Not

Florida Cracker

Florida Cracker

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
12,360
Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
Whose Voting For a Change This Year?
 
Last edited:
I am voting for Hope AND Change. Now where have I heard that before?
 
Fore and Change sounds too much like a balked golf swing.
 
Currently hopeless and no change in my pocket.

Say buddy, can you spare $12.50 for a cup of coffee?
 
I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. I'd say that's voting for change.
 
write-stuff said:
I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. I'd say that's voting for change.
Click to expand...

I like that strategy. Too bad we can't get a consensus to do that.
 
I'm voting for 10 minute orgasms. It is our right.
 
write-stuff said:
I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. I'd say that's voting for change.
Click to expand...


Not unless you've voted against their Parties across the board. The individual politicians are dispensable. It's the Parties that are screwing everyone over.
 
denverpilot said:
Not unless you've voted against their Parties across the board. The individual politicians are dispensable. It's the Parties that are screwing everyone over.
Click to expand...

That would be great except both parties are equally fugged up. I figure a new crop of people, regardless of where they come from, is preferable to the den of career bums we have in their now.
 
Whose versus Who's.

That is as bad as Their versus They're.

Voting for change for what this year? Are there elections this year of any importance?
 
Do away with voting altogether. Just pick Congress at random from the voter registration lists, the way we choose prospective jurors.

What's the worst that could happen?

Mark
 
Last edited:
write-stuff said:
That would be great except both parties are equally fugged up. I figure a new crop of people, regardless of where they come from, is preferable to the den of career bums we have in their now.
Click to expand...


You documented the problem in your reply. There are more than two Parties, not that anyone would know it.
 
write-stuff said:
That would be great except both parties are equally fugged up. I figure a new crop of people, regardless of where they come from, is preferable to the den of career bums we have in their now.
Click to expand...

the problem with voting everyone out, or even term limits, is that the lobbyists and Super-PACS will still be there. Get rid of THEM and perhaps the two parties would actually start talking AND listening to each other.
 
bbridges51 said:
the problem with voting everyone out, or even term limits, is that the lobbyists and Super-PACS will still be there. Get rid of THEM and perhaps the two parties would actually start talking AND listening to each other.
Click to expand...


They do. It's what they're saying and how it doesn't match the sane middle ground constituency that's important. They listen to each other and retort back and forth to the original drivel, just fine.

Look at any Presidenial candidate currently running and see if their planks are Party planks or if they're things that the Executive Branch even does in our system of government.

Presidents aren't elected by the People. They're made by Parties. You could kill all the SuperPacs you like, and that won't change. Candidates are expendable. Impossible ideals designed to create a stir amongst the fearful, are priceless and timeless.

Take Lincoln as an example. What would have been particularly bad about the South seceding? Two countries. Yawn. But it was "scary" back then enough to suspend Habius Corpus, lock up the leadership who had held a lawful election, and bust out the Army to start shooting...

Nothing is going to change in this regard in my lifetime. People love a good charismatic liar. See Trump or Sanders for evidence of the above statement.

Trump/Sanders, the Perot/Kucinich of our modern times. Haha. Same ****, different elections.
 
denverpilot said:
..... What would have been particularly bad about the South seceding? Two countries. Yawn. But it was "scary" back then enough to suspend Habius Corpus, lock up the leadership who had held a lawful election, and bust out the Army to start shooting...
Click to expand...

I have always found what-if arguments about the Civil War interesting. Whether the argument is "if the south had won" or "if Lincoln had just allowed them to secede"; what would have been the outcome? Two countries? Quite possibly more. No USA superpower. The entire world would have been different. No war with Spain. Most likely no American intervention in WW1 which means a different outcome so possibly no Hitler and no WW2. Interesting theories all. But what happened did happen. The south got their butts kicked, the Union was preserved and modern history is what it is for better or for worse.
 
I think changing the names of our federal branch, from congress, thru the senate, and including the white house is a good exercise. It's a good time in American history for the voters to throw the bums out in a mass way.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have always found what-if arguments about the Civil War interesting. Whether the argument is "if the south had won" or "if Lincoln had just allowed them to secede"; what would have been the outcome? Two countries? Quite possibly more. No USA superpower. The entire world would have been different. No war with Spain. Most likely no American intervention in WW1 which means a different outcome so possibly no Hitler and no WW2. Interesting theories all. But what happened did happen. The south got their butts kicked, the Union was preserved and modern history is what it is for better or for worse.
Click to expand...


Yup. I do find the Lincoln worship entertaining, though. Pretty much the same thing as building statues of Caesar.

Florida Cracker said:
I think changing the names of our federal branch, from congress, thru the senate, and including the white house is a good exercise. It's a good time in American history for the voters to throw the bums out in a mass way.
Click to expand...


Not going to happen. And even if it did, the same narcissistic personality types that run today would step up to fill the void. You have to believe down very deep that you are better than others to want to rule over them.

Sociopathic tendencies are a plus in that business. And make no mistake, it's just another business. They even push that "we want finance reform" lie so well that people repeat it who know better.

They know they don't want THEIR politician/liar to lose to the other one for lack of a few schmeckels (sp?). But they won't admit it. They'll just say that the OTHER candidate is misusing it. Especially if they're losing to them.

Nothing new under the sun. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that rot.
 
2008 was the wake up call, but could be written off as a fluke.

2012 was proof positive.

I joined the Libertarian Party that year. If you want legitimate change, IMHO that is our only path.
 
When we have to vote to keep someone out of office, the system is broken. Also get rid of the electoral college. Popular vote should win. Period. No matter what party it is. Winning popular vote but loosing the state is ****ing unbeleivable.
 
Unit74 said:
When we have to vote to keep someone out of office, the system is broken. Also get rid of the electoral college. Popular vote should win. Period. No matter what party it is. Winning popular vote but loosing the state is ****ing unbeleivable.
Click to expand...

+1

I continue to be perplexed why both parties can't just agree to rid ourselves of the electoral college, which is an artifact of much different times. If politicians are so fond of governing according to the constitution as it was originally written, then only white land owners would be voting now.
 
Jay Honeck said:
2008 was the wake up call, but could be written off as a fluke.



2012 was proof positive.



I joined the Libertarian Party that year. If you want legitimate change, IMHO that is our only path.
Click to expand...


Won't work. It's literally impossible to fight a system that has given itself unlimited borrowing power to buy votes, with an ideal of smaller government, as long as people are willing to be bribed.
 
denverpilot said:
Won't work. It's literally impossible to fight a system that has given itself unlimited borrowing power to buy votes, with an ideal of smaller government, as long as people are willing to be bribed.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but intelligent people must try.

I fear it's truly unfixable until after the collapse.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Whose Voting For a Change This Year?
Click to expand...

I'm voting for a return to apathy. I miss the old general elections before the internet when people didn't know they had power and would never exercise their rights. The good ole days when a Presidential winner was declared before the votes in the Midwest were counted.
 
bbridges51 said:
+1

I continue to be perplexed why both parties can't just agree to rid ourselves of the electoral college, which is an artifact of much different times. If politicians are so fond of governing according to the constitution as it was originally written, then only white land owners would be voting now.
Click to expand...

As hard as it is to separate the truth from the fiction, the electoral college does exactly what it was designed to do, which is give states (and those living in them) with small populations balance against the massive cali-mexi-china voter block, which could end an election before it started AND subject everyone else to the whims of two states and their political whims.
 
Florida Cracker said:
As hard as it is to separate the truth from the fiction, the electoral college does exactly what it was designed to do, which is give states (and those living in them) with small populations balance against the massive cali-mexi-china voter block, which could end an election before it started AND subject everyone else to the whims of two states and their political whims.
Click to expand...

Popular vote wins. Period. The Electoral college is a relic of times long gone. It is the only time the winner can actually loose in our version of democracy. The irony is stifling.

Its like a state vote by the people passing to reduce sales tax, then the FTB says, "well, we don't like that, so we will just raise it instead." Does my vote even ****ing matter at this point?
 
Unit74 said:
Popular vote wins. Period. The Electoral college is a relic of times long gone. It is the only time the winner can actually loose in our version of democracy. The irony is stifling.

Its like a state vote by the people passing to reduce sales tax, then the FTB says, "well, we don't like that, so we will just raise it instead." Does my vote even ****ing matter at this point?
Click to expand...

I am sort of surprised you feel that way with the USSC dismantling any semblance of our republic as fast as possible. If any group stole your rights, it's the courts, not the electoral college.
 
write-stuff said:
I'm voting against every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation. I'd say that's voting for change.
Click to expand...

Report back to us how your opinions of such matters evolve when your preferred party is in power. I also note the presidential incumbent can't stand for re-election.

"Where you sit is where you stand."
 
DJTorrente said:
Report back to us how your opinions of such matters evolve when your preferred party is in power. I also note the presidential incumbent can't stand for re-election.

"Where you sit is where you stand."
Click to expand...

I don't have a preferred party. I'm more interested in topics than planks in a party's platform.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. I do find the Lincoln worship entertaining, though. Pretty much the same thing as building statues of Caesar.




Not going to happen. And even if it did, the same narcissistic personality types that run today would step up to fill the void. You have to believe down very deep that you are better than others to want to rule over them.

Sociopathic tendencies are a plus in that business. And make no mistake, it's just another business. They even push that "we want finance reform" lie so well that people repeat it who know better.

They know they don't want THEIR politician/liar to lose to the other one for lack of a few schmeckels (sp?). But they won't admit it. They'll just say that the OTHER candidate is misusing it. Especially if they're losing to them.

Nothing new under the sun. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that rot.
Click to expand...


Why did you attribute a post made by Florida cracker to me?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
GrampaMark said:
Do away with voting altogether. Just pick Congress at random from the voter registration lists, the way we choose prospective jurors.

What's the worst that could happen?

Mark
Click to expand...

You get a congress that's too dumb to get out of serving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top