As I predicted, voting is meaningless

[kroberts2131]

I wish the parties would go away. It would force everyone to evaluate voting records. When I see perfect party line voting in congress it seems supremely stupid to me. The idea that EVERY republican or Democrat from CA to Maine had a perfectly aligned interest doesn't seem realistic to me.

If everyone was independent, we'd be forced to study the records.

Yes, I realize it's never going to happen.

The problem with that turns into OSA calling that person a RINO.

 

[trekrok]

but then there's even the issue of voting records being manipulating on things like poison pill pork legislation and whatnot.

no one knows what's in every bill, and you get situations like the dems saying "we put forward a bill (again, written by people who aren't politicians. not a single politician actually *drafts* any part; in fact most are written completely by either lobbyists, staffers, or agency reps) that would lower gas prices and these people voted against it".

yes, this comes to voter recognition of the legislation, but like i said, i link a 40 minute video and i know for a fact not a single person ever actually watches it. imagine someone actually reading a 5,000+ page bill that's filled with intentionally esoteric language and meant to be either purposefully vague or otherwise cover up its true purpose.

like the "patriot act", or the "heros act". it's a legislative play when you are in a minority position to put forth bills you know have no chance, or even amend ala the magic paperclip a bill already proposed, that will force your opponents to vote no. then you call the bill something positive and claim it's something it wasn't and the people say "SEE! HE VOTED NO ON THE SAVE THE DAY BILL! IT WOULDA SAVED THE DAY!"

the system is broken. it's layers and layers and layers of things pretending to be something they aren't. that's.....not good.

Yep good point. So, in addition to stripping away the parties we'll also need to pass a 'single issue, clear language' requirement for legislation. I give them both the same odds.

 

[SoonerP226]

Yep good point. So, in addition to stripping away the parties we'll also need to pass a 'single issue, clear language' requirement for legislation. I give them both the same odds.

There’s already a single-issue requirement for legislation in Oklahoma. Failure to abide by that requirement is why several major enacted laws have gotten thrown out by the state courts over the last few years.

Back when I was in school, the US House had a rule that amendments to a bill had to be germane to the bill, but that seems to have been stretched thinner than the Commerce Clause.

 

[El Pablo]

?

A democrat won an election, in Oklahoma, must be voter fraud. (Yes she was unopposed )

 

[SoonerP226]

A democrat won an election, in Oklahoma, must be voter fraud. (Yes she was unopposed )

Hell, a bunch of them won an election, so there must be massive voter fraud.

 

[Fallbackpuppet]

In my opinion, if you do not vote, you have no room to bi_ch, and I love to bi_ch about them.

Seriously so many good people have stopped voting the dumba$$es have taken over. We need every intelligent voter we can get.

I would disagree and propose the opposite is more true. Your vote is your sanction for the policies, actions, and consequences of the person\mesure you are voting for. To a lesser extent voting at all (even for the loser) is giving your sanction to the process and its outcome. If an acceptable candidate isn't presented as is frequently the case people are encouraged to vote for the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately lesser or not voting for evil/unacceptable option is still giving your express sanction to that evil/unacceptable option. If you vote knowing that all options offered are to some degree evil then you are giving your express sanction to a process that promotes evil\unacceptable options. So voting in that case win or lose puts at least some of the responsibility for the winners actions on you either directly or indirectly depending on if you less unacceptable candidate won or not.
This calculus changes when on the rare occasion there are acceptable options on the ballot.

 

[sherrick13]

?

He thinks he is being clever, making fun of us "election deniers".

 

[RickN]

I would disagree and propose the opposite is more true. Your vote is your sanction for the policies, actions, and consequences of the person\mesure you are voting for. To a lesser extent voting at all (even for the loser) is giving your sanction to the process and its outcome. If an acceptable candidate isn't presented as is frequently the case people are encouraged to vote for the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately lesser or not voting for evil/unacceptable option is still giving your express sanction to that evil/unacceptable option. If you vote knowing that all options offered are to some degree evil then you are giving your express sanction to a process that promotes evil\unacceptable options. So voting in that case win or lose puts at least some of the responsibility for the winners actions on you either directly or indirectly depending on if you less unacceptable candidate won or not.
This calculus changes when on the rare occasion there are acceptable options on the ballot.

I disagree. If you are not at least trying to make changes, you are giving silent approval to the mess that is our government. In case you have not noticed, the only time the political class listen is when there is a larger than normal voter turnout, and a bunch of them get defeated.

 

[JoeUSooner]

Over seven decades ago, Joseph Stalin said, "Who votes... doesn't matter. Who COUNTS the votes matters!"
Now, Dems have fully awakened to that - and have put it into effect.

 

[joegrizzy]

Over seven decades ago, Joseph Stalin said, "Who votes... doesn't matter. Who COUNTS the votes matters!"
Now, Dems have fully awakened to that - and have put it into effect.

yes. i know no one bothers, but if you watch the testimony i've linked several times from Hima, she clearly states what went on. she says all the black people kicked out anyone who wasn't black; they left her and her husband because they are indian. had no idea they were GOP.

they witnessed them literally putting stacks of ballots thru the tabulator multiple times. THERE IS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE WOMEN DOING THIS. YOU CAN SEE IT.

hima also witnessed stacks of mail in ballots being brought in that was ORDERED BY BALLOT NUMBER. HOW WOULD MAIL IN BALLOTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED IN ORDER, OR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD FINDING THEM ALL AND ORDERING BY THEM BALLOT NUMBER SERVE?! WHO WOULD DO THAT?! THEY WOULDN'T; SO WHY WERE THEY ORDERED?! ALMOST AS IF.....

and then if you watch that video THE ONLY RETORT to any of Hima's testimony is from the black woman on the council. her argument boils down, literally "well, a bunch of people are here today saying this and that, but they don't look like Detroiters. I don't see any Detroiters. I have lived in Detroit my whole life; you are an indian immigrant and you don't understand that we cheat".

i'm not even joking. just watch it. watch ANY of the video from the polling stations, cover the windows with cardboard after kicking out the poll watchers, votes coming in by van at 4:00 am, HELL THEY LITERALLY SAID THAT TRUMP WOULD BE WINNING AT THE END OF THE "ELECTION DAY" BUT DON'T WORRY; IT'S JUST A "RED MIRAGE" AND THAT WHEN """ALL""" THE VOTES ARE COUNTED; REST ASSURED BIDEN WILL WIN.

IT'S LIKE SAYING HILLARY HAD A 99% CHANCE OF WINNING. THEY CAN SAY THESE THINGS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE CHEAT. THEY LITERALLY TOLD YOU TRUMP WAS GOING TO "WIN" BUT THEN LOSE. HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN?! "oh yeah well duh the mail in vote was going 99% for biden" COME ON