not sure why low key just come out and say, "dude, i think you're wrong. according to studies i've read, they don't think they're voting against their economic interests." which would have progressed the conversation into, why the **** is that? which seem obvious enough.

i don't understand you low key. it's like you wanted to take a shot at me because i'm too liberal, but only proved yourself a moron.

I might be cool with it, if "Nobody" were on the ballot. (But, that will never be an option.)



I wonder what the penalty for abstaining would be?

The only way to lend legitimacy to the voting sham is apparently coercing people to participate.

Worst choice. Vote 3rd party and sign petitions for good amendments.

Fo' sho'.

But don't get your hopes up by expecting results.

The white working class voter is still in play for the Dens. The Party has to connect with them on economic issues. They see immigration as a threat that will hurt the Deems in the near future with that demographic.
Here is another data point that indicates that the importance of social issues is declining. http://journalistsresource.org/studi...haracteristics

Calling them idiots and racists is the way to connect with them apparently.

Especially if done in an abrasive manner.

Votings main function is creating the illusion of choice/influence

There is no illusion about it. Limited choice does not equal an absence of choice.

At this point in the game, I find it not hard to believe most anti-voting propaganda has it's roots in the political entities which have near-term benefits from there being less voters. Influencing people to disenfranchise themselves and persuade others to do so by giving them a fearful illusion they have no choice or power.

Our two party system certainly centralizes the choices when you compare it to parliamentary elections. How much that changes the end result after the formation of government is unclear to me. Vote anyway it is a good exercise even if your Alabama presidential vote has no power.

0.5% of voters or less rank abortion as their top issue.

DUMB MORALITY POLICE VOTERS

Huge difference between prezzers like Obama and Bush though and the people do determine these things to a large extent.

Individual votes have a tiny impact but that's exactly how it should be. Everyone can't all have a huge impact on the result.

Who do you vote for to abolish the current monopoly on force which all parties support?

This assumes the process isn't rigged from the start. (Who remembers the hanging chads debacle?)

"It's not he who votes that counts, but he who counts the votes."

of course not their top issue, but somewhere around 30% of the country are these evangelical morons, and certainly a large percentage of those rate abortion as a top 5 issue (coming from anecdotal evidence).

more telling in that poll is the perception of who runs the economy the best. it appears to me that the public is results oriented. who ever is in charge and how the economy is going is who the public is going to favor.

so it shouldn't be hard to convince people that the liberal way is the best way. especially when you can just say, "minnesota or wisconsin, california or kansas/texas??"

the evidence is overwhelming. republicans don't know how to govern, and they're economically challenged.

look at the budgets. progressives put out a balanced budget that would help everyone (except maybe the ****ing Koch's), and the media largely ignores it. pretty sure the only 'major' news source i've seen run a story was USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...dget/24864755/

Yeah. I mean, if you just completely ignore the entire last election. Otherwise it's a very good point!

more complicated than that you smug prick.

economy was **** and it was obvious to the public that the republicans didn't have any new ideas on how to improve things. so of course obama was going to pull it out.

just look at the graph. who was in charge, how thing were going, who was saying what about how to go forward.

my point is valid. i probably could have articulated it better, like many things i say.

now if it was jimmy carter in charge, and reagan actually is presenting an 'idea'. you can see how they easily flip. romney had no idea. at least not one that normal people were buying.

You realize there's been an election between 2012 and now?

yes... i realise that 30something% of voters showed up to elect these ****ing lunatics. i attribute that to billions of dollars on 30 second attack ad's intended to make joe square say "they're all crooks, **** em, i ain't votin." which is clearly the goal of the power elites.

also, look at how the media ignores stuff like the congressional progressive caucus budget. this is something that voters can get excited about. so you can certainly appreciate how many feel like no one if fighting for them so they don't vote.

what, they were supposed to get excited about these morons running away from obama and trying to be republican lite?

Why would I want to vote away my fair share of this presumed 'monopoly of force'? Man, that phrase 'monopoly of force' even more politically manipulative than tax is theft.

The rich people/sucker dilemma particularly applies to Alabama republicans, as does the disenfranchised voter gambit.

I admit I used to not vote for political reasons, but I thought about how that is kind of stupid. Either I don't vote because I give up a share of the responsibility to participate in government or I go vote and accept a share of responsibility to participate. Either way is a personal, not political choice. I find participating to have more value for both myself and my fellow neighbors on the planet in both the near and long term.

"Taxation is extortion" is more accurate.

Your "fair share" is merely an illusion.

Since when do politicians stick to their campaign promises once elected? (Blame the other side...of the same coin!)

Voting is a sham, spank, and democracy is one of the worst forms of government. America was originally/is a constitutional republic. The constitutional bit is important, because it protects rights that democracies or republican -- small 'R' -- bureaucrats will attempt to abolish.

Spooner's highway robbery piece was epic. (I suggest checking it out.)

Bah...screw it! Here:

Proph, you sure do like to dictate who is what a whole bunch for someone who uses **** like"monopoly of force" accusations. I do totally reject your presumed individualistic "authority" to dictate anything about me. All you bring to the table here, time after time, is repetitious, cynical derision. Blaming blaming blaming gubberment and dictating to everyone else about it, and that's why everyday is like a groundhogs day in hell with regards to your posts.

If I thought government were the only avenue for change, I'd assume what I was saying was cynical, too.

Luckily, markets compensate for bureaucratic blundering.

I don't presume any authority to dictate anything about you. It's quite the opposite. You seemingly presume the authority over me, and I point out that you don't have any. (Apparently, you don't like being reminded!)

Do you believe in self-ownership, spank?

Do you ever read your own posts?

Always and repeatedly, but apparently I'm the only one.

Do you ever answer questions?