Well, I Have to Vote for SOMEONE

[Adre]

...but Jon Stewart was a sage purveyor of "news?"


George Carlin and Penn Gillette have earned a level of credibility on political discourse that the Sean Penns of the world have not.

I'm not a big fan but why is an actor who appears to be an involved citizen not able to join the political discussion?

 

[sr71plt]

Are you saying that George doesn't make perfect sense? And he's a philosopher,BTW, not a comic. You have pretty high standards for your candidates. Eating a baby,SMH.

George Carlin doesn't do much of anything anymore. He's been dead for eight years.

As far as voting, if your political values are so particular that you don't think you can vote in a U.S. election this time, don't. The U.S. (In contrast to, say, Australia, I think), gives you that privilege. But it's really your, problem, I think. It isn't anyone's responsibility here to hold your hand.

 

[clistenovena]

There's got to be someone, somewhere who has the best interests of ALL our citizens at heart. Someone who would not divide us and pit us against each other.

Sometimes I feel this very way, and want to believe that there is someone out there like this. Then I remember that unicorns don't exist. Not in this realm anyway.

Or are you afraid that she would fuck interns in the Oval Office?

I'm probably more afraid Bill will. Or at least try. Ick.

So. This voting thing. I'm supposed to vote to "make my voice heard." Because it's my civic duty. Because we have a military that battles to protect our right to vote. Because it's the "right" thing to do. Because, according to my uncle, "We're American citizens, dammit, and that's what we do!" I get all that and can appreciate the ideology in varying degrees.

I just wish those useless politicians got all that. As another poster said, it's too bad that the choices won't include "none of the above."

 

[Hypoxia]

I long ago proposed that ballots have both a none-of-the-above option for all candidates and an exit-poll option for incumbents.

* None Of The Above (NOTA): If nobody gets a majority, run again with the top 2 and NOTA. If nobody beats the NOTA vote, everybody is scrubbed; try again. This would lead to many follow-up elections and varied candidates. Exercise the franchise so much that it wears out!

* Exit Poll: Each incumbent, even those not running for re-election, has a box next to their name: Live or Die. Any ousted incumbent who gets more Die votes is summarily executed. (I recommend they be tossed into a crocodile den or active volcano.) THAT should motivate the suckers not to piss-off too many voters.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

bernie bernie bernie!!!! why shouldnt everything be free ? i think we shouldnt have to pay for anything!!! everything should be free. plus why do i need to work? isnt everything going to be freee anyways?

bumlicker

 

[Hard_Rom]

Not a bad idea. Government determines what is minimum you need to live and gives it to you for free. You just relinquish your paycheck to the gov to pay for infrastructure and cultural stuff. And good hospitals, which are free. No income inequality. No poor. All basic needs met by your government.

Of course you get a 2 cylinder metal box for a car if no buses near you. And forget about the big screen TV or the Apple whatever version. But you get free medical care and a paycheck for life in a green clean environment full of parks, museums and such.

You want more. Have more kids. Go ahead they don't cost you more you get more to support them.

Oh such a brave new world.

 

[Ramone45]

George Carlin doesn't do much of anything anymore. He's been dead for eight years.

As far as voting, if your political values are so particular that you don't think you can vote in a U.S. election this time, don't. The U.S. (In contrast to, say, Australia, I think), gives you that privilege. But it's really your, problem, I think. It isn't anyone's responsibility here to hold your hand.

I appreciate your concern, but the last thing i need is anyone to hold my hand. My position is that by any standard, none of the people running are qualified to be President of the United States.

 

[srgreene]

All of the candidates are awful and none are qualified to be President.

Along with Ron Paul, I think NOTA (None of the Above) should be an option on the ballot. And Libertarians are trying- against daunting odds- to field a candidate in all 50 states. The Republicrats have things very well sown up ... for themselves.

What do you find "awful" about Cruz or Kasich? What makes you think they are "unqualified"? Both are well qualified, in my opinion, and either should make fine presidents. National Review has endorsed Cruz, Barrons has endorsed Kasich. Unfortunately, America as it stands today is unlikely to select either of them, and, although it pains me to say, deserves what it gets in November.

The problem as I see it is that representative democracy as currently constituted in the USA is not capable of selecting leaders worthy of leading this nation. That bodes ill for our republic.

 

[srgreene]

Listen Up Chump

everything should be free. plus why do i need to work? isnt everything going to be freee anyways?

Because We the Peeple need a chump to provide, and We have selected you to be our chump. The rest of us can hang out on Literotica and make babies but as for you, Get To Work!

 

[Ramone45]

Along with Ron Paul, I think NOTA (None of the Above) should be an option on the ballot. And Libertarians are trying- against daunting odds- to field a candidate in all 50 states. The Republicrats have things very well sown up ... for themselves.

What do you find "awful" about Cruz or Kasich? What makes you think they are "unqualified"? Both are well qualified, in my opinion, and either should make fine presidents. National Review has endorsed Cruz, Barrons has endorsed Kasich. Unfortunately, America as it stands today is unlikely to select either of them, and, although it pains me to say, deserves what it gets in November.

The problem as I see it is that representative democracy as currently constituted in the USA is not capable of selecting leaders worthy of leading this nation. That bodes ill for our republic.

Cruz. He's very hard to get along with. He's fixated on religion too much. He' appears hawkish. I feel he's a divider.
Kasich is intriguing. I don't understand why he hasn't garnered more support. I wish he was more conservative.

 

[JackLuis]

Cruz. He's very hard to get along with. He's fixated on religion too much. He' appears hawkish. I feel he's a divider.
Kasich is intriguing. I don't understand why he hasn't garnered more support. I wish he was more conservative.

He's already hanging on the fringe of the party. How could he be anymore conservative, with out wearing a sheet?

 

[patient1]

That's you. Me, I've been known to vote against somebody.

 

[Sean Renaud]

...but Jon Stewart was a sage purveyor of "news?"


George Carlin and Penn Gillette have earned a level of credibility on political discourse that the Sean Penns of the world have not.

No. Jon Stewart was not a sage purveyor of news. The fact that he and Colbert were more informative than Fox is an indictment of Fox not a complment for two comedians.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm not a big fan but why is an actor who appears to be an involved citizen not able to join the political discussion?

Because Republican Conservative = good....everything else is EVIL bullshit!!

LOL

 

[srgreene]

Cruz. He's very hard to get along with. He's fixated on religion too much. He' appears hawkish. I feel he's a divider. Kasich is intriguing. I don't understand why he hasn't garnered more support. I wish he was more conservative.

Well if Kasich came across as "more conservative", you might well find him to be a "divider". My sense of him is he is quite conservative, but also realizes that politics requires forging coalitions.

I suppose Cruz is "not Mr Nice Guy". I don't see that, in and of itself, as being a problem for a leader. It is not a qualification for president that I happen to "like" him or her, and it is just fine with me if Harry Reid doesn't. As for "fixated on religion"? Well he does appeal to a Christian base, but I haven't seen signs that he wants to impose his religious point of view on others (unless you are one of the people who consider those who try to defend the rights of the not-yet-born to be trying to impose their religious beliefs on others).

Regarding Cruz, allow me to quote from National Review's endorsement of Ted Cruz:

===============================================
He forthrightly defends religious liberty, the right to life of unborn children, and the role of marriage in connection children to their parents- causes that reduce too many other Republicans to mumbling.

That forthrightness is worth emphasizing. Conservatism should not be merely combative; , but especially in our political culture, it must be willing to be controversial.
=================================================

Cruz would make an excellent president. America, sadly, does not deserve such a leader.

 

[JackLuis]

Well if Kasich came across as "more conservative", you might well find him to be a "divider". My sense of him is he is quite conservative, but also realizes that politics requires forging coalitions.
-
Cruz would make an excellent president. America, sadly, does not deserve such a leader.

Cruz would be a disaster as President. His fundamentalism would make him dangerous to anyone who disagreed with his fundy hogwash. The Neo-Cons would control his twisted sense of righteousness and start another war for the Greater Glory of Lockheed/DOW/General Dynamics.

I've never heard him promote an original idea of his own. He just reads the scripts of his fundy RWNJ bosses and hopes his bombast will sell.

Kasich might be better, at least he wouldn't burn the house down.