U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-05-2013, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,470 posts, read 2,019,424 times
Reputation: 465

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
per the survey: they might want to throw obama out of office, but they definitely don't want to replace him with a republican.
That will change with some of them as they get older. That start getting their info from an alternate source, what their wallet tells them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2013, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,407 posts, read 14,500,015 times
Reputation: 9213
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELR123 View Post
We may not like Obama, but we sure as hell don't like Republicans. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I believe that a third party candidate will win a presidential election in my lifetime.
if someone came along with enough backing (whether it is a Ross Perot or something) I don't see why it wouldn't. Depending on who is up for election, I would vote third party if it is the best available option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 04:06 PM
 
10,868 posts, read 6,577,504 times
Reputation: 6143
Too many people just want free sh*t. They don't care who pays as long as it ain't them.

Criminals can't run a legitimate Democracy, and the people demanding handouts are criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the moment
1,229 posts, read 1,087,490 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Independent is a very vague term that doesn't mean middle of the road between Republicans and Democrats.
It means what the individual wants it to. But whatever that is, it usually means neither Dem nor Rep and not necessarily a member of any other party.

Wait! That would be me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
21,729 posts, read 10,601,226 times
Reputation: 3946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostly1 View Post
It means what the individual wants it to. But whatever that is, it usually means neither Dem nor Rep and not necessarily a member of any other party.

Wait! That would be me.
Independent means not a member of a political party, that is it. You could vote for Republicans in every election since you turned 18 and be considered an Independent simply because your state does not offer party registration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 05:32 PM
 
6,950 posts, read 5,217,002 times
Reputation: 2752
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Hmmmmmm................... you do realize, don't you, that only property owners and men were able to vote initially in the US. Given your lack of knowledge about the history of voting rights, perhaps you should reconsider voting yourself until you obtain more information that would permit you to make a logical, well informed choice.

Read up-

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The permission of women, non-property holders, and dependents is an artifact of a post-Constitutional era.

Again, if someone lacks the intelligence and competence to vote (I would argue that all Obama voters, given the performance of Obama would fall into that category), they should probably not be allowed to vote. We do not allow drunks to drive, felons to own firearms, and laymen without training to do surgery. Why in the world (at least a rational world) should we allow morons to vote?
I think that anyone who persists in calling folks who don't agree with his/her political philosophy morons, is, indeed, a moron and absolutely should not be allowed to vote.

Last edited by ray1945; 12-05-2013 at 06:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 05:49 PM
 
643 posts, read 715,587 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Hmmmmmm................... you do realize, don't you, that only property owners and men were able to vote initially in the US. Given your lack of knowledge about the history of voting rights, perhaps you should reconsider voting yourself until you obtain more information that would permit you to make a logical, well informed choice.

Read up-

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The permission of women, non-property holders, and dependents is an artifact of a post-Constitutional era.

Again, if someone lacks the intelligence and competence to vote (I would argue that all Obama voters, given the performance of Obama would fall into that category), they should probably not be allowed to vote. We do not allow drunks to drive, felons to own firearms, and laymen without training to do surgery. Why in the world (at least a rational world) should we allow morons to vote?
So your dream scenario: Build a time machine and go back to the 1780s. When you could have slaves and your wife had no rights. Oh, if only your dreams could come true
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 1,721,408 times
Reputation: 1641
Are these the same Harvard students that didn't know the Capital of Canada?? They are either dumb as a bunch of rocks or are the most intelligent students on the planet ... WHICH is it?

People need to learn how Polls REALLY work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 1,721,408 times
Reputation: 1641
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Again, if someone lacks the intelligence and competence to vote (I would argue that all Obama voters, given the performance of Obama would fall into that category), they should probably not be allowed to vote. We do not allow drunks to drive, felons to own firearms, and laymen without training to do surgery. Why in the world (at least a rational world) should we allow morons to vote?

What about those that voted for Nixon? (amazing Nixon got 60% of the vote but NO ONE voted for him) Or Bush Jr.?

What would be YOUR definition of intelligence and competence? IQ ? a test at the Voting Booth?

How about ANYONE that votes straight ticket regardless of candidate? There are MANY Republican voters that do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top