redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
low voter turn out means we'll be seeing more of this
that's not gonna be good for anybody.
that's not gonna be good for anybody.
Chizip said:
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 said:
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.
martha said:
But until the voters decide that the Swift Boat Idiots, and the tabloid style reporting, and the dirty ads won't affect them, we're going to continue to get the candidates we deserve. Everyone wrings their hands at all the stuff, but it turns out to work.
unico said:low voter turn out means we'll be seeing more of this
that's not gonna be good for anybody.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
not for nothing, but what exactly is wrong with influential people in popular culture trying (albeit failing) to use their influence to get young people to vote?
You can't change anything if you vote for a shitty candidate.sue4u2 said:
and with that said, look what we currently have.. does anyone really want to say " I didn't vote..because.." I didn't like blah blah blah... has not voting changed the country in any way..
This is the system we have now..
You can't change ANYTHING! if you just sit it out.
A_Wanderer said:You can't change anything if you vote for a shitty candidate.
martha said:
When was the last time the Republicans talked about anything but terrorism?
meegannie said:
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.
Chizip said:
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.
STING2 said:The point I was making was I don't believe the Democrats have actually won an election on the issues you mentioned.
martha said:
Because the damn Republicans have convinced them that the terroists are coming to kill them!
Sherry Darling said: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.
martha said:
Because the damn Republicans have convinced them that the terroists are coming to kill them!
STING2 said:Its interesting to see how much Barack Obama has dominated this poll. Its in direct contrast to how Hillary Clinton is doing in the polls against Barack Obama where she is opening up a solid double digit lead.
STING2 said:
When was the last time the Democrats won an election with those issues?
financeguy said:As FYM's token white supremacist, I vote for Barack Obama.