[QUOTE=Elspin;52842257]Can you imagine Clinton's face if the first female president was [i]Betsy DeVos[/i] due to 15 people in the line of succession being declared unfit for office? Now that would be some wild shit.[/QUOTE]
The funny part is since her appointment she now has more experience in politics than she does in education.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;52842339]My boss and I were at a customer's house, and she said "Trump will get things done"
We both looked at eachother and almost laughed.
Can't wait to tell him about this shit man, this is to good.[/QUOTE]
It really is bizarre how many people are so desperate to make their boogeymen go away that they managed to project this persona on Trump of all people. They might as well just imagine up a president in their entirety.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52842867]It really is bizarre how many people are so desperate to make their boogeymen go away that they managed to project this persona on Trump of all people. They might as well just imagine up a president in their entirety.[/QUOTE]
I had a "friend" in Manhattan say to me - before any major news outlets reported anything whatsoever about the attacker - that he hopes Trump will deport all the Muslims after what happened today, and then went on a rant about the 9th Circuit.
These people don't live in reality. They don't understand how the government works and they don't have any knowledge of international politics, or even basic things like statistics and logical reasoning, because they live in the Trump World fantasy where we're going to kick out all the non-whites and everyone will get great jobs and pay less taxes. They eat up complete lies, don't bother to think critically, never stop and wonder how any of this will get done, and yet they [i]vote[/i].
[QUOTE=Kommodore;52841773]not how that works?[/QUOTE]
Who elects Congress?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52842970]I had a "friend" in Manhattan say to me - before any major news outlets reported anything whatsoever about the attacker - that he hopes Trump will deport all the Muslims after what happened today, and then went on a rant about the 9th Circuit.
These people don't live in reality. They don't understand how the government works and they don't have any knowledge of international politics, or even basic things like statistics and logical reasoning, because they live in the Trump World fantasy where we're going to kick out all the non-whites and everyone will get great jobs and pay less taxes. They eat up complete lies, don't bother to think critically, never stop and wonder how any of this will get done, and yet they [i]vote[/i].[/QUOTE]
Ah, democracy, where my ignorance is as good as your knowledge
If only we had designed the country to avoid a populist shitbags taking power.
Oh wait, we did. Then we fucked it up by allowing the people to elect the president. He isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the close alliance of united states.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52842386]Unfortunately the GOP won't drop him like the hot potato he is until the dominoes are done falling.[/QUOTE]
What it looks like to me as a nobody that listens to NPR Politics, BBC News, and a Trump-supporting comedian all day, is that the Republican party is really fudging it this presidency while support for Trump simultaneously dies down. What this means is that while Trump will have the power of the presidency, those Republican seats are going to go up soon. Even if a Republican senator doesn't intend to step down, Republicans have had immense trouble getting any healthcare stuff passed. It's now common for Republicans to call out Trump for all sorts of things, and the support that Trump had for his election is waning despite his continued campaigning.
Perhaps what we'll end up with (assuming the Democrats don't manage to mess things up again) is a Democrat-controlled Congress under an unliked president. I'm betting Trump won't be impeached, but support is going to be given elsewhere.
[editline]31st October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;52843028]If only we had designed the country to avoid a populist shitbags taking power.
Oh wait, we did. Then we fucked it up by allowing the people to elect the president. He isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the close alliance of united states.[/QUOTE]
If I ever bring up my want to reverse that, people call me crazy.
[QUOTE=Luni;52843027]Ah, democracy, where my ignorance is as good as your knowledge[/QUOTE]
[b]Birthright[/b] democracy. Democracy that's got limitations on who's allowed to vote and serve in public office (Socratic democracy) is where it's at. That's what we need to be working towards creating. If we intend to have long-term stability and efficiency, then we've got to have a little elitism (and of course proper education and decent social welfare to facilitate it).
But yes, it is ridiculous to have a system that unironically claims everybody's opinion is equally valid and denies the simple fact that some people are more knowledgeable and educated, more humanitarian and dutiful, and more sensible than others are (and that they are therefore more fit to participate in government and lead than others are). That's [i]exactly[/i] how you wind up with the mess we're in today. We're at a point where denying objective reality because it's politically inconvenient and uncomfortable has actually become a widely-accepted position that people follow; look at the conspiracies these people believe in and the blind faith they have where it makes no sense to have it. It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Elspin;52842257]Can you imagine Clinton's face if the first female president was [i]Betsy DeVos[/i] due to 15 people in the line of succession being declared unfit for office? Now that would be some wild shit.[/QUOTE]
Just waiting for the Cylons now
[QUOTE=GunFox;52843028]If only we had designed the country to avoid a populist shitbags taking power.
Oh wait, we did. Then we fucked it up by allowing the people to elect the president. He isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the close alliance of united states.[/QUOTE]
having a single man in charge of half a continent of a third of a billion people probably isn't the best of ideas
you talk about the original design of the USA - but the original government of the USA was a republic meant for a few million people on the east coast. Now the same system of government exists for hundreds of millions of people and it stretches from Hawaii to Maine and Florida to Alaska
[QUOTE=GunFox;52843028]If only we had designed the country to avoid a populist shitbags taking power.
Oh wait, we did. Then we fucked it up by allowing the people to elect the president. He isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the close alliance of united states.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Govna;52843300][b]Birthright[/b] democracy. Democracy that's got limitations on who's allowed to vote and serve in public office (Socratic democracy) is where it's at. That's what we need to be working towards creating. If we intend to have long-term stability and efficiency, then we've got to have a little elitism (and of course proper education and decent social welfare to facilitate it).
But yes, it is ridiculous to have a system that unironically claims everybody's opinion is equally valid and denies the simple fact that some people are more knowledgeable and educated, more humanitarian and dutiful, and more sensible than others are (and that they are therefore more fit to participate in government and lead than others are). That's [i]exactly[/i] how you wind up with the mess we're in today. We're at a point where denying objective reality because it's politically inconvenient and uncomfortable has actually become a widely-accepted position that people follow; look at the conspiracies these people believe in and the blind faith they have where it makes no sense to have it. It's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit I don't even know where to begin. Will post more on this later.
[QUOTE=Govna;52843300][b]Birthright[/b] democracy. Democracy that's got limitations on who's allowed to vote and serve in public office (Socratic democracy) is where it's at. That's what we need to be working towards creating. If we intend to have long-term stability and efficiency, then we've got to have a little elitism (and of course proper education and decent social welfare to facilitate it).
But yes, it is ridiculous to have a system that unironically claims everybody's opinion is equally valid and denies the simple fact that some people are more knowledgeable and educated, more humanitarian and dutiful, and more sensible than others are (and that they are therefore more fit to participate in government and lead than others are). That's [i]exactly[/i] how you wind up with the mess we're in today. We're at a point where denying objective reality because it's politically inconvenient and uncomfortable has actually become a widely-accepted position that people follow; look at the conspiracies these people believe in and the blind faith they have where it makes no sense to have it. It's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
People who don't vote the way you do are stupid and unfit to vote so should be disbarred from voting until they cast a vote you agree with? That sounds like democracy to me, yes.
You know who else wants to keep people he disagrees with from voting? (It's Donald J. Trump)
[editline]1st November 2017[/editline]
No, like, really, how can you even reach this point without thinking "wait a minute"...
Let's suppress the right of the people to think freely and elect their leaders in order to prevent the election of a leader who will suppress the right of the people to think freely and vote.
That's like cutting off your hand because it hurts when you smash your finger with a hammer. I can't wrap my brain around this thought process. I don't think I'm going to identify as left or right anymore, I'm just happy to be counted among the sane.
What the jumping jack christ is going on anymore
[QUOTE=Govna;52843300][b]Birthright[/b] democracy. Democracy that's got limitations on who's allowed to vote and serve in public office (Socratic democracy) is where it's at.[/QUOTE]
Point to me an example of a Socratic democracy working, and working well, and it's people not being treated like shit or it eventually becoming a dictatorship.
Because I can point out plenty of birthright (and citizen-right) democracies that work well.
Because the problem in the United States is that your way of voting is done awfully and your government is extremely unrepresentative.
You need SVT along with PR. You need a much more parliamentarian system with the President being more of a figure head.
[B][I]You don't need to start limiting who can vote so that you can eventually become a dictatorship, as that's the road you'll go down if you ever SUGGEST a system like that.[/I][/B]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844058]This. The idea of "everyone deserves the right to vote" is beyond stupid. My neighbor is entirely illiterate, should he have a right to decide who runs our country? Fuck no. Not to say he should be treated like shit, but the guy can't even read, he actively believes anything on the news because he has no means of gaining other information.
On top of this, having actual qualified politicians would be wonderful. Imagine if you needed a degree in computers to write laws regarding computers.. its almost as if the rest of the world works that way and only in the legislature do we allow unqualified people the privilege of creating rules and regulations.[/QUOTE]
Stop it, this is lunacy. You are mirroring the words of Trump and company and you don't even realize it. Stop. Think about what you are saying. You are allowing yourself to become radicalized.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844058]This. The idea of "everyone deserves the right to vote" is beyond stupid. My neighbor is entirely illiterate, should he have a right to decide who runs our country? Fuck no. Not to say he should be treated like shit, but the guy can't even read, he actively believes anything on the news because he has no means of gaining other information.[/QUOTE]
Then the problem is that your neighbour has been badly educated, mishandled by the system and feed bullshit by terrible news corporation created by terrible business rules and regulations. Not that he can vote.
Education, regulation, and better political and voting systems are the solution.
[B]Not limiting democracy.[/B] Cause that will take you down a terrible path.
[editline]1st November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52844063]Stop it, this is lunacy. You are mirroring the words of Trump and company and you don't even realize it. Stop. Think about what you are saying. You are allowing yourself to become radicalized.[/QUOTE]
As much as we disagree at times on things, I agree with you completely. Limiting democracy like this is a short term solution that leads to dictatorship and horrible, awful things.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844058]This. The idea of "everyone deserves the right to vote" is beyond stupid. My neighbor is entirely illiterate, should he have a right to decide who runs our country? Fuck no. Not to say he should be treated like shit, but the guy can't even read, he actively believes anything on the news because he has no means of gaining other information.
On top of this, having actual qualified politicians would be wonderful. Imagine if you needed a degree in computers to write laws regarding computers.. its almost as if the rest of the world works that way and only in the legislature do we allow unqualified people the privilege of creating rules and regulations.[/QUOTE]
The irony of someone who is pro 2nd amendment, unless I'm misremembering, arguing for putting arbitrary barriers in front of what is supposed to be an explicit right in this country, is strange to see.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844058]This. The idea of "everyone deserves the right to vote" is beyond stupid. My neighbor is entirely illiterate, should he have a right to decide who runs our country? Fuck no. Not to say he should be treated like shit, but the guy can't even read, he actively believes anything on the news because he has no means of gaining other information.
[/QUOTE]
We had this in the past, they were called Jim Crow laws and they went away for good reason.
So why not just say you want education reform instead of going down the path of dictatorship?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844070]I've never argued for a democracy though? Ever?
I've argued things based on the constitution, yes, because this is a nation of laws and I believe in following them, But if we're offering up suggestions to change said law, then by all means get rid of the idea of "anyone can be a senator/representative". No. Fuck no. We don't let our mechanics walk in off the street, we make our doctors go through years of rigorous schooling. Why can a person LITERALLY WRITING THE LAW be completely and utterly incompetent? Why?
Why should someone who doesn't understand farming be allowed to regulate farming? Why should someone who doesn't understand computers regulate computers? Why should someone who doesn't understand guns regulate guns?[/QUOTE]
So what are you suggesting? Some sort of basic literacy test being a requirement for voting? Because last time a state used that, it was deliberately used to disenfranchise southern blacks. Hell, that was the whole reason for having it in the first place.
Voting matters. Who's allowed to vote and who isn't matters. The people running for office know that. They don't have any sense of fair play - it's all about win-or-lose, and they'll resort to whatever dirty tricks they think will get them into office. If you put any sort of limitation on who can vote beyond citizenship, people in high places will abuse the hell out of it and leave vast swathes of the population disenfranchised.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844133]In all reality, i'd have a test that effectively boiled down to "which of these things do you not like about trump" "a: His foreign policy, b: His domestic policy, C: He's orange, or D: His tiny hands" with D and C being the wrong answer, same for Hillary, what do you not like about Hillary "a: Her lack of message, b: Her involvement with big business, C: EMAILS?!, or D: BENGAZY". C and D are both incorrect, and would show that you lack the critical thinking skills to vote.
We could even have the test be administered by voice for those who are illiterate, in braile for those who are blind, etc etc, make it as inclusive as possible, make it like 3 questions long so as to not waste any more time, etc etc.[/QUOTE]
So what government body would be the one coming up with these test questions?
Edit: Furthermore, what constitutes a 'lack of critical thinking skills'? Picking a meme answer?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52844063]Stop it, this is lunacy. You are mirroring the words of Trump and company and you don't even realize it. Stop. Think about what you are saying. You are allowing yourself to become radicalized.[/QUOTE]
"People shouldn't be allowed to vote because I disagree with them"
"People shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are wrong"
Not to play devil's avocado but those two statements are not equal.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52844105]So what are you suggesting? Some sort of basic literacy test being a requirement for voting? Because last time a state used that, it was deliberately used to disenfranchise southern blacks. Hell, that was the whole reason for having it in the first place.
Voting matters. Who's allowed to vote and who isn't matters. The people running for office know that. They don't have any sense of fair play - it's all about win-or-lose, and they'll resort to whatever dirty tricks they think will get them into office. If you put any sort of limitation on who can vote beyond citizenship, people in high places will abuse the hell out of it and leave vast swathes of the population disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]
Really? Because current voter ID laws already prevent the poorest among us from casting a vote, if we were going to put any limitations on voting I'd sure as hell rather it be an education or merit based system than spend well over $100 and lose a day of work to go get an ID that my state finds suitable to vote. Hell I'd settle for just handing people a copy of the declared party platforms for that election, as well as a copy of each candidates tax plans, and then making people sign and acknowledge that they are educated on what they are voting for.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52844160]"People shouldn't be allowed to vote because I disagree with them"
"People shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are wrong"
Not to play devil's avocado but those two statements are not equal.[/QUOTE]
It would not be difficult to masquerade one of those statements for the other.
We should open voting to everyone in the world seeing as how the president is the leader of the Free world
So in this theoretical scenario where only "educated" people get to vote, are they the only ones paying taxes and living under these laws, or is everyone subject, just some people don't have a say in anything?
Fucking hell I didn't think there were this many people trying to destroy the country. You people are going to give me an aneurism from reading this much stupid.
It's scary to watch people develop ideas that are literally anti-democracy, but honestly I don't think it's very surprising. The moment you feel that a majority of people are incompetent, you automatically stop believing in democracy. And I can't really blame people for getting that feeling...
Like yeah in an ideal world only the people who understand the politics and weight behind their votes would be able to sway power but here's the same thing that fucks up literally every ideal system:
People. People are not ever going to not snatch and consolidate power by keeping other people down and only allowing those who play ball vote.
If everyone had pure and altruistic intentions, sure! Great! But it won't work in reality, because it's far, FAR too easy to shift it into a system designed to silence large swaths of the population.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52844258]It would not be difficult to masquerade one of those statements for the other.[/QUOTE]
Sure it doesn't work for every statement, but it works if your position is "Global climate change isn't real" or "carbon dioxide isn't a primary contributor to the global warming that we see" or "Vaccines cause autism" or "The earth is between 6 000 to 10 000 years old" or "new environmentally friendly lightbulbs cause cancer" or "If we never took out incredibly fire retardant asbestos and replaced it, the WTC would still be standing" or "Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs, they're rapists, and some, I assume are good people" or "abstinence only education works" and stuff like that.
Here's the thing:
Moral and ethical standpoints are a matter of opinion, and they vary from person to person, which is why statements like "I don't think euthanasia should be allowed" or "Donald Trump is a good-looking man" aren't subject to facts.
However, with scientific claims, [I]there is only one truth, and only one version of that truth[/I], and it is what can be demonstrated with evidence. That which can be proven to be wrong is dismissed.
Holding positions that are diametrically opposite to hard science should be an immediate disqualifier from having a place on any ballot, because the damage you can cause by legislating against science is so much worse than any war.
No one should be prevented from voting.
However not anyone should be able to run. Like ecksdees saying I feel holding opinions based in a realm of nonsense makes you categorically unfit for office if any sort.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.