Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: B.D.F. on May 04, 2018, 12:11:20 PM
-
From another 'trolling' thread:
Yes, I think the current POTUS is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, not worthy of executing any high office, a megalomaniac, and honestly, not bright enough for the task.
I voted for him because there were only two choices, both truly terrible IMO but one more dangerous than the other, so I choose the lesser evil, literally.
I believe Ms. Clinton is a liar, self aggrandizing, not worthy of citizenship never-mind high office, a megalomaniac and a multiple- felon but instead of a bumbling nincompoop, a much more intelligent human with goals that are quite contrary to my own as well as those that would benefit the country, and a huge sense of self importance and immune status (which, so far, has proven to be correct).
Poll after poll showed that NONE of the contestants were popular with the general public. A truly lousy set of front- runners from weak potential fields in both parties.
What would be great would be to have a statesman, a great statesman even better, (there is no gender in that description BTW, it could well be a female) in the running but they are rare. Most of our Presidents, as well as most major leaders of history to the best of my knowledge, have merely been "place holders" rather than active, effective leaders capable of leaving their sphere (country, empire, whatever) in better shape then it was when they took up the leadership position. IMO, the finest thing our founding Fathers did when setting up the framework of this country, by far, was to slow things down and make any change difficult. So while those who are not equal to the task hold high office (President, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, and many others), they are very well hampered indeed in what they can do and how quickly they can do it. Humans have lots of ideas, mostly bad ones, and the best thing that can usually be done with a bad idea is..... not doing it. If that has to happen because of a complicated, tangled and interlaced mechanism that is hard to move in any direction, then so be it.
And to expand on your original question about the current POTUS, look forward to 2020 and tell me, do YOU see any great statesmen standing by to enter the race? Any statesmen at all? Any decent candidates capable of even reasonable performance in that high office? Neither do I and so we will again have an election with 'less than excellent' choices and yet we have to choose one.
Brian
Oh yes, please keep my answer private because I am concerned about back-lash. ::) ;D ;D ;D
<begin Marty's question>
"Just a quick question, since we are accusing other's of being a troll, hopefully I can ask this question here without causing the thread to get locked. I am actually asking for information (not trolling) from the many sides that seem to be here. Regardless of your political bent/opinion in general, i.e. left, right, middle, bottom, guns, no guns, some guns, etc.....
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
I would really like to know what you actually think at your gut level about that person (Again me, if that helps) and not what logical answer you think will stand up to internet scrutiny.
So, A? or A&B? If you're not willing to answer here, I'm appreciatively taking (confidential PMs*) on this question. Thanks.
* I'll keep it confidential, but on many forums, PMs are visible to moderators. I'm OK with that, however you may not be."
<end Marty's question>
-
I too voted for the lesser of 2 evils. He was my last choice for the Republican nomination. But like you, him or Hillary. For me that was no choice and I voted for Trump. That said, he has exceeded my expectations. Of course the main reason for this is that I had low expectations. My whole voting history has been like this. I mostly have voted against someone more than voting for someone. So for me the answer is A.
-
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
I try not to assume anything, because not enough information if that is all they say. Although I do suspect most people saying that would also believe that the alternative would have been better.
Alas, our broken system (first-past-the-post) really only gives two choices, and we do end up in situations where neither is great. That aside, I am certainly not afraid of saying: I do think Trump is not worthy of the office, that he is a loud-mouth and terribly annoying and unprofessional. Hillary would have been far more diplomatic and tolerable in that regard. But her POLICIES would be MUCH MUCH WORSE (plus, she is also an arrogant liar), and that is far more important. So I held my nose and voted based on position/policy, not demeanor. Who I wanted to vote for was Rand Paul- someone who has an excellent demeanor and integrity, is not a liar, is intelligent, and who has great policy positions. The primary didn't work out that way and I am not sure he could have won against Hillary, anyway. :(
-
Something I read in a Stephen King novel one time, paraphrased: This is like a choice between cold bull pi$$ and warm Zarex.... and I have to sit down and think about it for a while.
I would have been much happier voting for Mitt Romney but alas, he did not run, was not backed by a major party, and a write- in ballot would end up being a throw- away vote. Though living in a 70% Democratic state makes my vote a throw- away anyway, really. Though it DOES count on a National level and shows up in the 'popular vote' category I guess.
Now, looking at the bright side, we (the American 'People' (read: voters) ) have so strangled American politics that even relatively straightforward issues are ham- stringed into dismissal. So in a really left- handed way, we have managed to stop the Fed. gov't from doing anything of any significance, which I guess is a left- handed victory for all. Let us face it, things are pretty good in the ole' US of A and just leaving things alone is certainly not the worst possible outcome.
Brian
I try not to assume anything, because not enough information if that is all they say. Although I do suspect most people saying that would also believe that the alternative would have been better.
Alas, our broken system (first-past-the-post) really only gives two choices, and we do end up in situations where neither is great. That aside, I am certainly not afraid of saying: I do think Trump is not worthy of the office, that he is a loud-mouth and terribly annoying and unprofessional. Hillary would have been far more diplomatic and tolerable in that regard. But her POLICIES would be MUCH MUCH WORSE (plus, she is also an arrogant liar), and that is far more important. So I held my nose and voted based on position/policy, not demeanor. Who I wanted to vote for was Rand Paul- someone who has an excellent demeanor and integrity, is not a liar, is intelligent, and who has great policy positions. The primary didn't work out that way and I am not sure he could have won against Hillary, anyway. :(
-
Now, looking at the bright side, we (the American 'People' (read: voters) ) have so strangled American politics that even relatively straightforward issues are ham- stringed into dismissal. So in a really left- handed way, we have managed to stop the Fed. gov't from doing anything of any significance, which I guess is a left- handed victory for all. Let us face it, things are pretty good in the ole' US of A and just leaving things alone is certainly not the worst possible outcome.
In the past, it was interesting to see moderates consistently vote the "opposite" way to end up creating as much conflict in the three (POTUS, Senate, House). I am all-for paralysis (inability of the Fed to pass more legislation) if the alternative is:
* More spending
* More taxes
* More debt
* More government
* More control over our liberties
-
For the last thirty years I've voted for the least evil candidate in my opinion.
I've lost all faith in our political system when becoming a political was a career choice. A person takes on a job to make money.When making money is your guidance for your job performance, you fail serving the public.
-
For the last thirty years I've voted for the least evil candidate in my opinion.
I've lost all faith in our political system when becoming a political was a career choice. A person takes on a job to make money.When making money is your guidance for your job performance, you fail serving the public.
:chugbeer:
-
This is all great discussion.....but...WHEN SUDDENLY...... he repeats the question.
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
So if you could please at the end of your post just let me know if it's A? or A&B?
Thanks.
So far I have a definite B from turbojoe', and I think an A from Max', and nothing that I could discern from anybody else.
And to expand on your original question about the current POTUS...
Just for the record, I didn't ask anything about the current Potus. My question is repeated above for reference. :D
-
Well, given that statement, I would not make any assumptions (beliefs) about the speakers opinions on other candidates. So A I guess.
Brian
This is all great discussion.....but...WHEN SUDDENLY...... he repeats the question.
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
So if you could please at the end of your post just let me know if it's A? or A&B?
Thanks.
So far I have a definite B from turbojoe', and I think an A from Max', and nothing that I could discern from anybody else.
Just for the record, I didn't ask anything about the current Potus. My question is repeated above for reference. :D
-
A reserved A
Just for the record, I didn't ask anything about the current Potus. My question is repeated above for reference. :D
Well, your sorta did, although not exactly...
-
A reserved A
So A I guess.
Thank you both for the answers.
Well, your sorta did, although not exactly...
I can see how you might think that in light of some of the discussions that have occurred here about firearms. That by saying some not flattering things about one candidate that I might be trying to gauge how everyone here felt about him. Perhaps I should have gone the other way and asked the same question only using the the opposite characters, but too late now I think.
My question was strictly what you thought about a person saying such as I mentioned. I just wanted to know if most people assume the B once they hear the A.
Now I don't don't mean to stifle anyone so post away, just if you would please eventually get around to answering the question. It can be at the very bottom of your post.
Thanks for moving this to a new post Brian. I'm not sure but I think sanmo didn't want me messing up what he had going on over there in the NALMBHGCLMAETGB section.
He didn't answer the question either. I really should have done a poll, but again, it's too late now. :-\
-
This is all great discussion.....but...WHEN SUDDENLY...... he repeats the question.
When someone (say me, for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
Do you simply assume that said person (A) doesn't care for the current Potus, or do you also assume that they (B) really wanted Hillery or Bernie as our Potus?
So if you could please at the end of your post just let me know if it's A? or A&B?
Thanks.
So far I have a definite B from turbojoe', and I think an A from Max', and nothing that I could discern from anybody else.
Just for the record, I didn't ask anything about the current Potus. My question is repeated above for reference. :D
This might be interesting...
When someone (say me (me too), for example, if that helps) says that they "think the current Potus is a liar, a bumbling buffoon, a self aggrandizing nincompoop, and not worthy of the office."
(I just wanted to read the above again) ::) :-X
My answer would be A.
Just a guess on my part but I'd bet money that supporters of the current administration would all vote B (as I've seen this time and time again in the Arena).
-
I like a different analogy- You are offered two ice creams flavors and you MUST to pick one of them to eat (for whatever reason):
* Dirt flavored, which is also in a horrible package and it looks nasty too
* Crap flavored, which is in a pretty container and looks a little more like normal chocolate
Obviously, neither is appealing. And you wonder how you got stuck in such a nasty taste selection. So you pick "dirt" (since the other is CRAP!) and eat it and say "OMG, dirt flavored is horrible, worst ice cream I have ever tasted."
Yes, it probably is the worst ice cream you have ever eaten, by far. And it might be even worse than you imagined it would taste. But that doesn't mean you would have rather chosen crap flavored :)
-
My answer would be A.
Thanks C!
I like a different analogy- You are offered two ice creams flavors and you MUST to pick one of them to eat (for whatever reason):
* Dirt flavored, which is also in a horrible package and it looks nasty too
* Crap flavored, which is in a pretty container and looks a little more like normal chocolate
Obviously, neither is appealing. And you wonder how you got stuck in such a nasty taste selection. So you pick "dirt" (since the other is CRAP!) and eat it and say "OMG, dirt flavored is horrible, worst ice cream I have ever tasted."
Yes, it probably is the worst ice cream you have ever eaten, by far. And it might be even worse than you imagined it would taste. But that doesn't mean you would have rather chosen crap flavored :)
:) ...so "A" has been double confirmed for you then? Thanks.
-
It is actually even more than 'A' without 'B', it is 'A' without all the 'A'. ;D
We have two (viable) political parties. Each has a stand on many issues, some of them truly amazing (how a political party takes a hard stand on a scientific issue such as global warming is absolutely astounding, and absurd, to me). I think each party has about 7 people who go for the whole 'party line' and after that, we all pick and choose our issues. Many (most?) of us are forced to choose one party because it has a stand on an issue or two that are important to us but after that, it is a total mish- mash regarding the match-up of the individual's beliefs and the party's stands on those beliefs. The great majority of Conservative supported issues are simply not issues for me, many more I have an opinion but it is not overly important nor would I vote for that particular issue.
For me, firearms are a voting issue, in fact the very first one. Illegal aliens might be number two. Prayer in schools? No interest AS LONG AS no one is forced to do anything he / she / it does not want to do (the Constitution makes this clear). Abortion- I have an opinion but not a major one. I would also offer moderate support for any candidate who would push for mandatory top posting and ban the other, wrong, type. :rotflmao: And so it goes..... I assume that virtually everyone is either like this, or if they do swallow any party line, it is because they are easily led and too lazy to find their own paths forward (and I mean that although not in the obnoxious way it probably sounds- just stating what I think is a fact).
And remember, many of us know each other actually pretty well from this forum and perhaps the occasional meeting at a Concours function. But we do not know each other on a very personal level, such as what most of us do for a livelihood, personal knowledge (spouse's name, children, etc., etc.). So I think we 'forum friends' escape most of the different facets that go toward choosing a political side. For example, I do not know what you did for a living (and I am not asking), so I have not the foggiest notion of your orientation regarding, say for example, labor unions or similar. Now Conrad mentioned he retired from <I think> a state position with a university (Illinois IIRC?) and seemed very content with his retirement arrangements; this would lead me to believe he might be more pro- union than others, and therefore, very possibly more left- leaning. But by far, my knowledge of the friends and associates I have 'known', some for quite some time, is nil and so I find that very helpful in NOT creating what may well be a false sense of any person here. So to put this in context: if it is not directly stated, I really know very little about most people here but if I were to be stuck in a teacher's rally demanding more [of whatever], I certainly would suspect they were predominantly pro- union, politically to the left and further, generally rather liberal, especially if located in a large city.
Brian
Thank you both for the answers.
I can see how you might think that in light of some of the discussions that have occurred here about firearms. That by saying some not flattering things about one candidate that I might be trying to gauge how everyone here felt about him. Perhaps I should have gone the other way and asked the same question only using the the opposite characters, but too late now I think.
My question was strictly what you thought about a person saying such as I mentioned. I just wanted to know if most people assume the B once they hear the A.
Now I don't don't mean to stifle anyone so post away, just if you would please eventually get around to answering the question. It can be at the very bottom of your post.
Thanks for moving this to a new post Brian. I'm not sure but I think sanmo didn't want me messing up what he had going on over there in the NALMBHGCLMAETGB section.
He didn't answer the question either. I really should have done a poll, but again, it's too late now. :-\
-
I like a different analogy- You are offered two ice creams flavors and you MUST to pick one of them to eat (for whatever reason):
* Dirt flavored, which is also in a horrible package and it looks nasty too
* Crap flavored, which is in a pretty container and looks a little more like normal chocolate
Obviously, neither is appealing. And you wonder how you got stuck in such a nasty taste selection. So you pick "dirt" (since the other is CRAP!) and eat it and say "OMG, dirt flavored is horrible, worst ice cream I have ever tasted."
Yes, it probably is the worst ice cream you have ever eaten, by far. And it might be even worse than you imagined it would taste. But that doesn't mean you would have rather chosen crap flavored :)
Would those be natural or artificial flavors? ;)
* Dirt flavored, which is also in a horrible package and it looks nasty too
* Crap flavored, which is in a pretty container and looks a little more like normal chocolate
I have to ask this Max. In your analogy above, which one is Clinton and which is Trump? :o :rotflmao:
-
Why would anyone take the time to make those particular artificial flavors with so much of the natural stuff scattered about?
-
True enough. OK, same example but substitute armpit for dirt, and feet for crap. Carry on.....
Brian
Why would anyone take the time to make those particular artificial flavors with so much of natural stuff scattered about?
-
Snip...
And remember, many of us know each other actually pretty well from this forum and perhaps the occasional meeting at a Concours function. But we do not know each other on a very personal level, such as what most of us do for a livelihood, personal knowledge (spouse's name, children, etc., etc.). So I think we 'forum friends' escape most of the different facets that go toward choosing a political side. For example, I do not know what you did for a living (and I am not asking), so I have not the foggiest notion of your orientation regarding, say for example, labor unions or similar. Now Conrad mentioned he retired from <I think> a state position with a university (Illinois IIRC?) and seemed very content with his retirement arrangements; this would lead me to believe he might be more pro- union than others, and therefore, very possibly more left- leaning. But by far, my knowledge of the friends and associates I have 'known', some for quite some time, is nil and so I find that very helpful in NOT creating what may well be a false sense of any person here. So to put this in context: if it is not directly stated, I really know very little about most people here but if I were to be stuck in a teacher's rally demanding more [of whatever], I certainly would suspect they were predominantly pro- union, politically to the left and further, generally rather liberal, especially if located in a large city.
Brian
You are correct Brian, mostly. You're not the only person on this forum to assume that I would be pro union, I am not. I've never been a member of any union nor had I any desire to be so. Some of the folks working at the university (NIU) were members of a union (AFSCME). From my point of view that union never did anything for them, other than to protect the lazy workers that is. Again, that's my point of view only.
-
Why would anyone take the time to make those particular artificial flavors with so much of the natural stuff scattered about?
Only one reason Marty, money.
Perhaps the artificial flavors are less expensive? Perhaps either Clinton or Trump owns the company that manufactures said artificial flavors?
Didn't think of that did ya? ;)
-
Only one reason Marty, money.
Perhaps the artificial flavors are less expensive?
Not hardly, where do you think the terms "dirt cheap" and "free $#!+" come from.
Perhaps either Clinton or Trump owns the company that manufactures said artificial flavors?
Didn't think of that did ya? ;)
Well, you got me there, no I didn't think of that. ;D
-
Not hardly, where do you think the terms "dirt cheap" and "free $#!+" come from.
Well, you got me there, no I didn't think of that. ;D
Most of us just want to work, earn an honest living, raise a family and have some protection from the latest Genghis threat.
This is what we have:
A president who acts like a King and is above any counsel.
A leader who denigrates war heroes, and mocks disabled people even though they are sometimes a jerk.
A known money grubber who comes from a long line of grubbers.
A person who thinks they are above the law, and laws are for little people.
Has no respect for women or even his own daughter when talking to Howard Stern (of all people).
Is a lousy wrestler.
Won't show his tax records because his 'base' would crap their skivvies if they knew he didn't pay any taxes.
I'm sure 'ol Fred paid the Wharton School a huge legacy tuition to get the Donald in- this guy is so stupid, even his hand picked cabinet calls him an idiot.
I refuse to vote for either corrupt party if their 'candidates' are as bad as the last cycle, and probably everyone on this forum has a similar view. The lesser of 2 evils only works when you have no good options- very sad indeed.
-
Well there we go- I made some bad assumptions based on a little information that really did not give me cause for those assumptions. My apologies but no matter what, I do not have any opinions about what others' opinions on various subjects may be anyway so it was not meant in any negative way.
One thing I have found is pretty common though is that certain groups of people tend to lean a certain way, generally. This forum, for example, I believe tends to have more conservative members than the general population because pro- motorcycle people tend not to be liberal, again generally. From there, a whole string of other generalities and tendencies that I believe apply to a group such as this one. Again, not any kind of rule or anything approaching 100%, just a different percentage than the entire population.
Brian
You are correct Brian, mostly. You're not the only person on this forum to assume that I would be pro union, I am not. I've never been a member of any union nor had I any desire to be so. Some of the folks working at the university (NIU) were members of a union (AFSCME). From my point of view that union never did anything for them, other than to protect the lazy workers that is. Again, that's my point of view only.
-
I refuse to vote for either corrupt party if their 'candidates' are as bad as the last cycle, and probably everyone on this forum has a similar view. The lesser of 2 evils only works when you have no good options- very sad indeed.
Unfortunately, refusing to vote doesn't help matters either. It might send a message, but one that apparently nobody cares about. Both major "parties" are terribly corrupt. Although, I will still vote for the lesser of two evils, which is mostly the party that believes in less spending, less debt, less taxes, and less government. Everything is relative since neither will make major progress in that direction, although one tends to more than the other.
What we need are additional parties and independents. That will FORCE the major parties to be responsive, get new blood in the power mix, prevent spoilers, give voters more choice, and help stop "single issue" campaigns. But our system of "first past the post" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) ) makes it all but impossible due to a huge "spoiler effect" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect) ). The only solution is to change the WAY we vote (for everything- primaries, legislative branch, executive branch, State and Federal), by moving to some form of ranked voting system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting) ). Unfortunately:
1) Such change is difficult.
2) Such change costs money.
3) Changing to a ranked system absolutely does not benefit either major party, so they will do anything they can to trash or prevent the idea from spreading.
On the plus side, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation since States control how voting is performed for/by their State, they have the individual power to do something without having to drag the rest of the country along. Right now, Maine is the ONLY State to do so, (although some localities throughout the nation do use it) and it is a major event:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/)
But still, it is only for State elections, not for their Federal ones. But it is a start. One that needs to spread.
http://www.fairvote.org/ (http://www.fairvote.org/)
-
This forum, for example, I believe tends to have more conservative members than the general population because pro- motorcycle people tend not to be liberal, again generally.
It doesn't appear that I'm going to get any more honest answers to my question....so I might as well jump in.
I think you are correct (yes, as you said generally), but I think it has more to do with age. These days pro-motorcycle people tend to be older (same with this forum), and older people tend to be more conservative. Back in the sixties when it seems the U.S. motorcycle population exploded, motorcyclists were not considered very conservative at all.
-
I think you can take a poll Marty- that should get you more answers. ??
Brian
It doesn't appear that I'm going to get any more honest answers to my question....so I might as well jump in.
I think you are correct (yes, as you said generally), but I think it has more to do with age. These days pro-motorcycle people tend to be older (same with this forum), and older people tend to be more conservative. Back in the sixties when it seems the U.S. motorcycle population exploded, motorcyclists were not considered very conservative at all.
-
I think you can take a poll Marty- that should get you more answers. ??
Yes, I should have started that way, probably too late now.
I think I know the answer for most based on the experiences I've had (I'm not talking about here). I was just looking for verification or repudiation. I screwed it up. :( ::)
Oh well, at least I got the poll about V'Jim's new avatar right. 8)
-
Yet, I'm still using the new one...
-
Yet, I'm still using the new one...
Yeah well, it's not like polls ever changed anything. They just provide information, at least you know how the poll respondents thought about it.
I didn't think it would make you care. :)
-
Unfortunately, refusing to vote doesn't help matters either. It might send a message, but one that apparently nobody cares about. Both major "parties" are terribly corrupt. Although, I will still vote for the lesser of two evils, which is mostly the party that believes in less spending, less debt, less taxes, and less government. Everything is relative since neither will make major progress in that direction, although one tends to more than the other.
What we need are additional parties and independents. That will FORCE the major parties to be responsive, get new blood in the power mix, prevent spoilers, give voters more choice, and help stop "single issue" campaigns. But our system of "first past the post" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) ) makes it all but impossible due to a huge "spoiler effect" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect) ). The only solution is to change the WAY we vote (for everything- primaries, legislative branch, executive branch, State and Federal), by moving to some form of ranked voting system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting) ). Unfortunately:
1) Such change is difficult.
2) Such change costs money.
3) Changing to a ranked system absolutely does not benefit either major party, so they will do anything they can to trash or prevent the idea from spreading.
On the plus side, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation since States control how voting is performed for/by their State, they have the individual power to do something without having to drag the rest of the country along. Right now, Maine is the ONLY State to do so, (although some localities throughout the nation do use it) and it is a major event:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/ranked-choice-voting-maine/557669/)
But still, it is only for State elections, not for their Federal ones. But it is a start. One that needs to spread.
http://www.fairvote.org/ (http://www.fairvote.org/)
Max, I agree that not voting is not a solution, but only to 'thine own self be true'. I have been a registered Republican for 44 years, but now I usually vote the person, not the party because of so much obfuscation in both parties. I am ashamed to hold up the POTUS to my grandkids because of prostitution, continual controversies and 'name calling' his adversaries like a bratty 8 year old bully. A least he got a huge tax break for all his 'base'. Wait, what? When money grubbing, prostitution and reality celebrity counts more than character, we are paddling up feces creek.
-
Yeah well, it's not like polls ever changed anything. They just provide information, at least you know how the poll respondents thought about it.
I didn't think it would make you care. :)
Assuming I can find the old one, I may just switch back or try something even newer.
-
Assuming I can find the old one, I may just switch back or try something even newer.
Mid-life crisis, Jim?
-
Mid-life crisis, Jim?
You didn't ask that when he bought the Indian?
He's becoming a kinder more caring Jim, so he sought an avatar to soften his image. He thought posing with a pet dragon would do it, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be a slain dragon, and a not very mature one at that. So he's still looking. He just didn't realize how good the other one was I guess. Sometimes we don't appreciate that which is right in front of us. I tell my wife that all the time.
-
+1 unless someone really pisses me off.
-
He thought posing with a pet dragon would do it, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be a slain dragon, and a not very mature one at that. So he's still looking.
It looks more like the medieval version of posing with your clubbed baby harp seal.
-
It looks more like the medieval version of posing with your clubbed baby harp seal.
:rotflmao:
-
Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you exactly what you voted for. Evil. It solves nothing and exacerbates the problem.
And you all (mostly) have fallen for the two party sytem, in the belief you must vote for one of two parties. You shouldnt be goting for a plitical party.
And a vote for someone else is not a wasted vote. The problem is so many are so brainwashed into this belief they will never vote for anything other than d or r. And as long as people do this the quality of candidates will never change. Your voting for them no matter how many promises they break-and the gop is best at that-tells them to continue screwing us.
You get what you vote for.
-
Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you exactly what you voted for. Evil. It solves nothing and exacerbates the problem. And you all (mostly) have fallen for the two party system, in the belief you must vote for one of two parties.
I agree with what you are saying in principle, but not in practice. You are not going to convince millions of people to do the same- to take a risk voting for a "third party" or independent.... especially in major/large elections. "Everyone" knows/believes it is "throwing a vote away" (which means it really is), so they vote against someone instead of for someone. Fixing it by changing the system to a ranked voting system is difficult. But trying to "fix" it by changing people- well, I expect that is a zillion times harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6pC5IJirrY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6pC5IJirrY)
-
We used to have a comedy series over here called "Yes Minister" (followed by "Yes Prime Minister" ) the basis of which is that it doesn't matter "who" is in "power" because it's the "career buearacrats" that are really in charge :)
-
Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you exactly what you voted for. Evil. It solves nothing and exacerbates the problem.
And you all (mostly) have fallen for the two party sytem, in the belief you must vote for one of two parties. You shouldnt be goting for a plitical party.
And a vote for someone else is not a wasted vote. The problem is so many are so brainwashed into this belief they will never vote for anything other than d or r. And as long as people do this the quality of candidates will never change. Your voting for them no matter how many promises they break-and the gop is best at that-tells them to continue screwing us.
You get what you vote for.
You're posting outside of the Arena? :o
"Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you exactly what you voted for. Evil. It solves nothing and exacerbates the problem."
You do realize that the lesser of the two evils being referenced is Trump right?
-
We used to have a comedy series over here called "Yes Minister" (followed by "Yes Prime Minister" ) the basis of which is that it doesn't matter "who" is in "power" because it's the "career buearacrats" that are really in charge :)
Really great series!
-
Who says Trump is evil?
So far he has proven to be the opposite. And the evil of both political parties has come out. More proof voting for a political party has never worked and never will.
The reason things dont change is because voters refuse to change. They still think doing the same thing will get a different result.
Wasnt it Washington who said never vote for a political party because the politicians will work for the party and not the people?
Who says the Founders were not far sighted?
-
Who says Trump is evil?
So far he has proven to be the opposite. And the evil of both political parties has come out. More proof voting for a political party has never worked and never will.
The reason things dont change is because voters refuse to change. They still think doing the same thing will get a different result.
Wasnt it Washington who said never vote for a political party because the politicians will work for the party and not the people?
Who says the Founders were not far sighted?
Who said that Trump is evil? You did!
snip...
Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you exactly what you voted for. Evil. It solves nothing and exacerbates the problem.
And you all (mostly) have fallen for the two party sytem, in the belief you must vote for one of two parties. You shouldnt be goting for a plitical party.
And a vote for someone else is not a wasted vote. The problem is so many are so brainwashed into this belief they will never vote for anything other than d or r. And as long as people do this the quality of candidates will never change. Your voting for them no matter how many promises they break-and the gop is best at that-tells them to continue screwing us.
You get what you vote for.
I suppose that I'll have to explain? ::)
-
I never said Trump was evil. I said voting for the lesser of two was still evil.
Stop twisting words like the media does..
Conrad, you cant explain what I said because you dont have a clue of the premise.
-
I never said Trump was evil. I said voting for the lesser of two was still evil.
Stop twisting words like the media does..
Conrad, you cant explain what I said because you dont have a clue of the premise.
That's VERY true, I don't have a clue and I'm pretty sure that no one else does either.