On line polling...

Surf City Baby

New Member
Re: I did! I did!

Originally posted by Larry Gude
There response?

Well, let me just say I had to edit a few words here an there for family values sake but, they did get back to me quicker than their big pole.

To wit:

"Dear Mr. Killing America,

In response to your negative, partisan attack on all free people, especially us, the new defenders of the faith, we would respectfully ask, wish actually, that you contract a rare, incurable spinal disorder from counting your ill gotten boodle which we know you have amassed on the backs of your employees and by violating all that is nature, all so you can spend idle time waxing poetic about Newt Gingritch and smoking big, fat fake Cuban cigars. Mind your own beeswax.

Our poll is none of your damn business and we will release it when the sign comes from Brother Howard. It is a vote for REAL people, not robber barons, neo cons and other assorted flotsam and jetsam and other rot of human kind. In short, we hope your damn (deleted) falls off and then you can stick it up your (deleted) (deleted) until the friggin poll IS released.

Yours, respectfully,

The staff of

moveonyousuckassgoper.org
Project much, Larry? :wink:
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
Finally, the results of the write in vote might surprise some of our more staunch GOP members. See the bottom of the page found at the MoveOn.org link above.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Hmmm...

You gotta be kidding me! Not one, not one single vote for W?

Oh, wait..."other": 6121

or this one:

Top write ins:

Al Gore 786 0.24%
Hillary Clinton 592 0.19%

1.6 million members, 300,000 votes????

Hell, the general population as a whole does better than that with some 200,000,000 people eligible in 2000 about 50% did.

It is a sad day for participation.

Sigh.

Still, the good news is Howard, realistically, is the man.

How much is everybody gonna shell out?

God, I love this country.

For comparisons sake, larryforkingoftheworld.com held a poll last night and 100% of the membership (me) voted and...

Results will be released when we get them all tabulated...he he he

Stand by!
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
Originally posted by Larry Gude
You gotta be kidding me! Not one, not one single vote for W?
Mm-hmm... I'm not surprised. Why are you (ostensibly)? Why would any member of an organization this far to the left vote for a Republican president in a contest intended to rate its members' preference from among the declared Democratic candidates?

Larry, on your top write-ins, you missed one. Someone got more than twice the write-ins that Gore & Clinton received combined. Why leave someone out who obviously draws far more interest? Feel free to answer.
Still, the good news is Howard, realistically, is the man.
Nah, I don't think Dean will be nominated, but if he is, I don't think President Bush will have the walk you seem to expect.
"It is a sad day for participation."
:rolleyes: No, a sad day for participation is when 15-20% of registered voters turn out in a local real election, let alone the frequently low numbers during real primaries & general elections.

Maybe active participants in our form of government (like you & me) should work harder to get out the vote. What do you say? Do you have co-workers, fellow church members, neighbors, friends, family members who you know do not vote? Talk to them. Ask for a few minutes from the pulpit next sunday; ask for a few lines in the company bulletin. Throw a bbq on your street and have voter registration affidavits next to the beer cooler. Let's not just b!tch about low voter turnout. Let's do what we can about it.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Surf City Baby
:rolleyes: No, a sad day for participation is when 15-20% of registered voters turn out in a local real election, let alone the frequently low numbers during real primaries & general elections.

Maybe active participants in our form of government (like you & me) should work harder to get out the vote. What do you say? Do you have co-workers, fellow church members, neighbors, friends, family members who you know do not vote? Talk to them. Ask for a few minutes from the pulpit next sunday; ask for a few lines in the company bulletin. Throw a bbq on your street and have voter registration affidavits next to the beer cooler. Let's not just b!tch about low voter turnout. Let's do what we can about it.
I don't think Larry was "b!tch"ing about actual low voter turnout but the low turnout by this radical group that claims 1.6 million members dedicated to change. Seems, by those numbers, that their bark is certainly worse then their bite.

As to actual elections, data shows that 75% of the voting age population is registered in the USA (2000 data) and that 67% of those registered voted in the last Presidential election. I don't think it is a participation issue, besides voting is a right and not a requirement. Those that do care will vote and those that don't care won't.
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
Originally posted by Surf City Baby

Maybe active participants in our form of government (like you & me) should work harder to get out the vote. What do you say? Do you have co-workers, fellow church members, neighbors, friends, family members who you know do not vote? Talk to them. Ask for a few minutes from the pulpit next sunday; ask for a few lines in the company bulletin. Throw a bbq on your street and have voter registration affidavits next to the beer cooler. Let's not just b!tch about low voter turnout. Let's do what we can about it.
Nope - I like voter turnout the way it is, for one big reason - I don't want to herd people to the polls who haven't bothered to take the time to learn about the candidates and make an informed choice. Maybe that works for Democrats - but I don't want someone who neither cares nor is informed making such a crucial decision as voting. It's way too important.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
What Frank said. Actually, I think LESS people should be voting. I think if you're on the public dole, you shouldn't be able to vote.
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
Originally posted by Frank
Nope - I like voter turnout the way it is, for one big reason - I don't want to herd people to the polls who haven't bothered to take the time to learn about the candidates and make an informed choice. Maybe that works for Democrats [cheap shot] - but I don't want someone who neither cares nor is informed making such a crucial decision as voting. It's way too important.
You assume that an increase in the numbers of voters automatically means that those voters will not educate themselves before voting? :rolleyes:

Do you honestly have a problem with people attempting to drum up more voters? You're satisfied with less than 50% turnout? I think it's appalling. Apathy can kill the process.

Do you have a problem knowing that some people strongly encourage their registered friends simply not to blow off their civic duty on election day? If not, would you talk to your friends about not blowing it off? Would you attempt to encourage your friends to vote? Would you do so regardless of your friends' party affiliation?

IMO someone who cares enough to vote usually is not going to do it without educating themselves as to what the issues are, who the candidates are, and what's at stake. It seems that it's already the ignorant -- registered or not -- who are not voting.

But among the ignorant are, no doubt, a few who are willing to be educated.
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Actually, I think LESS people should be voting.
Why?
I think if you're on the public dole, you shouldn't be able to vote.
Good lord, why? I grew up on the dole. My stepfather, definitely part of the problem, worked the system instead of working. But if you had your way, my mother would never have voted, and I probably would have grown up ignorant of the system and my duty.

FYI & FWIW, he was a Republican, she an independent; he rarely voted, she only missed an election when she was too sick to go to the polls. Contrary to the opinion apparently held by some, party affiliation has nothing to do with the sense of civic responsibility.

Why do you think people on welfare should be denied the right to vote?
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
– Alexander Tytler
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
Originally posted by Surf City Baby
You assume that an increase in the numbers of voters automatically means that those voters will not educate themselves before voting? :rolleyes:
Exactly. Got it in one. Bravo.

I've seen drives like them, and I've seen efforts to get people to the polls. A large portion have NO idea what they are doing. They *might* know who is running. None have ever read the referendum issues before. The old polling machines used to have a lever for voting ALL on party, and people did use it.

I don't want to encourage people to vote who can take the time to get a driver's license, which is appalingly easy, but won't make the effort to register to vote, which is just as easy. I don't want morons who can name the winners of American Idol or Survivor but can't tell you who their Congressman or Senator is. They should inform themselves but an unofficial poll of the people I know who don't vote shows they don't. If someone chooses to be apathetic, they should not make an uninformed choice.

All of the voters in Florida who were to use the famous 'butterfly' ballot had a sample sent to them in the mail, but there were STILL people who had no idea how to use it, even though it was shown that first grade children could figure it out. Do you suppose it's because they made no effort to read it?



Do you honestly have a problem with people attempting to drum up more voters? You're satisfied with less than 50% turnout? I think it's appalling. Apathy can kill the process.
[/B]


I think it is appalling that that many have so little interest - but I can't change that. Getting such people to the polls is a bad thing, and at worst, manipulative. How easy it would be to corral a bunch of people who don't know what the issues are, get them to the polls to vote how *I* want them to vote?

Maybe you've hit on a scheme - I should just bus elderly people from their nursing homes, show them who to vote for, and get more votes that way? Except that people DO this already - exploit the feeble-minded to get more votes. It's vicious.



Do you have a problem knowing that some people strongly encourage their registered friends simply not to blow off their civic duty on election day? If not, would you talk to your friends about not blowing it off? Would you attempt to encourage your friends to vote? Would you do so regardless of your friends' party affiliation?
[/B]


I do this. Why not? It is important to me. And I have. Those that don't vote tell me the same thing - it doesn't matter who you vote for. I don't want THEM to vote.


IMO someone who cares enough to vote usually is not going to do it without educating themselves as to what the issues are, who the candidates are, and what's at stake. It seems that it's already the ignorant -- registered or not -- who are not voting.
[/B]


I don't agree. Voting is easy. Finding out what the issues are, is EASY. Making an informed choice is EASY. I can encourage, but I don't want drives of people pouring into booths having no idea what they're doing.

I have a friend in Australia who tells me that voting there is mandatory - you are fined if you don't show up at the polls. Most voters there also have no idea why they are going - they just go to avoid a fine, and cast a ballot. They get high voter turnout, but it doesn't mean they know what they're doing.

You know what? I never saw a minute of American Idol. I couldn't care less. They had telephone voting, as I recall - viewers voted. What would it have been like, if I could have gotten thousands of non-viewers to show up the night of the broadcast and cast a vote, without having EVER seen the performers? Same thing.

It is way too easy to vote. If you can't be bothered to try, I don't want you there on Election Day.


But among the ignorant are, no doubt, a few who are willing to be educated. [/B]


Which is what we do - educate them. A newspaper costs very little. I'm not an evangelist. The information is out there.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Brilliant!

You know what? I never saw a minute of American Idol. I couldn't care less. They had telephone voting, as I recall - viewers voted. What would it have been like, if I could have gotten thousands of non-viewers to show up the night of the broadcast and cast a vote, without having EVER seen the performers? Same thing.
Damn, Frank. Trying to kill the thread with the last possible word?

Good job!

Be with you in a few, Surf...
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
OK dokie SCB...

...I got a few minutes finally!

#1...

Larry, on your top write-ins, you missed one. Someone got more than twice the write-ins that Gore & Clinton received combined. Why leave someone out who obviously draws far more interest? Feel free to answer.
Ever hear of George Brinton McClellan? It is one thing for a soldier to gain local popularity as a Democrat or Republican. Take Bob Dole...please... (ba dump AH). Or even Ike. Not exactly Goldwater types. It is another thing to gain the national stage as soldier and a Democrat. There are to many solidly anti-military and anti-US factions (one in the same actually) of the Democratic party for a soldier to be able to pull it off.

Look at Howard. Totally pro 2nd amendment; the clear individual right to keep and bear (bare?). Lions, tigers and bears...nevermind...He gets much more popular he willl be FORCED to become Chuck Shummers cousin on the issue.

I simply didn't mention Clark because y'all will never have him. Not as he is. He could help win the South I suppose, maybe as a Veep? I don't think he is looking to be a #2 guy behind anyone in the current field. I could be wrong.

#2

Nah, I don't think Dean will be nominated, but if he is, I don't think President Bush will have the walk you seem to expect.
Please don't mistake my arrogance and snide remarks as anything other than having some fun with you. I like they way you express yourself. The horrors of 1991 will never leave my memory, so, there will be no taking for granted from me!

As far as Dean goes, the thing is he truly represents serious thought and feelings on your side. I may think it all nuts but I respect the honesty. Support what you believe in. That, respect, is why we so vehemently tossed Trent over board. He is not who we are and we make that clear as possible.

#3

Maybe active participants in our form of government (like you & me) should work harder to get out the vote. What do you say? Do you have co-workers, fellow church members, neighbors, friends, family members who you know do not vote? Talk to them. Ask for a few minutes from the pulpit next Sunday; ask for a few lines in the company bulletin. Throw a bbq on your street and have voter registration affidavits next to the beer cooler. Let's not just b!tch about low voter turnout. Let's do what we can about it.
Voting is a civic right, privilege and, to me, a duty. Not everybody, in this free nation, feels that way. I think Frank covers my feelings very well. If somebody has so little respect for the whole system, our system, why in the world would anyone, you or me, want somebody like that to actually vote other than self interest; the morons may vote my way!?

I've got family members whom I especially adore, 4 people in particular, who don't vote. The really ironic part is that if somebody said that one them, any one of them including my Union bro in law, was to be President tomorrow, I'd go for it in a heart beat without reservation. Maybe I am the one who is nuts and "waste" my time caring about politics? Nope. I respect them just a bit less for their apathy.

Mr. King opined:

I don't think Larry was "b!tch"ing about actual low voter turnout but the low turnout by this radical group that claims 1.6 million members dedicated to change. Seems, by those numbers, that their bark is certainly worse then their bite.
Rodger that.

Last thought for now...

But among the ignorant are, no doubt, a few who are willing to be educated.
Education in my ever so humble opinion is something you DO. You educate yourself.

Education that happens TO you, to BE educated, is indoctrination. You may or may not agree, but you HAVE to follow it.

Quibbling? I don't think so!

:cheers:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Surf City Baby
Why do you think people on welfare should be denied the right to vote?
SurfaceTension summed it up quite nicely. Anyone who is a ward of the State, like welfare recipients and incarcerated individuals, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I'd actually go as far as saying you have to take a test to prove you know what you're talking about before you can register to vote. If you can't name your local officials or what the various candidates are touting, you shouldn't be able to cast a vote because you're too ignorant.
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
hey, Larry

Originally posted by Larry Gude
It is one thing for a soldier to gain local popularity as a Democrat or Republican. . . . It is another thing to gain the national stage as soldier and a Democrat. There are to many solidly anti-military and anti-US factions (one in the same actually) of the Democratic party for a soldier to be able to pull it off. . . . I simply didn't mention Clark because y'all will never have him. Not as he is.
Agreed, and the thought of Clark as a viable candidate wasn't my point. He's not a viable candidate, and I never thought he was.

My point, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer, is that although someone--anyone--got more than twice the write-in votes of Al Gore & Hillary Clinton combined, you failed to mention the fact. I was just surprised to see both of those non-viable candidates singled out, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why you'd do that. :wink:
Look at Howard. Totally pro 2nd amendment; the clear individual right to keep and bear (bare?). Lions, tigers and bears...nevermind...He gets much more popular he willl be FORCED to become Chuck Shummers cousin on the issue.
Howard Dean is not going to be the Democrats' candidate.* If he were, though, I doubt he'd compromise his stand on the 2nd Amendment. He doesn't strike me as the compromising type--at least not that big a compromise.

I disagree w/ Dean on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm still supporting him through the primary because I believe he's the best of the field for the job. My other half is supporting Kerry. Go figure.
Please don't mistake my arrogance and snide remarks as anything other than having some fun with you. I like they way you express yourself. The horrors of 1991 will never leave my memory, so, there will be no taking for granted from me!
I appreciate that. I can get that way too, and it's never personal. (I'm still trying to get over '00 and '02, so I know how you feel.)
As far as Dean goes, the thing is he truly represents serious thought and feelings on your side. I may think it all nuts but I respect the honesty. Support what you believe in. That, respect, is why we so vehemently tossed Trent over board. He is not who we are and we make that clear as possible.
I felt you respected Dean. Where I work, he is more derided than Al Sharpton, because of his stand on equal rights for gay Americans. It makes me mad--that with everything he has to contribute, the man is dismissed solely because of that stand for what is right--and it makes me sad.

I work in a law firm in DC. I'm one of the few Democrats (and a nobody, just a drone) on a floor largely peopled by DITW Republicans, including Bush-Cheney '04 National Counsel, and one of the attorneys I work for, Stuart, just left 8 years of service to W, in the gov's mansion & WH. Before Stuart joined the firm, I worked for the attorney who just left the firm to become Chief Counsel on the Senate Rules Committee--Trent's committee. I'm surrounded by people who work for the GOP. I admire that they work for what they believe in. Although I don't earn a living at it, so do I. (Other floors have mainly Democrats, but I really wouldn't want to move.) And of course we're all friendly with each other. (Except for last Thursday, I got some of the weirdest looks, and NO customary hallway greeting from one top guy... I just can't figure that out... :wink:)

Voting is a civic right, privilege and, to me, a duty. [my comment: I couldn't agree more.] . . . . If somebody has so little respect for the whole system, our system, why in the world would anyone, you or me, want somebody like that to actually vote other than self interest; the morons may vote my way!?
Again, I must not have made my point clear. People learn. People change. I concede that they learn best when they arrive at it by themselves. I've known people, though, who needed an impetus.

I used to tutor semi-illiterate adults in English (not ESL). I used American government lessons, simplified to the student's reading level, as some of my materials. I had about 25 students over two years. A little less than half of them asked me more--apart from the materials--about how to vote. Nine wound up registering to vote. And two asked me to go with them on their first visit to the polls--after two lessons in which we went over their sample ballots. They did most of the reading; we had a dictionary at hand so they could look up words. They made up their own minds, then they voted.

I see your points to an extent (although I'm not comprehending Vraiblonde's belief that welfare recipients should be denied the right to vote--do you agree?) but I maintain that actively attempting to register new voters is not a vain activity.

I'm enjoying our dialog.

* Dean and Kucinich led the MoveOn.org "primary" because they took solid stands against the war in Iraq. Kerry fared so poorly because he was in favor of it. MoveOn.org worked loudly against that war. It stands to reason that most MoveOn.org members would vote for those who did not support the war.
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde Anyone who is a ward of the State, like welfare recipients and incarcerated individuals, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The incarcerated have already had their right to vote revoked, as you know.

Welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote because they receive their sustenance from the state. Vrai, I'm sorry, I hope you won't lose your patience with me on this issue, but you'll have to explain this as you would to a child, as I'm having a hard time comprehending why. Perhaps you see a fundamental conflict of interest?
I'd actually go as far as saying you have to take a test to prove you know what you're talking about before you can register to vote. If you can't name your local officials or what the various candidates are touting, you shouldn't be able to cast a vote because you're too ignorant.
I hope you're not too disappointed that I'm not going to touch this. Suffice to say it's late, and I've only about 15 minutes to bedtime.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Surf City Baby
I hope you're not too disappointed that I'm not going to touch this. Suffice to say it's late, and I've only about 15 minutes to bedtime.
Okay, you're refreshed! Touch away! :lol:

Perhaps you see a fundamental conflict of interest?
I just think that people who are too irresponsible to manage their lives so that they have to become adult wards of the State shouldn't be trusted with the responsiblity of voting. Once you get off the dole, you are now a fully functioning independent citizen and can exercise your privilege to vote again.

We don't let children vote. We don't let inmates vote. Not sure if we let mentally retarded people vote or not - but we shouldn't if they're severely incapacitated. They're not responsible enough to make an educated decision.

That's why, if I were Supreme Dictator, I'd make people take a test to make sure they know what they're talking about and not just checking the R or D by rote.
 

Surf City Baby

New Member
not intending to start a welfare debate...

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I just think that people who are too irresponsible to manage their lives so that they have to become adult wards of the State shouldn't be trusted with the responsiblity of voting. Once you get off the dole, you are now a fully functioning independent citizen and can exercise your privilege to vote again.
I don't know if it's because I grew up on welfare, or because there was a time that I needed the help myself, but I strongly disagree.

It's not always a matter of irresponsibility. In my stepfather's case, it was. In mine, it wasn't. In my sister's, it wasn't.

Say there's a law that welfare recipients are denied the right to vote. Many wouldn't care. I'd be willing to concede that more than 50% wouldn't care.

The remainder do care. The people on welfare who are there because life fell apart around them, because they married poorly and have awakened to the fact, because their health disintegrated, etc., etc.... they (rightly IMO) feel a right's been terminated without good cause.

I see your point about why the irresponsible and ignorant would waste their votes an potentially muck up entire elections. But I honestly do not believe that is a good enough reason to deny the right to vote to all welfare recipients.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
SCB...

...you work in the belly of the beast, DC. A place where a lapel pin can mean the difference between a quarter million dollar salary and going back to Peoria to work at the co-op. I think it is illegal to have an actual conversation in that town. You are either this OR that, period, end of sentence, yes?

I felt you respected Dean. Where I work, he is more derided than Al Sharpton, because of his stand on equal rights for gay Americans. It makes me mad--that with everything he has to contribute, the man is dismissed solely because of that stand for what is right--and it makes me sad.
My issue with Dean is he is flat out wrong about Iraq and "Tara". We must fight. We must stand up and make it clear that we will come kill you and everybody like you if you attack our people.

Terror is almost always about narrow issues; religion or specific political goals. Well, the US, as a whole, cannot be said to give a crap about Islam or troops in Mecca and Medinah. Yes, we have people who would love to see Islam leave the middle ages. Yes we have people hostile to the middle east in general and Arabs in particular. We also have people who ARE Muslim, people who have great love for Arab peoples and don't like Israel. We also have people who care about everybody and people who care about nobody.

And that, the melting pot, is what our attackers miss. You cannot deal with us on a specific issue soley because we, unlike their culture, are way to diverse for specifics to matter.

Osama meant to attack THE "Great Satan". Instead, he attacked gays, straights, Jews, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, old white guys, recent immigrants, new immigrants, black, white, yellow, atheists, people from around the globe and all walks of life, men women, children, soldiers and pacifists...to wit, he attacked Americans and that is not a "THE". It is a "we".

There is no greater indictment of how shallow their understanding is of freedom. There is no greater compliment as to the success of our nation, founded on a Declaration backed up by a Constitution and given life by the representative, judicial and executive branches of our system, all run by we, the people.

We have enemies and they will kill us because that is all they know. That's how it works in their world.

THAT is my issue with Dean.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Geez, Baby - you're busier than a one-armed paper hanger today. :lol:
The people on welfare who are there because life fell apart around them, because they married poorly and have awakened to the fact, because their health disintegrated, etc., etc.... they (rightly IMO) feel a right's been terminated without good cause.
Those are choices - you can CHOOSE who to marry, CHOOSE to let your health decline. And once they get their lives back in order, they can vote again. But while they're making such poor personal choices, I have to really question letting them influence who our elected officials are.

Some will disagree but you'd have to be pretty unhealthy to not be able to earn your way. My friend is paralyzed from the waist down and he owns a restaurant. You see mentally retarded kids working in the community all the time.

Most of our welfare recipients in this country are people who are fully capable of working and earning their keep - they CHOOSE not to. So why would we let them vote for people who will keep taxing the hell out of the rest of us so they can stay home and pop out children?

I think voting should be a privilege, not a right.
 
Top