Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Technosoul · Sep 19, 2004, 04:16 am

This poll not for those who intend to vote for the re-election of Bush.

I re-did that other poll because it was not well thought-out. This poll might better show what the motivation is backing the Kerry support.

Thanks for putting up with this for a 2nd time.

Technosoul.

Rainbow · Sep 19, 2004, 03:55 pm

I would vote for any candidate, IF I am paid for :-)))
$1,000.00 (or more) should do it. I wish we have elections based on weekly calendar, instead of 4-years term :-))) along with multiple voting option :-)))

I say that $10,000.00 in my pocket (weekly), would not be a "bad income" :-)))

Technosoul · Sep 20, 2004, 12:42 pm

Hello Rainbow,

I think you might have a worthwhile idea to relate but did not go into enough details with your short statement, are you saying that ecah person who votes should get paid for their time in taking part in the political system, like we would pay a Congressman, etc.

But you make a point, how can we vote for someone to represent us if we do not have mega bucks in our pocket? No one running is representing homeless or poor folks, so they have no one to vote for unless we made them all rich, then they could for wich canidate best represents ALL of us rich people. Hmmmm? Interesting concept I must say.

Technosoul.

tivodan1116 · Sep 20, 2004, 01:07 pm

Your point is a little bit out of proportion. You are supposing that no one can "represent" the poor or homeless if they are not poor or homeless themselves. Extending your idea, this is what you are saying:

"People who are not middle-aged white men who graduated from Yale and used to own the Texas Rangers and reside in Texas and have a problem with alcohol and a wife and two college-aged twin daughters, et cetera ad nauseum, are not represented in the White House."

A "representative" does not have to be exactly in the same situation as their constituents to perform the duties to which they are elected. If they did, no one could represent anyone else because everyone is different. Your argument is outside of the notion of representative government.

Futhermore, everyone cannot be "rich" because rich is a comparitive term. Fundamental economic principles of scarcity and supply and demand teaches us that if everyone had a million dollars, a million dollars would be valueless.

The idea of being paid for voting is as silly as the idea of being paid to attend school. It is not the purpose of EVERY behavior of human life to get paid money immediately. In both the school and the voting example, yes, concientious behavior CAN lead to more money in the long term, but there should be (and are) many activities in society that are not meant for financial gain.

Technosoul · Sep 20, 2004, 03:38 pm

Well, rich people pay millions of dallars in donations to get represented in Washington, so they could just give us the money instead and then we could help them get their guy elected. Let them lobby the poor voters with all that cash, instead of the people we must vote into office after they get elected.

What about that secret club all the polticalic potentials are inducted into at Yale, both Bush and Kerry belong to it I am told.
What is that (not so secret) group called, the "illumkinghts" or something like that (can someone give me the correct spelling?
I will look it up on the Web.)

Can a homeless person legally vote if they got no address and roam all over the country? What district would you list them in, what state? At least you could buy them a house so they can have an address and a district to live in so they can get regestered?

You are right however, it is silly and buying votes somehow is just not moral, that is one area where capitalistic motivations should be run out of town on a "yale". (misspelling intended as a joke).
Right spelling is rail. (but bus would do).

We just had a recall election in California where they paid jobless people to get signatures on the peititions. It only took one millionaire rightwinger to do that. They got a buck a vote. Sort of like having a 99 cent fast food eleciton, buck a cluck chicken.
Thousands signed the peitition only because they hated Davis because of the right wing power companies had cut off our lights to gain more profit, and they did that before they even knew who would run to replace Davis. Which all recycles me back to the point of this poll, and so far the results show that is voting for Kerry just because they HATE president Bush or because they are motivated by emotionally clouded reasoning. Way to go Democrats and flip floppers. However I do wish to say in closing today, that the rumor that the Vice President is voting for Kerry because he hates Bush's stand on gays has not been confirmed, and so that rumor, being spread by the technocrats, is only gossip.

Also not confirmed is the gossip that "they" (the faceless rulers who operate in secret) want to tax poor people who vote and refund money to rich people who vote is yet UNCONFIRMED by conspiracy experts. And the rumor that they will have a dollar coin slot on each voting machine so you can buy extra additional voting power is also said to be false. But Ennron might cut the power off in some distrcts on election day where electronic voting is employed, so bring a power generator with you (if you can afford one).

That'as all folks.

View Poll Results: Would you vote for Kerry becauuse....
You hate Bush.	0	0%
You do not like how Bush is leading the country.	8	88.89%
You like what Kerry is saying and think he has good ideas.	1	11.11%
You think Kerry would be a strong and confident leader.	0	0%
You think your canidate in a 3rd party cannot win and you don't want to waste your vote.	0	0%
You are a party liner and would always vote Democrat.	0	0%
Voters: 9. You may not vote

Sep 20, 2004, 01:07 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
tivodan1116 Juris Doctor Location: Brockport, NY Posts: 2,083	Your point is a little bit out of proportion. You are supposing that no one can "represent" the poor or homeless if they are not poor or homeless themselves. Extending your idea, this is what you are saying: "People who are not middle-aged white men who graduated from Yale and used to own the Texas Rangers and reside in Texas and have a problem with alcohol and a wife and two college-aged twin daughters, et cetera ad nauseum, are not represented in the White House." A "representative" does not have to be exactly in the same situation as their constituents to perform the duties to which they are elected. If they did, no one could represent anyone else because everyone is different. Your argument is outside of the notion of representative government. Futhermore, everyone cannot be "rich" because rich is a comparitive term. Fundamental economic principles of scarcity and supply and demand teaches us that if everyone had a million dollars, a million dollars would be valueless. The idea of being paid for voting is as silly as the idea of being paid to attend school. It is not the purpose of EVERY behavior of human life to get paid money immediately. In both the school and the voting example, yes, concientious behavior CAN lead to more money in the long term, but there should be (and are) many activities in society that are not meant for financial gain. Don't forget... Lawyers were writing the Constitution while doctors were still bleeding people with leeches...

Sep 19, 2004, 04:16 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	This poll not for those who intend to vote for the re-election of Bush. I re-did that other poll because it was not well thought-out. This poll might better show what the motivation is backing the Kerry support. Thanks for putting up with this for a 2nd time. Technosoul.

Sep 19, 2004, 03:55 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Rainbow Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,066	I would vote for any candidate, IF I am paid for :-))) $1,000.00 (or more) should do it. I wish we have elections based on weekly calendar, instead of 4-years term :-))) along with multiple voting option :-))) I say that $10,000.00 in my pocket (weekly), would not be a "bad income" :-)))

Sep 20, 2004, 12:42 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Hello Rainbow, I think you might have a worthwhile idea to relate but did not go into enough details with your short statement, are you saying that ecah person who votes should get paid for their time in taking part in the political system, like we would pay a Congressman, etc. But you make a point, how can we vote for someone to represent us if we do not have mega bucks in our pocket? No one running is representing homeless or poor folks, so they have no one to vote for unless we made them all rich, then they could for wich canidate best represents ALL of us rich people. Hmmmm? Interesting concept I must say. Technosoul.

Sep 20, 2004, 03:38 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Well, rich people pay millions of dallars in donations to get represented in Washington, so they could just give us the money instead and then we could help them get their guy elected. Let them lobby the poor voters with all that cash, instead of the people we must vote into office after they get elected. What about that secret club all the polticalic potentials are inducted into at Yale, both Bush and Kerry belong to it I am told. What is that (not so secret) group called, the "illumkinghts" or something like that (can someone give me the correct spelling? I will look it up on the Web.) Can a homeless person legally vote if they got no address and roam all over the country? What district would you list them in, what state? At least you could buy them a house so they can have an address and a district to live in so they can get regestered? You are right however, it is silly and buying votes somehow is just not moral, that is one area where capitalistic motivations should be run out of town on a "yale". (misspelling intended as a joke). Right spelling is rail. (but bus would do). We just had a recall election in California where they paid jobless people to get signatures on the peititions. It only took one millionaire rightwinger to do that. They got a buck a vote. Sort of like having a 99 cent fast food eleciton, buck a cluck chicken. Thousands signed the peitition only because they hated Davis because of the right wing power companies had cut off our lights to gain more profit, and they did that before they even knew who would run to replace Davis. Which all recycles me back to the point of this poll, and so far the results show that is voting for Kerry just because they HATE president Bush or because they are motivated by emotionally clouded reasoning. Way to go Democrats and flip floppers. However I do wish to say in closing today, that the rumor that the Vice President is voting for Kerry because he hates Bush's stand on gays has not been confirmed, and so that rumor, being spread by the technocrats, is only gossip. Also not confirmed is the gossip that "they" (the faceless rulers who operate in secret) want to tax poor people who vote and refund money to rich people who vote is yet UNCONFIRMED by conspiracy experts. And the rumor that they will have a dollar coin slot on each voting machine so you can buy extra additional voting power is also said to be false. But Ennron might cut the power off in some distrcts on election day where electronic voting is employed, so bring a power generator with you (if you can afford one). That'as all folks.