Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

No Vote VS Uneducated Vote


AsksWhy

No Vote VS Uneducated Vote  

10 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The left is impotent in government, that's all I care about, private it private, private interests which jump on board with the left as it is now, are doing themselves harm, more power to them.

....

Anybody who thinks Liz Warren could get any of her commie crap enacted, is delusional, she would have to sell her base out, and then they would blame her for it

Unfortunately there's more and more commies being elected in the Democratic party.  AOC and her cohorts.  Warren or Bernie's socialist ideas may not have much of a chance now but that day is getting closer every election, it's coming...

The nonsense of the Green New Deal would never have seen the light of day 10 years ago, now it's supported by a pocket of the Democrats.  Soon enough a majority of the party would support something like it.  Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Unfortunately there's more and more commies being elected in the Democratic party.  AOC and her cohorts.  Warren or Bernie's socialist ideas may not have much of a chance now but that day is getting closer every election, it's coming...

The nonsense of the Green New Deal would never have seen the light of day 10 years ago, now it's supported by a pocket of the Democrats.  Soon enough a majority of the party would support something like it.  Good grief.

Doesn't bother me.  Money talks and bullshit walks, the Democommies are going nowhere.

The Democrats will remain the wilderness until they jettison their commie wing.

The only Democrat who can beat Trump, is Tulsi Gabbard maybe, and Hillary just called her a "Russian Asset", the Democrats are flailing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Doesn't bother me.  Money talks and bullshit walks, the Democommies are going nowhere.

The Democrats will remain the wilderness until they jettison their commie wing.

The only Democrat who can beat Trump, is Tulsi Gabbard maybe, and Hillary just called her a "Russian Asset", the Democrats are flailing.

Tulsi Gabbard is decent.  Biden's an idiot plus his age is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Tulsi Gabbard is decent. 

The Democrats won't let her run.

But that is the model that gets them out of the wilderness.

They are trapped in the Blue districts, they can't win anywhere in the Red.

Tulsi is a Democrat I could vote for and my Red State buddies would also.  Tulsi Battle Angel, we love her.

It's not like we love Trump,  Trump is a cuck too, Trump was simply the means of stopping Hillary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They did let her run, she's polled poorly though.

I like her too.  She's a badass.

She polled poorly because the party is taken over by Antifa. 

If it was the Democrat Party of JFK she would win.  She's Lady JFK.

The old school Democrats are Republicans now, they lost the Blue Collars, all they have left is the SJWs

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

She polled poorly because the party is taken over by Antifa. 

If it was the Democrat Party of JFK she would win.  She's Lady JFK.

The old school Democrats are Republicans now, they lost the Blue Collars, all they have left is the SJWs

The party rigs the polls?  The democrats didn't want Bernie to win and he came out of nowhere to get uncomfortably close to catching Hillary in 2016.

It's really hard to come from nowhere, especially with a bunch of popular candidates this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The party rigs the polls?  The democrats didn't want Bernie to win and he came out of nowhere to get uncomfortably close to catching Hillary in 2016.

It's really hard to come from nowhere, especially with a bunch of popular candidates this time.

They don't rig the polls, the party has simply been forced to the far left, because their traditional base went GOP when Trump stole the traditional Democrat platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Trump is not a conservative.

He's a big government interventionist liberal.

He's just an old school liberal, pre-SJW.

The liberals in America used to be protectionist and anti immigration, to prop up the unions and industrial base.

Trump comes in and steals that for the GOP.

The Blue Collars in the Rust Belt flipped to Trump.

The Democrats have been reduced to the urban tranny commie party by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The millennial blowhards who dominate twitter have bullied/convinced the Democrats to shift hard to the left because of all their outrage.  Meanwhile, many millennials don't even bother voting while old people come out in droves and hardly use twitter.

Millennials will shift to the right as they age.  

Every generation does. 

When you are young you don't have capital, you don't own property, you don't pay much tax.

In the future, Millenials will be the OWG's and there will be a new generation of bitch whiny kids to annoy them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Again, Trump is not a conservative.

He's a big government interventionist liberal.

He's just an old school liberal, pre-SJW.

The liberals in America used to be protectionist and anti immigration, to prop up the unions and industrial base.

Trump comes in and steals that for the GOP.

The Blue Collars in the Rust Belt flipped to Trump.

The Democrats have been reduced to the urban tranny commie party by default.

Trump is a conservative on certain issues.  He's not a traditional republican, not a Reagan republican,  and not a neocon. "Make America Great Again" is a conservative slogan by nature, so conservative its reactionary actually, he doesn't want to conserve the status quo he wants to bring us back to "the good old days".

He has some old-school liberal leanings, pretty isolationist on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Millennials will shift to the right as they age.  

Every generation does. 

When you are young you don't have capital, you don't own property, you don't pay much tax.

In the future, Millenials will be the OWG's and there will be a new generation of bitch whiny kids to annoy them.

 

Agreed.  And the left keeps shifting more and more left with each generation.  As do conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When an American says they are conservative, that means classically liberal.  

It's to the left of Canada, which is a monarchy. 

Canada is to the left of the House of Bourbon, but the House of Windsor is still to the right of the American republic.

Progressive is not liberal at all, Progressive is a euphemism for small c communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far. It's been interesting to read all the comments.

It's impressive how one question and a simple poll blossomed into what it did. However, now that we've gone to Gramma's house, are we ever coming back?

I'm starting to get the feeling that the original question and poll are so small picture that they are irrelevant in the grand scope. This is fine, but by not answering the question directly, I get the impression that the vote doesn't really matter at all. Is this what I am hearing? If so, why do so many people put so much energy into this strange game? Are there not better things for us to do with our time?

Edited by AsksWhy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Exegesisme
      Should I Vote in the Coming Election for Such a Person?​
      By Exegesisme
      In Canada, the coming federal election is both for the parties and the leaders of the parties, is both for the legislative branch and for the executive branch, is both for the positions of MPs and the position of PM, is both for the policies of the parties and the morality and ethics of the representatives. As a Canadian, my vote is so functional that I should vote with more discretion, prudence, and scrutiny.
      However, the so plentiful function of my vote can only be voted to one of the candidates who runs for the seat in the House of Commons which will be assigned to the winner in the constituency in which I live. No matter who is the possible winner, she or he has not much relation to me after the coming election, she or he will vote in the House of Commons on the will of the leader of her or his party, not on the will of me, not on the will of these voters who vote for her or him in the constituency where I live, not on the will of all the voters in the constituency where I live, and even not on the will of herself or himself.
      Should I vote in the coming election for such a person? As she or he votes in the House of Commons, she or he ignores her or his own will, ignores my will, ignores the will of the voters in the last election who made her or him elected, ignores the will of the voters in the next election she or he will asks for support, ignores her or his own will, and only obey the will of the party leader for fearing punish from the leader, or fearing expected award not from the leader.
    • By marcus
      Although Conservatives like to drone on like robots about how Stephen Harper is a "steady hand on the wheel" of the economy, that myth is increasingly hard to square with reality.
      Not only does a recent poll suggest Harper's reputation as a competent manager of the economy has plummeted, a new analysis shows Harper with the worst economic record of any Canadian Prime Minister since the end of the Second World War.
      Here is how Harper's economic record fares against the others:
      Annual Average Growth in Employment: 1% - Worst Average Annual Real GDP Growth: 1.6% - Worst
      Change in Employment Rate: -1.4 pts - Second worst
      Average Unemployment Rate: 7.1 - Sixth of Nine
      Labour Force Participation Rate: -1% - Worst
      Average Annual Growth in Youth Employment: -0.3% - Second worst
      Index of Job Quality: 87.2 - Worst
      Average Annual Growth in Real GDP per Capita: 0.4% - Worst
      Average Annual Growth in Real Business Non-Residential Capital Spending: 2.5% - Second worst
      Average Annual Growth in Real Exports: 0.3% - Worst
      Average Annual Growth in Labour Productivity: 0.9% - Second worst
      Average Annual Growth of Real Personal Income per Capita: 0.9% - Second worst
      Change in Net Federal Debt as Share of GDP: 0.9% - Sixth of Nine This statistical review confirms that it is far-fetched to suggest that Canada’s economy has been well-managed during the Harper government’s time in office. To the contrary, there is no other time in Canada’s postwar economic history in which Canada’s performance has performed worse than it did under the Harper government.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...