, 2012 - Foreign policy

 

[GILSAN]

Can't wait to see it. Will the moderators be from Entertainment Weekly or maybe The View?

The Moderators are all Liberals and Obama has already started to practice the answers to the questions that will be asked.

That's why he refused to meet with any world leaders present in New York this week.

Why on earth the Republicans ever allowed these Moderators to be chosen only God knows. Univision would have been the ideal for these debates

 

[JB Lions]

The Moderators are all Liberals and Obama has already started to practice the answers to the questions that will be asked.

That's why he refused to meet with any world leaders present in New York this week.

This with your other 2 recent posts:

"They only deserve to be in one place; behind bars, oh and make some room for the MSM whores... they also deserve to be there, for the crime of misinforming millions of people every day with their pro-Obama propaganda."

"samjones, you forgot to add a nice banner depicting the 3rd force; the corrupt, biased, Obama ass kissing, Liberal Media Whores."

lol

It's like you're in full whine mode. Got Ann Romney crying on the radio and Mitt when asked about the polls, saying how the ads aren't fair.

Let me find you guys some tissue.

 

[GILSAN]

This with your other 2 recent posts:

"They only deserve to be in one place; behind bars, oh and make some room for the MSM whores... they also deserve to be there, for the crime of misinforming millions of people every day with their pro-Obama propaganda."

"samjones, you forgot to add a nice banner depicting the 3rd force; the corrupt, biased, Obama ass kissing, Liberal Media Whores."

lol

It's like you're in full whine mode. Got Ann Romney crying on the radio and Mitt when asked about the polls, saying how the ads aren't fair.

Let me find you guys some tissue.

The truth hurts doesn't it? The Liberal Media have spun so many lies that they no longer know how to report the news. Someday they will even try to cut costs by outsourcing their BS "Fabricated News" to China.

Oh BTW you might as well keep the tissues, cause you are gonna need them after the shock results of "the day after"

I wonder if Obama will be offering the latest and greatest iPhone 5. That will definitely win him the hearts and votes of well over 47%. Just need to ask Ben Bernanke to print some more money. 47 Billion USD should be just right to place the order.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Here's another Great Reason to Vote Obama. Just go protest and make a lot of noise at a Romney Event and get paid $11 an hour. :sold: Since they already have their cell phones guaranteed, this extra money will help pay for the new Nike's. :kickass:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5DTqvX74O4&feature=player_embedded"]SEIU Paid Protesters at Romney Cleveland Ohio Rally - YouTube[/ame]

And best of all, it'll help reduce the unemployment numbers... hopefully to below 8%

 

[RogueWriter]

How many minutes into the first debate do you think it will be before the moderator mentions the Mormon religion?

I'm thinking 25. Late enough that it doesn't seem like he is pouncing on Romney, but early enough in the debate that it might throw him off a bit if he gets ticked off.

 

[JB Lions]

How many minutes into the first debate do you think it will be before the moderator mentions the Mormon religion?

I'm thinking 25. Late enough that it doesn't seem like he is pouncing on Romney, but early enough in the debate that it might throw him off a bit if he gets ticked off.

Probably won't be mentioned, since it has nothing to do with Domestic Policy. But it were, is religion off topic or something just for Republican candidates? As if, we didn't here a bunch of Christian/Muslim stuff with Obama, like from Gilsan in this thread, during the last campaign, throughout his presidency.

They're both going to get tough questions as usual, just one side seems to cry about it more.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

The truth hurts doesn't it? The Liberal Media have spun so many lies that they no longer know how to report the news. Someday they will even try to cut costs by outsourcing their BS "Fabricated News" to China.

Oh BTW you might as well keep the tissues, cause you are gonna need them after the shock results of "the day after"

I wonder if Obama will be offering the latest and greatest iPhone 5. That will definitely win him the hearts and votes of well over 47%. Just need to ask Ben Bernanke to print some more money. 47 Billion USD should be just right to place the order.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Here's another Great Reason to Vote Obama. Just go protest and make a lot of noise at a Romney Event and get paid $11 an hour. :sold: Since they already have their cell phones guaranteed, this extra money will help pay for the new Nike's. :kickass:

SEIU Paid Protesters at Romney Cleveland Ohio Rally - YouTube

And best of all, it'll help reduce the unemployment numbers... hopefully to below 8%

The phone stuff you're talking about, was started under Bush.

"There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist.

Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush. The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue."

 

[verbster]

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Truth? If you don't know what truth is (not the truth, just truth) how can you know if it hurts or not? Show me you know what truth is. Write one single unassailable truth that supports one single political view you hold.