What pisses me off

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
One of my best friends works for me, and as is the norm, I found a way to bitch about our terrific leadership in Washington DC. And then my buddy starts trying to have an opinion. I don't give two fucks what his opinion is. Let me tell you why...HE DIDN'T VOTE. If you don't vote, in my eyes, you are entitled to as much of an opinion as my neighbors dog. Am I the only one this erks? I don't care if your opinion differs from mine(I mean I may think your a fucking idiot) but it's our right to have whatever opinion we want. So long as you speak up and do your part to represent that opinion.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Government doesnt want you to vote, he did exactly what they want. As of the right to complain, everyone does. Just because he didn't vote. People make protest votes that they know have zero chance of even getting a single electoral vote, should they not be allowed to complain? They didn't play ball either. Why does punching a ticket mean suddenly you're free to bitch, when most people don't even know who or what the fuck they're voting on, and just do what they're told and if all else fails go by what letter is by the name.

Most voters are fucking retarded and their opinion reflects that. That's why our system is how it is, play to the majority.
 

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I have a different school of thought.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
If you pay taxes you have the right to bitch, have an opinion and speak your mind. Not voting doesn't take that away.
 

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Listen Blue, u have an opinion that differs from mine, and that's all good, but I don't need an essay about why what I said is wrong. A simple smart ass remark would have sufised. I have little doubt about your political passion as well as knowledge, hell, I believe I've even asked your opinion about a candidate before because I respect that. But dude, u gotta check yourself. I've noticed, anything that has a political tone, just sets you off.
 

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
This wasn't me breaking a rule. This was me just bitching. I never took a side. I never backed a politician or a single political issue. I simply talked about someone not voting and then being upset about results.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
You'll agree, though, that it was inevitably going to lead to a political discussion. I don't care, myself. It's not my board to make those decisions anymore. I just try to avoid those kinds of discussions because there's too big a divide between people when it comes to that stuff. And once people start to get pissed at each other, it carries over to the other (more important) parts of the board.
 

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
I agree that I shouldn't have even put it. At the time I didn't think it would spin to political shit. But I fully understand and am fine with its deletion.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Listen Blue, u have an opinion that differs from mine, and that's all good, but I don't need an essay about why what I said is wrong. A simple smart ass remark would have sufised. I have little doubt about your political passion as well as knowledge, hell, I believe I've even asked your opinion about a candidate before because I respect that. But dude, u gotta check yourself. I've noticed, anything that has a political tone, just sets you off.

Don't get so sensitive about it, I was going to just explain why if you didn't understand. There's plenty of history and fact to those stances and why the Government operates the way it does. Its more complicated and calculated than many people think, and different governments do things differently to achieve the results most favorable to them.
 

Mister Sin

Your friendly neighborhood fat guy!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,369
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
That wasn't at all what I was getting at when I started the post. I just PERSONALLY don't like people complaining when they didn't even bother doing anything they could to change it.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,929
Name
Stu
I understand both sides of this question but when there is not a candidate in a race that I feel is any better than the other and I don't like either choice, I will sometimes not vote in that race. I still exercise my right to vote in virtually everything else but if I feel neither candidate deserves my vote, they don't get my vote.

As to the gov't not wanting you to vote.... I would agree only so much that CANDIDATES and political parties don't want those, who in blocks would likely vote against them, to vote.

There is a reason for the system being set up the way it is. A simple majority would generally mean that the cities - even more than they do today - would dictate the nation's politics. It's actually a shame that densely populated areas control state and local politics now. In Oregon, for example, a state wide race is almost assured that it will go the way Multnomah and Lane counties vote - even though the issue is mostly relevant to farm land or rural issues.

But we could go on and on here. The thread was begging for politics to rear its ugly head and sorry Blue but I'm not sure you helped by jumping ugly right out of the gate.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I understand both sides of this question but when there is not a candidate in a race that I feel is any better than the other and I don't like either choice, I will sometimes not vote in that race. I still exercise my right to vote in virtually everything else but if I feel neither candidate deserves my vote, they don't get my vote.

As to the gov't not wanting you to vote.... I would agree only so much that CANDIDATES and political parties don't want those, who in blocks would likely vote against them, to vote.

There is a reason for the system being set up the way it is. A simple majority would generally mean that the cities - even more than they do today - would dictate the nation's politics. It's actually a shame that densely populated areas control state and local politics now. In Oregon, for example, a state wide race is almost assured that it will go the way Multnomah and Lane counties vote - even though the issue is mostly relevant to farm land or rural issues.

But we could go on and on here. The thread was begging for politics to rear its ugly head and sorry Blue but I'm not sure you helped by jumping ugly right out of the gate.

Eh, it pisses me off. Just staying on topic afterall.

The voting system was intentionally designed to discourage voting, and they've only doubled down on that stance since then. As for the simple majority, there's pros and cons to that. A major flaw in the electoral for example is that a state like Wyoming a vote is worth more than someone in California based on the population to electoral numbers. But if you truly followed population then California then their electoral power would be far too great. It's more unfair to have the minority hold more power than the majority.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Yeah Juggs it bothers me too, Les is right the right to bitch is undeniable but paying taxes or not you still have to live with the decisions so you always have the right , but voting makes it apparent that you are about more than just bitching and no one wants to hear someone bitch who isn't about doing what they can to change what it is they are bitching about
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,929
Name
Stu
Not sure where you are coming from on this: "The voting system was intentionally designed to discourage voting, and they've only doubled down on that stance since then."

Care to elaborate?

As far as the minority having more power than the majority, it generally still doesn't work that way. Being that a state like CA - for example throws all it's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the state, a huge advantage is placed on states with large metro areas. Though CA is largely split on liberal/conservative issues and candidates, it acts to discount a much greater number of votes than are found in the entire state of Wyoming (to follow your example).

It very rarely happens that the winner of the popular vote does not also take the electoral vote. And when it does, it is by a very small margin. I would take that any day over the idea that three or four states and in particular about 10 metro areas would dictate the politics for the entire nation.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Well when the voting system was first designed, they wanted to essentially make it so only white male landowners could vote, because many felt that those would be the only ones who had the time to follow politics to know what was going on, hence why they made the day of voting in November on a Tuesday for only a few hours. Knowing that most people wouldn't have time to leave work to hit the polls. This allowed them to effectively exclude people from voting (as they could potentially throw things off) without outright saying it and looking bad. Now there are isolated incidents where they allowed women/minorities to vote, but it was quite rare.

Fast forward to today, our political system is long and brutal, and filled with attacks rather than ideas. The idea behind this is to disgust voters so badly that they wont participate. Both parties know they have their own hardcore voters who are going to vote for them based on the letter next to the name and virtually nothing else, so in order to keep unknown voters (that may vote for you, but may also vote for the other guy) away from the polls is to make the political season so long that people are incredibly sick of it by the time it's actually voting day. That's why we drag out the election season years where most countries do the same thing in months. They also run so many attack ads hoping to disgust the other sides voters so badly that a few of them stay home, and thus they get the edge. Less voters hitting the polls, easier their job is. They spend millions of dollars to ensure that the system remains long and painful, when they know they could do the same process in a month, spend a fraction of the cost, and making voting over a weekend/a three day holiday, and see voter turnout skyrocket. That however leads to unknowns, and politicians hate unknowns. The US knows they cannot outright deny people to vote based on race, gender, social status etc, so the next best thing is to make everyone so pissed off that they stay home.

That's also related to why they play to the lowest common denominator. Now they want more stupid people voting (not saying that voting is stupid) because they're less likely to do the proper research, allowing most of the politicians to remain in power rather than get voted out for what they do (or don't) do. That's why we can have a congress with lower approval ratings than dog shit, cockroaches, traffic jams, hemorrhoids, toenail fungus (any many many awful things) and yet continue to get reelected consistently at a better than 90% rate.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,929
Name
Stu
Funny. In the age of motor voting and vote by mail - they have made it anything but harder on the ignorant and lazy. There is no excuse for not being able to vote and that has nothing to do with race or affluence or any other such red herring.

I think a lot of what you're saying is true. The disgust factor is high and the ability to buy votes is higher - especially among established politicians and those offering a benefit through your vote. However, the notion that they are making it more difficult to vote IMO couldn't be farther from the truth.

Sorry but I actually think they SHOULD make it more difficult to vote. Make it something you actually have to go out and do - aside from those US citizens in other countries or in the military. I absolutely don't agree with giving three days to vote. The likelihood for fraud would increase exponentially and I don't like the idea of empowering the lazy. I also would say that a three day voting period leads to knowns - not unknowns. That would be practically the last nail in the coffin.

Personally - I don't put a lot of stock in what other countries do. I can go into detail on that but the short answer is that not only are u comparing apples to oranges, you would have to change multiple areas of our Constitution and that is a non-starter for me.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I don't think they're making it harder, they're just trying to keep people by making them not want to vote.

They could make it easier too, they just don't want to.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,929
Name
Stu
We're cool Blue. I am going to bow out now. We see things differently and that my friend is the spice of life. Cheers.