Plan B Forum

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/ ... r/1418227/

Or from this political think-tank focus group:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyZUKAaxGrs

I've said it before: the real "undecided" vote isn't the small number of voters who haven't made up their mind whether to vote for Mitt Romney or for Barack Obama. Rather, it's the much larger group who haven't decided to vote at all. Apparently, more than two-thirds of that group would vote for Obama over Romney if they DID decide to vote...so it's obviously in the GOP's interest to keep that group as pessimistic and discouraged as possible about the ability of the U.S. political system to ever accomplish anything worthwhile.

This dramatically reinforces what I have observed for decades about a plurality of Democrat voters: They are stupid and uninformed. Those who are so unconcerned, uninformed, and unengaged that they can't even get up enough gumption to vote are by a vast majority Democrat-leaning. And the Econoline person seems to be proud of this.

In a rational world, anyone seeking to vote would have to (1) identify themselves in a coherent manner (i.e., photo ID from a recognized source) (2) demonstrate that they pay taxes, and (3) demonstrate that they are cogent enough to identify what and whom they are voting for.

With these three minimal prerequisites, the Democrat party would have no chance of winning anything outside NYC.

You could go for compulsory voting like they do in Aus.

Man, would I love to see the USA try to organise that......

Please. Compulsory name checking off from the Electoral Register. Whether you bother to vote after you have turned up to identify yourself is entirely up to you.

I was undecided until the advent of Big Bird!...

dgs49 wrote:This dramatically reinforces what I have observed for decades about a plurality of Democrat voters: They are stupid and uninformed. Those who are so unconcerned, uninformed, and unengaged that they can't even get up enough gumption to vote are by a vast majority Democrat-leaning. And the Econoline person seems to be proud of this.

I am not sure how the dgs person gets the impression that I share his evaluation of the reasons people don't vote, let alone the impression that I am proud of the situation. The reasons cited in the USA Today article I linked to included "lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive feelings about political institutions, a lack of quality education for large segments of the public, a lack of civic education, the fragmenting effects of waves of communications technology, the cynicism of the coverage of politics", "the relentlessly negative tone of this year's campaign", futility ("...they say the same things; they make promises; they don't keep them. It's ridiculous. If I vote, nothing is going to come of it. It's just going to be like it is right now"), "this overriding sense of bitterness and people who have been beaten down by the economy and the negativity and the lack of trust." It all boils down to discouragement and hopelessness, and those are, I believe, very bad things.

dgs49 wrote:In a rational world, anyone seeking to vote would have to (1) identify themselves in a coherent manner (i.e., photo ID from a recognized source) (2) demonstrate that they pay taxes, and (3) demonstrate that they are cogent enough to identify what and whom they are voting for.

With these three minimal prerequisites, the Democrat party would have no chance of winning anything outside NYC.

I have a feeling that simply repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would accomplish all your goals, Dave. (Or would you rather aim for repeal of the 15th Amendment?)

Gob wrote:You could go for compulsory voting like they do in Aus.
Man, would I love to see the USA try to organise that......

The Hen wrote:Please. Compulsory name checking off from the Electoral Register. Whether you bother to vote after you have turned up to identify yourself is entirely up to you.

We can't even get done something as simple as making election day a national holiday.

Of course, considering that one of our major parties has a vested interest in keeping voter turnout as low as possible ....

Andrew D wrote: Of course, considering that one of our major parties has a vested interest in keeping voter turnout intelligence as low as possible ....

Fixed for you! (Didn't want to leave democrats out)

Meade

1/3 of the country thought that Bush II was doign a 'good job' at the end of his second term when all objective criteria were horrible.

All of that 1/3 are Republicans for about 2 out of 3 Republicans overall are bone stupid.

The Republicans locked up the "stupid vote" tighter than a frog's asshole with the "Southern strategy" which Goldwater began.

The Republicans also deliberately court the 'stupid vote' with their denial of science and refusing to teach about birth control to teenage girls .

yrs,
rubato

Well so many of us did try to teach teenage girls about birth control but, you know, once you're on parole....

All of that 1/3 are Republicans for about 2 out of 3 Republicans overall are bone stupid.

regardless of the fact that I can't make heads or tails of the the sentence
I am sure you can support that with some graph/table/pie chart of the overall intelligence, IQ test results, advanced degrees, graduation rates of the actual popluation that is dem vs rep as opposed to red state vs blue state.

If not, please just say that it is your OPINION.

But having read many posts, I know your opinion, "if you are Republican, you are stupid, if you are Democrat you are smarter than any Republican". That is just ignorant on so many levels that even you, if you look at it, might understand.

Now I am neither Republican nor Democrat (nor any other party) I am independent. And I look at all parties and all platforms. Looking at one and seeing only their faults or differences from my opinion only leads to the deadlock that is prevailant in todays politics. Dems stupid, repubs stupid, blah blah blah gets us nowhere.

Exactly, oldr...and I think that's another very bad thing with American politics recently: the tendency to think that the only possible reason for any opinion that differs from one's own is that the person expressing that opinion is unintelligent. This tends to further drag down the level of discourse.

I note that two R's and a D have already done so in this thread...and I was not one of them.

Thanks Econoline. I do remember way back when Obama was elected there were people in the gov, in elected positions, who said that they would do anything they can to see that Obama failed as a president. Now, to me that is tatamount to treason. Whether or not you agree with his policies, until you see those policies, you cannot tell whether you agree or don't agree with them. Only after you see what he proposes can you make an informed decision.

I am growing tired of "party platforms" as (and I am guessing) that very few Americans agree 100% (or even 80%) with either the Democrat or Republican platforms. I am a fiscal conservative, in my own finances and in how I think the gov should work. But socially I know (and have taken advantage of) that there should be safety nets for people. Hand ups, not hand outs. All i asked for in my personal problems was a hand up. Granted, my problems were self made and I probably could have "gone it alone", but I am glad there is a safety net and would not deny that to anyone. As long as they are trully willing to help themselves. I see many, every night, who say they are willing to do what needs to be done, but when GIVEN opportunities to better themselves fall back into collecting the the gov handout.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:Granted, my problems were self made and I probably could have "gone it alone", but I am glad there is a safety net and would not deny that to anyone. As long as they are trully willing to help themselves. I see many, every night, who say they are willing to do what needs to be done, but when GIVEN opportunities to better themselves fall back into collecting the the gov handout.

And as you know from your own experience, oldr, not everyone makes it back up the frst time. Or the second. Or even the third. But that is not a reason that we should just say fuck 'em. If anything, it is a reason to improve social services (particularly drug/alcohol treatment, education and job training/re-training) so that people can go on to manage their lives without further government support. That takes commitment to the principle that we are all in this together, not that we all go it alone (which is frankly absurd).

I totally agree. Hand ups are my way of thinking. But I do know quite a few people who take the hand outs and would continue that hand out process rather than trying to better themselves and their situation. (and they seem to constantly relapse). Does one go hand in hand? Seems so in my limited experience.

As far as I can see, if one wants to better themselves they are going to no matter if there are ways and means to do so. Of course the gov can help and make things available to those, but there are some who don't even want to bother. And from what I have seen they are the biggest complainers of how things are not available.

1/3 of the country thought that Bush II was doign a 'good job' at the end of his second term when all objective criteria were horrible.

All of that 1/3 are Republicans for about 2 out of 3 Republicans overall are bone stupid.

It was a little difficult to read that sentence, oldr - I agree. But I've got it now. He means that

"One third of the country thought that Bush II was doign (sic) a 'good job'.....

... all of that one third are Republicans; for about 2 out of 3 Republicans overall are bone stupid"

If two out of three Republicans wore overalls I would be very surprised indeed

But it is nice that rubato credits 1 out of 3 Republicans being better dressed on average and with not being bone stupid, presumably on the grounds that they formed part of the two thirds that thought Bush was not doign (sic) a 'good job' or had no opinion.

But then those who have no opinion would not qualify in his lexicon as anything other than bone stupid. So now we now that the actual criteria for being a genius is to think that Bush II didn't do a good job - and that means all Democrats and 1/3 of all Republicans are brilliant. If I've got the math right, deducting the 1/3 of all Republicans who presumably do support Romney (albeit clothes peg on nose), the irreducible fact is that 47% of all US can't get off their arses so vote Democrat very smartly. I think.

Meade

MajGenl.Meade wrote:

Andrew D wrote: Of course, considering that one of our major parties has a vested interest in keeping voter turnout intelligence as low as possible ....

Fixed for you! (Didn't want to leave democrats out Wanted to double-down on Republicans)

Fixed that for you.

Why do the best educated Americans consistently vote Democratic by substantial majorities?

Which party has a congressman who believes that women have a biological ability not to become pregnant if raped?

Which party has a congressman who believes that the scientific data show that Earth is only about 9000 years old?

Which of those facts surprises you?