Voters WHo Identify Themselves As Democrat Drop To 22yr Low

Ricter · Jan 7, 2011

Quote from denner:

That's at least a generation or two away. After all, 40 years of encouraging and even paying women to push out kids hasn't really worked out so well.

I'd be in favor of only allowing individuals with something at stake, the right to vote. i.e. those with employment (not government employment) and homeowners, land holders, etc the rights to vote.

After all, someone with nothing to lose and everything to gain should not be afforded the vote of getting something for nothing.

It's always character problems with you guys, unless we're talking about something like your taxes, then it's a systemic problem and not your character.

Hello · Jan 7, 2011

What we need to do instead is eliminate all reciprocal relationships between politicians and the electorate. What i mean is this. If you gain any kind of money from the government you should not be able to vote, nor should you be allowed to donate, or do any work in helping that politician be re-elected. This includes people whose businesses end up getting things from the government, who turn around and donate to the politician who gave it to them, and it also includes all the people who live on welfare, or any of the other saftey nets, as well as public sector unions, if your union benefited in some sort of way monetarily you should not be allowed to vote until the politician who gave it to you has left office.

I could care less if someone who doesnt own property, or doesnt earn any money wants to vote, provided they are not in some way the beneficiary of government cheese.

Until we eliminate all of the reciprocal relationships in politics nothing is ever going to change, and politicians on both sides are going to keep buying votes with our money.

Quote from denner:

That's at least a generation or two away. After all, 40 years of encouraging and even paying women to push out kids hasn't really worked out so well.

I'd be in favor of only allowing individuals with something at stake, the right to vote. i.e. those with employment (not government employment) and homeowners, land holders, etc the rights to vote.

After all, someone with nothing to lose and everything to gain should not be afforded the vote of getting something for nothing.

Lucrum · Jan 7, 2011

Quote from Hello:

What we need to do instead is eliminate all reciprocal relationships between politicians and the electorate. What i mean is this. If you gain any kind of money from the government you should not be able to vote, nor should you be allowed to donate, or do any work in helping that politician be re-elected. This includes people whose businesses end up getting things from the government, who turn around and donate to the politician who gave it to them, and it also includes all the people who live on welfare, or any of the other saftey nets, as well as public sector unions, if your union benefited in some sort of way monetarily you should not be allowed to vote until the politician who gave it to you has left office.

I could care less if someone who doesnt own property, or doesnt earn any money wants to vote, provided they are not in some way the beneficiary of government cheese.

Until we eliminate all of the reciprocal relationships in politics nothing is ever going to change, and politicians on both sides are going to keep buying votes with our money.

An idea with merit, unfortunately I think we're beyond the point of no return.

peilthetraveler · Jan 7, 2011

Idiots voted in the people that are destroying our country, and 2 years in they dont want to be recognized as those idiots anymore.

They were soooo happy in 2008 voting a black man in, proving to the world how un-racist they are, which IMO is the only reason they voted for him.

Maybe next time the idiots will vote for someone based on actually policies instead of slogans.

Range Rover · Jan 7, 2011

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Maybe next time the idiots will vote for someone based on actually policies instead of slogans.

Ricter · Jan 8, 2011

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Idiots... They were soooo happy in 2008 voting a black man in, proving to the world how un-racist they are, which IMO is the only reason they voted for him.

This thinking gives more credibility to those hypothesizing that Obama criticism is based on his race, too. Good work there, peil.

Hello · Jan 8, 2011

There you go again, now using McCain as the standard to judge Obamas competency. If i compare one pile of turd of to another pile of turd, it doesnt matter whether or not one is bigger then the other, im still comparing two pieces of shit.

Quote from Range Rover:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Ricter · Jan 8, 2011

Quote from Hello:

There you go again, now using McCain as the standard to judge Obamas competency. If i compare one pile of turd of to another pile of turd, it doesnt matter whether or not one is bigger then the other, im still comparing two pieces of shit.

I agree with you here, I'd like to see our politicians compared to imagined politicians above them, for example, philosopher kings (yes, I'm laughing at myself for that). The downward referencing is no good. The sideways referencing is no good.

Range Rover · Jan 8, 2011

Quote from Hello:

There you go again, now using McCain as the standard to judge Obamas competency. If i compare one pile of turd of to another pile of turd, it doesnt matter whether or not one is bigger then the other, im still comparing two pieces of shit.

The final choice was between Obama or Mccain Hello,not some imaginary perfect candidate