OBAMA'S LOW INFORMATION VOTERS....

[Whirlaway]

They don't care about politics; they are motivated by freebies from the government and things......

By Alicia Colon

How many times have you tried to have a serious conversation about current events only to have your listeners say, "I'm not interested in politics"? These are the low-info voters that the Republicans have never been able to communicate with but the Democrats know exactly how to reach them. That is why they concentrate their connections in the mainstream media and Hollywood and why these voters know more about the Kardashians than what the fiscal cliff means to the economy or where Benghazi is. It's also why these voters tune out boring Republicans who continue to blah, blah, blah about serious stuff. The sad reality is that these voters can be manipulated easily and if the Republicans ever want to win important elections they need to learn the right way to get their message across.

Right now they are clueless. Consequently they have allowed the Democrats to hijack and distort the GOP's positions on virtually every issue. Republicans, therefore, don't care about the middle class and only want to reduce the taxes of the rich. They are also racists who want to keep minorities down. These distortions are repeated often by anchors on MSNBC and the alphabet networks. CNN is always on in the social service offices and in airports and the formerly legitimate cable station is so far on the decline that it feels comfortable allowing disgusting antics by amoral hosts on its New Year's Eve broadcast.

But it is folly to assume that all the low-info voters are poorly educated or on the dole. College students and graduates of liberal academia have been completely indoctrinated in leftist ideology and loathe all things conservative. Their bibles include the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times which routinely carry and affirm the Democrat lies.

Hollywood trots out alarming films on climate change, environmental doom and the racist doings of evil white men. Stars like Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel Jackson, Jamie Foxx, and Morgan Freeman use their talents to shill for the administration and the Democrats. The hypocrites that filmed that anti-gun ad calling for action following the Sandy Hook school massacre blithely ignore their participation in films glamorizing a violent gun culture. Democrats called for the ban on all assault weapons with some leftist reporter asking if we really needed such a weapon to kill an animal.

Couldn't one conservative politician, inform the low-info public that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting? This amendment was put there by the Founding Fathers who were themselves revolutionaries and knew that it stood for freedom. The first Americans forbidden to own guns were blacks and that was because they were slaves. Every dictatorship immediately disarms its populace which ultimately takes away their freedom to protect themselves against an oppressive government.

Conservatives simply have no one in the media that has any credibility with the ill-informed masses. It does not have Ronald Reagan waiting in the winds to blast these frauds and hypocrites for the outrages against decent, hard-working Americans.

There's no leader in the party that will point out that these gun massacres take place in gun-free zones in states with the strongest gun control laws in place and that it is leftwing ideology that creates sitting ducks for the criminally insane. Low-info voters do not watch the Fox News programs that present those facts nor do they get their news from conservative blogs on the Internet. Facebook and Twitter are the current modes of communication but then there are also Tango, Kik Messenger, Voxer and a dozen more communication apps being created every day. The only reason I know about these innovations is because I have my six young adult children clueing me in on all things 21st century.

One would think that these misinformed voters would be skeptical of promises made by politicians during an election year but unfortunately brains not used to exercise fail to notice the routine con jobs. So they reelected a president and a Congress that insisted that the fiscal cliff bill would protect them and increase the taxes on the wealthy. The latest news is that workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000 under the new fiscal deal.

All this year during the presidential campaign, the GOP allowed the Obama campaign to get away with that tax the rich mantra which is all the low-info voters heard. A Ronald Reagan would have said, "There you go again. Telling lies when you know that the only hope for the middle class and the poor is jobs. We're the only ones who care about them while you're the ones creating a country of dependents by punishing the job creators. You distract the voters by using the race card when it has always been the Democrats with the worst race record and the Republicans with the best civil rights record. Yet MSNBC has Al Sharpton saying just the opposite and that's who the low-info voters listen to. Sharpton claimed on his show that it was democrats who supported civil rights but actually more Republicans supported the bill. The KKK was founded by the Democrats and it was the Democrats that put Martin Luther King in jail. Facts don't matter, however, to low-info voters who rarely seek out the truth."

So how do the Republicans meet this challenge to disseminate the truth? From the looks of the recent shenanigans over the fiscal cliff "crisis" they are still clueless. The reelection of Boehner as Speaker of the House proves that they are not serious about change. I had hoped that there would be a real rebellion by the tea party representatives but alas only nine broke ranks and voted for an alternate. Two idealists Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) even voted for former Rep. Allen West who was robbed of his Florida seat by ill-concealed voter fraud. What a perfect choice he would have been-a fearless speaker not afraid to speak the truth.

On the Senate side, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul were two of five Republicans who voted against the fiscal cliff compromise. Sen. Rubio is a rising star and possible presidential candidate in 2016. If he remains this adamant about voting his conservative conscience, he'll be an excellent choice especially if the GOP can recover the Senate in 2014.

Odds are that won't happen unless the Republicans can find an articulate spokesperson for the party's principles. There are plenty of conservative minorities, naturalized legal immigrants, and refugees who are supremely interested in politics and who appreciate and will defend our Constitution. Most are registered as Republicans but are unlikely to be sought out by the establishment of the GOP. When it comes to who makes up the base of the party, the GOP establishment is as low-info as those who voted for Obama.

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com

http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2...ot_intere.html

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The reelection of Boehner as Speaker of the House proves that they are not serious about change. I had hoped that there would be a real rebellion by the tea party representatives but alas only nine broke ranks and voted for an alternate. Two idealists Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) even voted for former Rep. Allen West who was robbed of his Florida seat by ill-concealed voter fraud. What a perfect choice he would have been-a fearless speaker not afraid to speak the truth.

http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2...ot_intere.html

That is rich Whirly! Two Tea Pots voted for a guy that is no longer there!

[Whirlaway]

Yep; it is called a protest vote.......kinda like COG voting for what's his face !

[Laz]

The Speaker of the house does not have to be an elected member of the house. Kind of strange if they are not but it is a legitimate vote. The other issue is that you have to vote for someone or you are not counted in determining the number of people required to win. Voting present would just mean you are ignored.

[Whirlaway]

Hey Laz; thanks for that info..I was not aware that the Speaker does not have to be an elected member of the house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Hey Laz; thanks for that info..I was not aware that the Speaker does not have to be an elected member of the house !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just vote present, the other half of that scenario has already taken place

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Laz

The Speaker of the house does not have to be an elected member of the house. Kind of strange if they are not but it is a legitimate vote. The other issue is that you have to vote for someone or you are not counted in determining the number of people required to win. Voting present would just mean you are ignored.

I heard that as well, and was shocked. No where in the Constitution does it state that the elected Speaker has to be from the House. It states no requirements.

Just think about that. A simple majority of the House of Repesentatives could elect a Speaker that would be third in line of succession.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I heard that as well, and was shocked. No where in the Constitution does it state that the elected Speaker has to be from the House. It states no requirements.

Just think about that. A simple majority of the House of Repesentatives could elect a Speaker that would be third in line of succession.

You also don't have to be lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. I think it might be a good idea to have some non-lawyers on SCOTUS. The only requirement should be an understanding of the Constitution and a willingness to rule based on original intent. I think a lot of lawyers don't know much at all about the Constitution or care.

Most of the founding fathers were not lawyers.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You also don't have to be lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. I think it might be a good idea to have some non-lawyers on SCOTUS. The only requirement should be an understanding of the Constitution and a willingness to rule based on original intent. I think a lot of lawyers don't know much at all about the Constitution or care.

Most of the founding fathers were not lawyers.

That is the truth. No doubt, Joe.

Lawyers are taught to twist meanings, not understand them. It would be good to have some non-lawyers on the Court. They might actually read what the Constitution says, and apply it accordingly.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is the truth. No doubt, Joe.

Lawyers are taught to twist meanings, not understand them. It would be good to have some non-lawyers on the Court. They might actually read what the Constitution says, and apply it accordingly.

I'd be willing to bet Ben Franklin had a clear understanding of the Constitution. He dropped out of school at the age of ten.

[CuteOldGuy]

He understood it, and much more. He's the one who replied to the question, "What kind of government have you given us" by saying, "A republic, if you can keep it."

We haven't kept it. Sorry, Ben.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is the truth. No doubt, Joe.

Lawyers are taught to twist meanings, not understand them. It would be good to have some non-lawyers on the Court. They might actually read what the Constitution says, and apply it accordingly.

And you were a lawyer?Right? Now all your posts make sense now.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

And you were a lawyer?Right? Now all your posts make sense now.

COG was a lawyer. He's in recovery now.

[CuteOldGuy]

+1 Joe