The So-And-So Vote

[Boss]

I get so tired of hearing about how a candidate "can't win the [fill in blank] vote!" That somehow, we all belong to a certain voting bloc and we simply lack the intelligence to vote differently from the rest of our sheep herd. It seems to be primarily based on whatever said candidate "is going to do for" the certain group. When did we become a nation that plays favorites according to groups? I really though that was what Civil Rights was all about... equality for all. Yet now, apparently you have to put one group's interests above all others in order to win their collective vote. So not only do the politicians have a discriminatory mind set, the entire demographic of the group does as well.

It highlights the REAL problem in American politics today, and frankly, in modern history. Each election, regardless of who we are or who we support, we go to the polls and vote for a politician who promises to use the power of government in order to "do something for us!" This means, expanding government, spending more tax dollars, passing more legislation, growing the Federal leviathan. And it's never-ending. We just keep repeating this cycle after cycle, year after year. It's no wonder we find ourselves in debt up to our eyeballs.

At some point, we are going to have to face reality and understand that we can't continue doing this. Instead of looking at what a candidate is going to "do for us" we are going to have to consider what the candidate can do to make our country better. That might mean NOT doing stuff for us. It most certainly will have to mean not doing things for certain groups just to win their votes. It definitely means not doing stuff for special interests and big money donors. We've got to break this habit we're in and come back to reality at some point or we're going to bankrupt our nation trying to appease all the different demographics.

We hear a lot of talk about greed but this is the epitome of greed, our very nature and how we base our votes. We have become conditioned to voting for our own personal interests over the interests of our nation and that needs to change. We need to realize the problem before we can fix it and unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people are prepared to realize the problem.

 

[TNHarley]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

 

[peach174]

I get so tired of hearing about how a candidate "can't win the [fill in blank] vote!" That somehow, we all belong to a certain voting bloc and we simply lack the intelligence to vote differently from the rest of our sheep herd. It seems to be primarily based on whatever said candidate "is going to do for" the certain group. When did we become a nation that plays favorites according to groups? I really though that was what Civil Rights was all about... equality for all. Yet now, apparently you have to put one group's interests above all others in order to win their collective vote. So not only do the politicians have a discriminatory mind set, the entire demographic of the group does as well.

It highlights the REAL problem in American politics today, and frankly, in modern history. Each election, regardless of who we are or who we support, we go to the polls and vote for a politician who promises to use the power of government in order to "do something for us!" This means, expanding government, spending more tax dollars, passing more legislation, growing the Federal leviathan. And it's never-ending. We just keep repeating this cycle after cycle, year after year. It's no wonder we find ourselves in debt up to our eyeballs.

At some point, we are going to have to face reality and understand that we can't continue doing this. Instead of looking at what a candidate is going to "do for us" we are going to have to consider what the candidate can do to make our country better. That might mean NOT doing stuff for us. It most certainly will have to mean not doing things for certain groups just to win their votes. It definitely means not doing stuff for special interests and big money donors. We've got to break this habit we're in and come back to reality at some point or we're going to bankrupt our nation trying to appease all the different demographics.

We hear a lot of talk about greed but this is the epitome of greed, our very nature and how we base our votes. We have become conditioned to voting for our own personal interests over the interests of our nation and that needs to change. We need to realize the problem before we can fix it and unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people are prepared to realize the problem.

That is exactly why Trump is so popular.

 

[peach174]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

 

[g5000]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

Nope. That is not what they decided.

James Madison:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice.

Some Founders were for universal suffrage, some were for only property owners being allowed to vote. You made a mistake speaking of the Founders as a monolithic opinion.

Because of this push-pull problem, the Founders left it to the states to determine suffrage in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, universal suffrage won the day.

 

[g5000]

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 13

 

[TNHarley]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

Nope. That is not what they decided.

James Madison:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice.

Some Founders were for universal suffrage, some were for only property owners being allowed to vote. You made a mistake speaking of the Founders as a monolithic opinion.

Because of this push-pull problem, the Founders left it to the states to determine suffrage in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, universal suffrage won the day.

You make so much more sense when you don't have obamas fluids in your belly.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Sweet! You want to restrict voting rights. Who would have guessed?

 

[g5000]

I get so tired of hearing about how a candidate "can't win the [fill in blank] vote!" That somehow, we all belong to a certain voting bloc and we simply lack the intelligence to vote differently from the rest of our sheep herd.

If you talk about [fill in the blank] as a group, then you are affecting the votes you will get from that group. This needs to be explained to you? Really?

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel homosexuals are abnormal degenerates and probably all pedophiles? "You can't win the [gay] vote" that way.

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel blacks are lazy, welfare cheating, food stamp abusing, Obamaphone thieving porch dwellers who would be happier picking cotton like they used to in the good old days those pasty white assholes miss so much? "You can't win the [black] vote" that way.

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel every Muslim is a potential terrorist and not a real American entitled to First Amendment protections? "You can't win the [religious minority] vote" that way.

I wonder when the retards will finally figure this out and stop thinking they fail to garner [fill in the blank] votes "because gifts".

 

[LoneLaugher]

I get so tired of hearing about how a candidate "can't win the [fill in blank] vote!" That somehow, we all belong to a certain voting bloc and we simply lack the intelligence to vote differently from the rest of our sheep herd.

If you talk about [fill in the blank] as a group, then you are affecting the votes you will get from that group. This needs to be explained to you? Really?

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel homosexuals are abnormal degenerates and probably all pedophiles? "You can't win the [gay] vote" that way.

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel blacks are lazy, welfare cheating, food stamp abusing, Obamaphone thieving porch dwellers who would be happier picking cotton like they used to in the good old days those pasty white assholes miss so much? "You can't win the [black] vote" that way.

What do you expect to happen when one party makes it clear they feel every Muslim is a potential terrorist, and is not a real American entitled to First Amendment protections? "You can't win the [religious minority] vote" that way.

I wonder when the retards will finally figure this out and stop thinking they fail to garner minority votes "because gifts".

I don't think they'll figure it out in time for the next election. 2020? Maybe.

 

[g5000]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

Nope. That is not what they decided.

James Madison:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice.

Some Founders were for universal suffrage, some were for only property owners being allowed to vote. You made a mistake speaking of the Founders as a monolithic opinion.

Because of this push-pull problem, the Founders left it to the states to determine suffrage in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, universal suffrage won the day.

You make so much more sense when you don't have obamas fluids in your belly.

I make sense all the time. The difference between me and you is that I don't let my hatred of Obama taint my much greater love of truth, reality, and logic.

 

[TNHarley]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

Nope. That is not what they decided.

James Madison:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice.

Some Founders were for universal suffrage, some were for only property owners being allowed to vote. You made a mistake speaking of the Founders as a monolithic opinion.

Because of this push-pull problem, the Founders left it to the states to determine suffrage in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, universal suffrage won the day.

You make so much more sense when you don't have obamas fluids in your belly.

I make sense all the time. The difference between me and you is that I don't let my hatred of Obama taint my much greater love of the truth, reality, and logic.

Just close your mouth already..

 

[NightFox]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

ROFLMAO! You're too much TN, thanks for the laugh!

 

[peach174]

We felt the need to give every dumbass the right to vote... While it goes against the very definition of a Republic, the point stands...

Yep
The Founders had it right, only those who had skin in the game could vote.

Nope. That is not what they decided.

James Madison:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice.

Some Founders were for universal suffrage, some were for only property owners being allowed to vote. You made a mistake speaking of the Founders as a monolithic opinion.

Because of this push-pull problem, the Founders left it to the states to determine suffrage in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Ultimately, universal suffrage won the day.

That is they way this Nation has always been a mixture of ideology, then a vote and the majority of votes win.
The majority of the votes was for property owners who paid taxes could vote.

There was no direct tax on income, the tax payers were primarily those that paid property taxes. People who owned property were also sometimes business owners, who also paid taxes. People who paid taxes, and those that owned businesses, were directly influenced by the actions of the politicians. Laws influenced their tax payments, business structure, and daily dealings in the financial industry. Therefore, when it came to politics, those people had "skin in the game," since they were directly influenced by the decisions made by the politicians. As a result, property owners were directly involved, and knowledgeable, with the policies offered by the various candidates, and politicians.

We should go back to that again where only taxpayers can vote.
The way it is now, is those who get government handouts and goodies vote for the party who gives them the most.

 

[TNHarley]

Why would people vote with the right intentions if they don't contribute to society at all?
Legitimate question

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would people vote with the right intentions if they don't contribute to society at all?
Legitimate question

The right intentions? Are you going to be the judge of what those are?

 

[Nosmo King]

You can blame the voters for group think, but have you considered the rhetoric of the candidates? They speak of the rights of homosexuals to marry, women to have the right to control their own bodies, Blacks to behave and accept police tactics for their own good, immigrants have been called rapists and murderers, the poor are called lazy.

 

[TNHarley]

Why would people vote with the right intentions if they don't contribute to society at all?
Legitimate question

The right intentions? Are you going to be the judge of what those are?

People not voting for themselves, but the country as a whole.
Votign for policies that will contribute to the country as a whole may differ but at least their intentions are in the right place.
We are a country of 320 million people. People need to think about the big picture.

 

[TNHarley]

You can blame the voters for group think, but have you considered the rhetoric of the candidates? They speak of the rights of homosexuals to marry, women to have the right to control their own bodies, Blacks to behave and accept police tactics for their own good, immigrants have been called rapists and murderers, the poor are called lazy.

right to control their own bodies = like forcing your employer to pay for it?
we all need to behave. Especially the urban areas
Police tactics are for their own good. Police protect the general welfare, not individual welfare.
*some illegals have been called
Some poor people are lazy. Poor people can get free education and all kinds of shit. No excuse.

 

[Nosmo King]

You can blame the voters for group think, but have you considered the rhetoric of the candidates? They speak of the rights of homosexuals to marry, women to have the right to control their own bodies, Blacks to behave and accept police tactics for their own good, immigrants have been called rapists and murderers, the poor are called lazy.

right to control their own bodies = like forcing your employer to pay for it?
we all need to behave. Especially the urban areas
Police tactics are for their own good. Police protect the general welfare, not individual welfare.
*some illegals have been called
Some poor people are lazy. Poor people can get free education and all kinds of shit. No excuse.

You not only missed the point but seek to drag this particular discussion down a primrose path of stupidity.

The. OP seeks to blame the voters for being lumped into groups for electoral purposes. I manta in that divisive, paranoid, fear mongeing candidates lump groups together in order to appeal to bitter, rowdy, unthinking partisans.