Resolved: Tea Party supporters should stay away from the polls tomorrow!
- Thread starter Mas-sa-suta
- Start date
You're pretty funny yourself
Based on what will likely happen Tuesday, you ought to take your own advice. This election will be a referendum on left-wing ideology and your side is going to get crushed. There are way more people that subscribe to tea party philosophy than there are those who think like you do. You're among the fringe one or two percent.
Based on what will likely happen Tuesday, you ought to take your own advice. This election will be a referendum on left-wing ideology and your side is going to get crushed. There are way more people that subscribe to tea party philosophy than there are those who think like you do. You're among the fringe one or two percent.
LOL. Not likely.
This election is a combination of an unpopular president, a string of seats coming up in red states that were previously blue only because 6 years ago was a HUGE year for Democrats, and the fact that the GOP has put up more candidates who are NOT Tea Partiers.
goat
This election is a combination of an unpopular president, a string of seats coming up in red states that were previously blue only because 6 years ago was a HUGE year for Democrats, and the fact that the GOP has put up more candidates who are NOT Tea Partiers.
goat
Do you truly believe that?
There is no referendum . The seats open are in red states. Young people and minorities are notorious for only voting in presidential elections. The GOP has done their best work to make it difficult for both of those groups of people to vote. congratulations on that, Patriots! As you will see with the next national election, as the Democrats will retain the Presidency. Goat isn't even far left....there are very few people that will even admit to being Tea Party members these days. The GOP finally got smart enough to not run the majority of tea party members that blew it for them in the last elections.
There is no referendum . The seats open are in red states. Young people and minorities are notorious for only voting in presidential elections. The GOP has done their best work to make it difficult for both of those groups of people to vote. congratulations on that, Patriots! As you will see with the next national election, as the Democrats will retain the Presidency. Goat isn't even far left....there are very few people that will even admit to being Tea Party members these days. The GOP finally got smart enough to not run the majority of tea party members that blew it for them in the last elections.
You are falling
into the same trap as Republicans and Democrats normally do. Because they win a big election they think everyone is voting for their policies when, if fact, I think a lot of people vote against the current policies. They just want change and never consider whether the change will be good or not. For example, I think the 2008 election was more about voting against Bush than for Obama yet the Democrats thought it was because people loved their agenda/policies. The Republicans will do the same thing this time IF they win...they've done it before and they'll do it again.
into the same trap as Republicans and Democrats normally do. Because they win a big election they think everyone is voting for their policies when, if fact, I think a lot of people vote against the current policies. They just want change and never consider whether the change will be good or not. For example, I think the 2008 election was more about voting against Bush than for Obama yet the Democrats thought it was because people loved their agenda/policies. The Republicans will do the same thing this time IF they win...they've done it before and they'll do it again.
It is your party, do whatever you like
The nation needs either fewer parties (none) or more parties. The two-party system is a complete and total failure. I am neither a Democrat or Republican, but as an independent whatever stupid choices the two parties make I'm stuck with. And the two parties make a lot of stupid choices.
The Tea Party already contains the name party in it, go out and make it an independent party instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. One sees the Green Party run its own people instead of living inside the Democratic party. I'm not likely to ever vote Tea Party, but if there were a conservative party the GOP could move center with moderate to liberal Republicans joining with moderate to conservative Democrats. Then we could have real choices in voting.
The nation needs either fewer parties (none) or more parties. The two-party system is a complete and total failure. I am neither a Democrat or Republican, but as an independent whatever stupid choices the two parties make I'm stuck with. And the two parties make a lot of stupid choices.
The Tea Party already contains the name party in it, go out and make it an independent party instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. One sees the Green Party run its own people instead of living inside the Democratic party. I'm not likely to ever vote Tea Party, but if there were a conservative party the GOP could move center with moderate to liberal Republicans joining with moderate to conservative Democrats. Then we could have real choices in voting.
So you're saying it won't be too difficult for young people
and minorities to vote in a presidential elections but it is too difficult to vote today because they just don't give a damn about voting? Both of those groups can easily vote in ANY election if they want to and you saying otherwise doesn't change that fact.
and minorities to vote in a presidential elections but it is too difficult to vote today because they just don't give a damn about voting? Both of those groups can easily vote in ANY election if they want to and you saying otherwise doesn't change that fact.
We've had this discussion ad nauseam
Many young people don't even know there is an election today. They will know when there is a presidential one. ( I'm not excusing that, they should know, but it's a fact). Again, as someone who drives, works, etc, it may seem unbelievable to you that someone doesn't have any type of ID, but there are multiples stories in Texas, with their new laws, of people being turned away from voting without proper ID.
Many young people don't even know there is an election today. They will know when there is a presidential one. ( I'm not excusing that, they should know, but it's a fact). Again, as someone who drives, works, etc, it may seem unbelievable to you that someone doesn't have any type of ID, but there are multiples stories in Texas, with their new laws, of people being turned away from voting without proper ID.
Be proud....
We do have a girl that works at Dem headquarters. She was sitting talking to a group at breakfast, some of whom can vote here. They asked me who to vote for and I told them I couldn't give them advice on anything except for school board, as I know enough teachers here to feel confident of that.
We do have a girl that works at Dem headquarters. She was sitting talking to a group at breakfast, some of whom can vote here. They asked me who to vote for and I told them I couldn't give them advice on anything except for school board, as I know enough teachers here to feel confident of that.
Not really, I'm saying
It's their fault they don't care enough or pay enough attention to plan ahead to vote now. But, I still think it should be easier to vote on your college campus. It's impossible to ignore a presidential election. It's a little easier to be unaware of midterms. I did just have a discussion with a table of girls that are going to vote though.
It's their fault they don't care enough or pay enough attention to plan ahead to vote now. But, I still think it should be easier to vote on your college campus. It's impossible to ignore a presidential election. It's a little easier to be unaware of midterms. I did just have a discussion with a table of girls that are going to vote though.
Another thing to remember...
...this isn't really going to be a big wave election for the GOP today. It's going to look good because they take back the Senate, but they are doing so primarily by winning states that should have been theirs to begin with, but which they lost to a big Democratic wave 6 years ago. They are still losing a couple of governorships, and making very modest gains in the House.
The results today are going to be indicative of a country that is still very divided.
goat
...this isn't really going to be a big wave election for the GOP today. It's going to look good because they take back the Senate, but they are doing so primarily by winning states that should have been theirs to begin with, but which they lost to a big Democratic wave 6 years ago. They are still losing a couple of governorships, and making very modest gains in the House.
The results today are going to be indicative of a country that is still very divided.
goat
I don't think...
..."Shame on them for not voting" entirely erases the shame deserved by politicians for making it harder to vote. You can be right - that it's a matter of will - while Zeke is also still right that it's not easy enough to vote.
goat
..."Shame on them for not voting" entirely erases the shame deserved by politicians for making it harder to vote. You can be right - that it's a matter of will - while Zeke is also still right that it's not easy enough to vote.
goat
"Wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP"...
Actually, that's not accurate, MtM.......and both mainstream parties make their chops by demonizing GOP candidates whom the TP chooses to support....I suspect most TP supporters will vote mostly GOP...in my case not so, but I am exceptional..(>:
Actually, that's not accurate, MtM.......and both mainstream parties make their chops by demonizing GOP candidates whom the TP chooses to support....I suspect most TP supporters will vote mostly GOP...in my case not so, but I am exceptional..(>:
Can't happen.
In a first-past-the-post election system, we also tend to two major parties. History has confirmed this again and again (and it simply just makes sense, as well). If the Tea Party really wants to separate itself from the GOP, then only one of them can survive as a major force.
And it won't be the Tea Party. The other fact that must be dealt with is that, in a two party system, the parties tend toward the center. That is not that they are necessarily moderate, but that they tend to align themselves so they each attract about half the electorate. The Tea Party does not attract half the electorate. If they want to be a major force, they have to shift to the center, closer to the "Establishment" GOP they hate so much.
Of course, if they do that, they won't be the Tea Party, anymore.
The Tea Party as a movement is doomed to failure based on the structural realities of the American electoral system. It's just the way it is.
goat
This post was edited on 11/4 3:18 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
In a first-past-the-post election system, we also tend to two major parties. History has confirmed this again and again (and it simply just makes sense, as well). If the Tea Party really wants to separate itself from the GOP, then only one of them can survive as a major force.
And it won't be the Tea Party. The other fact that must be dealt with is that, in a two party system, the parties tend toward the center. That is not that they are necessarily moderate, but that they tend to align themselves so they each attract about half the electorate. The Tea Party does not attract half the electorate. If they want to be a major force, they have to shift to the center, closer to the "Establishment" GOP they hate so much.
Of course, if they do that, they won't be the Tea Party, anymore.
The Tea Party as a movement is doomed to failure based on the structural realities of the American electoral system. It's just the way it is.
goat
This post was edited on 11/4 3:18 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
How do we improve governemnt by making voting easy?
Colorado has an all mail voting system. So voter picture ID is not in . . . . ahem . . . . .the picture. So we have done other means of ID's; which is a signature ID. As near as I can tell, the means and method of providing a record signature to the voting authorities is more burdensome than getting your picture on a piece of plastic. The mail voter verification system is a democratic construct.
Me thinks that the Democrats reflexively react to picture voter ID by instinct resulting from stereotyping certain people. You need to re-think your position.
Colorado has an all mail voting system. So voter picture ID is not in . . . . ahem . . . . .the picture. So we have done other means of ID's; which is a signature ID. As near as I can tell, the means and method of providing a record signature to the voting authorities is more burdensome than getting your picture on a piece of plastic. The mail voter verification system is a democratic construct.
Me thinks that the Democrats reflexively react to picture voter ID by instinct resulting from stereotyping certain people. You need to re-think your position.
Huh?
I'm just saying Doug's comment and Zeke's comment are not mutually exclusive.
You already know my position on this. My position is that it does, in fact, all result from stereotyping. That is, the stereotype of people whom are more easily dissuaded from voting is that they are Democrats.
Personally, I don't think more voters necessarily lead to better government. I do believe that we live in a world were more voters tends to lead to more likely victories for Democrats, and fewer voters tends to lead to more likely victories for Republicans, and I'd much rather see Democrats in charge. But there is nothing inherent in having a broader electoral base that leads to good government. Dictators can govern well.
goat
I'm just saying Doug's comment and Zeke's comment are not mutually exclusive.
You already know my position on this. My position is that it does, in fact, all result from stereotyping. That is, the stereotype of people whom are more easily dissuaded from voting is that they are Democrats.
Personally, I don't think more voters necessarily lead to better government. I do believe that we live in a world were more voters tends to lead to more likely victories for Democrats, and fewer voters tends to lead to more likely victories for Republicans, and I'd much rather see Democrats in charge. But there is nothing inherent in having a broader electoral base that leads to good government. Dictators can govern well.
goat
Interesting . . . . .
"That is, the stereotype of people whom are more easily dissuaded from voting is that they are Democrats." Nah. These people were never "suaded" in the first place. Treading lightly here, but people who look to have the most with the least individua effort are the ones who we are talking about. If you think those are mostly democrats, I won't argue.
But here is my pont. If people want to vote, and are interested in voting, I don't think picture ID is much of an obstacle.
"That is, the stereotype of people whom are more easily dissuaded from voting is that they are Democrats." Nah. These people were never "suaded" in the first place. Treading lightly here, but people who look to have the most with the least individua effort are the ones who we are talking about. If you think those are mostly democrats, I won't argue.
But here is my pont. If people want to vote, and are interested in voting, I don't think picture ID is much of an obstacle.
I don't think it's much of an obstacle, either.
But that's simply not the point. The point is that it is an obstacle. A small one, perhaps, but the law of large numbers suggests that even a tiny obstacle will end up causing at least some people to not vote.
And those people will be Democrats, by and large.
I categorically reject your suggestion that these people should be connected with "people who look to have the most with the least individual effort." That's just more standard "liberals are lazy" slander.
goat
But that's simply not the point. The point is that it is an obstacle. A small one, perhaps, but the law of large numbers suggests that even a tiny obstacle will end up causing at least some people to not vote.
And those people will be Democrats, by and large.
I categorically reject your suggestion that these people should be connected with "people who look to have the most with the least individual effort." That's just more standard "liberals are lazy" slander.
goat
Both sides now
According to you, we are talking mostly about democrats here:
"even a tiny obstacle will end up causing at least some people to not vote."
"That's just more standard "liberals are lazy" slander."
What kind of person do believe will change course away from something important to them because of a "tiny obstical"?
According to you, we are talking mostly about democrats here:
"even a tiny obstacle will end up causing at least some people to not vote."
"That's just more standard "liberals are lazy" slander."
What kind of person do believe will change course away from something important to them because of a "tiny obstical"?
See, we're just talking in circles.
I'm describing why people support/oppose Voter ID laws.
You're discussing whether or not Voter ID laws are reasonable.
I'm talking politics.
You're making a policy pitch.
We've had this conversation enough, donchathink?
I'm describing why people support/oppose Voter ID laws.
You're discussing whether or not Voter ID laws are reasonable.
I'm talking politics.
You're making a policy pitch.
We've had this conversation enough, donchathink?
