Vote: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Between These Two, Who Would You Vote For?
Barack Obama 47 70.15%
Hillary Clinton 20 29.85%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-23-2007, 10:45 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Oil companies fucking us all over, health care failing miserably, Constitutional rights being trampled.

Nope. Nothing else.
When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2007, 10:55 PM   #77
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?
When was the last time the Democrats actually had an election with "issues"?

I think that's probably their worst problem. If voters actually believed that the Democrats would sincerely address those problems, I think people would vote for them. As it stands, though, I think very few people actually believe that they--or any political party--actually would.

Instead, they're busy voting for go-nowhere bills like "NOPEC" that come across as little more than ineffective, pre-election year politicking. They'd be better off targeting the oil companies for Enron-style supply throttling and price fixing. It's certainly not the oil prices that are making gas prices this high, and seeing so many of our refineries either offline or operating well under maximum capacity smacks of cartel-style gouging.

Or, if the Democrats wanted to do something about our environment, they could also do something as simple as banning the traditional light bulb, as replacing those with newer, freely available florescent-based bulbs would alone save massive amounts of energy.

But, no. Our politicians--Democratic and Republican alike--are too busy "fundraising" constantly, tripping over one another to see who can be the most "Christian" candidate of them all, and working themselves up for the "next election." What a useless bunch of idiots, and shame on the American public for constantly and consistently letting these jokers get away with it year after year after year.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 05-24-2007, 12:14 AM   #78
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?
When was the last time the Republicans talked about anything but terrorism?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 05-25-2007, 10:22 AM   #79
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Democracy sux. We should let those who know best decide.
But don't you see even if you 'win' you still lose? Our entire political system is a sham. No one is going to do what they promise. This latest herd elected to congress proved that. They told you what you wanted to hear and then they didn't follow through. None of them will. They only want your vote. There are a bunch of writers and coaches behind them all trying to sell these losers to us as a product and they just love it when you fall for it or think one is better than the other. Wrong. There will be no positive changes under our current two party system. Anyone who votes is being taken for a fool by the whole system. Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.
__________________
AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 10:28 AM   #80
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 10:13 AM
My predicition on these two: it will be a very tough and bitterly fought campaign right up until the convention, with them saying terrible things about each other to sway the voters. But in the end, the one who doesn't get the nomination will cave and smile and kiss ass to the other, disregarding all the strong statements of the past that fall by the wayside now in the name of 'party unity.' They will raise their fists together at the podium as running mates as the balloons come down.

And being too controversial for the average middle American voter, this ticket will be pummeled by whatever talking head the GOP puts out there.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Even if the Dems do win (which they won't if they accept the Hillary/Obama ticket)
__________________
AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 10:51 AM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnnRKeyintheUSA


Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.
A low voter turnout would just be interpreted as apathy (as it is now). I would prefer it if there were a "none of the above" option.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 11:14 AM   #82
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AnnRKeyintheUSA
Perhaps a very low voter turnout will send a message.
That message would be "Do whatever the fuck you want. We don't care."

Not voting is exactly what the rich and powerful want you to do. The lower the participation, the more the power will consolidate.

"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 05-25-2007, 11:43 AM   #83
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.
Exactly.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 12:45 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha

"Anarchists" like to think they're protesting so much, but all they're really doing is playing into the hands of those who would continue to consolidate the power.
Your right, what they should do is compromise their principles and throw their vote for the rich and powerful that pretend to care.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 01:18 PM   #85
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 12:13 PM
It's worth observing that there is a BIG difference between an organized, powerful boycott of an election, and a bunch of people just not showing up.
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 03:48 PM   #86
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Your right, what they should do is compromise their principles and throw their vote for the rich and powerful that pretend to care.
What principles?

Real, organized voting for a real candidate would send a much clearer "message" than just not voting.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 05-25-2007, 03:57 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Does voting for this real candidate include third party candidates?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 05:38 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Probably neither-at this point I think I might vote for Mitt Romney
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 06:19 PM   #89
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Does voting for this real candidate include third party candidates?
Probably. Participation is the key.

Although at this point a third party candidate is usually a spoiler.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 05-25-2007, 08:32 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie


A low voter turnout would just be interpreted as apathy (as it is now). I would prefer it if there were a "none of the above" option.
but shouldn't apathy been seen as a message about the political system? i don't blame voters for being apathetic when the choice they are given is between a punch in the face or a kick in the nuts. the blame should be placed on a system that doesn't provide enough quality choices that inspire people to get off their ass and vote.

i dont see low voter turnout as public laziness, i see it as a failure of the political system.
__________________

__________________
Chizip is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com