Robbie

Thanks for insulting me. How about just addressing the facts. Everything I said is true. Hasn't anything to do with Republicans.

As for "politics neutral". That's YOUR idea of what I am based on your sheep-like adherence to the 2 party system.

This thread isn't about me. Though...like any weak argument..you are trying (and doing a piss-poor job of it) to deflect from what I actually pointed out (which is 100% true) and make this some kind of personal vendetta against me.

But since you asked so "nice"...let me be clear: I am NOT "politically neutral".
I am ANTI-status quo, ANTI-2 party system, ANTI-Republican Party, and ANTI-Democrat Party.

But you? You seem to be so blinded by "loyalty" to your "team" that you think that anyone who doesn't get in lockstep with the DNC is obviously and "evil" Republican. Or defending the Republicans.

What about you? Why do you think the Democrats have your best interest at heart? Why on Earth after what these two organizations have done to our country TOGETHER, would you think that any of these career/lifetime politicians are worth a damn?

I know you won't hear what I'm saying. You seem to be angry and caught up in the fantasy of "Republican VS Democrat".

Brother, that's an illusion on par with 2 guys "fighting" in pro wrestling.

And at the end of the day...the Republicans and Democrats stay in power, money keeps bleeding, and we all lose.

What's that old saying: "The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome"

THAT is what our country has been doing.

I hope that one day soon, you'll think about that. We can change things, one person at a time.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

kane

I'm not trying to stir shit here, but you just said a few posts back:

So in other words that has been the status quo and you seem opposed to changing it for fear that it might cost a few extra dollars or that it could encourage more fraud.

If we want to break the two party system (and I agree it needs to happen) you have to get as many people to the polls as possible (among many other things including viable third party candidates and reforming some of the election laws) otherwise both groups will do whatever they need to in order to make sure they get their political base to the polls while making it harder for anyone that is not affiliated with them to vote.

Robbie

No sir kane....when I referred to "status quo" I was referring to the two-party system and the nightmare that our bloated Federal govt. has become.

I didn't mean throw everything we do out the window. People still eat food and drink water. I don't want to change that either. But it doesn't negate what I'm saying or mean that I'm for the "status quo. I was referring to politics and the ruling class in govt. who no longer serve us...but rule us.

Look, if you guys think the Democrats or Republicans are doing a great job. Then just keep on voting for them over and over.

I'm not going to do that.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

dyna mo

I'd think most folks are like your brother.

Would you happen to know what % of eligible voters//citizens vote these days? I've lost track of that sort of thing, I think the last I recall was like %40 or something.

kane

Fair enough.

Personally I think they should do away with the party system in general or at least remove party affiliation from any ballot to stop those who just vote for someone who has a D or R next to their name without knowing anything about them.

I think there are multiple steps that need to happen in order to reform our our system and I think opening voting up so anyone who wants to and has a legal right to vote can easily do so. It just seems like some people in this thread don't agree or they don't think that trying to keep how and where you vote to as narrow an option as possible is bad.

mayabong

If you can't get your shit together to get an ID, you probably shouldn't be able to vote.

kane

It can vary greatly from state to state. Here is a cool chart that shows the overall turnout for the 2012 election. It looks like the national average was 58.2%. The state with the highest turnout was Minnesota with 76.1% and the lowest was Hawaii with 44.5%

dyna mo

Things must have changed when Obama ran/2008, those #s were a lot lower 10 years ago eh?

kane

I found on Wikipedia some numbers from every US election.

It looks like it goes up and down. For example in 1980 turnout was 52.8%. In 1996 it was 49%.

It looks like it has been on a slow, steady rise since 2000 when it was 50.3%.

brassmonkey

just passing through

__________________
TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law!
DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

dyna mo

surprising chart (to me). I'm actually impressed with the overall recent #s but also surprised voter turnout has been under 65% for 100+ years.

kane

Same here. I have said time and again if all of the people who bitched that they were sick of the two party system and that just didn't vote for the same reason actually voted for a third party candidate we would actually have a third party candidate.

But, then again, as much as we like to talk about wanting change, most people really don't like change.

dyna mo

mao tse tung said change comes from the barrel of a gun.

the entire premise of getting more bees with honey has been forgotten. Everything now has to be about battle/going to war. It's like these motivational speakers that companies hire and their big schpiel is to have the group imagine themselves going into war. lolz. The funny part of that is like any of us have the slightest idea what war is like. Want to sell more? REad sun Tzu's Art of war! hah! silly.


And Politics has taken that to its extreme.

Grapesoda

welcome to reality

Grapesoda

give a man a hand, up, not a hand out

Grapesoda

so think Robbie MADE up all the information in his post to bolster the republican party? that's fucking bizarre for sure....