RE: Mandatory Voting

RE: Mandatory Voting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 7:02:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There are people out there that can't name the president, vice president and a host of others. They have no clue as to what is going on in politics. We do not need idiots like that being forced to vote. So damm true,just think of the folks that post around here who don't seem to realize the current President's name is Barack Obama [8\|] And if things go as I expect them to go,a whole bus load of you won't learn how to say Madame President Hillary R. Clinton either [:@] Probably because Miss Bitch is so much easier... Yes it is but I am partial to Shrillary. If she ever got elected I would probably refer to her as Clinton since that is how I have referred to all the past ones. (by last name) And he is right about one thing. I doubt anyone on either side of the fence is going to use "Madame President Hillary R. Clinton" any more than they used the full title when referring to any other president. Why should she be treated any different than the rest? and as long as we are making predictions he left out the part where anyone who disagrees with her will be painted as a misogynist.

kdsub -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 7:58:48 AM)
quote: The biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard is the line that "liberals are governed by emotions" in a way that conservatives aren't. There are parts of me that are liberal and other parts that are conservative, but at heart I'm a liberal and pragmatic. I do think emotions play a big part in how people vote... but this is not necessarily bad it just means you are passionate about your views. What I think plays an even bigger part is the social environment you are raised in. For instance, many of my friends raised in the 60's and early 70's, when in their youth, were free spirited and had the so called hippie view of the world and swore they would never be like their parents. But when grown, with responsibilities and families, found themselves thinking and voted exactly as their parents did. It is hard to break the social mores of upbringing. Keeping the above in mind makes it easier to understand how some groups of people often seem to vote against common sense. On a personal level they are nice, generous, loving, religious, law abiding people but who vote to withhold rights of others because they are gay. Refuse to acknowledge the problems of liberal gun laws and demand that their religion be held above others. They just cannot help it and it is the same throughout this world. This is why true change can only happen over long periods of time and with the change in society not the voting booth. Butch

slvemike4u -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 9:43:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There are people out there that can't name the president, vice president and a host of others. They have no clue as to what is going on in politics. We do not need idiots like that being forced to vote. So damm true,just think of the folks that post around here who don't seem to realize the current President's name is Barack Obama [8\|] And if things go as I expect them to go,a whole bus load of you won't learn how to say Madame President Hillary R. Clinton either [:@] Never thought about that, mike. I guess we might have to at least say "Madame President Clinton" to differentiate between her and Bill. Rarely does someone say "Former President Clinton" when talking about him, but that's probably because, at least for now, there has only been one "President Clinton." Guess that bridge will have to be crossed if we get to it. Yanno DS,we rarely agree...as a matter of fact,off the top of my head,I can't come up with any area we see eye to eye on. But your response here was typical of your posting style....and head and shoulders over the poster who came up with some version of 'Bitch...something or other " For what it's worth.....I like your posts....and I do think were it to come to it,thats exactly how you would refer to our next President,in a thoughtful respectful manner befitting the office she occupies. If it does come to pass [:)]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 9:49:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse There are people out there that can't name the president, vice president and a host of others. They have no clue as to what is going on in politics. We do not need idiots like that being forced to vote. So damm true,just think of the folks that post around here who don't seem to realize the current President's name is Barack Obama [8\|] And if things go as I expect them to go,a whole bus load of you won't learn how to say Madame President Hillary R. Clinton either [:@] Never thought about that, mike. I guess we might have to at least say "Madame President Clinton" to differentiate between her and Bill. Rarely does someone say "Former President Clinton" when talking about him, but that's probably because, at least for now, there has only been one "President Clinton." Guess that bridge will have to be crossed if we get to it. Yanno DS,we rarely agree...as a matter of fact,off the top of my head,I can't come up with any area we see eye to eye on. But your response here was typical of your posting style....and head and shoulders over the poster who came up with some version of 'Bitch...something or other " For what it's worth.....I like your posts....and I do think were it to come to it,thats exactly how you would refer to our next President,in a thoughtful respectful manner befitting the office she occupies. If it does come to pass [:)] That was me that referred to her as "Bitch". As for being respectful of the office, you are right...DS would be. Let's see how respectful you are if it is a Republican that holds that place.

slvemike4u -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 9:54:51 AM)
I wasn't under the impression that people would go around using the full tittle in their everyday life THB...I was more referring to the types of folks who use shit like Oblunder in place of Obama and Chimp in the place of Bush In both instances I see the wrong in that,the President of the United States of America is occupier of an office that I think deserves some respect,if this is another area of disagreement between us ...so be it,I won't lose any sleep over it. I don't see getting a Christmas card from you any time soon and I ain't sending one....but I wouldn't mind trying to cut each other just a little slack. I just got off one moderation,probably because I deal far too much in personalities than substance....you can continue your end of this,if you so choose,all by yourself. I'm going to try,try mind you, to stay out of the corner for a bit,so I won't be jumping to the bait quite so quick.I realize ,to some,there is only one way to look at me and my posts. Fair enough ,I earned my reputation,I'll wear it...and gun threads will always be the supreme test of my quick typing fingers(last night comes to mind)but even there I'm going to try,you can wish me luck or you can keep prodding. One way or the other I'll muddle along lol

slvemike4u -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 10:14:25 AM)
I knew who it was CD,I'm not that forgetful....as for the republican President thing...Two things,first they would need to get their house in order for that to be an issue(i don't see them winning a National election any time soon)two I never referred to Bush as the chimp or any other such nonsense.

Aylee -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 11:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Republic? Democracy? In the context of my post, to which you responded, it doesn't matter. The idea was that power should be spread fairly evenly and as such an informed, invested populace would follow. But, it hasn't. Something like 40% of the United States population, that's something like 125 million people; did not vote at the last general election. A few percent more voted at the last general election in my country. This is not what was conceived during the enlightenment. It was assumed that people would be falling over themselves to make their voice heard. How do you get that? If you look at who could originally vote in the United States, 1787, it was quiet restricted. Not even close to 40 percent of the (adult) population would have voted. White males who owned property or had taxable income (except NJ.) I do not think that England was much better. Didn't some woman throw herself under a horse due to lack of voting rights?

NorthernGent -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 11:38:19 AM)
Yeah, fair enough, DS, although I'm not necessarily criticising people not voting. I do find it interesting, though, in the context of what was assumed and expected a few hundred year back. I understand why people who are interested in politics don't vote, particularly in England where the main parties occupy much of the same ground; leaving little choice for those not vested in the centre ground.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 11:58:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I knew who it was CD,I'm not that forgetful....as for the republican President thing...Two things,first they would need to get their house in order for that to be an issue(i don't see them winning a National election any time soon)two I never referred to Bush as the chimp or any other such nonsense. Good on you, Mike. I don't like the woman. I assume your disdain for Presidential name-calling extends to those on the left who also use it?

slvemike4u -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 12:14:19 PM)
Yes it does CD,there used to be a guy here,can't remember his name so I can't violate TOS and say it...lol. He had a habit of calling Bush the Chimp,it's actually from him that I first became aware of the nickname....I ,quite often,got into arguments with him...right out here in the open ,about his insistence on calling the President of my country(he was a Brit I think)a Chimp. I didn't like it than,I don't like it now ...and I ain't ever going to like it in the future. That Office has been,and will be in the future(not a shot at our present )occupied by giants,people who wind up being carved into the face of mountains....that office is,IMO,to be respected,regardless of the temporary occupant. To me that is bedrock,simple courtesy....that cost's the giver little.

NorthernGent -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 1:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Republic? Democracy? In the context of my post, to which you responded, it doesn't matter. The idea was that power should be spread fairly evenly and as such an informed, invested populace would follow. But, it hasn't. Something like 40% of the United States population, that's something like 125 million people; did not vote at the last general election. A few percent more voted at the last general election in my country. This is not what was conceived during the enlightenment. It was assumed that people would be falling over themselves to make their voice heard. How do you get that? If you look at who could originally vote in the United States, 1787, it was quiet restricted. Not even close to 40 percent of the (adult) population would have voted. White males who owned property or had taxable income (except NJ.) I do not think that England was much better. Didn't some woman throw herself under a horse due to lack of voting rights? England wasn't any better. The fact that some Englishmen left these shores to find a place where their collective voice could be heard should tell you that. Not all of the colonists were looking for a political outlet, but some certainly were. Back in the 1700s certain thinkers who are revered, for example Voltaire, learned their trade in England as we had a comparatively democratic society, and the only other country able to compare was what was then called the United Province, essentially The Netherlands. And, there were a lot of non-conformists un England who believed the United States was an hitherto unknown step up in terms of liberty. The United States was a country with more people than anywhere else on the planet who had a stake in their political future. The point I'm making is nothing to do with your country, it is that certain well known people had miscalculated when they assumed that human beings are essentially reasonable. They imagined that given the opportunity everyone would be like a dog with a bone to make their voice heard.

Aylee -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 3:02:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Republic? Democracy? In the context of my post, to which you responded, it doesn't matter. The idea was that power should be spread fairly evenly and as such an informed, invested populace would follow. But, it hasn't. Something like 40% of the United States population, that's something like 125 million people; did not vote at the last general election. A few percent more voted at the last general election in my country. This is not what was conceived during the enlightenment. It was assumed that people would be falling over themselves to make their voice heard. How do you get that? If you look at who could originally vote in the United States, 1787, it was quiet restricted. Not even close to 40 percent of the (adult) population would have voted. White males who owned property or had taxable income (except NJ.) I do not think that England was much better. Didn't some woman throw herself under a horse due to lack of voting rights? England wasn't any better. The fact that some Englishmen left these shores to find a place where their collective voice could be heard should tell you that. Not all of the colonists were looking for a political outlet, but some certainly were. Back in the 1700s certain thinkers who are revered, for example Voltaire, learned their trade in England as we had a comparatively democratic society, and the only other country able to compare was what was then called the United Province, essentially The Netherlands. And, there were a lot of non-conformists un England who believed the United States was an hitherto unknown step up in terms of liberty. The United States was a country with more people than anywhere else on the planet who had a stake in their political future. The point I'm making is nothing to do with your country, it is that certain well known people had miscalculated when they assumed that human beings are essentially reasonable. They imagined that given the opportunity everyone would be like a dog with a bone to make their voice heard. Fair enough on your thoughts. I think I have got where you are coming from now. LOL (It has only taken a gazillion back and forths.)

cloudboy -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 3:54:44 PM)
The underlying issue of your post is how the US system discourages voting; so, the system is working as intended.

Nthrall -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 4:23:44 PM)
The answer, which applies to most problems, is chocolate.

kdsub -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/21/2015 4:26:48 PM)
I don’t believe there is any system that discourages voting. I believe that only a generation that has to fight for its rights and freedoms truly appreciates its freedoms and votes with responsibility. The further away from that generation the more apathy and laziness towards voting unless a generation is threatened. If these wars go on I believe the percent voting will spike just as it did with the collapse of the economy.. It is just our nature. Butch

eulero83 -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 1:49:59 AM)
Actually majoritary systems discourage voters more than proportional systems, for a simple fact: many people's ideas have no chance to gain representation.

thishereboi -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 5:59:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I wasn't under the impression that people would go around using the full tittle in their everyday life THB... I wasn't either which is why I questioned this statement "And if things go as I expect them to go,a whole bus load of you won't learn how to say Madame President Hillary R. Clinton either" so why did you say it if you didn't mean that?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Actually majoritary systems discourage voters more than proportional systems, for a simple fact: many people's ideas have no chance to gain representation. What do you mean by a "proportional system," and what country would be a good example of that?

slvemike4u -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:39:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I wasn't under the impression that people would go around using the full tittle in their everyday life THB... I wasn't either which is why I questioned this statement "And if things go as I expect them to go,a whole bus load of you won't learn how to say Madame President Hillary R. Clinton either" so why did you say it if you didn't mean that? Because that would be the tittle.....that doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of acceptable other ways to refer to her(should she win)....Bitch would not be one of them

DaddySatyr -> RE: Mandatory Voting (3/22/2015 6:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Actually majoritary systems discourage voters more than proportional systems, for a simple fact: many people's ideas have no chance to gain representation. What do you mean by a "proportional system," and what country would be a good example of that? DS, I believe Israel is a proportional system. They tally the votes and whatever percentage of votes a party gets, entitles them to that percentage of seats in the kinessit (their senate) and the party with the most votes (most seats) selects the leader (PM). Michael

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875