goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2012, 08:07:33 AM
-
1
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
Remember when Bush won Florida by a fraction of a percent?
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
Remember when Bush won Florida by a fraction of a percent?
and than no legitimate recount done by any body found any voter fraud, results withstood tremendous critical examination, and Dems made themselves look even more incompetent by saying the election was stolen? Yeah I remember that.
Coincidentally I have some of the notorious voting booths which caused the issue. If you can't figure out how to vote with one of those you shouldn't be voting.
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
Remember when Bush won Florida by a fraction of a percent?
and than no legitimate recount done by any body found any voter fraud, results withstood tremendous critical examination, and Dems made themselves look even more incompetent by saying the election was stolen? Yeah I remember that.
Coincidentally I have some of the notorious voting booths which caused the issue. If you can't figure out how to vote with one of those you shouldn't be voting.
Well, there you go.
So, tell us again why it is racist or a bad idea to require a legal picture ID to vote.
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
Remember when Bush won Florida by a fraction of a percent?
and than no legitimate recount done by any body found any voter fraud, results withstood tremendous critical examination, and Dems made themselves look even more incompetent by saying the election was stolen? Yeah I remember that.
Coincidentally I have some of the notorious voting booths which caused the issue. If you can't figure out how to vote with one of those you shouldn't be voting.
Why do you have some of those voting booths? Did you buy them as American Election memorabelia?
-
Im starting to think ednksu is in denial.
-
If holder would have gone in after the guy faked his ballot discovered the issue and proved his identity what happens? I'm assuming he recasts and his vote is cast as intended. It would appear to me that you would have to Obtain a list of the local rolls, have mass amounts of fakers, guess correctly on who has or hasn't already voted and hope the person who's ballot you faked doesn't end up voting.
-
my god.....
voter fraud could reach a fraction of 1% in the next election.......
:opcat:
Remember when Bush won Florida by a fraction of a percent?
and than no legitimate recount done by any body found any voter fraud, results withstood tremendous critical examination, and Dems made themselves look even more incompetent by saying the election was stolen? Yeah I remember that.
Coincidentally I have some of the notorious voting booths which caused the issue. If you can't figure out how to vote with one of those you shouldn't be voting.
Why do you have some of those voting booths? Did you buy them as American Election memorabelia?
Yes.
No, what should make you laugh really loud edn is that Eric Holder is on record saying that he has no real concern about voter fraud and yet some guy walks right off the street into Holder's local polling place, says he's Eric Holder and gets handed Eric Holder's ballot to vote with literally no questions asked beyond name and address.
The same guy has gone to multiple states and claimed to be dead people, famous celebrities and been handed ballots. He's claimed to work for a nursing home and been handed stacks of voting registration forms with local board of election employees telling him all he has to do is bring them back and they'll take care of it. No proof, no ID's, no verification . . . nothing. He's done this in towns where people say, "but golly, everyone knows everyone, so golly there's no reason to check an ID", yet he's walked right into a polling place there, claimed to be a dead guy and got handed a ballot to vote.
Its easy as hell to commit voter fraud in the United States, and all it takes is a concentrated effort in a few key areas to completely swing elections and/or change the entire make-up of our legislative bodies.
The problem is Dax is that you're making counter factual arguments. The events you're describing could happen, but they aren't. You're trying to extend your argument to a logical conclusion which isn't supported by history. There are certain safeguard in the system. As noted what would happen when Holder showed up, the initial ballot would be kicked and he would get to vote. Now could there be some reforms? Sure, maybe. But we need to make sure those reforms aren't targeted at certain centers of population. I think its unreasonable for a person over 18 to not have some sort of state ID. I do see the issue though with old and poor people that keeping everything up to date and documented is an issue. I would take any state ID, eg: student (Uni or HS), expired, or gov ID badge.
The bigger issue is the fear mongering from the right that KSF42 so gladly throws themselves to. There have been no large scale incidences of voter fraud in the US. There have been VERY isolated incidents which have not risen to threatening the legitimacy of elections. If anythings the outright threat to the democratic process that 501C4s, resistance to campaign finance reform, and voter intimidation (both sides) perpetrate on the American people are a FAR greater threat to democracy in America.
-
HAHA
-
Racial profiling is cool as long as it effects less than 1% of the population. Same goes for violations of due process. The Arther Anderson view of materiality in society.
Goodness gracious Edna, youve been taking some idiotic stands lately. Really showing your true partisan stripes here. Donkey in libtard clothing.
-
Spare us the strawmem about 501C4's and such, that has nothing to do with voter fraud. Well I take that back, I can see some of them loading up the buses now, and I'll give you 5 guesses as to which party most them are affiliated with.
There's only one reason why the fake left is fighting this so hard, and it has nothing to do with the little old lady who hasn't updated her drivers license in the last 40 years.
Can you read? I never said 501C4s were linked to voter fraud. I said they were a greater threat to American democracy. Second, do you know who Karl Rove is? To say that either side has a monopoly on shady 501 activity is rough ridin' absurd.
Racial profiling is cool as long as it effects less than 1% of the population. Same goes for violations of due process. The Arther Anderson view of materiality in society.
Goodness gracious Edna, youve been taking some idiotic stands lately. Really showing your true partisan stripes here. Donkey in libtard clothing.
how could you take ANYTHING I wrote as partisan? I'm honestly confused.
-
Your damn right your confused.
-
Spare us the strawmem about 501C4's and such, that has nothing to do with voter fraud. Well I take that back, I can see some of them loading up the buses now, and I'll give you 5 guesses as to which party most them are affiliated with.
There's only one reason why the fake left is fighting this so hard, and it has nothing to do with the little old lady who hasn't updated her drivers license in the last 40 years.
Can you read? I never said 501C4s were linked to voter fraud. I said they were a greater threat to American democracy. Second, do you know who Karl Rove is? To say that either side has a monopoly on shady 501 activity is rough ridin' absurd.
Racial profiling is cool as long as it effects less than 1% of the population. Same goes for violations of due process. The Arther Anderson view of materiality in society.
Goodness gracious Edna, youve been taking some idiotic stands lately. Really showing your true partisan stripes here. Donkey in libtard clothing.
how could you take ANYTHING I wrote as partisan? I'm honestly confused.
Sit back and relax edn. As soon as dax starts throwing around "straw-man" rebuttals, it means you've won. And ANYTIME FSD-sock replies to anything, it means you've obliterated them.
-
Yeah, "strawman" rebuttals . . . there's not a bigger "strawman rebuttal' than rolling out every other problem with the political process as a reason not to be concerned about how easy it is to commit voter fraud in the United States.
you're the one making counter factual arguments about the thread of voter fraud. Now run along to your next piece of straw.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
The first half of the post simply points out that very few people vote and that it only takes 19% of the voters to get a win in NPEY's. I was assuming that the reader would then see that voter fraud doesn't have to be over millions of votes in order to be successful...it just has to be enough for a candidate to get to 19%. I wasn't trying to compare us to "other places." Thanks for bringing up tea party ass hats, because it was obviously what I was referring to.?
Dude, you seem wound a little tight. My post had nothing to do with political parties or with other places. I did refer to special interest groups, but those groups are on any and every side of the isle.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
You (or somebody else) still need to explain in detail why requiring a photo ID is racist and disenfranchising the poor and minorities.
-
Jesus.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
You (or somebody else) still need to explain in detail why requiring a photo ID is racist and disenfranchising the poor and minorities.
You really want me to recite talking points?
You're also assuming that I inherently disagree with the premise of IDing voters. I however find a larger issue with the tea party ass hats and neoconservative clowns inventing this straw man that our election are under threat of fraud when that is false. But there is statistical evidence that it does effect minorities and poor disproportionately. I firmly believe thought that it is not an illogical thing for anyone to get a state iD card just for everyday use, buying certain vice products, iDing in case of police interview etc etc. But than I'm sure the tea party clowns would than bitch about world government and national iD talking points. The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
The first half of the post simply points out that very few people vote and that it only takes 19% of the voters to get a win in NPEY's. I was assuming that the reader would then see that voter fraud doesn't have to be over millions of votes in order to be successful...it just has to be enough for a candidate to get to 19%. I wasn't trying to compare us to "other places." Thanks for bringing up tea party ass hats, because it was obviously what I was referring to.?
Dude, you seem wound a little tight. My post had nothing to do with political parties or with other places. I did refer to special interest groups, but those groups are on any and every side of the isle.
and yet well still have a terribly statistically insignificant blip of fraud.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
You (or somebody else) still need to explain in detail why requiring a photo ID is racist and disenfranchising the poor and minorities.
You really want me to recite talking points?
You're also assuming that I inherently disagree with the premise of IDing voters. I however find a larger issue with the tea party ass hats and neoconservative clowns inventing this straw man that our election are under threat of fraud when that is false. But there is statistical evidence that it does effect minorities and poor disproportionately. I firmly believe thought that it is not an illogical thing for anyone to get a state iD card just for everyday use, buying certain vice products, iDing in case of police interview etc etc. But than I'm sure the tea party clowns would than bitch about world government and national iD talking points.
Voter fraud isn't a strawman, and we are going to see more in the upcoming election than in any previous. It's the Chicago way.
There is no need to make it mandatory to possess a legal picture ID. If you don't want to participate, you don't need one. If you would like to vote, go to your local post office or county seat and get one for free.
-
libs are soo butthurt all the time just butthurt
-
Why take a near cost free measure to mitigate voter fraud? We do nothing right now to prevent and identify it and only catch fraud at the rate of 1 in 100 voters. The democratic process isn't worth preserving at such a demininus cost.
Pathetic.
The 1% control everything anyways.
Edna, this is the most asinine stand in the history of the pit.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
The only reason there is an expanding wealth gap is because of local, state, and federal government intervention and regulation. Trying to start a business that manufactures anything is becoming nearly impossible, especially in places like California, which is the failed model for Obama's second term. The government needs to get out of private business. ban lobbyists, and invoke term limits, then we'll see some new entrepreneurs that can compete with the evil corporations.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
The only reason there is an expanding wealth gap is because of local, state, and federal government intervention and regulation. Trying to start a business that manufactures anything is becoming nearly impossible, especially in places like California, which is the failed model for Obama's second term. The government needs to get out of private business. ban lobbyists, and invoke term limits, then we'll see some new entrepreneurs that can compete with the evil corporations.
LOL rough ridin' seriously.
The biggest threat to the American democracy was deregulation from the Glass–Steagall Act being repealed. I like how you hide behind talking points about de-reg and term limits when your demi gods on the right don't favor that. You claim to hate lobbying but you fight to the death to support corporate person hood. You sir are a contradiction.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
The only reason there is an expanding wealth gap is because of local, state, and federal government intervention and regulation. Trying to start a business that manufactures anything is becoming nearly impossible, especially in places like California, which is the failed model for Obama's second term. The government needs to get out of private business. ban lobbyists, and invoke term limits, then we'll see some new entrepreneurs that can compete with the evil corporations.
LOL rough ridin' seriously.
The biggest threat to the American democracy was deregulation from the Glass–Steagall Act being repealed. I like how you hide behind talking points about de-reg and term limits when your demi gods on the right don't favor that. You claim to hate lobbying but you fight to the death to support corporate person hood. You sir are a contradiction.
WTF? I have never claimed any of these things. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and Barney Frank defended it while many from the Bush admin went to congress warning of the impending housing crisis. I guess I needed to be more specific. The EPA and it's unbridled regulation ridiculousness is crushing start-up manufacturing. I have been a champion for term limits for many years. The demi-gods on the left could have passed term limits in 2009 or 2010 if they had any interest.
-
It is pretty stupid that you have to have an ID for pretty much everything except for voting for the people that make it so you have to have an ID for pretty much everything. :dunno:
-
Everybody here needs to endorse Liberty. Something we all can agree on.
-
Everybody here needs to endorse Liberty. Something we all can agree on.
Wants liberty for everyone
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs-ak.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fterminal01%2F2011%2F2%2F2%2F13%2Fenhanced-buzz-14954-1296670473-11.jpg&hash=1457cb888a25156a3a7dafc12558048d94d8ebc3)
gargles the balls of corporate oppression
-
:lol:
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
Edna, based on your logic, because it's less than 1% of the people we're talking about, the issue is not material, not even a real issue, and any argument to the contrary is "counter-factual".
Pretty awesome that your idea for closing the "wealth gap" in this country is to penalize income, rather than grow it. Loser mentality.
-
Who cares, its less than 1% of the secret service. Not worth addressing at all. We've got bigger fish to fry, like the .3% of the country earning over a million a year, those evil rough rider's are making us regular folk poor, get 'em!! and all of us middle classers will be rich.
see this is where you lose people. Its clear that you don't understand the growing wealth gap in this country. A million dollars a year isn't crap anymore compared to the top echelons of this country. But thats fine. Your part is recreating the 1920s with your measures. I mean it was great for a good 8 years.
Edna, based on your logic, because it's less than 1% of the people we're talking about, the issue is not material, not even a real issue, and any argument to the contrary is "counter-factual".
Pretty awesome that your idea for closing the "wealth gap" in this country is to penalize income, rather than grow it. Loser mentality.
:lol:
yet more proof you have no idea what is going on
You see counter factual arguments are when you take situations which have known factors and change them to something which has NEVER happened before in order to extrapolate a fantasy world you would like to live in.
The problem is that we have seen these issues before, IN AMERICA, and we can go off of historical precedent. The last time the wealth gap was this large in the history of the US was before and during the great depression. The last time we allowed banks to be in combination with investments and securities it was right before the great depression (what the Glass–Steagall Act prohibited). The last time we had this kind of growing disconnection between fair taxation of the rich and real middle class Americans was right before the great depression. These are facts which cannot be argued. You might be able to pull some of your right wing talking points out of your ass to say that the faucets were just about to begin the trickle down to starving Americans right before that evil socialist Roosevelt intervened.
-
Ya.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
-
Pushing anyone's agenda is wrong. Obama is dirty and Romney is dirty - they don't have to have the same agenda for them to have the same motives for being president. I don't think it's crazy to suggest that they both have other peoples interest ahead of the American public.
Are you suggesting there aren't media darlings in this or any other election?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Pushing anyone's agenda is wrong. Obama is dirty and Romney is dirty - they don't have to have the same agenda for them to have the same motives for being president. I don't think it's crazy to suggest that they both have other peoples interest ahead of the American public.
Are you suggesting there aren't media darlings in this or any other election?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Political agenda, not personal. Although, Obama takes his political agenda personally.
The media has been in the tank for Obama since 2007, and still is. Notice how he lashes out any reporter that asks him tough, thoughtful questions. He has always been given a pass. I haven't been able to figure out why nearly every media outlet has glommed on to him, but they will put out rumors and publish innuendo if it will further his cause, while ignoring facts.
-
And the media selected Romney as the GOP front runner because..... ?
-
Don't say delegates - he had the media in his back pocket LONG before any votes were tallied.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
They would both continue the spending, they would both continue taking away our civil liberties, they would both be starting wars and occupying countries. The rhetoric may be different, but they serve the same people. It was like Obama and Georgia Bush.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
I could see maybe national healthcare, but what other national issues that truly have an impact on the course of the nation to the two parties/candidates disagree on?
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
I could see maybe national healthcare, but what other national issues that truly have an impact on the course of the nation to the two parties/candidates disagree on?
Taxes, illegal immigration, cap & trade, scope of government, and entitlement reform, just off the top of my head.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
I could see maybe national healthcare, but what other national issues that truly have an impact on the course of the nation to the two parties/candidates disagree on?
Taxes, illegal immigration, cap & trade, scope of government, and entitlement reform, just off the top of my head.
you dont know this. Romney will flip flop to wherever the money leads him. I dont have a problem that hes rich, or how he got rich, but hes a greedy scum bag. The way he treated that medicinal marijuana patient in that youtube video says all you need to know about his character.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
I could see maybe national healthcare, but what other national issues that truly have an impact on the course of the nation to the two parties/candidates disagree on?
Taxes, illegal immigration, cap & trade, scope of government, and entitlement reform, just off the top of my head.
the inherent problem is that the track records don't bear that out.
-
Liberals, providing solutions to nonexistant problems and refusing to acknowledge the existence of real ones for decades.
Lets face it, they don't give a eff about anyones rights or well being. Edna is just yet another mouthpiece for their unreality.
-
Americans elected Obama in 2008 to not be George W. Bush. Bush was reviled by voters for what they believed was an unnecessary war in Iraq, for spying on American citizens, for being too cozy with Wall Street, and for assuming executive powers not delegated to him by the Congress. Obama promised to change all of that. Four years later, Obama has started at least three new wars while expanding the boondoggle in Afghanistan. He has continued spying on Americans and sought to expand this authority in the courts, CISPA ACTA SOPA. He has filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders and has bested George W. Bush on expanding executive powers. Obama actually claims the right to arrest, to indefinitely detain and even to assassinate American citizens that he deems dangerous - all without due process. The Banking Cartels give the orders to the president. And then he follows. Barack is the PERFECT example of this. Thats why Ron Paul is so dangerous :thumbsup:
-
Americans elected Obama in 2008 to not be George W. Bush. Bush was reviled by voters for what they believed was an unnecessary war in Iraq, for spying on American citizens, for being too cozy with Wall Street, and for assuming executive powers not delegated to him by the Congress. Obama promised to change all of that. Four years later, Obama has started at least three new wars while expanding the boondoggle in Afghanistan. He has continued spying on Americans and sought to expand this authority in the courts, CISPA ACTA SOPA. He has filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders and has bested George W. Bush on expanding executive powers. Obama actually claims the right to arrest, to indefinitely detain and even to assassinate American citizens that he deems dangerous - all without due process. The Banking Cartels give the orders to the president. And then he follows. Barack is the PERFECT example of this. Thats why Ron Paul is so dangerous :thumbsup:
This is why it is so important that the Paulites help to rid the country of Obama. He has doubled down on everything for which GWB was reviled by both republicans and democrats. Maybe Romney won't close down every military base outside of the US, but he will be infinitely better for the economy. A vote for Ron Paul in the general election is a vote for more spending and less liberty, but you can say you voted for him.
-
The way I see it Romney or Obama we're screwed either way. A write in for Paul relieves my conscious of feeling like a dumb ass for voting for someone I knew would do things I don't agree with. I learned my lesson after voting for Bush W twice. I don't care who other people vote for. I will NEVER vote against my conscious again. People NOT voting for Ron Paul are the ones wasting their vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The way I see it Romney or Obama we're screwed either way. A write in for Paul relieves my conscious of feeling like a dumb ass for voting for someone I knew would do things I don't agree with. I learned my lesson after voting for Bush W twice. I don't care who other people vote for. I will NEVER vote against my conscious again. People NOT voting for Ron Paul are the ones wasting their vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:facepalm:
Idealism is what has gotten use into this mess. Time for a little realism.
-
calling me idealistic is WRONG. Is it idealistic to rob from the poor to bail out the rich? Greedy people buying votes is what got us into this problem.
If you want a realistic president, you should vote for someone that doesn't think people can be controlled with legislation. You should vote for someone that doesn't think we are the worlds watch dogs. You should vote for someone that sees the financial mess we're in is a result of crazy spending made possible by printing $$.
You want to get real? Pay attention to who you're voting for. You are voting for someone that is only in it for THEMSELVES under the assumption they're looking out for your best interest. Talk about being idealistic - You're voting for someone you're HOPING will be better than Obama.
-
calling me idealistic is WRONG. Is it idealistic to rob from the poor to bail out the rich? Greedy people buying votes is what got us into this problem.
If you want a realistic president, you should vote for someone that doesn't think people can be controlled with legislation. You should vote for someone that doesn't think we are the worlds watch dogs. You should vote for someone that sees the financial mess we're in is a result of crazy spending made possible by printing $$.
You want to get real? Pay attention to who you're voting for. You are voting for someone that is only in it for THEMSELVES under the assumption they're looking out for your best interest. Talk about being idealistic - You're voting for someone you're HOPING will be better than Obama.
This is where the realistic part comes in. I am being realistic at this moment because I know Ron Paul has no chance in the general election. As much as I like most of what he says, and I probably agree with him more than any other candidate, I know he can't win. Now I have to choose between the two candidates that are left, and one of them I agree with more than the other, so that is the one I want to win, and that's who I will vote for. Voting for someone who has no chance is being idealistic. The time to be idealistic is during the primaries, but the general election is the time to be realistic.
-
It's really all a matter of perception. Four years ago, the thought of Romney being the nominee was a joke. What's changed? Has his policy changed? How is Ron Paul still a joke?
It's a joke because you're told by every major media outlet it's a joke. Aren't you starting to question why? Why is there so much interest in Romney being the nominee? Especially by people that self admit that they disagree with much of his policy. How does anyone know that Romney will be better? Especially by a guy that flip flops as much as he does? I don't trust it. I didn't trust Obama 4 years ago and I don't trust Romney now.
Your view of thinking is what gave us Obama - and regardless of how this next election turns out - you'll be thinking "President Y didn't fix this mess, so lets vote for X because he'll be better than what we have now." And what's funnier - is this type of logic dictates that if Paul was the republican candidate - he would have just as good a chance of beating Obama because the only people currently voting for Romney are doing so because.... well at least he's not Obama.
I won't be a part of it. Have the courage vote for the guy that you like - not the guy you're being told to vote for.
When someone is trying to scare you, they're controlling you with Fear. Don't be scared into voting for someone just because he's supposedly the only candidate that can defeat "evil"
I'm not trying to scare you into voting for Paul, I'm just questioning why you would vote for someone you see as the lesser of two evils. It's illogical and IDEALISTIC to expect different results than the last time we voted for the lesser of two evils.
For the record - I appreciate your questioning this subject and I respect your opinion.
-
It's really all a matter of perception. Four years ago, the thought of Romney being the nominee was a joke. What's changed? Has his policy changed? How is Ron Paul still a joke?
It's a joke because you're told by every major media outlet it's a joke. Aren't you starting to question why? Why is there so much interest in Romney being the nominee? Especially by people that self admit that they disagree with much of his policy. How does anyone know that Romney will be better? Especially by a guy that flip flops as much as he does? I don't trust it. I didn't trust Obama 4 years ago and I don't trust Romney now.
Your view of thinking is what gave us Obama - and regardless of how this next election turns out - you'll be thinking "President Y didn't fix this mess, so lets vote for X because he'll be better than what we have now." And what's funnier - is this type of logic dictates that if Paul was the republican candidate - he would have just as good a chance of beating Obama because the only people currently voting for Romney are doing so because.... well at least he's not Obama.
I won't be a part of it. Have the courage vote for the guy that you like - not the guy you're being told to vote for.
When someone is trying to scare you, they're controlling you with Fear. Don't be scared into voting for someone just because he's supposedly the only candidate that can defeat "evil"
I'm not trying to scare you into voting for Paul, I'm just questioning why you would vote for someone you see as the lesser of two evils. It's illogical and IDEALISTIC to expect different results than the last time we voted for the lesser of two evils.
For the record - I appreciate your questioning this subject and I respect your opinion.
I understand your frustration, but Obama can do more destruction in his second term than he did in his first, and I think our way of life can be damaged beyond repair if given another 4 years, so I'm not willing to cast a symbolic vote.
The time to find a new candidate has passed for this next election, so you need to start working on the next.
-
I just don't expect Romney to be better - that's where we differ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Don't you question why Romney was dirt four years ago, but now he's our only hope? What promise did he make to obtain that status? Doesn't that bother you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Don't you question why Romney was dirt four years ago, but now he's our only hope? What promise did he make to obtain that status? Doesn't that bother you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
McCain was a much better candidate than Romney 4 years ago. I can understand that you think Ron Paul would be a better president than Romney, and I agree. The typical republican is terrified of some of the things Ron Paul says, though. He is never going to win a nomination in either political party without making some major changes in his viewpoints, and at that point, he wouldn't be any different than Romney.
-
Typical republicans that are terrified of Ron Paul would also be terrified of a candidate that favors strict gun control, socialized medicine, and flip flops on abortion. I disagree that Ron Paul would never get the nomination on the basis that a gun hating baby killing communist is about to get the nod.
I think what you're trying to say is the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul. Actual republican voters would love the crap out of him if they would stop listening to fox news/Sean hannity/rush limbaugh/CNN/etc. and actually listen to Ron Paul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And Ron Paul's people are currently exposing how corrupt the establishment is. Hence the coming revolution.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I just don't expect Romney to be better - that's where we differ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe you can take some comfort in knowing that Ron Paul would accomplish very little of his agenda if he was elected.
-
That's a gigantic pile of bullshit. Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care? He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That's a gigantic pile of bullshit. Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care? He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, that' what I'm saying. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo. There could be a slow closing of a few bases here and there, but the idea of a wholesale closure of all non-USA bases is what gave him his "crazy" persona.
Stopping Obamacare is part of the republican platform, so yes, as would Romney.
As president, he would be slapped in the face with knowledge not even privy to a senator of 20 years.
-
Presidents pull troops all the time - no one said he had to close a base. Its even easier to do in non war zones. Do we really need 50,000 troops in Germany? Comparing gitmo to this is ridiculous.
I'll believe the former Massachusetts governor who created "Romneycare" will repeal Obamacare when I see it. He's a liar and I don't see how you decide to believe him on this.
The fed. It's really anyone's guess if w could get anything done here but I'll state that he's actually building his campaign on allowing for competition among currency and auditing the fed. Not ending the fed and going to a gold standard like every one claims. He knows he can't go to a gold standard or end the fed and he's admitted it publicly. He has stated that his goal is to build awareness to how inflation is eliminating the middle class and close the loop holes to how the Feds operations are regulated. His statements have always been that US paper $$ will some day die unless it's tied to some sort of commodity. If you ask me, I'd say it's speculation as it depends on so many variables that no one has control over. But hyper-inflation certainly doesn't help the US dollar any.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That's a gigantic pile of bullshit. Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care? He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.
-
That's a gigantic pile of bullshit. Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care? He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Even if true, this isn't why we have bases and troops all over the world. Should the need arise to fight a war, Americans prefer to fight it somewhere else.
-
Of course people are afraid of his foreign policy - It goes against everything the republican establishment propagates to keep their vested interest alive in well and keep unrest in the middle east. We've been successfully keeping the American public believing we need to be at war with the middle east since the 90's. And now we're lead to believe that Iran could be a threat to the U.S. IF they were able to develop into a nuclear power? Does anyone realize how dumb that sounds? They would have to establish a space program if not a Navy, THEN figure out a way to send a nuclear device into US territory without detection... IF they are even able to successfully build a nuclear device. Even then - why go to war over this and not go to war with Korea? They just jumped into the nuclear arms race - but it's hardly in the news any more - (although I'm not sure they've even had a successfully detonated any nuclear devices yet) Maybe if North Korea had oil or some other precious element we'd be there.... OH Wait.
Which I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to agree that this is REALLY about oil. So which is it - fear of terrorism or Oil? Humanitarian effort? Please. We're tricking 18 year old kids with patriotism into putting their lives on the lines for oil - Not America - Oil. A resource that's not nearly as precious as we're lead to believe. We're more likely to create another Timothy McVeigh than we are another terrorist plot in the U.S. and even less likely be attacked by an Iranian nuclear device. But I agree, Ron Paul is crazy because he sees the billions of dollars in tax money we're spending on pointless wars over oil and oh yeah, pick up a couple of contracts to rebuild the middle east after we blow the crap out of it. We - the middle class - are being raped over this several times over. We're paying premium prices on gas - We're buying it with a weakened currency due to debt & inflation (partly because of wasteful military spending) AND we're funding this war with our tax dollars. We're triple mumped and lapping it up because Rush Limbaugh & Michael Savage says we have to help out Israel even if they didn't ask us to - because they're our allies and "It's the right thing to do!" And Oh yeah, Ad Anti-Semite to the list because Ron Paul doesn't care about Isreal! What a JERK!
And having troops all over the world... Let me get this straight. We have 50,000 troops stationed in Germany so that we can get to war "quicker" if we need to? News flash dumb crap. We ARE in a rough ridin' war. Are we going to fight terrorism in Germany? What? Do you realize how Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) that sounds? How does having troops in Japan & Germany make Americans any safer? Not to mention, I'm sure most of you have lived in Manhattan at least a couple of years, right? You know Riley Rats? Yeah. That's what's representing the United States to the world. No wonder we're thought of as pig headed, arrogant, douchebags. Not that our entire military is full of them - but it only takes one to make an impression. Every time an army brat hops off base to rape a local, we've created another terrorist. But when someone stands on a stage and talks about "blow-back" He's an unpatriotic Loon.
But whatever, I'm sure we're much safer having our Military spread to the farthest reaches possible - That's what the Romans did anyhow.
-
Maybe we can get a military base on Mars! Wouldn't that be fun!
All it would take is for Boeing to get contracted to build the next space exploration vehicle (if NASA ever gets back up and running) and Boeing's CEO can start propagating martian civil unrest that threatens the democracy of the universe... OH NO!
:jerk:
-
Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.
:facepalm:
What on earth? Only the most naive butthurt little lib minions say stuff like this. So sad, they try so hard to not let their bigotry reveal itself that they end up being little bigots themselves.
-
Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.
:facepalm:
What on earth? Only the most naive butthurt little lib minions say stuff like this. So sad, they try so hard to not let their bigotry reveal itself that they end up being little bigots themselves.
Well, assuming our candidates are representative of their party at large, we have:
Mitt Romney: Not really afraid of foreigners, but he indicates to his voters that he is because he believes that most republicans are.
Ron Paul: Not afraid of foreigners
Newt Gingrich: Somewhat scared of foreigners
Rick Santorum: Scared shitless of anybody who doesn't speak English as a first language
Rick Perry: Not afraid of foreigners
Jon Huntsman: Not afraid
Michelle Bachman: Terrified
Gary Johnson: Not afraid
Herman Cain: somewhat scared
Tim Pawlenty: Aw, shucks!
I was wrong. Most republicans aren't really afraid of foreigners, but the ones who are get a lot of press.
-
I was wrong. Most republicans aren't really afraid of foreigners.
This would have sufficed. Still ignorant and misleading, but whatev, baby steps
-
Heinzballz is taking people to flight school.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ptSrcNvJzBQ
Oh, and I voted AGAINST amendment one.
-
The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.
yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud. Its all American politics.
The second half is yet another counter factual argument. There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US. At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places. The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.
The first half of the post simply points out that very few people vote and that it only takes 19% of the voters to get a win in NPEY's. I was assuming that the reader would then see that voter fraud doesn't have to be over millions of votes in order to be successful...it just has to be enough for a candidate to get to 19%. I wasn't trying to compare us to "other places." Thanks for bringing up tea party ass hats, because it was obviously what I was referring to.?
Dude, you seem wound a little tight. My post had nothing to do with political parties or with other places. I did refer to special interest groups, but those groups are on any and every side of the isle.
It's okay. His response to you was mostly total rough ridin' nonsense and he clearly doesn't understand the term counterfactual. This is what he's actually doing everytime he has labled something counterfactual in this thread:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
-
The way I see it, this is all really irrelevant until people unplug themselves from the media and research candidates on their own. If sheeple didn't exist, half of these candidates wouldn't make it past two weeks of campaigning and you wouldn't hear outcries from people wanting Sarah rough ridin' Palin to be on the VP ticket. Most people I know that are supporting Romney have the "anyone but Obama" mentality and they leach on to who the media tells them is the likely Gop nomination because well... "he's the lesser of two evils". You want to complain about this being rigged? It's not because of fraudulent voting, it's because of rough ridin' morons doing what they're told to do.
Obama & Romney are the same; two lefts don't make a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just so wrong. I would prefer someone other than Romney, but trying to claim Romney and Obama push the same agenda in the next term is insanity. :facepalm:
They would both continue the spending, they would both continue taking away our civil liberties, they would both be starting wars and occupying countries. The rhetoric may be different, but they serve the same people. It was like Obama and Georgia Bush.
This is the take home point. Every politician's primary purpose is to get elected. As a result, they will say or do whatever they believe will accomplish that. It isn't about ideology or moral beliefs, it's about appealing to the most voters and campaign donors. They don't do what they truly believe is right whatever that may be. Instead they do what they believe will get them elected and keep them in office, which is in turn what pleases and benefits their constituents and financial backers. It is the inevitable confluence of democracy, capitalism and humanity. Haves and have nots are inherent not only in our modern way of life, but throughout the course of human history. So deep I buried it up to the root on that one.
-
And when a candidate comes along that has no constituents and serves as a slave to no banker, he's a crazy cook that no one wants to vote for. And the people that do support him are called idealist by the very people that go along with the "presumptive nominee" because they listen to MSM for their news and do what their told. THey later complain about their candidate being a typical politician because he'll just say anything to get a vote and "I'm sick of voter for people that will just say anything for a vote" - but when the idealist call them sheeple, everyone laughs and say that the idealist people are sheeple because they'll just follow whatever their crazy idealist candidate tells them to do.
But when you look at the facts - one group is voting for a guy because mainstream meadia says he's the only one that can win - they don't agree with anything their candidate stands for - but damnit, if you're not voting for this guy, you might as well vote for the crap we have in there.
The other group doesn't listen to anyone, decides what they want in a president, look for a candidate that holds those principles dear to their heart - and they support that candidate.
Why are Ron Paul people sheep again?
-
And when a candidate comes along that has no constituents and serves as a slave to no banker, he's a crazy cook that no one wants to vote for. And the people that do support him are called idealist by the very people that go along with the "presumptive nominee" because they listen to MSM for their news and do what their told. THey later complain about their candidate being a typical politician because he'll just say anything to get a vote and "I'm sick of voter for people that will just say anything for a vote" - but when the idealist call them sheeple, everyone laughs and say that the idealist people are sheeple because they'll just follow whatever their crazy idealist candidate tells them to do.
But when you look at the facts - one group is voting for a guy because mainstream meadia says he's the only one that can win - they don't agree with anything their candidate stands for - but damnit, if you're not voting for this guy, you might as well vote for the crap we have in there.
The other group doesn't listen to anyone, decides what they want in a president, look for a candidate that holds those principles dear to their heart - and they support that candidate.
Why are Ron Paul people sheep again?
You're fighting the good fight, but you're never going to prevail because the average American is a rough ridin' dunce. They want to be told who to hate, who to fear, what to do and then clique-up and get to it. Logic and reason will never compete with us versus them when it comes to humanity. We rough ridin' manufacture reasons (e.g., religion) to group up and hate/destroy one another. Not to mention that the stupidest of people are reproducing at the highest rate and have been for some time now, which means it is only going to continue to get worse. Outside of some cataclysmic plague wiping out the vast majority of humanity, the earth is inexorably doomed.
-
A year ago I would have agreed with you - back when I thought a democracy was a good idea. crap's gonna happen because establishments want them to happen - not because of popular vote. The idea of the ignorant people having a say in everyone's future is not only not a good idea, but it's not really even how it works. People are lead to believe they live in a democracy & humored with the thought that their ideas & thoughts have an impact on government so that they'll stay out of it and think they're doing enough by just placing a vote.
Enough people are waking up to this fact and they're doing more than just placing a vote; They're taking over the establishment. That's what this Ron Paul movement is all about. It's not about getting Ron Paul elected, although that would be nice - It's about getting the cheating bastards out of the chair positions of every state & county GOP. It's about making sure the people that make the rules have no conflict of interest.
THAT is why Ron Paul people say Ron Paul or Nothing at all. Barry & Mitt are the same people because they're both establishment people. They're people with a conflict of interest. Ron Paul people are waking up to the fact that the position of the president is not the most powerful seat in the world. The most powerful seat is the one that buy's the President... The private bank known as the Federal Reserve.
The statements people keeping making in defense of "Mitt & Barry are not the same" do not understand the problem. Of course they're politicians and change their opinion to stay popular - but they legislate in accordance with vested interest because that's what they're paid to do. And since we do not live in a democracy, YOU are not the one paying them. Popularity is only keeping them in their role as the Fed's puppet.
-
A year ago I would have agreed with you - back when I thought a democracy was a good idea. crap's gonna happen because establishments want them to happen - not because of popular vote. The idea of the ignorant people having a say in everyone's future is not only not a good idea, but it's not really even how it works. People are lead to believe they live in a democracy & humored with the thought that their ideas & thoughts have an impact on government so that they'll stay out of it and think they're doing enough by just placing a vote.
Enough people are waking up to this fact and they're doing more than just placing a vote; They're taking over the establishment. That's what this Ron Paul movement is all about. It's not about getting Ron Paul elected, although that would be nice - It's about getting the cheating bastards out of the chair positions of every state & county GOP. It's about making sure the people that make the rules have no conflict of interest.
THAT is why Ron Paul people say Ron Paul or Nothing at all. Barry & Mitt are the same people because they're both establishment people. They're people with a conflict of interest. Ron Paul people are waking up to the fact that the position of the president is not the most powerful seat in the world. The most powerful seat is the one that buy's the President... The private bank knows as the Federal Reserve.
The statements people keeping making in defense of "Mitt & Barry are not the same" do not understand the problem. Of course they're politicians and change their opinion to stay popular - but they legislate in accordance with vested interest because that's what they're paid to do. And since we do not live in a democracy, YOU are not the one paying them. Popularity is only keeping them in their role as the Fed's puppet.
That's just it though, the dumber and more belligerent the "electorate" the more easily manipulated they are. You just distract and rally them with some pointless rough ridin' non-issue; e.g., "Queers are trying to get married!" or "Sluts are killing unborn babies!" and then you do whatever the hell you want. The establishment is the establishment because it's backed by the people with the power (i.e., the money) and driven by their unyielding self-interest. It's been that way throughout the course of human history, and we aren't collectively getting more enlightened. Quite the contrary.
This isn't rough ridin' Atlas Shrugged we're living in. The men of the mind rise above the fray and the common folk ultimately see the error of their ways. If you haven't read it, that's precisely the reality you're banking on, except it doesn't exist. It is contrary to collective human nature as demonstrated over centuries of repeated profiteering, victimization and ignorance. It isn't a matter of political philosophy. Every system of governance known to man has had the same result and basic dynamic in the end be it democracy, socialism, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc. Manipulation of the masses for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many will continue on ad infinitum. It is an immutable characteristic of our species.
-
What "end" are you speaking of? People are becoming enlightened in masses and there is no "end" - this is all cyclical. If you look, evidence to support my opinion can be found throughout history. Look at how often currency has taken different forms to prevent manipulation to the market. Ever hear of tally sticks? That's roughly 750 years of a non inflating currency. We will be abused, We will not stand for it, we will revolt, we will forget, we will be abused.
Look I'm not saying there is going to be a point where manipulation of "common folk" doesn't exist, but to suggest we're heading down a slippery slope that your average Joe won't see coming is ridiculous. There was a time within the last 200 years alone where government did not have the reach that it does now. That form of limited government, in our situation, was obtained through what you're suggesting never happened; a revolution. We're heading towards that again; it may or may not be as bloody as the last one. You can deny that but much like those that claim the holocaust never happened, you'll be opening the door to questions of your own intellect.
-
What "end" are you speaking of? People are becoming enlightened in masses and there is no "end" - this is all cyclical. If you look, evidence to support my opinion can be found throughout history. Look at how often currency has taken different forms to prevent manipulation to the market. Ever hear of tally sticks? That's roughly 750 years of a non inflating currency. We will be abused, We will not stand for it, we will revolt, we will forget, we will be abused.
Look I'm not saying there is going to be a point where manipulation of "common folk" doesn't exist, but to suggest we're heading down a slippery slope that your average Joe won't see coming is ridiculous. There was a time within the last 200 years alone where government did not have the reach that it does now. That form of limited government, in our situation, was obtained through what you're suggesting never happened; a revolution. We're heading towards that again; it may or may not be as bloody as the last one. You can deny that but much like those that claim the holocaust never happened, you'll be opening the door to questions of your own intellect.
The only end I'm referring to is overpopulation leading to the inevitable destruction of the planet. Number of people and pollution keeps rising as natural resources keep dissipating. This revolution you're advocating, as you point out, has been done to death. It's happened all over the world throughout the course of modern human history. Oppressed peoples revolt and other peoples end up being the oppressed at some future date. Whatever it accomplishes will inevitably be erased by reversion back to the mean. That doesn't mean it won't happen, just that in the grand scheme of things it's meaningless. Those in power will eventually come to abuse it for their benefit and to the detriment of many more. It doesn't matter what the power dynamic is: whites vs. non-whites, Christians vs. Muslims; rich vs. poor, etc. Back and forth, back and forth it will continue until the planet takes a crap and all hell breaks loose. Fin.
-
Now you're not making any sense. You stated:
Every system of governance known to man has had the same result and basic dynamic in the end ....
I stated there is no end - this is all cyclical and I challenged you by stating this cycle has been perpetuating itself throughout the course of human existence. You respond by forecasting doomsday scenario's of evaporating resources & over-crowding/pollution when we're clearly talking about power shifts between big government & the people - which I don't buy for one second (and anyone who does buy into this is being controlled by fear). Regardless - you blow off a revolution like it's something that runs it's course in a year or two.
Mind Boggling.
You realize our current system was established in the late 1700's and it maintained it's fairly small government status for several hundreds of years. Sure it wasn't smooth sailing the entire time but jesus christ man - are you really writing the first 200 years of the U.S. existence off as hopeless?
This is what it all comes down to. You are making the statement that you would vote for Liberty if there wasn't so many stupid people in the U.S. that won't vote for Liberty. Well welcome to ranks of people you yourself characterized as "rough ridin' dunce"('s) that won't vote for liberty.
-
Now you're not making any sense. You stated: Every system of governance known to man has had the same result and basic dynamic in the end ....
I stated there is no end - this is all cyclical and I challenged you by stating this cycle has been perpetuating itself throughout the course of human existence. You respond by forecasting doomsday scenario's of evaporating resources & over-crowding/pollution when we're clearly talking about power shifts between big government & the people - which I don't buy for one second (and anyone who does buy into this is being controlled by fear). Regardless - you blow off a revolution like it's something that runs it's course in a year or two.
Mind Boggling.
You realize our current system was established in the late 1700's and it maintained it's fairly small government status for several hundreds of years. Sure it wasn't smooth sailing the entire time but jesus christ man - are you really writing the first 200 years of the U.S. existence off as hopeless?
This is what it all comes down to. You are making the statement that you would vote for Liberty if there wasn't so many stupid people in the U.S. that won't vote for Liberty. Well welcome to ranks of people you yourself characterized as "rough ridin' dunce"('s) that won't vote for liberty.
Don't confuse political apathy with ignorance. No, I'm not saying I "would vote for Liberty if there wasn't so many stupid people in the U.S. that won't vote for Liberty." I don't consider Ron Paul some manner of white knight savior. His election or Romney's or Obama's won't appreciably affect the way I live my life, neither benefit nor detriment. The practical reality for me is that it is a wash. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the avalanche of liberty-related benefits that I would be provided with if this revolution that you and Ron Paul are ushering in were to come to pass, but I doubt it. Even if elected he would be unable to accomplish anything in the way of significant change, at least as it pertains to my life. Congress and the myriad of big-moneyed interests that back it will fight him tooth and nail, frustrating his most earnest efforts at nearly every turn. America is too easily divided and set against itself. You need homogeneity for your revolution and the U.S. is anything but nowadays. You point to the beginnings of the United States as your halcyon days, but what the country had then, homgeneousness of purpose/direction, it will never have again. The population is too widely divergent; i.e., races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs and values, etc. The population underlying the democracy of the U.S. represents a cannibalistic vat of perpetually competing self-interests, easily manipulated and impossible to unify in any meaningful way for a sustained period of time.
-
Look. I like you. But I don't think you're paying attention. We're not going to GAIN liberties that we don't already have. But if you can't see the past 10 years of destructive legislation that has come to pass, then I can't help you. We're on the verge of losing every freedom you currently treasure.
Here's how I see it & how it affects myself and my children.
Foreign Policy: Nation building creates terrorist locally & abroad. Dispute this, and you're the crazy one; This has surely effected everyone that has flown a plain the last 10 years or traveled abroad.
Invasion of American rights/privacy: Patriot Act/NDAA/SOPA When we become a threat by having an opinion... Do I really need to explain this? Hell, I'm probably on a list somewhere for having this conversation.
Economy: Also - no need to explain. A private bank controlling the nation & worlds currency is a conflict of interest.
Not a single other presidential candidate has the balls to stand up against any of these issues but Ron Paul. Which is understandable, considering every US president assassinated in the past was killed for one of the 3 above reasons.
The population is too widely divergent; i.e., races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs and values, etc.
Freedom & liberty transcends all races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs & values. There's already a Unified movement. Hop on youtube & search for "Ron Paul is a racist" You'll find a slew of people of all races, religions, creeds defending Ron Paul and laughing at mainstream media's assertions of being anything but a Liberty for ALL candidate.
-
Look. I like you. But I don't think you're paying attention. We're not going to GAIN liberties that we don't already have. But if you can't see the past 10 years of destructive legislation that has come to pass, then I can't help you. We're on the verge of losing every freedom you currently treasure.
Here's how I see it & how it affects myself and my children.
Foreign Policy: Nation building creates terrorist locally & abroad. Dispute this, and you're the crazy one; This has surely effected everyone that has flown a plain the last 10 years or traveled abroad.
Invasion of American rights/privacy: Patriot Act/NDAA/SOPA When we become a threat by having an opinion... Do I really need to explain this? Hell, I'm probably on a list somewhere for having this conversation.
Economy: Also - no need to explain. A private bank controlling the nation & worlds currency is a conflict of interest.
Not a single other presidential candidate has the balls to stand up against any of these issues but Ron Paul. Which is understandable, considering every US president assassinated in the past was killed for one of the 3 above reasons.
The population is too widely divergent; i.e., races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs and values, etc.
Freedom & liberty transcends all races, ethnicities, religions, beliefs & values. There's already a Unified movement. Hop on youtube & search for "Ron Paul is a racist" You'll find a slew of people of all races, religions, creeds defending Ron Paul and laughing at mainstream media's assertions of being anything but a Liberty for ALL candidate.
:blush:
-
To be honest, I am supremely misanthropic; likely unreasonably so. It certainly affects my view of politics. I don't disagree with your view points, it's just that I have next to no faith in humanity. I do not exempt myself from that scorn. Big self-loather. Good talk though. I appreciate your tolerance of my repeated tangents.
-
I myself have a history of great disdain for most people in general; and overall a sense of negativity towards life. So I know where you're coming from but I won't pretend to know why you're there. My apathetic feelings towards humanity derived from depression - but mostly as you put it - hopelessness. Following Ron Paul the last 5 years, watching the hours upon hours of people like you & me post video blogs voicing complaints all with a central & common theme. The growing disgust & impatience with the direction of this nation has given me hope that my kids can be themselves without fear of prosecution. Subsequently, my life is much happier now. I now live with intent & purpose. I will never again shy away from sharing my opinion just because it puts me in a so called minority and I'm finding that I'm not alone. I am finding hope. I read something today that may not be relevant, but because you've set a precedents for tangents - perhaps you'll continue to read and maybe you'll find some relevance in it.
Why I will not vote for Romney or Obama, written by Brittany Hemsath:
We are not afraid to lose if losing means our integrity and principles remain with us. Our numbers have tripled this election... we have already won. We have spread the message of individual liberty far and wide. Ron Paul has inspired liberty movements in Africa, Europe, and even Korea. Only a third of American colonists believed that the American Revolution was necessary, and they changed the course of history forever. It is our turn now to do the same. An election outcome will not change that. We would lay down our lives for the cause of liberty if it were required of us, and it may be. I welcome losing if the winning team is not supporting the principles that this country was founded on. But, I will not go as a lamb to the slaughter and vote for someone who my heart, my gut, and reason tells me is wrong for this country. Like Patrick Henry said, "I know not what course others will take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
-
Who is going to step in for Ron Paul in 2016? I think that's probably what you guys need to be focusing on while you pull the handle for Romney. He is much closer to RP than Obama, and if you allow Obama another 4 years, you will push liberty that much further away.
-
Who is going to step in for Ron Paul in 2016? I think that's probably what you guys need to be focusing on while you pull the handle for Romney. He is much closer to RP than Obama, and if you allow Obama another 4 years, you will push liberty that much further away.
We'll come to that bridge when we cross it. But you know how I feel and hopefully by now understand that I think the same $$ that bought Obama is purchasing Romney - so I don't see a difference between the two. Neither outcome between Obama & Romney will push Liberty further away as it will only serve to awaken more Liberty supporters. You yourself may see my from my point of view by 2016 - when Romney gets in & nothing changes from where Obama's driving us - Just like Obama is nothing more than Bush on steroids.
-
Bilderberg
-
Anyone catch all the lib's claiming voter fraud and that idiotic from Madison claiming she expected 100 to 116 percent voter turnout? The butthurt is at hemorrhoidal levels with dashes of donkey dick.