Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

To the 160 million; who did not vote, "Thank You"

Posted by on Nov. 8, 2014 at 9:28 PM
  • 16 Replies
2 moms liked this
I'm actually glad; because, some 160 million voters did the morally correct thing and didn't vote. If folks don't care enough to know the issues; why would you care for them to vote, just for the sake "of voting?"

Look, if folks cares and knows more about the family drama of Honey Boo Boo than who is running in the governor race? That's fine, just don't vote, I could care less if they vote my way. Because; my way is doing it the right way, and voting for the sake of voting isn't right.

Recently, In the Vermont governor race, one of the contestants (yes, I'm calling 'em "contestants.") For a moment we're going to leave out the Libertarian Party candidate; and talk about the virtue of some particular candidates that were running for the governorship of Vermont: Cris Ericson, Pete Diamondstone, Bernard Peters, and Emily Peyton, these fine citizens together took (wasted) 6% of the total votes cast for governor.

Cris; famous for her run of Congress under Legalization of Marijuana party, find enough pot to realize that the Loch Ness Monster (actually, it is just a baby from Loch Ness; but, it's all grown up now) that lives in Lake Champlain is dying because rich boaters are spilling oil from their rich boats and needs our help to save the monster.

Wait, Pete wanted your vote too, he is a lawyer from the Liberty Union party, he believes firmly in Libertarian Socialism, people have a right to take any type of illicit drugs that they want; but, we have to make sure that the government is the only one allowed to distribute any drugs or any product for that matter. Apparently the only social injustice to be noted and found with illicit drugs, is a "profit margin." Yeap, illegal drugs and their darn profit margins.

Hey let's not forget Bernard, a firm advocate for guns and gun ownerships; when asked a question regarding the Department of Children and Welfare, noted that Zionists shouldn't be supplying arms to the Telban which helps bring opium to the US.

Oh but Emily is the best; the citizens of Vermont have better needs than money or currency, the need is love and love solve all, hemp and pot is all that's needed. Require all government buildings to be made with hemp. Make sure people are getting their needs met with "love." Cool, you can pay taxes by sharing your pot plants and giving group hugs. Ok Vermont workers you don't need cash, here's a group hug and the finest Vermont Gold, now use that to build a school.

Decisions, decisions, decisions ... if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.

Honestly, I wish there was a way to tag an ID on those six percent of voters who voted on one of those four. So the next time they went to vote they would hear, "Ah sorry, it says here, you're an idiot, you can't vote."

But, Donna if people don't vote they lose out. Really, of what?

If people have no political interest, how would they no what the political issues are; let's face it, the person who lacks understanding of the issues and is voting is only demeaning the person's (who took the time to understand the issues) vote. Why is that fair.

But Donna, the lack of voters got the GOP elected. Maybe, but in New Hampshire if all the people voted for Romney in '12 voted for Brown, Brown would have won. The same in Virginia, Minnesota, Rhode Island, actually many other places too. More importantly; we live in a democratic republic, we live under the rule of laws set by our representatives, if there are folks that don't care about their representatives they really shouldn't be allowed to force their will on a law that they won't have a clue about, the reason for this force is only because they're made to feel "guilty" about not voting.

So again I say, "thanks for not voting" besides, Kim Kardashian might feel left out if you're not watching her.
by on Nov. 8, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Nov. 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM

There is a point in to this story.


Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Nov. 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM
2 moms liked this


Quoting Donna6503:

if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Nov. 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM
If we had a a parliamentary system; I could see your point, but in the system we have now, that 3% is used as a spoiler system.

It's the reason you'll find Democrats supporting Libertarians and Republicans supporting Greens. The fact of the matter, it makes no difference if a candidate gets one, two, five percent. They're just there to act as a spoil, by the major parties.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting Donna6503: if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

meriana
by Ruby Member on Nov. 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM


Quoting Donna6503: If we had a a parliamentary system; I could see your point, but in the system we have now, that 3% is used as a spoiler system. It's the reason you'll find Democrats supporting Libertarians and Republicans supporting Greens. The fact of the matter, it makes no difference if a candidate gets one, two, five percent. They're just there to act as a spoil, by the major parties.
Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting Donna6503: if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

Well unless and/or until people get so fed up with career polticians as well as the darlings of the major parties being purchased by big business and sends them all a real message by voting en mass for whoever ISN'T a member of one of the two major parties. That would be interesting but I doubt it will ever happen, people being creatures of habit an all

MomTiara19
by Silver Member on Nov. 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM
1 mom liked this

My state voted blue:).We democrats got out and voted.Even my 22 year old son voted:).

My governor did not run from our president and won.My state welcomed our president with open arms.

I am fine with republicans winning the senate.I expected the win.

Now republicans cant sit and blame our president anymore.They have to work and prove themselves to the American people.They have two years to get their act together.


Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Nov. 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM
While I understand the sentiment (totally) I'll have to disagree with it on merit.

The most effective way to make political change; is to do such changes within the political parties. Think about the TEA party (whether one agrees with them or not, isn't the point) they were far more effective using the GOP than if they went on their own.

Just blaming big businesses or big labor for the problems of our system is not going to change unless you direct your blame within the parties.

Quoting meriana:

Quoting Donna6503: If we had a a parliamentary system; I could see your point, but in the system we have now, that 3% is used as a spoiler system.

It's the reason you'll find Democrats supporting Libertarians and Republicans supporting Greens. The fact of the matter, it makes no difference if a candidate gets one, two, five percent. They're just there to act as a spoil, by the major parties.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting Donna6503: if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

Well unless and/or until people get so fed up with career polticians as well as the darlings of the major parties being purchased by big business and sends them all a real message by voting en mass for whoever ISN'T a member of one of the two major parties. That would be interesting but I doubt it will ever happen, people being creatures of habit an all

meriana
by Ruby Member on Nov. 10, 2014 at 8:33 AM


Quoting Donna6503: While I understand the sentiment (totally) I'll have to disagree with it on merit. The most effective way to make political change; is to do such changes within the political parties. Think about the TEA party (whether one agrees with them or not, isn't the point) they were far more effective using the GOP than if they went on their own. Just blaming big businesses or big labor for the problems of our system is not going to change unless you direct your blame within the parties.
Quoting meriana:


Quoting Donna6503: If we had a a parliamentary system; I could see your point, but in the system we have now, that 3% is used as a spoiler system. It's the reason you'll find Democrats supporting Libertarians and Republicans supporting Greens. The fact of the matter, it makes no difference if a candidate gets one, two, five percent. They're just there to act as a spoil, by the major parties.
Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting Donna6503: if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

Well unless and/or until people get so fed up with career polticians as well as the darlings of the major parties being purchased by big business and sends them all a real message by voting en mass for whoever ISN'T a member of one of the two major parties. That would be interesting but I doubt it will ever happen, people being creatures of habit an all

No the Tea Party wouldn't have been as effective if they hadn't aligned themselves with the GOP. Change should happen within the parties themselves but that is a very difficult thing to accomplish, if not nearly impossible, when the parties tend to back and support the candidates who most closely follow the party line, which tends to leave those who have a different view on their own. It takes an awful lot of money to run a successful campaign which means that politicians can be/are influenced (sometimes greatly) by those who are able to contribute large amounts of money and when they do contribute, they don't do it in a vaccum, they have certain expectations in return. It's not a, here's a few million do what you think is right for the country if you win but more of a, here's a few million and here's what we'd like to see happen, here's what we'd like you to push for,  if you win.
As for big business, they can and do use jobs to bully lawmakers at all levels into giving them what they want, usually more tax breaks. Using the jobs issue can be very effective for a company, especially if said company employs a large number of people. The threat of a company moving their work elsewhere is a pretty high incentive for lawmakers to give in to them. The Boeing company is a good example. They recently were able to wrest billions in tax breaks from the state using that tactic.
Far as I can see, change, real change isn't going to happen unless/until we find a means of getting money out of the equation and that is not likely to happen. Of course it would also help if candidates who are not products of the major parties were more middle ground rather than tending to hold views/ideas that go more to the extreme side as a way to "fix" things.

heresjohnny
by Silver Member on Nov. 10, 2014 at 12:02 PM
1 mom liked this

I agree. That's also why I didn't vote. That's not something I usually announce, because there seems to be some kind of hatred for the non-voter, and I open myself up to a good flaming. But it's always been my opinion that an ignorant voter is worse than a non-voter. I don't know any of the candidates, and I haven't researched any of the bills, so my ballot would be comparable to a 5 year old answering a multiple choice test for MIT.

However, I disagree with calling someone ignorant for voting for someone or something they know won't pass. It's the voter's way of saying they don't like the options presented to them. That's not ignorant.

Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Nov. 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM
Please, show me how the TEA party would have been more effective outside of using the GOP. Sorry, I can't think of any other way, it in any other form, that would have made the TEA party effective on its own and not use the GOP as a means for its messaging. I can't think of one, maybe you can.

Did you know the DEMS spent more money in this last election than the Republicans? Tom Steyer spent $65 million in this past election and it's totally wasted ... climate change was his issues. So no big business nor big money is the root of political change.

History in this country has shown change to have only taken place when a major political party gets behind that issue if change; but before that, it's just noise.

Quoting meriana:

Quoting Donna6503: While I understand the sentiment (totally) I'll have to disagree with it on merit.

The most effective way to make political change; is to do such changes within the political parties. Think about the TEA party (whether one agrees with them or not, isn't the point) they were far more effective using the GOP than if they went on their own.

Just blaming big businesses or big labor for the problems of our system is not going to change unless you direct your blame within the parties.

Quoting meriana:

Quoting Donna6503: If we had a a parliamentary system; I could see your point, but in the system we have now, that 3% is used as a spoiler system.

It's the reason you'll find Democrats supporting Libertarians and Republicans supporting Greens. The fact of the matter, it makes no difference if a candidate gets one, two, five percent. They're just there to act as a spoil, by the major parties.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting Donna6503: if you're a Vermont voter and you actually voted for one of these clowns, you're an idiot. You are worst than the non-voter by far. Morally correct thing to do was just not vote.  

I disagree.   Sometimes people vote for a candidate they know won't get in, as a way of signalling to the other politicians "Hey, here's 3% of the electorate who you can persuade to vote for you next election IF you pay attention to our particular issue."

Well unless and/or until people get so fed up with career polticians as well as the darlings of the major parties being purchased by big business and sends them all a real message by voting en mass for whoever ISN'T a member of one of the two major parties. That would be interesting but I doubt it will ever happen, people being creatures of habit an all

No the Tea Party wouldn't have been as effective if they hadn't aligned themselves with the GOP. Change should happen within the parties themselves but that is a very difficult thing to accomplish, if not nearly impossible, when the parties tend to back and support the candidates who most closely follow the party line, which tends to leave those who have a different view on their own. It takes an awful lot of money to run a successful campaign which means that politicians can be/are influenced (sometimes greatly) by those who are able to contribute large amounts of money and when they do contribute, they don't do it in a vaccum, they have certain expectations in return. It's not a, here's a few million do what you think is right for the country if you win but more of a, here's a few million and here's what we'd like to see happen, here's what we'd like you to push for,  if you win.As for big business, they can and do use jobs to bully lawmakers at all levels into giving them what they want, usually more tax breaks. Using the jobs issue can be very effective for a company, especially if said company employs a large number of people. The threat of a company moving their work elsewhere is a pretty high incentive for lawmakers to give in to them. The Boeing company is a good example. They recently were able to wrest billions in tax breaks from the state using that tactic. Far as I can see, change, real change isn't going to happen unless/until we find a means of getting money out of the equation and that is not likely to happen. Of course it would also help if candidates who are not products of the major parties were more middle ground rather than tending to hold views/ideas that go more to the extreme side as a way to "fix" things.

TLIF1281
by Member on Nov. 10, 2014 at 2:48 PM
I'm not even registered to vote. All things politics is CRAP! All it is is ''I'm better than you are'' they lie. No matter who they are. They manipulate and they don't care one bit about the things that need to be cared about. All they care about is the title and the money. So no I will not vote until someone comes along who actually cares. It will take more than one person though. Even at that they will be corrupted or kept from being put in office.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)