• Support For Trump Impeachment At Record High
    131 replies, posted
The elections are supposed to be the tests for politicians, though. It really does come down to education. The problem is just that it's difficult and takes a long time and effort, but the alternatives are to tear down democracy.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52844390]The elections are supposed to be the tests for politicians, though. It really does come down to education. The problem is just that it's difficult and takes a long time and effort, but the alternatives are to tear down democracy.[/QUOTE] The elections are the "public relations" test for a politician, but there's no requirement for a politician to actually be 'factually correct' during this test, which I think we can all agree is one of the main stereotypes of "lol a politician telling the truth wow".
That's why it comes down to education. That public relations test would have proper requirements if the public was educated and capable of critical thinking. Without a competent people, democracy doesn't work. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] I'm just trying to support what ilikecorn said, basically. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844362]So you either A. Have to restrict who can be in office, B. Have to restrict who can vote, or C. Educate the populous (this has a benefit of creating qualified people for office too!).[/QUOTE] Options A and B both go against the idea of democracy, so there's only option C left, which conveniently would solve all the problems if we could make it work. It's just a difficult thing to do.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52844414]That's why it comes down to education. That public relations test would have proper requirements if the public was educated and capable of critical thinking. Without a competent people, democracy doesn't work. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] I'm just trying to support what ilikecorn said, basically. Options A and B both go against the idea of democracy, so there's only option C left, which conveniently would solve all the problems if we could make it work. It's just a difficult thing to do.[/QUOTE] How does A go against the idea of a democracy? Everyone still has the right to be a politician, but under A, not everyone has the capacity to be a politician. In the same way that with the right to bear arms, everyone has the right to own guns, but not everyone has the capacity to own guns (be it through terror watch lists or significant mental disorders etc). Or with how you have the right to free speech, but not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, to use the tired old example. Also you're not ever going to have C. so long as the people in charge are actively legislating to defund schools and educational programs.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52844456]How does A go against the idea of a democracy? Everyone still has the right to be a politician, but under A, not everyone has the capacity to be a politician. In the same way that with the right to bear arms, everyone has the right to own guns, but not everyone has the capacity to own guns (be it through terror watch lists or significant mental disorders etc). Or with how you have the right to free speech, but not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, to use the tired old example. Also you're not ever going to have C. so long as the people in charge are actively legislating to defund schools and educational programs.[/QUOTE] We've actually gone from justifying regulations on your right to own firearms, to attempting to justify regulations on free speech and your right to vote. I think I've just realized a horrible truth. Authoritarianism has no assigned political affiliation.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52844022]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.[/QUOTE] I think you totally missed Govna's point, as others have explained. There's a world of difference between "your views don't line up with mine so you shouldn't be allowed to vote" and "you're a total moron who's completely disconnected from reality and is completely ignorant of the actual facts so you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you're a danger to yourself and others". Ignorance is incredibly dangerous, whether it's from our politicians or our general populace. And it's also incredibly widespread as well, especially among the US populace.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;52841802]Then there's the rest of the chain of succession...[/QUOTE] "Here's how Bernie can still win..."
There should be no requirements on your right to vote other than being a citizen of the United States, and at least eighteen years of age. To suggest anything else runs counter to the spirit of our country. While our system is flawed, elitism and disenfranchisement undermine everything this country stands for.
I agree, we should send people who we don’t think are smart enough to vote to camps where they can learn to be better citizens. We should make sure that kids tell their local constabulary that their parents aren’t up to snuff with our standards! Either everyone votes or nobody. When you start restricting that, you leave open huge areas for abuse. Remember the last time American states had “tests” for people to vote? Hideous racial and economic discrimination. Get the fuck out with that shit
Oh man is it Unironically Advocate Authoritarian Faux-Meritocracy Because I, Being Extremely Intelligent, Will Definitely End Up On The Winning Side day? I didn't even get my decorations out of the garage, too late now I guess.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52844696]There should be no requirements on your right to vote other than being a citizen of the United States, and at least eighteen years of age. To suggest anything else runs counter to the spirit of our country. While our system is flawed, elitism and disenfranchisement undermine everything this country stands for.[/QUOTE] I believe that if you're found guilty of voter fraud, multiple voting, etc then your right to vote should be suspended for an amount of time, personally.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52844696]There should be no requirements on your right to vote other than being a citizen of the United States, and at least eighteen years of age. To suggest anything else runs counter to the spirit of our country. While our system is flawed, elitism and disenfranchisement undermine everything this country stands for.[/QUOTE] Yeah ok fine. Still, what about requirements on your right to run for public office? [QUOTE=RichyZ;52844731]the problem with these intelligence tests or what have you is that the current administration would be the one to write them up, and i've got a feeling that it wouldn't be a great show of intelligence to pass them it's sort of like when people suggest that an ai would be better to run the country, but an ai is only really going to make the same/similar decisions as the people who programmed it[/QUOTE] Yeah, which is why we're talking hypotheticals here. Any discussion on how to apply a semi-technocratic system to the current political climate would take more than a few dudes on a thread for a mod for a game thinking up stuff over coffee. [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52844608]We've actually gone from justifying regulations on your right to own firearms, to attempting to justify regulations on free speech and your right to vote. I think I've just realized a horrible truth. Authoritarianism has no assigned political affiliation.[/QUOTE] It's always nice to go BAH INCONCEIVABLE instead of addressing points.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844714]These aren't tests to vote. They're tests to actually run. Assuming you have an intelligent leadership (a technocracy basically), the populous can be as ignorant as they want to be. The counter point is to improve education so that we effectively eliminate all reasons to be ignorant other than "because I feel like it".[/QUOTE] Cool so what are your standards? In what way can you make these tests unbiased in a way that any American could run for it? Because with these "tests" you are ensuring that those who have grown up in disenfranchised households cannot partake in politics.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52844022]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)[/QUOTE] If people won't educate themselves with reliable sources, I don't care if they agree with me or not, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Let's say I'm voting for [x], and I'm watching a news interview with a woman telling the reporter why she's also voting for [x]. Say her reasoning is "[y] is a baby-rapist," despite all fact-checking and reliable news sites and stations saying otherwise. I could either go with the thought process of "eh whatever a vote for the same cause is good enough for me" or "fuck this dumb cunt she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about and there's no way she can make a reasonable decision on who to vote for without actually doing basic research on the candidate," and I choose the latter, regardless of who [x] and [y] are. So to answer your question, yes, people who don't vote the way I do are stupid and unfit to vote. It shouldn't be a quadrennial ritual of driving down to the voting booth so people can go "I'm going to vote for party [z] because I've voted for them the past 20 years and according to [shitty, awful, biased, potentially factually incorrect "news"] our candidate hasn't done anything wrong ever" without a second thought and scribbling in the box for "I'm voting all blue/red." [editline]a[/editline] Voting should require you to have done even 10 minutes' worth of research and genuine thought about who your vote is being cast for, but there aren't any checks on that now that we've evolved past "hey guys look cool we're 13 states" into "in under 10 button presses I can put all my thoughts on a website for everyone, no matter where in the world, to see, even if I'm a fucking dunce."
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844779] Assume that in this debate, the second you use a "half truth" or lie, you're completely eliminated from the debate, and may not re-enter.[/QUOTE] And so literally every human being is now disbarred from politics because nobody can be truthful 100% of the time. Also, what if you run into something like police work, gun rights, abortion? Things that cannot always run entirely on facts? Do you just ignore that? Goddamn I love it when people try the "technocracy" nonsense as if it makes sense/would work. It's totalitarianism and Might Makes Right just under some bullshit air of "Educated Individuals guys!!"
ah, i've built a mechanism for systematic political disenfranchisement that requires its operators to act purely and without bias in the interests of empiricism and objectivity. now to take a big sip of water
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52844763]Cool so what are your standards? In what way can you make these tests unbiased in a way that any American could run for it? Because with these "tests" you are ensuring that those who have grown up in disenfranchised households cannot partake in politics.[/QUOTE] "Does climate change happen - yes" "Is global warming man-made - yes" "Do vaccines cause autism - yes" Second/third/fourth grade questions like that don't disenfranchise anyone of any income or race or any other metric, other than those who are severely handicapped mentally. It's not like the tests have to be hard, they just have to be [I]binding [/I]so you can't support legislation that goes against well-established facts. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52844787]And so literally every human being is now disbarred from politics because nobody can be truthful 100% of the time. Also, what if you run into something like police work, gun rights, abortion? Things that cannot always run entirely on facts? Do you just ignore that? Goddamn I love it when people try the "technocracy" nonsense as if it makes sense/would work. It's totalitarianism and Might Makes Right just under some bullshit air of "Educated Individuals guys!!"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52844315]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: [B]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. [/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52844810]"Does climate change happen - yes" "Is global warming man-made - yes" "Do vaccines cause autism - yes"[/QUOTE] I don't know if you meant to do this but you yourself would be barred from voting based on one of these.
[QUOTE=gk99;52844828]I don't know if you meant to do this but you yourself would be barred from voting based on one of these.[/QUOTE] Do tell. I'm sure the way I phrased the questions you can go like "well are you saying if human men created all of warming ever in history" or something but still, do tell.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52844846]Do tell. I'm sure the way I phrased the questions you can go like "well are you saying if human men created all of warming ever in history" or something but still, do tell.[/QUOTE] He's referring to this one: [QUOTE]"Do vaccines cause autism - yes"[/QUOTE] Vaccines don't cause autism.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844853]"Do Vaccines cause autism"-yes; this is scientifically false.[/QUOTE] [B][I]OOPS LOL [/I][/B]No but yeah they don't, and the point is still that the questions don't have to be "what is the elemental weight of deuterium" or stuff like that.
you know if other countries can have citizenship democracy and not be dumpster fires maybe that means that educating the damn fucking population is the best idea (along with you know not having a stupid as fuck system that makes some votes worth more and allows stupid as fuck germandering) Deciding who and who cannot based entirely on apparent objective 'facts' and thinking that experts can never do things maliciously is so laughably terrible an ideology I don't even know how to begin. You'd hand power to fascists instantly.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52844867]you know if other countries can have citizenship democracy and not be dumpster fires maybe that means that educating the damn fucking population is the best idea (along with you know not having a stupid as fuck system that makes some votes worth more and allows stupid as fuck germandering) Deciding who and who cannot based entirely on apparent objective 'facts' and thinking that experts can never do things maliciously is so laughably terrible an ideology I don't even know how to begin. You'd hand power to fascists instantly.[/QUOTE] Agreed completely. Our system needs to be corrected and improved, but limiting the ability of the people to interact with politics is exactly the wrong way to do it. Abolishing or modernizing the electoral college would be one big step to putting power back in the hands of the people.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52844886]Agreed completely. Our system needs to be corrected and improved, but limiting the ability of the people to interact with politics is the exactly wrong way to do it. [B]Abolishing[/B] or modernizing the electoral college would be one big step to putting power back in the hands of the people.[/QUOTE] Just abolish it. The 'concern' it's supposed to address is non-existent and no other country in the world needs a system like it.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52844890]Just abolish it. The 'concern' it's supposed to address is non-existent and no other country in the world needs a system like it.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really help its case any that this last election it served the exact opposite of its job to begin with.
the electoral college was designed for when the country was running on horses rather than cars and hand delivered mail rather than electronic mail. everyone was so spread out and far away from one another and there wasn't any quick way to tally everyone's votes. nowadays it's completely pointless and serves only as a manipulation piece for overriding a popular vote result.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52844608]I think I've just realized a horrible truth. Authoritarianism has no assigned political affiliation.[/QUOTE] Gosh, took you long enough. It's hip to be authoritarian no matter your political sway! Get with the times old man! I can understand where ilikecorn, EcksDee and the like are coming from to be honest. Democracy in recent years hasn't been doing super hot, it's led to a number of utterly perplexing decisions and installed fucking morons into power multiple times across the world. It's a surprisingly easy system to manipulate as shown with the success of populist dicknuggets like Trump, Farage, etc. Though while it is flawed it's currently the best we've got really.
Even though I'm a liberal, I definitely see the appeal of the Electoral College and I see the need to encourage Presidential Candidates to visit multiple states that might otherwise be neglected. But, yes, it definitely needs to be reworked at bare minimum if it didn't act as a failsafe in preventing people like Trump from getting into office.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52844922]Even though I'm a liberal, I definitely see the appeal of the Electoral College and I see the[B] need to encourage Presidential Candidates to visit multiple states that might otherwise be neglected.[/B] But, yes, it definitely needs to be reworked at bare minimum if it didn't act as a failsafe in preventing people like Trump from getting into office.[/QUOTE] The only States visited are those that are 50-50 and too close to call, as those are the ones that decide the election. Everywhere else gets ignored. Meanwhile without an Electoral College every vote counts. Ergo, being a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas means you actually have a voice in voting on the most powerful man on the planet (essentially). Suddenly it's now important to actually visit that state, and Hawaii, and Alaska. I'm sorry if I'm being way too harsh but the Electoral College is a down right fucking stupid piece of shit completely worthless, idiotic, moronic, dip-shittily dumb idea. It needs to go. Fully. Forever. Bye bye. See you later.
[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] If I'd have to take such a test, my critical thinking would instantly tell me it's bullshit. Notice how c and d are petty insults for Trump, but for Clinton they are actual events and in all caps too to emphasize the stupidity. Really makes me doubt your intention when the example isn't even equal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.