2012 Republican Presidential Debate

dadudemon

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
i' m an atheist and all but I Don't think Republicans should be considered Christians at all. I say that because a lot of these Republicans would have no problem cutting taxes for the rich before giving money too the poor. In fact, they'll vilify the act of spreading the wealth as an act of commies ignoring the very teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ says more about giving up what you have to help the needy than anything but Republicans are more liekly to bring up the sinful act of homosexuality and make that they're issue than give a shit about Jesus' teachings. I thought being a Christian is about following the path of Jesus' life, not praising him like some idol for luck and doing the opposite of teachings?

Forcing people to be charitable is actually NOT Christ-like and goes against what Christians believe.

So forcing the rich to be "charitable" would not be the Christian thing to do.

Them volunteering their moneys WOULD, however, be the Christ-like thing to do.

Contrast:

Bill Gates giving away billions.
A successful preacher living in a mansion and driving a $200K car.

One of those does not belong.

WhiteWitchKing

Originally posted by dadudemon
Forcing people to be charitable is actually NOT Christ-like and goes against what Christians believe.

So forcing the rich to be "charitable" would not be the Christian thing to do.

Them volunteering their moneys WOULD, however, be the Christ-like thing to do.

Contrast:

Bill Gates giving away billions.
A successful preacher living in a mansion and driving a $200K car.

One of those does not belong.

Forcing the rich? It's called taxes. Since when is it a Christian thing to cut programs that help the poor and then used that money to give the rich tax cuts? Their success is dependant on those around them to build their wealth. They don't live in a bubble. A reason the poor is at a disadvantage is because Consumers want low cost goods while suppliers want high profits. In this market, the lowest skill emPloyees are paid so little even with minimum wage, they still struggle. Gas, oil, food cost, insurance, rent, and especially medical needs exceed what they low wage workers can afford to survive. Without the taxes necassary to provide such programs, how are you going to have a health work force to do the labor intense jobs?

Without labor laws and taxes on the rich to provide needed programs, how else would these people survive? It's the lower classes that move the economic engine. The reason we tax them and wrote these laws is because management/the rich abuse their positions? Charity? Yeah right. More like why don't you pay taxes and not ask for cuts when you're the likeliest group to benefit from a stronger workforce.

It's not force. Everybody pays taxes. Even Jesus said you shall render onto Caesar what is Caesar's (taxes). the rich benefit far more from these spending than the poor, ie defense. It's when they cut down what the rich are paying, lost the revenue, and then cut these programs that help the poor. Also what about sales taxes, are they going to give the poor a rebate check for that? Nah they take that and lumping it in with other subsidy programs for the wealthy. Rob from the poor to give the rich . Sounds like a Christian alright

dadudemon

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Forcing the rich? It's called taxes.

You don't know me very well. That's okay. Lemme better explain where I'm coming from.

I don't think we should have income taxes.

smile

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Since when is it a Christian thing to cut programs that help the poor and then used that money to give the rich tax cuts? Their success is dependant on those around them to build their wealth. They don't live in a bubble. A reason the poor is at a disadvantage is because Consumers want low cost goods while suppliers want high profits. In this market, the lowest skill emPloyees are paid so little even with minimum wage, they still struggle. Gas, oil, food cost, insurance, rent, and especially medical needs exceed what they low wage workers can afford to survive. Without the taxes necassary to provide such programs, how are you going to have a health work force to do the labor intense jobs?

Without labor laws and taxes on the rich to provide needed programs, how else would these people survive? It's the lower classes that move the economic engine. The reason we tax them and wrote these laws is because management/the rich abuse their positions? Charity? Yeah right. More like why don't you pay taxes and not ask for cuts when you're the likeliest group to benefit from a stronger workforce.

It's not force. Everybody pays taxes. Even Jesus said you shall render onto Caesar what is Caesar's (taxes). the rich benefit far more from these spending than the poor, ie defense. It's when they cut down what the rich are paying, lost the revenue, and then cut these programs that help the poor. Also what about sales taxes, are they going to give the poor a rebate check for that? Nah they take that and lumping it in with other subsidy programs for the wealthy. Rob from the poor to give the rich . Sounds like a Christian alright

Easy, guy.

Since when was it ever Christian to force people to give away their money?

You want forced charity. Cool. People are bastards and that's the way it has to work. But make sure you don't try and pass off opposition to forced charity as "anti-Christian". That would definitely be wrong.

I think you should take a step back and redefine your argument FOR taxes, completely. Instead of using a failure of a anti-Christian approach (it would actually be anti-religion, in general, actually...but you don't like Christians even more, for some reason), you should be more literal and direct. Don't hide behind religion-hate to get your point across when it comes to taxes.

Well, I guess you CAN hide behind religion-hate to get your point across, you just didn't do it very well with taxes.

ADarksideJedi

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
So what did he do to doom this country. Which policies did he pass that created this doom? If you say the recession and high unemployment, which of his policies caused their continuation or worsening? And what are better solutions you've heard from anyone else?

The health care for one thing and alot of people who voted for him wish they did not.

WhiteWitchKing

Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't know me very well. That's okay. Lemme better explain where I'm coming from.

I don't think we should have income taxes.

Since when was it ever Christian to force people to give away their money?

You want forced charity. Cool. People are bastards and that's the way it has to work. But make sure you don't try and pass off opposition to forced charity as "anti-Christian". That would definitely be wrong.

I think you should take a step back and redefine your argument FOR taxes, completely. Instead of using a failure of a anti-Christian approach (it would actually be anti-religion, in general, actually...but you don't like Christians even more, for some reason), you should be more literal and direct. Don't hide behind religion-hate to get your point across when it comes to taxes.

Well, I guess you CAN hide behind religion-hate to get your point across, you just didn't do it very well with taxes.

lol. So we shouldn't have income taxes? What Taxes should we have in place to replace that to pay for our extravegant military and infrastructures? Do we raise sells taxes because the would really help the poor out.

Again I'm going to ask you, how can they call themselves Christians when they support programs like subsidies that benefit the rich and taxes cuts for the rich then turn around and reduce or cut programs like after school activities, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

This isn't just about income taxes, their mentality is what's good for the rich and businesses will be good for America. They would rather cut programs and oppose programs for the poor but have no problems supporting government programs that for the wealthy. Then they turn around and praise god and jesus. WTF?

These were government revenues they cut for the wealthy. On top of the number of subsidies and tax breaks the wealthy and corps get. Then they turn around and say shit, we don't have enough revenues and we're in debt. But no worries we'll cut all these programs. Oh by the way, let's go ahead and try to fix Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Cut all that. Raise the age. That pool of SS money have been tap to pay for everything else, not just SS payments. Then they say oh, we ain't got enough money for Ss recipients - we have to fix it. Lower benefits for u. Sorry! It's the Republicans who are for this and one dissapointing democratic president.

It's forced charity if it's on the rich, but it's not the same thing when the reverse happens to the other classes. He'll they would cut these programs before they cut military spending. A stronger military benefits the rich far more then any of the other classes but they don't figure that into the equation.

WhiteWitchKing

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
The health care for one thing and alot of people who voted for him wish they did not.

So how did the health care act he passed make the economy worse then it already was. If universal health creates such havoc, how come Canada and the other countries operated just fine with similar healthcare programs?

So a lot of people who voted for him wished they did not. That's your entire point on why he's doomed America? The statement can be applied to every president anD elected official throughout history here and abroad. People always regret decisions they make. People are bitter because he didn't go far enough in his promises and is weak. He's giving into the republicans and getting push around. He hasn't changed the status quo; he's giving into it. The other thing is he can fix the economy.

dadudemon

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
lol. So we shouldn't have income taxes? What Taxes should we have in place to replace that to pay for our extravegant military and infrastructures? Do we raise sells taxes because the would really help the poor out.

That's a lot of assumption you're doing. Don't you think? smile

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Again I'm going to ask you, how can they call themselves Christians when they support programs like subsidies that benefit the rich and taxes cuts for the rich then turn around and reduce or cut programs like after school activities, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Again, this all goes back to the original concept: forced charity is not actually charity and is not "Christian."

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
This isn't just about income taxes, their mentality is what's good for the rich and businesses will be good for America. They would rather cut programs and oppose programs for the poor but have no problems supporting government programs that for the wealthy. Then they turn around and praise god and jesus. WTF?

It sounds as though you've never heard of trickle down economics...like...ever.

And before you jump all over me: I don't support forced charity, either. wink

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
These were government revenues they cut for the wealthy. On top of the number of subsidies and tax breaks the wealthy and corps get. Then they turn around and say shit, we don't have enough revenues and we're in debt. But no worries we'll cut all these programs. Oh by the way, let's go ahead and try to fix Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Cut all that. Raise the age. That pool of SS money have been tap to pay for everything else, not just SS payments. Then they say oh, we ain't got enough money for Ss recipients - we have to fix it. Lower benefits for u. Sorry! It's the Republicans who are for this and one dissapointing democratic president.

I appreciate you preaching to me. erm

Still, the top 10% still pay the large majority of our taxes. U still mad about their tax breaks?

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
It's forced charity if it's on the rich, but it's not the same thing when the reverse happens to the other classes. He'll they would cut these programs before they cut military spending. A stronger military benefits the rich far more then any of the other classes but they don't figure that into the equation.

What, you think it's NOT forced charity for anyone but the rich? Isn't that a strawman?

RE: Blaxican

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Forcing the rich? It's called taxes.

Taxes aren't a Christian invention... in fact Jesus neither condemned nor condoned taxes. His thoughts on it were basically "Meh, if that's what the world's government wants you to do than do it."

So, I don't see how making people give their money to the poor is a Christian belief. Should, maybe, but pressuring someone to do so would be kind of anti-Christian.

Omega Vision

Yeah. The proper Christian belief is that people should be made to do good through example. You can't really force moral behavior, if you do then it isn't truly moral behavior, just people toeing the line.

lord xyz

There isn't really a "proper" christian belief...just a compilation of irrationality.

Though, that is considered to be morally superior and is included in all ancient religious texts.

Imagine what society was like before the Roman Empire. hmm

RE: Blaxican

Various interpretations of Christianity aside, you won't find anything in the bible that implies that Jesus thought that forcing people to give to the poor was a good idea.

edit- I feel like I could have worded that better.

inimalist

yes, but that was probably more about not wanting to force things than not wanting to support the poor

jesus and the poor were pretty tight afaik

EDIT: or exactly what you said above... doh

lord xyz

Enough derailing.

Who will be the next Republican candidate?

Omega Vision

Romney.

Bullshit aside he's the guy who's got what it takes to actually pull support from center right and independent voters, and I've seen it suggested many times that most moderate and non-extreme Republicans just really want to see someone who can unseat Obama and who doesn't have a D next to their name.

He's not the ideal candidate for most Republicans, but he's also not a gimmick candidate like Bachman or Paul.

His only real competition that I can see is Perry. But he's got a big head start on Perry in terms of drumming up support and name recognition.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Oh, I didn't realize he was Jewish. His name had me fooled. Now let's read some of that Wikipedia article and perhaps we can suss out some of my contempt for him.

Whining.

Self-aggrandizing liberal tolerance bullshit.

Whining and lying.

Wow, it's almost as if I already had formulated an idea of what he would be like in my mind based on his last name, which in turn led me to be dismissive of him--and lo and behold, the idea was pretty accurate. I wonder how that works?

ADarksideJedi

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
So how did the health care act he passed make the economy worse then it already was. If universal health creates such havoc, how come Canada and the other countries operated just fine with similar healthcare programs?

So a lot of people who voted for him wished they did not. That's your entire point on why he's doomed America? The statement can be applied to every president anD elected official throughout history here and abroad. People always regret decisions they make. People are bitter because he didn't go far enough in his promises and is weak. He's giving into the republicans and getting push around. He hasn't changed the status quo; he's giving into it. The other thing is he can fix the economy.

How is the Rublicans pushing him around? He is doing things his way and he should not had made promises he can't keep and it is all about controling everything and everyone around him. I also don't see how the economy been getting any better since he became president.

inimalist

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Oh, I didn't realize he was Jewish. His name had me fooled. Now let's read some of that Wikipedia article and perhaps we can suss out some of my contempt for him.

Whining.

Self-aggrandizing liberal tolerance bullshit.

Whining and lying.

Wow, it's almost as if I already had formulated an idea of what he would be like in my mind based on his last name, which in turn led me to be dismissive of him--and lo and behold, the idea was pretty accurate. I wonder how that works?

lol

well, at least you are trying to be a caricature

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon

Bill Gates giving away billions.
A successful preacher living in a mansion and driving a $200K car.

One of those does not belong.

Ya, but who's better looking?

http://www.thequoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bill%20gates.jpg http://www.blog.joelx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/joel-osteen-scandal.gif

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Ya, but who's better looking?

http://www.thequoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bill%20gates.jpg http://www.blog.joelx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/joel-osteen-scandal.gif

Nice.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Wow, it's almost as if I already had formulated an idea of what he would be like in my mind based on his last name, which in turn led me to be dismissive of him--and lo and behold, the idea was pretty accurate. I wonder how that works?

lol

I say that this is confirmation bias! RAWR!

inimalist

I love how irreverent Gates looks while he is praying

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A failing conspiracy is still conspiracy.

I tend to agree, however. From the outside it's easy to look at various far-right Christian groups that would clearly like America to be a theocracy and turn them into unified movement.

ugh, I feel like I do actually want to respond better to this:

Dominionism isn't a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies that there is a group of people somewhere actively plotting a desired goal, and attempting to manipulate the world to achieve it.

Nothing that I have said, that the video I posted said, or really any work on Dominionism I have seen, calls it a conspiracy of any kind. It isn't. Its not a Christian Cabal trying to promote specific governmental interests or trying to take over the white house through back room dealings or whatever. Dominionists, as in the individuals themselves, feel it is their own god given duty, due to the teachings of their faith, to become involved in the highest echelons of government apparatuses. This generally means the political sector, or the military sector, as Dominionist views see the American military as the biblical "good guys" who are going to fight Satan, in our lifetime.

In this respect, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Just individual people who feel personally motivated to get into power and use it to promote Christian interpretations of government. Sure, you might say that there are many such groups of all faiths or extreme points of political view, but they haven't achieved anything close to what the Dominionists have.

If you look at the work groups like the one Weinstein formed that promote religious tolerance in the military, you find cases of hundred of thousands of soldiers being given religious tests for service. You see generals preaching that we are bringing democracy and the bible to the Arab world, you see even more accredited generals giving power point presentations where they claim that Satan has literally materialized in some photos. Sure, these are all isolated incidents in that, there is no overarching conspiracy that ties one event to the next in some intentional way, but they are connected in that those involved are most often associated with the very small branch of Christianity that supports Dominionism (I can't remember the sect(s) at the moment...)

Now we see a front-running presidential candidate who holds prayer ceremonies where he invites unapologetic Dominionist pastors to pray that God make the economy better. For as disorganized and non-unifed as the movement might be, you certainly can't argue they are some fringe group on the outside of the mainstream that really only appear to have political influence to outside observers. No, its not people in a smokey black room trying to stage a coup, but the idea that this is merely conspiratorial thinking based on the ideas of some small religious sects is not congruent with pretty plainly obvious evidence.

Something need not be a shadowy gang of people to threaten certain fundamental rights and processes in American power

Zeal Ex Nihilo

TL;DR, I'm anti-Semitic for good reasons and dominionism is bloo-bloo from whiny liberals. Tell me that I'm transphobic and I have male privilege, please.

inimalist

wow... so dismissive of my opinion in a post that screams for my attention...

don't worry Zeal, you don't need my validation

Zeal Ex Nihilo

He's--he's--he's praying that the economy get better! This is a disgusting violation of my First Amendment rights.

inimalist

so you did read it?

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Santorum mad. He takes no shame in voting for the war in Iraq.

Harbinger

I don't post much here so forgive me, but:

Is Zeal serious with his posts, or is he trolling? Honestly, I can't tell.

FistOfThe North

"They, will not, force us,
They, will, stop, degrading us,
They, will, not, control us,
We, will, be, victorious"

- Muse "Uprising"

FistOfThe North

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog&ob=av2n

Robtard

Picture worth a chuckle.

http://www.someecards.com/view-card/MjAxMS03NmMzZjljZmI4ODhlNTgy?key=064676ca9bb95eac128d551fee8eca4a

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by Harbinger
I don't post much here so forgive me, but:

Is Zeal serious with his posts, or is he trolling? Honestly, I can't tell.
It's possible to do both at the same time.

WhiteWitchKing

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a lot of assumption you're doing. Don't you think? smile

Again, this all goes back to the original concept: forced charity is not actually charity and is not "Christian."

Taxes are not charity.

Trickle down economics? Lol. Trickle down economics works if the reach decided to invest and spend here. You act as if you give the rich a tax break, they'll take their money and spend it all here. They have offshore and international accounts that pay more interest than here. There's a number of emerging markets with far more promising investment returns - this goes for both the individual and businesses.

I've heard of trickle down economics. Now when has it worked fruitfully for this country? During Regans term? What about Bush Sr's term? Bush Jrs term? Walker Bush cut taxes for the rich and where was this trickle down economics that the right love to spout?
Trickle down economics? LMAO. Nothing more than a b.s. economic theory preach by the rich to avoid paying taxes.

Forced charity? Hell no. The rich pay more because they own more property and use more resources so they should pay up. They benefit more than the any of the other classes. Military defense. Who do you think would lose more if this country was invaded? The poor? Clean water, clear ocean, a safe food supply, well lighted streets, well stationed and ready police stations, etc. You think roads build and repave themselves? How does inter-state commerce profit if their were no roads?

Where did I say it's forced charity for anyone other than the rich? You're the one claiming force charity. It ain't charity, it's called taxes - pay up. Even Jesus said, pay Caesar his taxes. My point is that Republicans would rather cut taxes for those who have before they helped the needy. That's the model of this party.

Quark_666

Christianity is not charity.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

But charity is Christian.

WhiteWitchKing

The top 10% pays the majority of our taxes but it's the other 90% that contribute to the majority of daily economic growth. The reason you don't tax the poor on income is because they need that money to spend on rent, utilities, and FOOD. But guess what, they still spend! 2/3 of US GDP comes from consumer spending. If you taxed the poor on income, how much money do you think they'll have left for consumption of goods produced by businesses and the rich?

This economy is run from the bottom up. It's the daily transactions by people at the bottom that sustain profits for businesses. Go to your burger joint, auto shops, or most businesses, they profit from those at the bottom the most. Who do you think buys the most goods and provides the man power needed move the businesses and this economy?

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
TL;DR, I'm anti-Semitic for good reasons and dominionism is bloo-bloo from whiny liberals. Tell me that I'm transphobic and I have male privilege, please. Heh, I didn't realize you were one of the Aryan Embarrassment Stormfront crowd.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"They, will not, force us,
They, will, stop, degrading us,
They, will, not, control us,
We, will, be, victorious"

- Muse "Uprising"
Most overplayed song of last year.

dadudemon

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
Taxes are not charity.

Trickle down economics? Lol. Trickle down economics works if the reach decided to invest and spend here. You act as if you give the rich a tax break, they'll take their money and spend it all here. They have offshore and international accounts that pay more interest than here. There's a number of emerging markets with far more promising investment returns - this goes for both the individual and businesses.

I've heard of trickle down economics. Now when has it worked fruitfully for this country? During Regans term? What about Bush Sr's term? Bush Jrs term? Walker Bush cut taxes for the rich and where was this trickle down economics that the right love to spout?
Trickle down economics? LMAO. Nothing more than a b.s. economic theory preach by the rich to avoid paying taxes.

Forced charity? Hell no. The rich pay more because they own more property and use more resources so they should pay up. They benefit more than the any of the other classes. Military defense. Who do you think would lose more if this country was invaded? The poor? Clean water, clear ocean, a safe food supply, well lighted streets, well stationed and ready police stations, etc. You think roads build and repave themselves? How does inter-state commerce profit if their were no roads?

Where did I say it's forced charity for anyone other than the rich? You're the one claiming force charity. It ain't charity, it's called taxes - pay up. Even Jesus said, pay Caesar his taxes. My point is that Republicans would rather cut taxes for those who have before they helped the needy. That's the model of this party.

I read lots of irrelevant words. "Taxes is not charity" has got to be the most ridiculous thing you stated since you tried to pass off taxes as charity for Christians.

Instead of preaching at me with multiple paragraphs every single section you quote, just accept that you used a shitty argument for why Christians should be gung-ho about forced charity. They shouldn't be. They should never be. Forced charity has never, is not, and will never be Christian: it's the exact opposite.

Deal with it and move on.

Originally posted by WhiteWitchKing
The top 10% pays the majority of our taxes but it's the other 90% that contribute to the majority of daily economic growth. The reason you don't tax the poor on income is because they need that money to spend on rent, utilities, and FOOD. But guess what, they still spend! 2/3 of US GDP comes from consumer spending. If you taxed the poor on income, how much money do you think they'll have left for consumption of goods produced by businesses and the rich?

This economy is run from the bottom up. It's the daily transactions by people at the bottom that sustain profits for businesses. Go to your burger joint, auto shops, or most businesses, they profit from those at the bottom the most. Who do you think buys the most goods and provides the man power needed move the businesses and this economy?

So you missed the implied that both forced charity and trickle down economics are not my cup of tea, eh? Figures.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
But charity is Christian. Christians didn't invent charity.

They invented anti-semitism....but I don't think charity is particularly Christian.

(See if you can get the subtle joke there...)

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lord xyz
Christians didn't invent charity.

They invented anti-semitism....but I don't think charity is particularly Christian.

(See if you can get the subtle joke there...)

Is it that Christians totally didn't invent anti-semistism?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is it that Christians totally didn't invent anti-semistism? No.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

Oh, cause it was really funny when you said they did.

lord xyz

That doesn't make it the subtle joke...which you obviously can't work out.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Nah, Stormfront is goony and "hurrr we need a dictator that will kill everyone who isn't a fat sack of trailer crap" and "I AM THE MASTER RACE" bullshit. I just don't like Jews because of the values they espouse.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Nah, Stormfront is goony and "hurrr we need a dictator that will kill everyone who isn't a fat sack of trailer crap" and "I AM THE MASTER RACE" bullshit. I just don't like Jews because of the values they espouse.

What are "Jewish values"?

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, cause it was really funny when you said they did.

did hating Jews for the specific fact that they were Jews really predate Christianity?

like, I know the Old Testament talks about Jews as slaves, and so forth, but like, isn't that more mythology/historical practice, rather than a specific ideology of "jews are bad because they are jews"?

I honestly don't actually know the answer to this...

Omega Vision

Originally posted by inimalist
did hating Jews for the specific fact that they were Jews really predate Christianity?

like, I know the Old Testament talks about Jews as slaves, and so forth, but like, isn't that more mythology/historical practice, rather than a specific ideology of "jews are bad because they are jews"?

I honestly don't actually know the answer to this...
The Romans didn't much like the fact that the Jews wouldn't accept their Gods along with Jehovah. That was a century or so before Christ.

inimalist

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Romans didn't much like the fact that the Jews wouldn't accept their Gods along with Jehovah. That was a century or so before Christ.

true, but the Romans also didn't care much for Germanic or Celtic culture and belief either... I don't know if they had a particular thing for Jews, or if it was just a general violent intolerance.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by inimalist
true, but the Romans also didn't care much for Germanic or Celtic culture and belief either... I don't know if they had a particular thing for Jews, or if it was just a general violent intolerance.
Don't nitpick bruh. crackers

But on the same level isn't most organized antisemitism also part of a mixed bag? I mean how many organizations/nations can you think of who only, specifically persecuted Jews?

inimalist

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't nitpick bruh. crackers

But on the same level isn't most organized antisemitism also part of a mixed bag? I mean how many organizations/nations can you think of who only, specifically persecuted Jews?

thats not what I'm saying at all though

I'm just sort of curious as to whether there was a specific ideology of antisemitism, as it exists today, that is separate from just historical intolerance. There are certainly lots of individuals who single Jews out as a specific group worth hating, even people who aren't otherwise racist/intolerant

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
did hating Jews for the specific fact that they were Jews really predate Christianity?

like, I know the Old Testament talks about Jews as slaves, and so forth, but like, isn't that more mythology/historical practice, rather than a specific ideology of "jews are bad because they are jews"?

I honestly don't actually know the answer to this...

Manetho: the original anti-semite in written history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

estahuh

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Greed, nepotism, socialism, Zionism, and the destructive liberalization of society. Generally, whenever you see a prominent Jew in society, he's going to be promoting something deleterious. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are two sides of the same circumcised coin.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Greed, nepotism, socialism, Zionism, and the destructive liberalization of society. Generally, whenever you see a prominent Jew in society, he's going to be promoting something deleterious.

I don't see how these beliefs make you different from Stormfront, except that you don't consider yourself a member of the master race.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are two sides of the same circumcised coin.

Did you know it's illegal to circumcise coins in many places?

Zeal Ex Nihilo

White nationalists/supremacists are underaccomplished manchildren who want to blame their failures on the Jewish conspiracy while proclaiming that they have MASTER RACIAL HERITAGE which makes them better than the muds. I have no pretensions. My failures are mine, just as my successes are mine alone; they have nothing to do with skin color. There is no "Jewish conspiracy"; there are just a lot of Jews who hold substantial political clout, and they hold Jewish interests close to their heart. For instance, when was the last time you heard a politician seriously challenge Israel? Look at what happened to Obama when he talked about Israel returning to its 1967 borders.

The fact that you are conflating my anti-Semitism with white nationalism is telling in how idiotic our society has become.

lord xyz

Technically, the word "anti-semitism" was invented because Christians hated Jesus killers.

Besides, the joke, if anyone cares any more, was associating charity with anti-semitism.

Quark_666

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The fact that you are conflating my anti-Semitism with white nationalism is telling in how idiotic our society has become. The fact that you see one as more acceptable than another is telling in how he can't go wrong calling you a racist.

Stoic

At this point, I don't see how anyone would make a difference in the outcome of this country. They all look like clowns in a circus. The Republicans blame Obama for the woes of this country, while attempting to blindfold us all into forgetting the Bush Administrations hand in starting this sh1t in the first place.

It is my honest opinion that if Americans decide to vote for another Republican, that whomever takes over will seemingly take all of the credit for Obama's hard work and claim it for themselves. Bush played us all, and Obama basically jumped into a speeding car headed toward a cement wall, with only 20 feet to swerve or stop. There is no one in the entire world, that would have come out shining after the mess that Bush left.

This was all a Republican gimmick to make Americans vote for another Republican in the next term. Guess what??? I see Americans getting played again. Rinse and repeat, only this time we're running out of rope, and Bush's final farewell may have ushered in the beginnings of what may one day be called the One World Government.

Republicans help those who help themselves, and that is a great ideal, except for one f@cking thing, these days there are a lot more people that can not help themselves than there are, in America getting a job is no longer as easy as it once was, and let's not think about other countries whose population has exploded to such an extent that they will literally collapse under their own weight.

Voting for the Republicans is the wrong way to go at this point, and as horrible as it may sound, Americans need to stick to their guns, and re-elect Obama for another term. The Republicans are going to bury us. Then again I'm also Canadian so when the sh1t hits, I'm out.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Manetho: the original anti-semite in written history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

estahuh

wiki says it was more an ethnic thing than religious thing during the ancient times, which begs my original question, was this more just about the Egyptians hating what was a local rival ethnic group, or had Manetho et al. developed an ideology that specifically targeted Jews?

For instance, we could call the Romans "anti-Germanic", but they weren't specifically against Germanic people in ways unique to the Germanic people (they were equally intolerant of anything non-roman)

it does confirm what I learned in some courses I took on Jewish/Christian/Muslim relations in the middle ages, specifically the rise of Christian anti-sematism on religious grounds (that jews were a particularly evil religion), a sentiment that was not true of all faiths (there was hatred of Muslims, but that hatred was tempered with "they are evil, but they are an honorable evil", the type of image that comes out in medieval epic poetry (re: chansons)), and the increase of trade between Christendom and the Muslim world that informed later ideas of Muslim anti-semitism.

Darth Jello

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Quark_666
The fact that you see one as more acceptable than another is telling in how he can't go wrong calling you a racist.

He's not really an anti-semite. You can see it from how he describes the problem of the Jews when someone actually asks him about it "a lot" "politicians" "prominent Jews" rather than talking about them as a singular group. He just likes call himself as anti-semite because it sounds edgy, it's hipster racism. Sort of cute really, like a fifteen year old in a Che shirt.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

I stopped caring about that word a long time ago. When you stop letting it have power over you, you're suddenly a lot freer to speak your mind.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
wiki says it was more an ethnic thing than religious thing during the ancient times, which begs my original question, was this more just about the Egyptians hating what was a local rival ethnic group, or had Manetho et al. developed an ideology that specifically targeted Jews?

For instance, we could call the Romans "anti-Germanic", but they weren't specifically against Germanic people in ways unique to the Germanic people (they were equally intolerant of anything non-roman)

it does confirm what I learned in some courses I took on Jewish/Christian/Muslim relations in the middle ages, specifically the rise of Christian anti-sematism on religious grounds (that jews were a particularly evil religion), a sentiment that was not true of all faiths (there was hatred of Muslims, but that hatred was tempered with "they are evil, but they are an honorable evil", the type of image that comes out in medieval epic poetry (re: chansons)), and the increase of trade between Christendom and the Muslim world that informed later ideas of Muslim anti-semitism.

From my own "lessons", it seems the original anti-semites were Egyption. Followed by a bit of anti-semitism from some in the Roman empire. Whether or not we need to place "culture" or "religion" labels for the hate is difficult for me to say. I have a hard time distinguishing the two, especially for Jews of that time because they were hand in hand.

Anti-Semitism, as you say, really took off centuries later.

But, I'll always stick by:
Manetho!: The Original Anti-Semite!

inimalist

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I stopped caring about that word a long time ago. When you stop letting it have power over you, you're suddenly a lot freer to speak your mind.

man, if only you could get over your need for constant validation from strangers on the internet

Omega Vision

MGwVf1OTWO4

Bardock42

Does anyone here feel that there is not a strong Jewish and pro-Israel lobby in the United States?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does anyone here feel that there is not a strong Jewish and pro-Israel lobby in the United States? There is a huge pro Israel in USA.

First of all, apart from Murdoch, every other media owner...happens to be Jewish.

Second, a lot of lawyers and politicians happen to be Jewish or pro Israel.

Third, no one can give me a valid reason as to why USA is such a huge ally for Israel.

Religious reasons is one that gets mentioned, but for a secular country, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The other is Israel is the only democracy in the middle east...and them Palestinians are ebul people.

Harbinger

Originally posted by lord xyz

The other is Israel is the only democracy in the middle east...and them Palestinians are ebul people. Why is it that everyone forgets that Turkey exists?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Harbinger
Why is it that everyone forgets that Turkey exists?

We always remember on Thanksgiving.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does anyone here feel that there is not a strong Jewish and pro-Israel lobby in the United States?

I asked my sister why she was so pro-Israel. I don't remember what she said. hmm It wasn't a good reason, iirc.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Is it ever?

Darth Jello

Originally posted by Harbinger
Why is it that everyone forgets that Turkey exists? For political purposes and in its sphere of influence, Turkey has always been considered part of Europe, not Asia. They've also, unfortunately been backsliding into a failed democracy for the last 11 years, hence one of the reasons for major immigration out of there.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Darth Jello
For political purposes and in its sphere of influence, Turkey has always been considered part of Europe, not Asia. They've also, unfortunately been backsliding into a failed democracy for the last 11 years, hence one of the reasons for major immigration out of there. And the sudden increase of kebab meat in the UK and America.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Darth Jello
For political purposes and in its sphere of influence, Turkey has always been considered part of Europe, not Asia.
Turkey is a border nation, much like Egypt can claim to be part of Africa and the Middle East at the same time and Russia can claim to be part of Europe and Asia so too can Turkey claim dual citizenship so to speak.

Turkey is more an Asian nation than a European nation both culturally and geographically, but due to the long term impact the Ottoman Empire had on European politics and its current role as a NATO member and prospective EU candidate it can be considered a European nation as well.

inimalist

attaturk made huge changes in the nation to try and bring it closer in line with Europe as well

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Discuss.

More like the 2012 Israeli Presidential debate with all the hand-wringing over Iran and how ISRAELIS CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT AND THEY'RE OUR CLOSEST ALLY. Santorum chimps out on Ron Paul hard toward the end, but Paul stands his ground.

Ugh. Another four years of Bammy or Romney in the White House. We're doomed.

were screwed and there is no hope for the future of the USA or world if Ron Paul does not get in.He is the ONLY candidate who believe in the constituion of the united states and more importantly,not a member of that evil organization the council on foreign relations.which is why I dont expect him to get in.the establishment makes sure you dont get elected if you are not a member.

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Republicans are people too, my friend.

ONLY if there name is Ron Paul.The others are monsters just like the democrats except Kucinich but I dont think he is running.

Mr Parker

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
We are already doom thanks to our President thank goodest this is the last year for him.

Yeah but it wont do no good unless Ron Paul gets in.It will just be someone worse than Obozo.always is.Did not think anybody could possibly be worse than Bushwacker but I should have known better since history shows that from the past 40 years or so.Paul is the only one that is not like the other republicans.I mean the republicrats.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Mr Parker
were screwed ... if Ron Paul does not get in. establishment makes sure you dont get elected if you are not a member.

Ron Paul is a silly-billy.

aQSKv5RzlYs

Symmetric Chaos

See, though, those are all things that he sees as positive things.

dadudemon

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ron Paul is a silly-billy.

aQSKv5RzlYs
Going down the links:

1. The first portion is not his words. Fact. The second portion was taken out of context.

2. There's absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said, here.

3. Same as above.

4. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this act. Everyone would unanimously agree with this. Were the terrorists attacks NOT an act of war on a sovereign nation?

5. If people knew anything about Ron Paul's positions it's that we spend too much time investing in other nation's business.

6. Same as above.

7. Same as above.

8. If people knew anything about Ron Paul's positions it's that he wants to privatize many of our current "services".

9. He makes excellent points about infringing upon the sovereignty of other nations. Bin Laden was virtually impotent by the time we killed him so it should be no wonder that killing him did not good other than gave right wing Americans warm fuzzies. I still liked to see Bin Laden taken out.

10. I agree with almost everything Ron Paul has stated in this meet the press. Get rid of income tax, drastically cut spending, stop meddling so much in other nations' affairs, etc.

11. Similar to the above.

12. As Paul has indicated before, he has an obligation to his constituents to obtain as much funding for his district as possible. Some like to pretend that this is some sort of contradiction or hypocrisy when applied to his other positions. But that's not true: the US Government was setup for representatives to petition congress for various projects in their respective districts.

13. Same as above.

14. I partially disagree with Paul, here. However, he is also partially correct. As a "libertarian", he would want people to get to exercise their freedoms how they want to which includes getting to discriminate against others. We still get to do this to some extent.

15. He makes it much more clear, here, where he is coming from. I am not exactly sure how much I support forcing people to do anything. If a white man beats a black man, the white man should be punished. If a black man doesn't want white people in his restaurant...I'm not too sure I am for a legal enforcement that forces the black guy to have to serve the white guy. This is a basic "libertarian" concept and borders with anarcho-leanings.

16. Same as the previous 2.

17. I agree with Ron Paul, here. We've waaaaay over used the elastic clause.

18. And there's a problem here?

19. This is the basis of libetarianism. The people will do and can do better than the government. Katrina proved that. My employer and Mormons were there at "ground zero" only 2 days after Katrina did it's thing. Where was the government (fema)? Exactly.

20. I partially agree with Ron Paul, here. In a freer society, an employee AND the employer choose each other. The employee terminating their employment because sexual harassment does not stop would be detrimental to the employer IF they actually were worth anything to the employer. The city and/or state can and would have laws in place to protect the person being harassed. What the writer of that article doesn't realize is sexual harassment is not a single gender issue: obvious bias is obvious. If the harassee is being unlawfully harassed (no federal law should exist governing this, which is Ron Paul's point...it should be municipal and state laws), then they can and should pursue the law in their favor.

21. And there's some how a problem with his words here? Anyone who disagrees with Paul on this particular point is pretty much a complete idiot. Swine Flu was blown way out of proportion and there's plenty of evidence to support that.

-Pr-

As someone who isn't american but (naturally) would be affected in some way by whoever gets elected, I have a question:

How likely is it that Bachmann woman might get elected? Just in general, I mean.

Darth Jello

Originally posted by -Pr-
As someone who isn't american but (naturally) would be affected in some way by whoever gets elected, I have a question:

How likely is it that Bachmann woman might get elected? Just in general, I mean.

In 1980, we elected a cowboy actor who was previously thought to be a crazy, dangerous moron by nearly everyone. We did the same thing with a loser who pretended to be from Texas in 2000. Does that answer your question?

Mindset

Well, she's a woman, so there's that.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Mindset
Well, she's a woman, so there's that.

Right, Americans would rather elect a black guy than a woman.

We're less racist than we are sexist. smile

Mindset

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, Americans would rather elect a black guy than a woman.

We're less racist than we are sexist. smile

No one wants to look like a racist, sexism is still ok.

dadudemon

Don't get me wrong, if Bachmann was 20 years younger and actually had a brain, I would vote for....

Nevermind...I just can't. Even her hotness won't convince meh. weep

lord xyz

Originally posted by dadudemon

2. There's absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said, here.
Kay, that link was supposed to be on an article where Paul goes on and on talking about how Blacks are brought up to be racist against white people, and there are clearly racial undertones in the whole article.

Guess Jewgle strikes again.

dadudemon

Originally posted by lord xyz
Kay, that link was supposed to be on an article where Paul goes on and on talking about how Blacks are brought up to be racist against white people, and there are clearly racial undertones in the whole article.

I know you don't live here in America so you don't get to see it...but racism is still quite prevelant in America. Yes, I'm saying that many black children are raised to be racist against white people. I would say that many more white peole are raised to be racist against black people, however. One reason is quite obvious: 76% of Americans are white and 12.4% are black. So even if you had equal frequency of racism per person (per capita), you'd have WAAAAAY more racist white people in America.

I agree with this.

Anecdotally, my experience has been this: per capita, black people are much more racist against whites than whites against blacks.

That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

However, there's another glaringly obvious reason that many blacks are racist against whites: 3 centuries of opression, racism, discrimination, and brutality from white people. That will kind of breed hate for a particular race, if you ask me. erm

Nephthys

Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.'

dadudemon

Originally posted by Nephthys
Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.'

How else are they supposed to win?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Nephthys
Watching through the debate and theres a definate tone developing. That tone is '**** Barrack Obama.' They are right with that. ****ing double agent, that guy.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In 1980, we elected a cowboy actor who was previously thought to be a crazy, dangerous moron by nearly everyone. We did the same thing with a loser who pretended to be from Texas in 2000. Does that answer your question?

sad

That's what i get for trying to be optimistic.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by dadudemon
That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

White people do seem to be more influentially racist. A study just found that white scientists get better funding than black ones.

lord xyz

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you don't live here in America so you don't get to see it...but racism is still quite prevelant in America. Yes, I'm saying that many black children are raised to be racist against white people. I would say that many more white peole are raised to be racist against black people, however. One reason is quite obvious: 76% of Americans are white and 12.4% are black. So even if you had equal frequency of racism per person (per capita), you'd have WAAAAAY more racist white people in America.

I agree with this.

Anecdotally, my experience has been this: per capita, black people are much more racist against whites than whites against blacks.

That may be because black people are more outspoken about it and white people are quietly racist. Again, that's just my anecdotal experience.

However, there's another glaringly obvious reason that many blacks are racist against whites: 3 centuries of opression, racism, discrimination, and brutality from white people. That will kind of breed hate for a particular race, if you ask me. erm

The video quotes many things in the article around half way through. They aren't the kind of things you want a presidential candidate to say.

dadudemon

Originally posted by lord xyz
The video quotes many things in the article around half way through. They aren't the kind of things you want a presidential candidate to say.

I agree.

I have a question, and be brutally honest: did you find the words in my previous post to also be of the same caliber? (not something you'd want a presidential candidate to say)

lord xyz

You thinking of running Dom?

I don't know if Oklahomans make good presidents...

To be honest, you come up with assertions and stats, so you'd make a brilliant president.

Not that being president is a good thing.

Zeal Ex Nihilo

Politicians aren't supposed to use facts; they're supposed to use words and take bribes. People don't want to hear uncomfortable truths; people want to hear what makes them feel better.

lord xyz

Yeah, and what makes them feel better is usually one side of the news story they made up last time.

dadudemon

Originally posted by lord xyz
You thinking of running Dom?

I don't know if Oklahomans make good presidents...

To be honest, you come up with assertions and stats, so you'd make a brilliant president.

Not that being president is a good thing.

I would like to. At least to serve in the House or Senate.

And thanks. thumb up

I think the US Presidents during my time could have done a lot better. I wouldn't be weighed down by coke habits, prostitution, closet homosexuality (lol), or idiocy.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Politicians aren't supposed to use facts; they're supposed to use words and take bribes. People don't want to hear uncomfortable truths; people want to hear what makes them feel better.

I disagree. People want an intelligent president that's not going to jerk them around. They also want a president that looks good on the cover of a magazine (Obama). Looks like I need plastic surgery.

Symmetric Chaos

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. People want an intelligent president that's not going to jerk them around. They also want a president that looks good on the cover of a magazine (Obama). Looks like I need plastic surgery.

studies on voter choice show that the greatest quality in a politician that gets them votes is literally the "have a beer with them" principle.

If you are a smart person who takes politics seriously and has nuanced and well formed opinions on most issues, you want a president who is the same, generally because people feel those who are similar to themselves are the most likable (not that this plays out, just that this is the perception: you might be better friends with people who are unlike you, but if you were just asked point blank if person X or person Y are likable, perceptions of similarity to yourself are generally what are used).

most people don't fall into this category though, and perceive themselves as just regular hardworking people, etc. The primary reason intellectual candidates fail is because most people aren't intelligent. Not that they aren't smart enough to understand the candidate, but that these people's perceptions that the candidate is different from them (intellectual versus regular) makes them feel less amicably toward the candidate.

Again, its not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the policies, and there are ample anecdotal examples of people believing ideologically one way, and voting the other, simply because of the charisma of that candidate made the voter feel they could sit down and have a beer with them.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
studies on voter choice show that the greatest quality in a politician that gets them votes is literally the "have a beer with them" principle.

If you are a smart person who takes politics seriously and has nuanced and well formed opinions on most issues, you want a president who is the same, generally because people feel those who are similar to themselves are the most likable (not that this plays out, just that this is the perception: you might be better friends with people who are unlike you, but if you were just asked point blank if person X or person Y are likable, perceptions of similarity to yourself are generally what are used).

most people don't fall into this category though, and perceive themselves as just regular hardworking people, etc. The primary reason intellectual candidates fail is because most people aren't intelligent. Not that they aren't smart enough to understand the candidate, but that these people's perceptions that the candidate is different from them (intellectual versus regular) makes them feel less amicably toward the candidate.

Again, its not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the policies, and there are ample anecdotal examples of people believing ideologically one way, and voting the other, simply because of the charisma of that candidate made the voter feel they could sit down and have a beer with them.

I read that it was "looks" played a large roll. If Sarah Palin was very ugly, I am willing to be she wouldn't have even gotten to where she is in politics.

Same with Bachmann and Romney.

Same with Obama.

Obama is an intellectual, though. It's possible that Obama could talk us all in political science circles. He just knows how to play the game of charisma.

You can be an intellectual as well as a charismatic leader at the same time.

So I disagree with the notion that it is as simple as "beer with the guy". That's probably a simple tool to illustrate a point that's not really that simple.

Edit - Bush was elected to his position as governor because he intellectually slaughtered his competition. You should see clips of his old debates: that guy was a flippin' genius with political science and words. I am almost positive that he hammed up the 'idiot' persona for his reign as president.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
I read that it was "looks" played a large roll. If Sarah Palin was very ugly, I am willing to be she wouldn't have even gotten to where she is in politics.

Same with Bachmann and Romney.

Same with Obama.

people perceive that they would get along better with people who are more attractive, so that follows entirely from what I was saying in my previous post.

However, it is certainly not as simple as "who looks better, wins". This can be seen anecdotally in almost every election: Palin didn't win it for McCain, Bachmann might have won the Iowa straw poll, but Paul finished second. What is more likely is that there would be a minimum threshold to how attractive a candidate should be. This might be more a rejection of ugly than an attraction to good looks, as less attractive people are often associated with a host of negative qualities (only in people's perceptions) that would impact their electability.

further, it is clearly the case that the "type" of attractiveness matters. I would say there is a visual form of "schematic congruence", where there are visual cues that people look for in candidates based on their perceptions of what a candidate should look like. This is why you get Romney/Obama looking politicians, but not Brad Pitt/Mathew Mcconnahay looking ones, as the former look "clean cut, business like, serious", whereas the latter look like they just got out of bed.

so, looks probably do play some key role, but it is more likely a cutoff where a person is too ugly that voters assume negative things about them with a measure of how congruent their looks are with preconceived notions of what politicians look like.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obama is an intellectual, though. It's possible that Obama could talk us all in political science circles. He just knows how to play the game of charisma.

however, his main campaign message what "Change", not "I am smart". Change being a message that would appeal to Democratic voters and make them identify with him more.

Further, and this is especially true when Obama visited blue collar places like Pennsylvania during the run up to the 08 election, his intellectualism became a liability, as the Republicans blasted him as being an "elitist".

I can't imagine you are actually arguing that "intellectualism" was a major part of the Obama campaign?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can be an intellectual as well as a charismatic leader at the same time.

nothing I have said challenges this notion

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I disagree with the notion that it is as simple as "beer with the guy". That's probably a simple tool to illustrate a point that's not really that simple.

I think you are simplifying what factors go into personal perceptions of likability... also studies disagree with you...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Bush was elected to his position as governor because he intellectually slaughtered his competition. You should see clips of his old debates: that guy was a flippin' genius with political science and words. I am almost positive that he hammed up the 'idiot' persona for his reign as president.

yes, that is precisely my point...

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
people perceive that they would get along better with people who are more attractive, so that follows entirely from what I was saying in my previous post.

However, it is certainly not as simple as "who looks better, wins". This can be seen anecdotally in almost every election: Palin didn't win it for McCain, Bachmann might have won the Iowa straw poll, but Paul finished second. What is more likely is that there would be a minimum threshold to how attractive a candidate should be. This might be more a rejection of ugly than an attraction to good looks, as less attractive people are often associated with a host of negative qualities (only in people's perceptions) that would impact their electability.

further, it is clearly the case that the "type" of attractiveness matters. I would say there is a visual form of "schematic congruence", where there are visual cues that people look for in candidates based on their perceptions of what a candidate should look like. This is why you get Romney/Obama looking politicians, but not Brad Pitt/Mathew Mcconnahay looking ones, as the former look "clean cut, business like, serious", whereas the latter look like they just got out of bed.

so, looks probably do play some key role, but it is more likely a cutoff where a person is too ugly that voters assume negative things about them with a measure of how congruent their looks are with preconceived notions of what politicians look like.

however, his main campaign message what "Change", not "I am smart". Change being a message that would appeal to Democratic voters and make them identify with him more.

Further, and this is especially true when Obama visited blue collar places like Pennsylvania during the run up to the 08 election, his intellectualism became a liability, as the Republicans blasted him as being an "elitist".

I can't imagine you are actually arguing that "intellectualism" was a major part of the Obama campaign?

nothing I have said challenges this notion

I think you are simplifying what factors go into personal perceptions of likability... also studies disagree with you...

yes, that is precisely my point...

I thought the studies showed that looks played a much larger role than how much of an "average" brained person the politician was?

And, Palin is an excellent example. Just because she didn't win it for McCain, doesn't mean what I said was incorrect. In fact, when she came aboard, in the first 3 days, the McCain-Palin ticket was slaughtering the Dems and they were projected to win quite handedly.

If they would have gotten Palin to STFU, I foresee a much different outcome.

Yes, I agree with the minimum threshold point. Except I think it's not a "floor" limit, like you suggest. I think it's a "difference" phenomena. Meaning, if people rate X 3 or more points higher than Y, X is far more likely to be forgiven of mistake type 1 and 2.

Also, I personally thought the "Elitist" smear campaign that the GOP was running against Obama was actually counter-productive to "taking down" Obama. I think it actually helped make Obama look better and made the GOP look worse.

And, no, I'm arguing that appearing intelligent and well-educated is part of the political campaign pie. Too much is bad. Too little is bad. I also think that you can use a lot more of it IF you use it at just the right moments. Like juggling at a party without being drunk before you attempt it. smile

inimalist

if your point is "there are more than a single factor in influencing who someone votes for", nothing I have said does anything but support this

but no, from the journal Political Psychology, typical results show that the ability to identify with the politician on an amicable level, a measure that includes physical looks, identity politics, etc, is more important than just looks alone. The most attractive person will not win over the person who connects more with the voting population, all other things being equal.

Seeming intelligent, for some voters, likely falls more under "schematic congruence". It would be interesting to see something that tested amicability with this congruence, but the measures would be so subjective and correlated that it would be difficult to do. (amicability is probably related on congruence which is itself likely related to amicability)

This might also explain why these factors are more important on a national versus local level. On a national level, policies have less day to day impact on people's lives, thus, congruence and amicability outweigh actual policy, yet, as the policy impacts voters lives more and more, there may be less emphasis on these things, in the mind of a voter.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
if your point is "there are more than a single factor in influencing who someone votes for", nothing I have said does anything but support this

If you're point is "who you are more likely to sit down and have a beer with", nothing I said contradicts it. I just think that that is an oversimplified tool of comparison because it's not that simple.

Originally posted by inimalist
but no, from the journal Political Psychology, typical results show that the ability to identify with the politician on an amicable level, a measure that includes physical looks, identity politics, etc, is more important than just looks alone. The most attractive person will not win over the person who connects more with the voting population, all other things being equal.

I wasn't talking in "all things being equal" terms, though. Because, let's be honest, it's never equal.

Originally posted by inimalist
Seeming intelligent, for some voters, likely falls more under "schematic congruence". It would be interesting to see something that tested amicability with this congruence, but the measures would be so subjective and correlated that it would be difficult to do. (amicability is probably related on congruence which is itself likely related to amicability)

There's a difference between being a "pompous ass know-it-all" and having sharp wit and "wisdom". Politicians often get stuck in the former when they should be exercising the latter more often.

That's really my point. There's still room for a very good education and intelligence in politics.

For example, Weiner seemed to have one of the best "wits" of modern American politicians. I loved that guy's soliloquy. He would knock it out of the park. sad

It's a shame he couldn't keep his last name to himself. sad

Originally posted by inimalist
This might also explain why these factors are more important on a national versus local level. On a national level, policies have less day to day impact on people's lives, thus, congruence and amicability outweigh actual policy, yet, as the policy impacts voters lives more and more, there may be less emphasis on these things, in the mind of a voter.

I agree: it handily explains why Bush had some of the best talking points I have seen, in terms of raw political science and know how, in his debates for his initial run on Texas governor.

On a side note, it makes me think that Bush was extremely dishonest with his "image" due to that. He could have been so much more if he used more of his "smart" persona instead of that dumb *ss persona. However, some say that he truly was dumb and it wasn't just a political game he was playing.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're point is "who you are more likely to sit down and have a beer with", nothing I said contradicts it. I just think that that is an oversimplified tool of comparison because it's not that simple.

fair enough

I used that as a short hand for a measure of amicability, which is what is consistently found to be most important. That being said, being attractive makes one more amicable, and being amicable improves ratings of attractiveness, so they obviously aren't unrelated.

I've never tried to say it was simple

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wasn't talking in "all things being equal" terms, though. Because, let's be honest, it's never equal.

ok, but in a situation where all things aren't equal, you can't confidently say one thing is more important than the other...

in reality, sure, from case to case different things are going to influence different people. I'm talking about what is found in controlled studies. There is a valid argument that such studies lack the ability to be generalized to the real world, so /shrug. I'm just reporting p-values :P

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's a difference between being a "pompous ass know-it-all" and having sharp wit and "wisdom". Politicians often get stuck in the former when they should be exercising the latter more often.

yes. the former alienates voters, making them feel less amicable toward the politician. The latter, especially wit, puts people in a good mood, again, amicability is increased by this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's really my point. There's still room for a very good education and intelligence in politics.

For example, Weiner seemed to have one of the best "wits" of modern American politicians. I loved that guy's soliloquy. He would knock it out of the park. sad

It's a shame he couldn't keep his last name to himself. sad

amicability is actually a very complex thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used "have a beer" as short hand for it, because that seems to be what you are tripping over... Most of the things you are bringing up would be part of how amicable a person is perceived as being (I know I'm messing up tenses... ugh English...). I'd almost suggest you are simplifying how complex getting a beer with someone really is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree: it handily explains why Bush had some of the best talking points I have seen, in terms of raw political science and know how, in his debates for his initial run on Texas governor.

On a side note, it makes me think that Bush was extremely dishonest with his "image" due to that. He could have been so much more if he used more of his "smart" persona instead of that dumb *ss persona. However, some say that he truly was dumb and it wasn't just a political game he was playing.

I'm less convinced of Bush's intelligence than you are (governor Bush was as much of a concoction of political engineering as president Bush), but of course his folksy persona was an embellishment. we agree on that for sure.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but in a situation where all things aren't equal, you can't confidently say one thing is more important than the other...

Yeah you can especially if the other areas meet "minimum thresholds of populace acceptance". Meaning, if your charisma and articulation meet a minimum level of acceptance by 50% of the population, you really can milk the physical and intellectual aspects of your "product" to the people during an election.

Side discussion: Why in the world is Romney having so much trouble? He's an very handsome man (for his age). He should have knocked the 2008 GOP primary out of the park.

Please enlighten me how we ended up with an deformed grouchy old man as the GOP candidate in '08 because I don't quite understand it. (I thin that McCain-Palin lost the election rather than Obama winning it...if that makes sense.)

Originally posted by inimalist
in reality, sure, from case to case different things are going to influence different people. I'm talking about what is found in controlled studies. There is a valid argument that such studies lack the ability to be generalized to the real world, so /shrug. I'm just reporting p-values :P

Well, I know I can't really submit these...but

In shows like America's Got Talent and American Idol, the "good looking" contestants do much better than the ugly ones, even to the point of choosing worse singers or talents.

There is very little exception to that. Ruben, from season 2, is a big exception by the producers made sure Ruben had "style" to make up for being fat (they manipulated his image, greatly, to be that of a stylish black dude. It didn't hurt that he was also well-spoken). Ruben also had an amazing voice. So much so that looks alone would not help a person bridge the gap.

What does that mean? Yes, there is a threshold, like you said, in some circumstances, when trying to win the popular vote.

Also, how dare you bring up p-values. HOW DARE YOU! laughing

Originally posted by inimalist
amicability is actually a very complex thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used "have a beer" as short hand for it, because that seems to be what you are tripping over...

What tipped you off? The comments about it being an oversimplified tool or my whining? big grin

Originally posted by inimalist
Most of the things you are bringing up would be part of how amicable a person is perceived as being (I know I'm messing up tenses... ugh English...). I'd almost suggest you are simplifying how complex getting a beer with someone really is.

lol

I would say having a beer with someone is a very simple thing. Keep in mind, you can have a beer with a perfect stranger and not know them even a little. The beer itself can be what brings the two together.

And I'm a bastard for even going there. 313

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm less convinced of Bush's intelligence than you are (governor Bush was as much of a concoction of political engineering as president Bush), but of course his folksy persona was an embellishment. we agree on that for sure.

Fair enough.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah you can especially if the other areas meet "minimum thresholds of populace acceptance". Meaning, if your charisma and articulation meet a minimum level of acceptance by 50% of the population, you really can milk the physical and intellectual aspects of your "product" to the people during an election.

let me rephrase, in a scientific study that looks to identify independent values for the contribution of certain issues in voter choice, you have to control for those issues.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Side discussion: Why in the world is Romney having so much trouble? He's an very handsome man (for his age). He should have knocked the 2008 GOP primary out of the park.

he's the corporate candidate, and that is a liability with a large portion of the republican base atm. he is also a mormon, but I'd say that is less important.

Perry just might be able to both appeal to corporate donors and the tea party, if he can walk that line just right. I am not happy about this. I don't know enough about Bachman to have an opinion actually, though from what little I have absorbed, I don't think the corporate funding infrastructure is as favorable to her as they are Perry/Romney.

Remember, the election is soooooooooooooo far away, and the polls/etc now are essentially meaningless. I'd be very surprised if Romney didn't get the nod in the end, because at the end of the day, he is more of the same, and the Republican brass itself is now struggling against the tea party for control (meaning, I think Bachman is unelectable to the party leaders, and Perry too much of a chance).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please enlighten me how we ended up with an deformed grouchy old man as the GOP candidate in '08 because I don't quite understand it. (I thin that McCain-Palin lost the election rather than Obama winning it...if that makes sense.)

Bush broke the republican party in a way that only is now being reconciled by the tea party. The field was so weak that someone had to come out of it. Various other front-runners (Guliani, etc) self destructed along the way, and he sort of emerged. He also painted himself as the "il duche" candidate, which appeals to simplified images of "us vs them", "good vs evil", a dichotomous worldview that is highly salient to people (simplifies world events, empowers the individual because they think they are on the side of good).

if you want a psychological analysis, I'd say the Bush years had created a good deal of dissonance in the republican base, and the assuredness of a politician who put the world in simple, black and white terms, eased their insecurities. McCain won by being the guy who threatened the most foreign nations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I know I can't really submit these...but

In shows like America's Got Talent and American Idol, the "good looking" contestants do much better than the ugly ones, even to the point of choosing worse singers or talents.

There is very little exception to that. Ruben, from season 2, is a big exception by the producers made sure Ruben had "style" to make up for being fat (they manipulated his image, greatly, to be that of a stylish black dude. It didn't hurt that he was also well-spoken). Ruben also had an amazing voice. So much so that looks alone would not help a person bridge the gap.

What does that mean? Yes, there is a threshold, like you said, in some circumstances, when trying to win the popular vote.

well, sure, but I think you are actually describing a purer process of what I was talking about. In an election about entirely superficial things, there would be no balance against "amicability". In the case of these contestants, amicability is, as you said, created through the shows producers, and based on the most superficial things, looks, attitude, etc. However, it isn't that talent never wins, as the ugly-old woman in the UK showed, but then again, issues of her being the underdog and such probably were more important than just her singing talent.

political elections are only not like American idol in that, there is some impact the results will have on everyday life, so there would be some salience to things aside from amicability... or, rather, amicability would be determined by things that are not all just superficial.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

I would say having a beer with someone is a very simple thing. Keep in mind, you can have a beer with a perfect stranger and not know them even a little. The beer itself can be what brings the two together.

ah, actually, it is that you are being too literal smile

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
let me rephrase, in a scientific study that looks to identify independent values for the contribution of certain issues in voter choice, you have to control for those issues.

It doesn't really work out smoothly in the real world. For instance, the "Veteran" factor really gets liberal and conservatives, alike, to go for a candidate. Resume material.

Originally posted by inimalist
he's the corporate candidate, and that is a liability with a large portion of the republican base atm. he is also a mormon, but I'd say that is less important.

Perry just might be able to both appeal to corporate donors and the tea party, if he can walk that line just right. I am not happy about this. I don't know enough about Bachman to have an opinion actually, though from what little I have absorbed, I don't think the corporate funding infrastructure is as favorable to her as they are Perry/Romney.

Remember, the election is soooooooooooooo far away, and the polls/etc now are essentially meaningless. I'd be very surprised if Romney didn't get the nod in the end, because at the end of the day, he is more of the same, and the Republican brass itself is now struggling against the tea party for control (meaning, I think Bachman is unelectable to the party leaders, and Perry too much of a chance).

I just thought it was odd that McCain got it over Romney in '08. Romney was better spoken and came of more prepared. McCain came off as whiny and grumpy at times. What this means is I still don't completely understand how the American people vote, yet.

I just saw Romney as the best chance against Obama and the GOP screwed their chances of possibly getting another GOP candidate in office.

Also, Bachmann is just a new Palin: she's every bit as stupid. She's more articulate, but she's full of annoying gaffes.

Perry just seems like the dark horse. He could be the ****er that ruins everything for the GOP.

What I want to see is something other than GOP or Dem. big grin

Originally posted by inimalist
Bush broke the republican party in a way that only is now being reconciled by the tea party. The field was so weak that someone had to come out of it. Various other front-runners (Guliani, etc) self destructed along the way, and he sort of emerged. He also painted himself as the "il duche" candidate, which appeals to simplified images of "us vs them", "good vs evil", a dichotomous worldview that is highly salient to people (simplifies world events, empowers the individual because they think they are on the side of good).

I also think Bush did well enough in his debates to get enough support from the moderates to win in both 00 and 04. Bush did well in most of his debates. Well enough to not fail horribly.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you want a psychological analysis, I'd say the Bush years had created a good deal of dissonance in the republican base, and the assuredness of a politician who put the world in simple, black and white terms, eased their insecurities. McCain won by being the guy who threatened the most foreign nations.

I think McCain won because he could argue well enough with the rest of them, had/has a stellar resume, and represented enough of "not Bush" that the GOP saw him as a strong candidate to win against the power-house from the Dems.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but I think you are actually describing a purer process of what I was talking about. In an election about entirely superficial things, there would be no balance against "amicability". In the case of these contestants, amicability is, as you said, created through the shows producers, and based on the most superficial things, looks, attitude, etc. However, it isn't that talent never wins, as the ugly-old woman in the UK showed, but then again, issues of her being the underdog and such probably were more important than just her singing talent.

I see shows like AGT and Amer. Idol as a more raw representation of how presidential elections work, for sure. I know they are not perfectly congruent but they do offer enough parallels to create at least a decent intellectual comparison.

With those shows, I see exactly what you call "amicability" as being the primary factor. Bitchy attitudes don't make it very far in the shows, as well. In fact, that quickly alienates the "voters". They also have to be the type of person you would want to sit down and have a beer with. laughing

But, yes, it's the whole package on those shows, very similar to campaigns. More so on the talent portion, though. A parallel to the "talent" would be how well spoken under pressure a politician can be. Or how well politically educated (contemporary and historical knowledge) a candidate is.

But, less so in the talent department than in those shows.

I feel like I've gotten off track.

Originally posted by inimalist
political elections are only not like American idol in that, there is some impact the results will have on everyday life, so there would be some salience to things aside from amicability... or, rather, amicability would be determined by things that are not all just superficial.

Honestly, I think the Americans care more about those shows than the politicians. The numbers don't lie. I think it has a lot to do with apathy and "more of the same."

Here's a less than scientific article about that.

http://jroycroft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/american-idol-is-more-important-than-americas-future/

Originally posted by inimalist
ah, actually, it is that you are being too literal smile

I disagree: I think the "beer" thing is too simple. I think having a beer with someone is very complex and it can be many different things to many different people. Amicability is just one of those things.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't really work out smoothly in the real world. For instance, the "Veteran" factor really gets liberal and conservatives, alike, to go for a candidate. Resume material.

maybe in your country smile

amicability is a socially constructed thing that would change from nation to nation. Being a war vet is largely unimportant in Canadian politics. I think Romeo Dallaire is the only one in recent memory to ride that ticket to office.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just thought it was odd that McCain got it over Romney in '08. Romney was better spoken and came of more prepared. McCain came off as whiny and grumpy at times. What this means is I still don't completely understand how the American people vote, yet.

uncertainty = dissonance

"we are the good guys" = not as much dissonance

"we are the good guys who are going to get those bad guys" = win

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just saw Romney as the best chance against Obama and the GOP screwed their chances of possibly getting another GOP candidate in office.

that may be true, his message just wasn't the exact tone the electorate wanted to hear. It is the same now, in terms of actual ability to challenge the president, Romney might be best (he has funds, some moderate policies, isn't crazy about his religion), but because he doesn't pander directly to the extremist crowd in the Republicans, he might not get the vote. McCain sung songs about bombing Iran, that was what the American people wanted in 08. Perry prays to end economic woes, if that is what the electorate wants, Romney will miss out again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I want to see is something other than GOP or Dem. big grin

the tea party is the closest thing to that at the moment, but they wouldn't be much without the corporate funding that comes to the Republicans (both parties, I'm not singling out here, just that the tea party already doesn't have access to democratic money), and their existence is too important for the Republicans to just let them drift.

Progressive leftists might have a chance, minus the funding issue mentioned above, but most of them are too afraid of a Republican president to do anything but support the two party system.

I think a progressive left movement would be able to get more votes than the tea party, if you had a 4 party system, but neither would challenge the entrenched party establishments. The difficulty of something like Canada's Green party, a party whose policies are supported by many Canadians, in a place where politics are more open to small parties versus the American system, shows that the chances of some type of "third option" is almost doomed from the start...

I'd like it to be different, but your system is teh ****ed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also think Bush did well enough in his debates to get enough support from the moderates to win in both 00 and 04. Bush did well in most of his debates. Well enough to not fail horribly.

against the hugely entertaining and compelling Al Gore and John Kerr..zzzzz... god, I can't even stay awake typing their names....

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think McCain won because he could argue well enough with the rest of them, had/has a stellar resume, and represented enough of "not Bush" that the GOP saw him as a strong candidate to win against the power-house from the Dems.

sure, but he also emerged from a field with little other competition, and Romney, for as good as he looks in this election, does not have some of those things that you and I both mentioned, that in the context of 2008, would have been more appealing about McCain

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see shows like AGT and Amer. Idol as a more raw representation of how presidential elections work, for sure. I know they are not perfectly congruent but they do offer enough parallels to create at least a decent intellectual comparison.

With those shows, I see exactly what you call "amicability" as being the primary factor. Bitchy attitudes don't make it very far in the shows, as well. In fact, that quickly alienates the "voters". They also have to be the type of person you would want to sit down and have a beer with. laughing

But, yes, it's the whole package on those shows, very similar to campaigns. More so on the talent portion, though. A parallel to the "talent" would be how well spoken under pressure a politician can be. Or how well politically educated (contemporary and historical knowledge) a candidate is.

But, less so in the talent department than in those shows.

I feel like I've gotten off track.

Honestly, I think the Americans care more about those shows than the politicians. The numbers don't lie. I think it has a lot to do with apathy and "more of the same."

Here's a less than scientific article about that.

http://jroycroft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/american-idol-is-more-important-than-americas-future/

it would depend on what you mean by "care about". because there are no real implications from the outcome of a call in reality show, people can do it off the cuff, or even as a form of entertainment. Voting in a political election takes more motivation than that, however, I'd imagine people place far more importance, in terms of like "rate the importance of the outcome of this election", on presidential or political elections than on TV shows.

like, I don't personally participate in either, but would say the political one is far more important than the TV one, but that I would probably have more fun with the TV one (if I cared).

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
it would depend on what you mean by "care about". because there are no real implications from the outcome of a call in reality show, people can do it off the cuff, or even as a form of entertainment. Voting in a political election takes more motivation than that, however, I'd imagine people place far more importance, in terms of like "rate the importance of the outcome of this election", on presidential or political elections than on TV shows.

like, I don't personally participate in either, but would say the political one is far more important than the TV one, but that I would probably have more fun with the TV one (if I cared).

From what I hear from those around me, they vote in shit like Amer. Idol because:

1. It is more important/matters to them.

2. It is not boring and you can see the results quickly

3. No matter who you vote for in politics, it's just more of the same.

This is why "intelligent" Americans participate in silly popularity contest shows instead of politics. It's also why America has "voting apathy" disease.

Also, every election, you see those "prank" clips where you present one party's policies under the opposite party's nominee (for instance, they presented McCain's campaign talking points under Obama's name) to see if people rolled with it. Surprisingly, most people did not know the difference and just blindly agreed with the talking points. It shows how "educated" most Americans really are when it comes to politics. This is why I want to remove voting ability from everyone except those who actually know what each candidate has to offer (a proficiency test). I've been called a fascist for it...but I hate American ignorance that much.

Quark_666

Originally posted by inimalist
Perry prays to end economic woes http://i.imgur.com/mymdd.png laughing out loud

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
From what I hear from those around me, they vote in shit like Amer. Idol because:

1. It is more important/matters to them.

2. It is not boring and you can see the results quickly

3. No matter who you vote for in politics, it's just more of the same.

This is why "intelligent" Americans participate in silly popularity contest shows instead of politics. It's also why America has "voting apathy" disease.

Also, every election, you see those "prank" clips where you present one party's policies under the opposite party's nominee (for instance, they presented McCain's campaign talking points under Obama's name) to see if people rolled with it. Surprisingly, most people did not know the difference and just blindly agreed with the talking points. It shows how "educated" most Americans really are when it comes to politics. This is why I want to remove voting ability from everyone except those who actually know what each candidate has to offer (a proficiency test). I've been called a fascist for it...but I hate American ignorance that much.

the psychologist in me makes me exceptionally skeptical of the reasons people give for their own actions... I can't imagine a scenario where people are more inclined to vote for AmIdol than in a presidential election that doesn't include some measure of how impactful their vote will be. You vote in AmIdol because it is a simple, fun thing to do, and because there is no cost associated with a "wrong" vote, whereas there is some pressure in a political election because the outcome is meaningful.

Though, I don't actually disagree with the reasons you gave, or with the fact people are dumb about elections.

I've thought about some type of voter qualification before, but in the end, it seems to me to be the exact same thing as giving a single party or person or department, etc, the power to decide the borders of voter ridings. So like, there are countless examples of places where these lines have been drawn and redrawn so that certain electoral bases are maximized or minimized, ie: put all democrats in a single riding, therefore they can't vote in other ridings, and Republicans will win, or vice versa. Sure, in theory, there might be a way to determine if people are politically aware, but the reality will be, whoever you give the power to in terms of creating or administering that test, is given far more power than anyone in a free society should be. I'd much rather have an uninformed electorate than one which is filtered through something which couldn't not be created with bias. its an exploitation waiting to happen, imho.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
I've thought about some type of voter qualification before, but in the end, it seems to me to be the exact same thing as giving a single party or person or department, etc, the power to decide the borders of voter ridings. So like, there are countless examples of places where these lines have been drawn and redrawn so that certain electoral bases are maximized or minimized, ie: put all democrats in a single riding, therefore they can't vote in other ridings, and Republicans will win, or vice versa. Sure, in theory, there might be a way to determine if people are politically aware, but the reality will be, whoever you give the power to in terms of creating or administering that test, is given far more power than anyone in a free society should be. I'd much rather have an uninformed electorate than one which is filtered through something which couldn't not be created with bias. its an exploitation waiting to happen, imho.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

"What is Obama's view on reducing the national debt."

And you have four options: one is the answer that came directly from Obama's campaign, one is one that came directly from the GOP candidate's campaign and the other two are red herrings.

That's what I mean by proficiency. That means that the voter will actually have to know a basic level of who they are voting for.

You could set the minimum score requirement really low at like 60% and that would still weed out lots and lots of voters...or at least force people to not be able to straight ticket vote of blindly vote based on a party.

What does that mean? Each party will submit their answers to the "big" questions for the tests and that eliminates the "corruption" reason you gave: it comes straight from the horses mouth.

You could say that the "big questions" will favor one candidate over the other but that's for the parties to argue out and submit.