So this is how democracy dies

Blindgroping said:
They have yet to realize that the low voter turnout IS a sign that We, The people are disaffected by how they are handling themselves.

That not voting IS a protest.
Click to expand...
Well it's a pretty stupid protest, no offense.
 
Hambil said:
Well it's a pretty stupid protest, no offense.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree.

Not showing up for the polls is simply saying "I don't care." Elections are won by votes.

You know...shit has to be bad for Hambil and I to agree on things.
 
Blindgroping said:
They have yet to realize that the low voter turnout IS a sign that We, The people are disaffected by how they are handling themselves.

That not voting IS a protest.
Click to expand...

It might be a protest, but it is ineffective and irresponsible. The only protest that makes a difference is at the ballot.

Hell you can even have a damn write in campaign. I say elect CoyoteUgly in his District. Can you imagine the Coyote in Congress. Why the mere thought tickles me pink.
 
Hambil said:
Well it's a pretty stupid protest, no offense.
Click to expand...

It should work exactly like a boycott.
But Politicians are too dim to get the gist.
They think it's an opportunity to pass things that would ordinarily not pass.

And the voters aren't getting THAT message either.
 
Caitriona said:
Hell you can even have a damn write in campaign. I say elect CoyoteUgly in his District. Can you imagine the Coyote in Congress. Why the mere thought tickles me pink.
Click to expand...

And get shot by a five-man squad? Are you crazy? ;)
 
Blindgroping said:
It should work exactly like a boycott.
But Politicians are too dim to get the gist.
They think it's an opportunity to pass things that would ordinarily not pass.

And the voters aren't getting THAT message either.
Click to expand...

They only way it would work is if you legislated a "None of the Above" onto the ballot. then, dissatisfied voters can actually voice that. If the "none of the Aboves' was a majority, then the candidates running are thrown off the ballot and we begin anew.

But no politician cares about who doesn't vote, as long as he has a majority of who DOES vote.
 
Freedom, as we see it today, has not been around very long. Only a few decades ago blacks could not vote. Woman could not vote. Before that, they could not own land.

The freedom we covet so much is really a product of the 20th century, and the late 19th century. It's barely a hundred years old.

It can be put at risk, especially by a combination of technology and apathy. It is being put at risk. The tools of it's demise are fear and greed. We have to stop it, and we have to do it soon.
 
You'd have to convince people to care, and, as any motivational speaker can attest to, that is the one hardest thing to do.
 
Caitriona said:
They only way it would work is if you legislated a "None of the Above" onto the ballot. then, dissatisfied voters can actually voice that. If the "none of the Aboves' was a majority, then the candidates running are thrown off the ballot and we begin anew.
Click to expand...

There it is, right there. I think that's what most people who don't vote are looking for -- a "We don't want any of these assholes, bring us a different set of assholes." option. :)
 
Blindgroping said:
No. Because Survivalists don't pay taxes.

Then politicians would have to get real jobs.

That would move them into the private sector.

We don't want that.
Click to expand...

Yes we do, because when they are homeless and destitute, we will have all the proof we ever needed that they are idiots who can't cut it out here. :)
 
The Question said:
There it is, right there. I think that's what most people who don't vote are looking for -- a "We don't want any of these assholes, bring us a different set of assholes." option. :)
Click to expand...

There's an old thread by SB around here some where where he rants about this idea of "None of the Above". I have personally thought that some kind of "Vote of confidence" was in order in this country.

The voters need to be able to effectively say, "we're tired of voting for the lesser evil. We don't like the options. We say NO, to all of them."
 
The Question said:
There it is, right there. I think that's what most people who don't vote are looking for -- a "We don't want any of these assholes, bring us a different set of assholes." option. :)
Click to expand...


Quite possible, although I'd argue you'd only bring SOME of the crowd back to the table. say 20 percent. But my question is, If you vote none of the above, who appoints the interim while you dreg up another handful of idiots? And how much damage can an interim position holder do?
 
Incumbents stay in office until it is resolved, and/or you just seat the ones that were elected.

Let's face it, how many new laws do we need these guys for. They should be able to handle the budget and law making in 6 months, then go back home to their real jobs. [OK just kidding]

We have an entire bureaucracy that really keeps the government going. Course we need to deal with that too, but let's begin with the House.
 
Scarlett O'Hara Hey! It's sockfucker!

Have stupid posters make stupid nicknames that make no sense, and attempt to karma bomb with Zero power.

SockFucker? Man, you guys are really reaching now.
"i know what you are, but what am I?"

Oops, wrong thread.

[Copy-n-paste]Trolling techniques![/c-n-p]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top