Forum Post: Here's something that will save us:
Posted 11 years ago on May 17, 2012, 11:33 a.m. EST by CarlosFenito
(36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Let's make it illegal to put a party declaration on a ballot-candidate name only.
The dumb hicks in the GOP's army will never be able to vote for a candidate again without the "r" after the name! They won't know who to vote for!
The GOP will never win another election
Yeah, ok.
You agree? Good. Please help spread the word, I'm going to get a change.org petition going.
Not really. I just think that sometimes (not all the time) you have a pretty funny brand of bullshit you spin. It was pretty funny at the time.
Are you going to debate the issue at hand, or just make lame personal attacks against the messenger?
Before I engage in this "debate", I wanna ask you something. I may have actually given you too much credit.
How many elections did you just see where someone had the same name as someone that was elected? Ran on a name. So, people thought that they were voting for one person and ended up voting for someone else.
All that would be required would be city of residence on the ballot.
But, it doesn't alter what or whom the candidate represents. So, ya-I'm out.
You think the letter after a person's name alters what they represent? Boy, you're thick.
I guess you want Republicans to keep winning and roll over to their voter suppression tactics.
Shut up, Carlos. Or come up with a really good debate that I can get into.
Time's a wastin'. Let's go.
Whoa. Real mature, is that what you always do when you cannot intellectually maneuver around an argument? You resort to personal attacks.
I accept your accusations of me because they are shallow. Will you reject my accusations of you because they are deep?
Ah Grasshopper, you must have something of substance to intellectually maneuver around first.
Silly, it isn't relevant if you accept my accusations or not.
Come on, Carlos, bring a real debate.
You said you were through. Yet, like an angry hormonal person, you continue to snipe and whine when I inform you of your intellectual inadequacy. Come on, some personal growth is necessary for all of us. There is a difference between the vitriolic attacks you engage in, and constructive and helpful criticism.
So, you think it would still be a problem if a person's first, middle, and last name were on a ballot, along with the city of their birth? Any one with five grains of sense (Not you or any other conservative) could instantly recognize the candidate of their choice.
Below is an encrypted response, which, when decrypted, will contain a prediction about your next reply. I can barely wait!
LBH JVYY ERSENVA SEBZ RATNTVAT VA QRONGR, ZNXR NABGURE FAVQR NAQ UBEZBANY CREFBANY NGGNPX, NAQ PYNVZ V NZ ABG RATNTVAT VA QRONGR.
Quit your bitching. City of birth does nothing if said candidate has moved.
You just don't like the fact that people walk in and vote either R or D. Understand it. However, this is not a real solution.
I don't think I could have said it better myself. We have more in common than either of us thinks.
If you'd like to move away from partisanship, what problem do you have with what I have proposed? Your last reply sounded like you pretty much agree. Is it my last name that makes you instantly oppose everything I say, even when you obviously agree?
You would have had support a long time ago had you dealt with the issues.
Your proposal does not address the issues. This is the key.
I was right! I was right!
Time to decrypt the prediction...!
YOU WILL REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN DEBATE, MAKE ANOTHER SNIDE AND HORMONAL PERSONAL ATTACK, AND CLAIM I AM NOT ENGAGING IN DEBATE.
Okay, two out of three isn't bad. I'll do better next time; it's called "personal growth".
What I am saying about city of birth, is that it, along with middle name, uniquely identifies the candidate, and prevents people with similar names from confusing voters.
I don't like the fact that people vote based on party? You should be angry about it, also, because Tea/Repukes do it way more often then Dems. This will help democrat supporters.
Bwahahahaha.
I don't like it because people don't ask the right questions. I am angry that issues are ignored or over simplified. I am furious that there are people from both sides of that aisle that do not research shit. I talk to them all the time. I watch those elected all the time. I get hit with the repercussions all the time.
It does no one any good if they refuse to question the issues. It allows Democrats and Republicans that are up for election to simply repeat the lines that have been said in the past and literally gives them a free pass. More so, it allows the actual citizens a free pass from actual engagement.
I think Carlos is more of a masturbate'r than a master debater.
Ask your mom. I see her pretty regularly, she would know.
Could be.
Once in while he is really witty. I'm on limited time and ready to roll.
Catch ya later.
K. I will be here for about a half an hour or so.
I will miss you.
I just love the way you take care of business.
LOL. Thanks, DKA. I do miss you guys.
lol
I am serious here, this is a strategy move we can do to ensure further Democrat victories. They have voter ID!
The Voter Suppression tactics that the GOP have initiated across the country is down right despicable, and is possible unconstitutional. Every local and national politicians that was apart of this should be fired.
They are not going to be fired. This is our way of getting our due back, punish them the same way they try to get us.
Carlos I love your fire but never kid yourself that the ends justifies the means. That is the first mistake a tyrant in the making always makes. But the premise is funny, though I am not cynical enough to believe that it would make a difference. Are they not robo called to get their marching orders, lol?
There are no questionable "means". We are merely taking party descriptors off of the ballot, to make people vote on the candidates instead of the party.
Yeah, those hicks aren't smart like we all are.
[Removed]
I sorry, but this exactly what the GOP wants. It's how they got SO many (R)epelican't judges elected in the States.
How exactly? Are you implying anything about Democrat voters?
You may not like somebody or their politics, but it's a serious mistake to underestimate them. They're liable to be tougher and smarter and more determined than you think they are.
So if they're all that dumb, how did the Tea Party people manage to get so many people elected in the last couple of elections? It's pretty easy to sit here and throw cheap insults at them, but the fact of the matter is that OWS is a long, long way from being as effective in changing the course of the political landscape as they have been.
Numerous scientific studies indicate that conservatives are mentally incapable of basic logic. Democrats are a bunch of free spirits, you take the party away from them, and they remain unchanged like the wind. The sheep in the GOP need their partisan masters to control them and get them fired up. That's what the Tea Party is about, firing up people to vote republican. You take that party away from them and Democrats will win every election till the end of time.
"Numerous scientific studies indicate that conservatives are mentally incapable of basic logic." Hmmm . . . . that's a new one. I hadn't heard about it before. My own experience suggests otherwise. William F. Buckley struck me as someone that understood basic logic. Margaret Thatcher likewise. Antonin Scalia most certainly appears to understand basic logic. And what about Karl Rove? He certainly does -- that's what makes him so dangerous.
So I'm very curious about these scientific studies. Do the same studies prove that Democrats are free spirits, or are those different studies?
I'm very interested in reading them. Could you please cite them for me? Author, journal, volume number and date, please. I intend to look them up.
Here, buddy. Read all about it in this thread:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-conservatives-functionally-illiterate/
Then stop trolling this forum, defending the GOP, and get a life.
It's not a paper, it's an article about a paper.
It's not numerous, it's one.
It's not proven, it's a conjecture by the paper's author.
It doesn't say anything abut anybody's ability to understand basic logic.
The author of the article doesn't even think he agrees with the conjecture.
The paper's author admits that the evidence for his conjecture is pretty skimpy.
Got any double blind studies you'd care to share? This article doesn't prove much of anything.
You're pretty fuckin' thin-skinned for a political activist, my friend. Grow up.
Let me tell you how it works: I find studies that confirm my predetermined conclusions, claim any cross-examination of the theory is an "attack", reject all counter-theories as bias, and call it "science!"
Yay! O-bomb-ya 2012! Baaa-aaah!
a third party would rise
That's fine as well. A majority of people support our ideas, so releasing them from their partisan sheepery would result in OWS victories at the polls.
Someone please tell me how this is a bad idea. We need some way to combat voter ID racism.
[Removed]