Democrats versus Republicans

Those of you who worry about Democrats versus Republicans -- relax, here is our real problem.

In a Purdue University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States .

It was pretty simple. The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.

However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair it was of the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. The class was taking it in and letting her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?"

Yep, these are the same kinds of 18-year-olds that are now voting in our elections!

They breed, and they walk among us. Lord, we need more help than we thought we did!







Reply

After suffering so far through this election cycle, I've come to realize that there is one more requirement. All presidential candidates must suffer from cranial rectal inversion.

It is so bad this time that there is nobody left to squander your vote on so that you can vote against the other.

We really need a "None of the above" option.

At least you 'dont have to' vote we do ...

...and we need the "None of the Above" option.

Biggest problem with political jokes is that the B******s get elected, then change prime ministers????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBs PensNmore

However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair it was of the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. The class was taking it in and letting her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?"

Yep, these are the same kinds of 18-year-olds that are now voting in our elections!

They breed, and they walk among us. Lord, we need more help than we thought we did!

---

but this business of C-section birth is the whole premise within Shakespeare's play Macbeth, where in Act 4, Scene 1, one of the witches tells Macbeth:
"Be bloody, bold and resolute ... for none of woman born shall harm Macbeth."

Macbeth is ultimately killed by Macduff, who was "from his mother's womb, untimely ripped" i.e. born by C-section.


so a perfectly logical observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonto

At least you 'dont have to' vote we do ...

---

No we don't, we have to turn up at the polling station and have our name checked off the electoral roll.

What you do after that is purely voluntary.

As for changing Prime Ministers, we don't have a Presidential system, so we vote for our local candidate, the party with that wins the most seats selects their leader to be Prime Minister and forms government.
So, we don't vote to select our Prime Minister, which can, and does, change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

No we don't, we have to turn up at the polling station and have our name checked off the electoral roll.

What you do after that is purely voluntary.

As for changing Prime Ministers, we don't have a Presidential system, so we vote for our local candidate, the party with that wins the most seats selects their leader to be Prime Minister and forms government.
So, we don't vote to select our Prime Minister, which can, and does, change.

---

Spot on.

However, as much as I would like to see an option of "None of the above", this is not really an option nor is it a recommendation to vote informal which in fact does nothing, except to deny yourself a say in what's going to happen. There have been a number of times where I have had to mark a vote on the candidate I think will do the least harm rather than who will do the best job. Sadly, this is the state of affairs we have to contend with these days.

I could go on but 'nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob38S

There have been a number of times where I have had to mark a vote on the candidate I think will do the least harm rather than who will do the best job. Sadly, this is the state of affairs we have to contend with these days.

---

I'll be 74 this year. I have voted in every election since 1964. (AuH2O in '64) I can only remember voting "FOR" a single candidate, Ross Perot. And that was a vote where he would do much less harm than the other two. Still not really voting "for" though.

When you think about it, it is a rather pathetic situation.

I'm not sure if it is here or elsewhere that a member has a tag line that goes something like this:

Our village is missing our idiot.
It seems that the idiot was elected as a member of parliament.
What does that say about the electorate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob38S

......However, as much as I would like to see an option of "None of the above", this is not really an option nor is it a recommendation to vote informal......

---

There is an easy fix on this one. Create a political party called None Of The Above. :U

I wonder how many votes I will get. :innocent:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christos

There is an easy fix on this one. Create a political party called None Of The Above. :U

I wonder how many votes I will get. :innocent:

---

Great idea, sadly, I think you may find that the party will consist of those who may have great ideas/aspirations but will adapt to the party system very quickly which seems to have as its primary aim of "Show me the money/perks, I want you to vote me onto the gravy train so I can do my, not your conscience vote depending what the "machine" tells me it is."

I would really love to see a system which does not allow for the so called career politicians, say 2 terms and then out for at least 1 just so that they can then get back in touch with reality. As for the overly generous retirement perks, don't get me started, suffice to say politicians of every colour or flavour must be treated the same as all of us, after all most claim to be of the people yet what they get is way and above what the rest of us get.

Apologies for preaching/ranting to the many with similar views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christos

There is an easy fix on this one. Create a political party called None Of The Above. :U

I wonder how many votes I will get. :innocent:

---

unfortunately, in Australia's lower house (House of Representatives) unless you finish 2nd or 1st, the effect of the compulsory preferential system means that all your votes will be transferred to the candidate finishing 1st or 2nd. So a vote for a minor party is just a delayed vote for one of the major parties. :( :(

I am in favour of the None of the above option on all ballots. However it must be an enforcable option, ie if there are 4 candidates + none of the above & none of the above get >20% of the votes then the seat must me recalled, with the proviso that none of the original candidates can re stand.

Definately in favour of no more than 2 consecutive terms with equal time off between terms

Payment in the workplace is tailored to suit the task: Wage and salary, hourly rate, commission,etc. When an inappropriate method of remuneration is adopted it soon becomes evident by way of a dissatisfied party, whether that be payee or payer. In contrast, the other party seems to take on the persona of the cat that swallowed the canary. It would seem our politicians have become somewhat feline in recent years.