I wonder if we should take away your ability to vote because of this:
ITS A GOOD THING WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO VOTE, AMIRITE GUYS? THEN ALL THOSE WHO AREN'T VOTING FOR MY GUY CAN'T VOTE---I MEAN, THEN ALL THE UNWORTHY CAN'T VOTE!We have too many uninformed and/or stupid people voting, hence why Obama was elected. Also, only people who work should be able to vote.
Only Conservatives seem to want to restrict voting. I think it says a lot about both sides which seem to be OH JUST SO SIMILAR according to the heinous mainstream media.
Last edited by KrazyK923; 2012-11-17 at 03:47 AM.
Romney's whole 47% crap is a huge lie if you have any foundation in reality. There are a lot of people in this country who work their asses off and still get government assistance. It has nothing to do with them wanting 'free stuff'. It has a lot to do with corporations in this country doing their best to maximize profits while considering workers totally disposable and valueless. It's not the company's problem if their employees barely make a living wage, yet they seem to think that the government trying to take up the slack for that lack of wage is evil. That seems odd since they won't pay for it and the government shouldn't either. I guess if a corporation doesn't value you, you should just GTFO.
But the real problem in the US is not because welfare people abuse the government. It's because of the big corporations who avoid taxes by any means possible. You can handle a couple millions of welfare checks, but you can't handle loopholes from the super rich. They are already super rich, even if you taxed 90% of their revenu, they will still be super rich. I have no pity. (and even if I had 500 millions in my bank account, I would be glad to pay the same percentage as the middle class)
Just noting the absurdity of the "YOU MUST CLEAR THIS BAR" route. Funny how people tend to set the bar at exactly the height they clear, isn't it?
Reminds me of WoW. Anyone with more success is a no life nerd, anyone with less success is obviously a fucking baddie.
Wasn't sure. Though, every intelligence-based voting requirement would technically be a technocracy, depending on what your definition of "most intelligent" is.
I had a suspicion that was what you were doing, just wasn't sure if I was remembering your credentials correctly.
Yeah, that makes sense. There's a part of me that wishes true idiots couldn't vote, but then I think about it and realize that I don't want anyone making that decision that would actually be making it. I like playing the "set the credentials at a level that suits me but not others" level to see if they really mean it. If someone without a given credential says, "yes, I'm good with that", I'll disagree with them, but respect their position as internally consistent.
I think we all understand the frustration with wholesale ignorant people's votes counting equally though.
Romney lost because the national GOP is in terrible shape. I like a lot of what Bobby Jindal has said recently in that Republicans really need to fix their problems they have with assorted groups of voters. They should find a nice bunker to sit in for a few months and work on their internal organization. This was a piss easy election to win and the Republicans were slaughtered in every conceivable way in the PR/media department.
I honestly saw this at school, where the school's College Democrats benefactor is a poli-sci professor sending out an email a week to the whole school about some Democrat flunkie coming to visit or what have you. Meanwhile, the first College Republicans email I saw didn't appear until the Saturday before the election. They just now sent out an invitation to the club. It's ridiculous.
Have a bit of a similar situation here as well. The campus Republican's club isn't as well presented as the campus Democrat's club. Though, the political science department was hosting all of the events in conjunction with the two clubs, so I don't think there was that great of a disparity.
It was like that when I was in college too. Strong Dem student group, lots of groups about "left" issues, etc. I would imagine it's that way at most schools, except perhaps the ones that have an openly right-leaning ideology, where I'd imagine more right-leaning students would tend to go.
---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 12:08 AM ----------
Perhaps he's really not though, behind closed doors. He remains a depressing example of Republicans pandering to anti-science, anti-reality positions. If they're going to shift gears and embrace a reality-based approach to the world, people like Jindal need to go.
I think he probably subscribes to a joint of both theories, like myself. I think his approach is misguided, but as long as evolution isn't being excluded, I wouldn't call it anti-science. Pro-religion: yes.
But at this point, I'm derailing and talking about religion. Double no-nos.
I apologize for making a comment you're disinclined to reply to because of forum rules. Really, not being sardonic. If you'd like to grab the final word on the matter, feel free, I promise not to drag it out.