2016 Election, Ventura says Don't vote, don't bitch. I say he is wrong. Also Jeb Bush wins.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Anybody who listens to that has been professional "wrassler" has a screw loose.




That said, there are concerns in our electoral process but I'd suggest that is not a good reason to not vote. It may count, it may not, but abandoning the process is exactly what TPTB want. They do not want an informed electorate who studies the issues and then votes their mind. They want low information drones who will vote for whom the MSM tells them to vote for.

I guess they said the same thirty years ago ......Anybody who listens to that has been actor (Reagan) has a screw loose.

\
But Reagan was not a bat# loonytunes in tights and a feather boa.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Anybody who listens to that has been professional "wrassler" has a screw loose.




That said, there are concerns in our electoral process but I'd suggest that is not a good reason to not vote. It may count, it may not, but abandoning the process is exactly what TPTB want. They do not want an informed electorate who studies the issues and then votes their mind. They want low information drones who will vote for whom the MSM tells them to vote for.

I guess they said the same thirty years ago ......Anybody who listens to that has been actor (Reagan) has a screw loose.

\
But Reagan was not a bat# loonytunes in tights and a feather boa.

Ventura, like Reagan, has experience in government as a governor of a state. His tights and feather boa were part of a previous entertainment job. When people saw past pictures of him in acting with a chimp, I'm sure some some considered Reagan "bat# looneytoons". I get it, you're not a Ventura fan. My point is, pasts don't always matter to people at an election, apparently Ventura's 'rasslin' persona didn't effect him getting elected as Minnesota governor, Reagan acting with a chimp prior to being governor to CA, or Dubya's coc aine addiction being elected as TX governor. The latter two were also elected POTUS.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

If you're correct that only emphasizes the point that everyone should get out and vote. From George Bush in Florida to Ron Paul, people are starting to notice your theory.

If people laydown and quit ( not vote) the system will never change. The only hope we have for a change is more people voting and more attention drawn to the dubious results.

I honestly can't see either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton getting nominated - no one in this country wants a dynasty in charge... well maybe people of questionable intelligence would. These would be the same people who think that Obama is different than Bush.

Still, it wouldn't surprise me if a potential candidate was blackballed for wanting to actually change the way things are done and not just say "hope and change" while increasing war far more than his predecessor and continuing to protect the Wall Street elite and other elites who are "too big to fail".

I really hope we get a candidate for the people. It would be a nice change of pace.

/begin angry rant/
And as for someone who would sue a widow for everything she has because he was all butthurt over a dumb claim that really didn't affect him at all - I have zero respect for any more. Just anger. Already rich, but sue a widow... what a f@c#!ng piece of s#!+!
/end angry rant/

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Not to be argumentative, but....I really don't see this playing out quite as might be expected. Yes, Jeb will take the Repubs nomination, if only because he has the financial backing. But...I suspect that he will lose and that he will lose to a Dem who's not yet announced, possibly...possibly Martin O'Malley. See: martinomalley.com...

He appears to be left of Obama, but will be easily controlled by the Cabal that runs everything. Being a leftist, he's promising lots of free stuff so he'll appeal to the Democrat Welfare plantation of Do-Not voters and activists.

What of Jeb? Jeb is really just a conservative Democrat but unlike Romney, Jeb is about as intellectually adept as Rick Perry. He won't run well at all and with Cruz out of the running, the bible thumping Tea Party types will do what they did when Romney ran...they'll stay home.

With O'Malley coming from left of Obama, it could be important for him to win because he'll accelerate the deconstruction of US world hegemony. As to Hillary? I just have a sad feeling that somehow she's going to fall out due to illness. To my eyes at least...she just doesn't look "well".

Just my thoughts.

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
a reply to: ketsuko

Glad you looked at the material.. Cause they do no rig the elections..

Oh, the system may be rigged. But I won't have put my mark on the ballot for either of those two people, and I will always know that, even if it means I write someone in.

And this morning I didn't look hard because I had a few minutes before shooting out the door.

Look, the Republican system is about as rigged as they can get it without sitting down and just saying, "Here's your nominee." They start it out in states where they can almost ensure the people who vote are from controlled population and almost never from any Midwestern states for example.

It bothers me how many people on this forum think votes are actually counted fairly.

a reply to: lordcomac

It bothers me more that people are blind to see it and refuse to talk about it..
Like this post.. I put valid proof up to say that our election process is more fixed than boxing and nobody has anything to say.. But something happens on TV 3000 people wanna make a point about why this or that..

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Why of course it is fixed, even if you believe that votes are counted legitimately. If there are only two choices of parties (which most will admit to), yet none of us vote for which candidate represents each party, why we don't really vote at all! At best we choose from the two sellout that the Money Masters offer, but even then, why would they allow such a thing to chance? If the one with the most money always wins, which they do, then that massive amount of money behind them can most certainly be applied to make sure the "right" sellout occupies the position of power that the Big Boys purchased.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Anybody who listens to that has been professional "wrassler" has a screw loose.




That said, there are concerns in our electoral process but I'd suggest that is not a good reason to not vote. It may count, it may not, but abandoning the process is exactly what TPTB want. They do not want an informed electorate who studies the issues and then votes their mind. They want low information drones who will vote for whom the MSM tells them to vote for.

I guess they said the same thirty years ago ......Anybody who listens to that has been actor (Reagan) has a screw loose.

But Reagan was not a bat# loonytunes in tights and a feather boa.

Ventura, like Reagan, has experience in government as a governor of a state. His tights and feather boa were part of a previous entertainment job. When people saw past pictures of him in acting with a chimp, I'm sure some some considered Reagan "bat# looneytoons". I get it, you're not a Ventura fan. My point is, pasts don't always matter to people at an election, apparently Ventura's 'rasslin' persona didn't effect him getting elected as Minnesota governor, Reagan acting with a chimp prior to being governor to CA, or Dubya's coc aine addiction being elected as TX governor. The latter two were also elected POTUS.

Venturas "wrasselin" persona is exactly what got him elected because he was seen as a protest vote. He was not re-elected because the people realized just how bat# crazy he was and that they made a serious mistake.

The fact he was elected as governor shows that he is full of crap. If elections are rigged, how did he get elected as governor unless he was in on it and if so how can one trust what he says? He's a self contradiction.

a reply to: NavyDoc

All valid points and some non-arguable as he actually DID get elected. But perhaps, as a Navy Seal it might have been his assignment? I', not reachin', it just seemed like an interesting question to ask. And BTW are you swabbies ever going to let us win another football game?

If I decide to participate in an election, that would mean I agree with the administrative policy(s).

I haven't encountered any policy I would wish to participate in...

Having confidence in an election, that it's not just another recycled coup is yet a whole other ball of wax.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: NavyDoc

All valid points and some non-arguable as he actually DID get elected. But perhaps, as a Navy Seal it might have been his assignment? I', not reachin', it just seemed like an interesting question to ask. And BTW are you swabbies ever going to let us win another football game?

Never. Every December my alma mater will win for the rest of eternity.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Damn!

a reply to: ThichHeaded

I very much doubt he'll win, and here's why...

1. You hear Jeb and you instantly think Dubya. Most people know that he damaged America massively, 9/11 happened on his watch, and then he took thousands of American's into a pointless "Christian Crusade". He also passed the Patriot Act and oversaw massive abuses under his "leadership" (ie, complete lack of leadership).

2. The young are not voting Conservative. I'm sorry if that hurts anyones feelings, but regardless of what you think here on ATS, it's a statistical reality that the vast majority of younger voters are sick to death of the bigots in the Republican party trying to tell people how to live, who deserves freedom and equality, and how women should be controlled by Christian men.

3. Women make up 50% of the population, and a female president is significantly overdue. Just as America wanted to make history by electing the first black president, there will be a similar desire to see the first woman in that office.

4. Whatever you personally believe about any political party, it's a fact that America is better off now than it would have been under a Republican president. Through all the bi*ching and whining and partisan bs, Obama has actually not done a bad job. There will always be issues that people don't agree with, but I think all sensible people realize that things could (and would) have been a lot worse with anyone else tipped for the job.

Here's the crux of the problem with discussing this on ATS; there are a lot of irrational, partisan, nit-picking paranoid delusional members here who are so anti-American, anti-Democrat or just anti-Intellect that they'll rail against this or that based on one singular point. People here do not, in any way, fairly represent attitudes in the US.

People here will now rail against the Democrats for "non-disclosure", "Obamacare", or even because of some ranting rancher in Texas breaking the law... sensible Americans are not going to vote against a politician simply because of one issue, and certainly not because of the massively ridiculous reasons most ATS members would present as their reasons.

I fully expect Hillary to win, and I hope she does. No one else in the running is even remotely acceptable in my opinion. All I see from the Republicans is ignorance, religious nonsense and bigotry.

a reply to: Rocker2013

But seriously my friend, the Clintons are murdering redneck scum! Yes your opinion on the Republican option is valid, but why can't we have a candidate of character? It is time for a woman? That is a ridiculous thing to say and is sexist at best. Were you to say it was time for someone who was best suited for the job and it happened to be a woman that would be totally different. How can what is or is not dangling between a persons legs be the qualifying issue for the office of the CIC?

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: Rocker2013

But seriously my friend, the Clintons are murdering redneck scum! Yes your opinion on the Republican option is valid, but why can't we have a candidate of character? It is time for a woman? That is a ridiculous thing to say and is sexist at best. Were you to say it was time for someone who was best suited for the job and it happened to be a woman that would be totally different. How can what is or is not dangling between a persons legs be the qualifying issue for the office of the CIC?

Hear! Hear! Well said. Character over appearance.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You know Doc, there was a day when our institutions used to create and motivate the individuals of character that were necessary for our nation to thrive, but apparently it is no more. Jimmy Carter, though he was not as effective as he could have been was still a good and a decent man, where are they all now? It would appear that fashion, celebrity or trending idiosyncrasies are the order of the day. Perhaps this nation of the over-entertained and maxi-distracted has become ungovernable.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: NavyDoc

You know Doc, there was a day when our institutions used to create and motivate the individuals of character that were necessary for our nation to thrive, but apparently it is no more. Jimmy Carter, though he was not as effective as he could have been was still a good and a decent man, where are they all now? It would appear that fashion, celebrity or trending idiosyncrasies are the order of the day. Perhaps this nation of the over-entertained and maxi-distracted has become ungovernable.

I dunno. Although we are going to disagree about Carter as a "good and decent man," I have to agree that character...real character...is no longer a priority at the service academies. Sadly.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I cannot go there either I am sorry to say. Are we to be without then? Even my old classmate Stan MacChrystal retreated to preserve his pension and Ray Odierno will apparently play the game to the same end. Perhaps it is good that I am much closer to the end of my days than the beginning.

www.youtube.com...