What's new

What do you think about the decision to NOT VOTE for president?

I feel that Obama actually cares about the well being of America, and Americans in general.

I don`t feel that Romney actually cares about America, or average Americans in general.

The biggest gripes on Obama? That he`s a Socialist (false). That he`s gonna take away our guns (false). And for alot of white Southerns, that he`s black (part true). Fear has driven these people to hate Obama. And he was supposed to turn our economy around fast? No President could have fixed Bush`s destruction very fast. Jobs are growing, and the Ecomony is getting better - slowly. They say it has not been fast enough - but of course the Republicans will say this.

Technically, Bush did not start ALL of this mess. Clinton did with his stupid housing policy "let's give everyone the American dream of owning a home (even if they can't afford it at the moment)" During Clinton's terms he basked in what Reagan had created. His idiotic policies didn't take full economic effect until Bush. Did Bush do anything to help - heck no. He sat back and let himself get rich as oil prices went through the roof. Our situation was created by both parties - so now whose gonna fix it?
 
With the Electoral College system and being a resident of Utah, I disagree.

The Utah thing is silly, but the EC is right on. The fact that the guy with the most votes can actually lose the election is mind boggling.

When I see people in other countries risking their life for the opportunity to cast a vote, it makes me wonder about people who can't be bothered to do it in this country. Even if it's a write in for a protest vote, it's still a vote. Get your asses off the couch and vote.

Hold me.

Romney is the worst Presidential candidate i`ve ever seen.

It shouldn`t take much to unseat Obama - yet Romney will pretty much get blown out.

Reminds me of GWB Vs. Kerry. I think a reanimated corpse could've done a better job running against Dubs.

That could also be said differently. He, more than any other presidential candidate, is not as likeable as some/most because he's willing to change his mind based on new information, rather than just stay put .. At the risk of being labeled a flip-flopper.

Agreed 100%. I laugh at anyone who brings up "flip flopping" in politics as a reason not to vote for them. I always wonder if they've ever thought about how they've changed their minds on certain things as the get older/more educated on the subject. I'll take a "flip-flopper" 100x over a nut job like Slopper who is riding his party line so hard he's actually growing a second butt crack.

It is no ones business , in my opinion, who you vote for. Just vote. The real change that we can affect is in more local elections. City council, mayor, sherrif, state level representatives. Some US Senate and House races.

We start filling all the bottom rungs with people that support our views than that slowly works it's way up.

Again, I agree with this. If you look at a lot of our leaders up on the hill, they started at the local level on a city council and moved up. I simply can't understand how people don't care about their local elections; it's one of the few places where your voice will actually be heard in person and acted upon.


Anyhow, to answer the OP, I don't like it when people throw out excuses for not voting. Go vote for who you want to win, regardless if they have a chance or not. Those votes still count. Those votes are still counted and tallied, and future politicians will look at those numbers. If Utah has a 1% turnout/vote rate for Democrats (or insert anything here) then the chances are good that an up and coming Democrat won't waste his time running. If he/she sees that there was a 30% turnout/vote, well then, he might just go for it. Or instead of putting $1,000.00 into his campaign from his own pocket, the donors will see that he's not fighting an impossible uphill battle, and will donate to help his cause. This is all bull **** coming from me, and I suck at explaining it, but think about it. Your vote matters. Go do it, you lazy bitch.
 
You don't until it is put under your nose. What you do do however is go on and on about racism. You turn topics about anything into a refferendum on how people are racist.

I suppose I do notice racism more than misogyny. I'm not a woman, so I have a position of priviledge in that respect. I'm trying to improve.
 
Clinton did with his stupid housing policy "let's give everyone the American dream of owning a home (even if they can't afford it at the moment)"

Clinton forced people to lend money on $500K+ homes whose values dropped?
 
Clinton forced people to lend money on $500K+ homes whose values dropped?

When you know what someone is talking about why ask questions pretending like you don't? Do they have to spell it out to you before you can give them credit for a point you must already be familiar with before the discussion can move forward?
 
Clinton forced people to lend money on $500K+ homes whose values dropped?

There are enough feet to lay the blame at. Who got the ball rolling by pressing for lower lending standards as a way of facilitating inner city blacks following the urban to suburban manufacturing migration?

The housing bubble is as much an example of failures of government policy trying to eradicate poverty as it is Wall Street shenanigans as it is central banking hubris as it is presidential grandstanding (Bush) as it is democratic congressional corruption-stupidity-pandering as it is citizen greed. Every one of us caused it & it started under Bill Clinton's watch (as did the war in Iraq).
 
When you know what someone is talking about why ask questions pretending like you don't? Do they have to spell it out to you before you can give them credit for a point you must already be familiar with before the discussion can move forward?

It's one way pointing out the disconnect between the propaganda and the facts. Why would I give credit (as opposed to debit) for falsely attributing the primary sources of the housing bubble?
 
There are enough feet to lay the blame at. Who got the ball rolling by pressing for lower lending standards as a way of facilitating inner city blacks following the urban to suburban manufacturing migration?

I don't recall lowered lending standards being pressed for at all. I recall programs that said to focus on borrowers on similar lending standards from underserviced neighborhoods. Why would that equate to lower lending standards to you?

The housing bubble is as much an example of failures of government policy trying to eradicate poverty as it is Wall Street shenanigans as it is central banking hubris as it is presidential grandstanding (Bush) as it is democratic congressional corruption-stupidity-pandering as it is citizen greed. Every one of us caused it & it started under Bill Clinton's watch (as did the war in Iraq).

I agree with all that, except I would say Clinton was a facilitator in a process that went back to Johnson, at least, as opposed to an initiator.
 
It's one way pointing out the disconnect between the propaganda and the facts. Why would I give credit (as opposed to debit) for falsely attributing the primary sources of the housing bubble?

That may have been your intent but I think you pretend to play dumb a lot more than you let on.
 
So from this post we can deduce that you are black?

That would be one possibility. I could be a different minority. I could be a white guy who grew up as the only white guy in my neighborhood. I could be some guilt-induced liberal who has no such childhood experiences. So, you probably shouldn't deduce that.

I will confirm that as a kid, I was a straight, cis male who hung around with other straight, cis males and unknowingly basked in all the priviledge that entails.
 
That may have been your intent but I think you pretend to play dumb a lot more than you let on.

It was intended as rhetorical, not falsely playing dumb. I obviously failed in that attempt. I'll try to do better.
 
It was intended as rhetorical, not falsely playing dumb. I obviously failed in that attempt. I'll try to do better.

Alot of subtleties are lost in text. Such as rhetorical, inflection...plus you are talking to a group of guys, let's be honest - women dont use the internet, that do not know you from Adam. So misunderstandings are a given.
 

Sorry franklin, since you prefer to buy into the rhetoric, then I guess you'll never change.
Any career politician that attends the Builderberg Conference, and gives speeches in front at the Counsel On Foreign Relations is always going to be a great speaker, but a non-difference maker.

Romney buried himself with secret video comments, and and least we know what to expect from Obama.
 
Sorry franklin, since you prefer to buy into the rhetoric, then I guess you'll never change.
Any career politician that attends the Builderberg Conference, and gives speeches in front at the Counsel On Foreign Relations is always going to be a great speaker, but a non-difference maker.

Romney buried himself with secret video comments, and and least we know what to expect from Obama.

Is the rhetoric that he buying into any different than the rhetoric that you buy into about everything is an inside job and a conspiracy? Is it really?
 
Back
Top