Quote# 112064

Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the "process," it's just that their process -- that "systematic series of actions directed to some end" -- probably isn't the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.
The people I refer to are liberals.
It's well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail. Thus, liberals reason that low turn-out is bad because it's bad for them. This, of course, means it's good for America.
Many will bristle at what I've said, but just take a look at how liberals plumb the depths of the barrel for votes. They want convicts and the homeless (many of whom are mentally ill, a perfect leftist constituency) to vote; they aggressively get out the vote in urban wastelands, their strongholds, which are plagued by crime, drug use and high abortion rate. Liberals in California were even advocating pubescents' suffrage: Giving 14-year-olds the right to cast ballots. So, it's funny. It used to be said that the Democrats were the party of the common man. The truth is that they're the party of the uncommon man.
And there is an irony here, one I'd like to ask our liberal friends about. I know you believe you're much smarter than we traditionalists, as you often attribute the embrace of our ideology to stupidity. I was, in fact, once told by a certain bit-part, liberal actor (forgive the redundancy) that I just wasn't as "evolved" as he was.
Thus, I wonder about something. How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates? If these normally apathetic people are in fact voting correctly, as you liberals assert, to what do you attribute it? Beginners luck? And does this make you liberals question your ideology at all? Does it make you think, even for a moment, that maybe you're on the wrong side?
I won't hold my breath waiting for a good answer, but I will mention another irony. Liberals are completely taken with gun control; some of them even say that no one but the police should own firearms. Yet they believe that people too irresponsible to have their finger on the trigger should influence the choice of who will have his finger on the button.

Selwyn Duke, American Thinker 13 Comments [8/21/2015 3:29:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom



So ... you're against voting?

8/21/2015 4:52:59 AM

Glandu

"only people like me should be allowed to vote, others are unworthy subhumans". Good summary?

8/21/2015 6:09:25 AM

Doubting Thomas

It's well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail.

Which is why Republicans came up with that voter fraud "crisis" in order to pass legislation in order to keep a lot of people from voting. If you can't appeal to voters, keep them from voting. Democracy, as long as you agree with me!

8/21/2015 6:24:55 AM

Mister Spak

Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the "process," it's just that their process -- that "systematic series of actions directed to some end" -- probably isn't the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.
The people I refer to are conservatives.


"It's well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail."

That's why conservatives work so hard to prevent voting. They hate democracy.

8/21/2015 9:26:02 AM

Old Viking

Will it be OK to retain the voting process if we restrict it to people who agree with you?

8/21/2015 3:04:18 PM



"How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates?"

Actually, that's not better for us, because they're the ones who vote for the right-wing. But we defend their right to vote, anyway.


"It's well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail."

That's because the majority is always getting screwed by the GOP, so when enough people turn up to vote, we can keep the vermin out of office.

8/21/2015 5:32:34 PM

Ebon

Nice of them to be so up-front about hating democracy.

8/21/2015 6:07:43 PM

psalmanazaar

Remember this fool the next time somebody tells you Liberals are elitist.

8/21/2015 9:38:21 PM

Tempus

It really does seem like the reactionary right is getting braver about publicly admitting what it is they actually want. Twenty or short years ago they'd not have dared admit how much they actually despise democracy in a public forum and want to go back to autocratic rule by elites. And here we are now.

I'll say this about the Obama administration--the last eight years have been great for flushing out the fascists and getting them to really tell us what they want.

8/21/2015 11:51:26 PM

Darkevilme

They told us after the war that the nazis vanished without a trace, but battalions of fascists still dream of a master race~

8/22/2015 2:09:14 AM

Yossarian Lives

Yes, an issue with democracy is that many don't make fully informed decisions over who to vote for, but, despite this, it's more fair and equal than any other method. Your solution to this is to prohibit those that may vote for candidates you disagree with, thus ensuring that conservatives are given an unfair advantage in elections. This would go against the principles of democracy, which I thought was important in the USA. Why do you hate your country?

"It used to be said that the Democrats were the party of the common man. The truth is that they're the party of the uncommon man."

What's so inherently wrong about championing causes for the most vulnerable? Are they not American too? A healthy, liberal society includes everyone, regardless of their background, so there should be no controversy here. The Republicans would have been well within their rights to appeal to the vulnerable, but they haven't. It's churlish to then blame the Democrats for gaining an advantage for doing so when the Republicans could have done the same. Any elections lost because of this is down to the Republicans narrowing their policies to cater for one comparatively small section of society; it's not a conspiracy if the Democrats refuse to do the same. In your world, common man means white, heterosexual Christian, but this is not reflected in modern day America.

" How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates? If these normally apathetic people are in fact voting correctly, as you liberals assert, to what do you attribute it? Beginners luck? And does this make you liberals question your ideology at all? Does it make you think, even for a moment, that maybe you're on the wrong side?"

Many poor, white Americans vote Republican. Some judgmental types may consider them to be degraded, immoral and criminally inclined. Does this not make you think that your argument isn't consistent?

8/22/2015 2:40:32 AM

Elie

Keyword: the more voters in general, the better for liberals. That's because we actually try to represent everyone, as opposed to religious cults or moneyed pimps

8/22/2015 11:07:10 AM

Goomy pls

Lots and lots of strawmen.

8/29/2015 3:13:46 AM

1 | top: comments page