Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Discuss your constraints and prerequisites.

This is a great thread...however, I do not expect much dialogue, debate, or discussion regarding it.


I've posted my ideas on this very topic multiple times: part of me thinks all citizens should get to vote and part of me thinks we need to inject extreme restrictions into the debate.



This guy writes an article about this however all his arguments are weak and easily picked apart:

https://medium.com/democracy-squared/should-stupid-people-be-allowed-to-vote-5-answers-to-a-frequently-asked-question-b3be397b209f


Fact is, the electorate is woefully ignorant on the issues and the candidates. Why do we keep electing ineffectual and actually corrupt Democrats and Republicans all the time? It's because the electorate is woefully ignorant.


What would happen if every person who voted had proved that they were aware of each major candidate's voting history and platforms? What if a voter had to prove that they had a functional knowledge of American Civics before being allowed to vote?

Honestly one of the better arguments for the free market is that it subtly filters competent people into positions of power. I mean, not perfectly by any means.

Well it's kind of a Catch-22 situation. If you say everyone should be allowed to vote, you're creating a mob mentality, but it you say that only a few should be allowed to vote, you're creating an oligarchy. I agree with DDM that voters be tested to ensure the understand exactly who and what they're voting for, but honestly that is kind of on the onus of the voter, and I feel that our media (both liberal and conservative) misrepresent political agendas to the public to ensure their own wins, making an objective meritocratic vote even harder to obtain. That being stated, if our country's education system wasnt such shit, I'm sure there would be far more knowledgeable voters. I also feel that there are certain classes of criminals (mainly murderers and rapists) who should have their voting rights permanently revoked, but other more petty criminals who should be allowed to be rehabilitated and participate in our democracy.

It really depends on what you view the vote to be. Is it simply a mechanism for any adult with a stake in the system to have their say, or something that should be a closely guarded privilege of the educational elite? I tend to favour the former interpretation, as it would be very unhealthy to have a society to be solely governed by people, who although intelligent, may not have a grasp on certain particular issues that affect the disadvantaged in society. That said, there may be an argument for some basic civics test as a preresquite to vote, but I would much prefer to have a media and education system which actually did their job and educated people on these basics, rather than punishing the people who have been failed by these institutions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've posted my ideas on this very topic multiple times: part of me thinks all citizens should get to vote and part of me thinks we need to inject extreme restrictions into the debate.

The answer probably lies somewhere in between. I'm in favor of making sure people are actually informed.

I just don't know how extreme I'd make it. For example, sometimes I've had to vote and one of the things it had you voting for were judges, and sometimes there are a bunch of them. I never have any clue about any of the judges on the list. I guarantee you most people in this city don't know any of them either. Yet I don't think I'd make it so you need to take a test about all these judges to show you know about them.

Also when it comes to some kind of test for voting like I said I am in favor, but do you have any limits on how it is used? By this I mean, do you think this should just be required for presidential elections? Should it be required for other votes as well? Like mayoral elections for instance.

Originally posted by Lestov16
but honestly that is kind of on the onus of the voter, and I feel that our media (both liberal and conservative) misrepresent political agendas to the public to ensure their own wins, making an objective meritocratic vote even harder to obtain. That being stated, if our country's education system wasnt such shit, I'm sure there would be far more knowledgeable voters. I also feel that there are certain classes of criminals (mainly murderers and rapists) who should have their voting rights permanently revoked, but other more petty criminals who should be allowed to be rehabilitated and participate in our democracy. Well, what does the media, education system and prison that is filled with non-violent "criminals" serving time for victimless crimes have in common? All are controlled/funded/regulated by the government we just established is shit. It seems like the government tends to make lots of things shit.

Now if people were able to choose which schools and media outlets thrive and die with their own buck, and if people weren't getting tossed in jail for non-crimes, and the government didn't have such a huge monopoly over all of these institutions... maybe we'd be able to raise more knowledgeable children. The problem isn't "what can we do to make voters smarter", it's "how do stop them from being mislead and lied to their entire lives."

Ah yes, those govt. run media organisations like CNN and Fox News.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ah yes, those govt. run media organisations like CNN and Fox News.

Key word - "regulated". There's a reason he put three varying words there. He wasn't saying they were all government run.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ah yes, those govt. run media organisations like CNN and Fox News. Originally posted by ILS
do you ever say anything meaningful

Originally posted by ILS
Well, what does the media, education system and prison that is filled with non-violent "criminals" serving time for victimless crimes have in common? All are controlled/funded/regulated by the government we just established is shit. It seems like the government tends to make lots of things shit.

Now if people were able to choose which schools and media outlets thrive and die with their own buck, and if people weren't getting tossed in jail for non-crimes, and the government didn't have such a huge monopoly over all of these institutions... maybe we'd be able to raise more knowledgeable children. The problem isn't "what can we do to make voters smarter", it's "how do stop them from being mislead and lied to their entire lives." Having more private influence or choice in the education system won't necessarily alleviate standards. Many of the countries that rank above the US in education tend to be social democratic European nations that are hardly free market paradises, and the Swedish attempt in the 90s to introduce more choice in education actually lead to a decrease in standards.

https://swedishsurveyor.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pisaresultat20121.jpg

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2014/07/ sweden_school_choice_the_country_s_disastrous_expe
riment_with_milton_friedman.html


That said, there have been studies that suggest choice does have some notable positive effects, so there's that, but I think a focus on toughening up the curriculum and rigorous teacher training could be what's needed, rather than handing education over to the private sector which I imagine would only exacerbate inequality and which doesn't always boast the superb results that the proponents claim. It also wouldn't provide the uniform teaching in civics that is needed to create an evenly well informed citizenry.

In terms of the criminal justice and prison system, it absolutely needs reform. But instead of calling government to be torn down, why not just elect a government that will end the War on Drugs and pair this with a comprehensive network of mental health services. I believe such approaches have been attempted with success in countries like Portugal and Switzerland, so you can't say this isn't possible. No need to bay for the government's blood, now. Just make it better.

And although I agree the government is somewhat complicit in creating the shitshow that is the modern MSM, it is important to remember that these companies do have a sense of agency. They choose to put out these sensationalist news stories which are only designed to rake in ratings and profit. The antidote is an education that provides strong and uniform teaching in the fields of civics and critical thinking. Uniformity in the curricula can only be achieved through a government run apparatus as a private education system wouldn't always have an incentive to provide these things, as the essentials like English and Mathematics may override the want for civics education in some instances. Again, systemic reform of government is needed, rather than radical retrenchment or abolition.

Honestly more and more I've been being convinced that democracy in general doesn't work and that most voters are uninformed, easily mislead idiots.

Originally posted by RHaggis
Key word - "regulated". There's a reason he put three varying words there. He wasn't saying they were all government run. Originally posted by ILS
Now if people were able to choose which schools and media outlets thrive and die with their own buck, and if people weren't getting tossed in jail for non-crimes, and the government didn't have such a huge monopoly over all of these institutions... Right. I used the term loosely, 'Swords seems to be stating that the govt. has some massive control over the media that would be better off privately funded, kek.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Honestly more and more I've been being convinced that democracy in general doesn't work and that most voters are uninformed, easily mislead idiots. What other options are there?

Well I really liked the benevolent AI super-god ending of Deux Ex. https://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/4/1/shrug.001.gif

Originally posted by lazybones
Having more private influence or choice in the education system won't necessarily alleviate standards. Many of the countries that rank above the US in education tend to be social democratic European nations that are hardly free market paradises, Which countries specifically? Certain European countries which are famously cited for their great social programmes tend to have similar or more economic freedom than the US when all factors are accounted for, so I'd need to see specifics.
I'm not really familiar enough with what happened there to comment.What do you mean toughen up the curriculum? I don't think the curriculum needs adjusting as much as it needs replaced. The idea that children that are all endowed with unique talents, working at different levels of ability and learn better in different ways should all follow a standardised curriculum, and then be assessed on that basis, is pretty primitive. My idea of education is to let people move at their own pace, however fast that is, in whatever format they choose. I'd go as far as to say that classroom teaching should begin to be phased out in favour of independent, self-pased online learning in the form of courses. I know that's a long way off, but my point is that this level of innovation wouldn't be achieved by public schooling.

I think if education had a more competitive element to it only the best teachers would get the work, much like only the best speakers/experts get a lot of traffic online. It's very tough to be a good teacher, which is why I don't think many people are cut out for the job. But anyway, I would need to gather my own stats to debate with you on whether classroom learning in the private sector outweighs the public.

What do you mean exacerbate inequality?
Why not? Aside from the fact that's kind of your parent's job when they create you, not the education day care centre.
They just need to stop throwing people in jail for stupid shit, which involves the government having less power.
For prisoners? What mental health services would you provide to which type of prisoners, exactly?

I don't believe you. You're claiming a profit driven education system would incentivise good teaching, but somehow government-backed education is going to be incentivised to teach people critical thinking... which would inevitably lead to a lessening in their own profits and influence. There's a reason things like basic personal finance isn't taught before you guys are sent off to college to rack up student for useless degrees, and it's not because the government has your best interests at heart.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right. I used the term loosely, 'Swords seems to be stating that the govt. has some massive control over the media that would be better off privately funded, kek. You'll note I mentioned schools and prisons, which the government kind of has a monopoly on, but we'll just nitpick the individual institution of the three I mentioned, ignore that I included criteria like "regulated", and try to spin what I said into something entirely different. I'll say it again for the people in the back...
Originally posted by ILS
do you ever say anything meaningful

Originally posted by dadudemon

Fact is, the electorate is woefully ignorant on the issues and the candidates. Why do we keep electing ineffectual and actually corrupt Democrats and Republicans all the time? It's because the electorate is woefully ignorant.

The "woefully ignorant" are more likely to vote against corrupt candidates than the rich who know the candidates will benefit them. Hence, restricting who can vote would help keep the corrupt in power.

The reasons why the corrupt are in power is

A. the people likely to oppose said politicians don't vote enough

B. corrupt politicians are allowed to enact policy restricting the votes of thousands in each state, thousands likely to not vote for them. Even the supreme court recognized the policy was partisan but decided it's ok for political purposes as "voting is a privilege not a right."

C. People don't have equal voting power. Our democracy treats certain people as superior to others. We want land to have equal power, rather than the people who reside in that land.

D. For whatever reason we don't make election day a holiday

E. Partisan gerrymandering keeps the corrupt in power even when opposed by a majority of a people.

F. Superpacs ensure money wins over popularity. Remember that video you posted?

But restricting the vote of who the government deems unworthy keeps the government in control rather than the people. And any country that does that has no business calling itself a republic.

Originally posted by ILS
You'll note I mentioned schools and prisons, which the government kind of has a monopoly on, but we'll just nitpick the individual institution of the three I mentioned, ignore that I included criteria like "regulated", and try to spin what I said into something entirely different. I'll say it again for the people in the back... I noted that you said the government had a monopoly over
and that the media among other institutions would be better offI am very sorry 'swords for reading your words as you wrote them. Will not happen again.

But sure, I'll indulge your doublespeak for a minute and intepret your statement as it was so clearly intended. Can you explain what regulations if abolished would make voters smarter? Maybe if govt. stopped regulating public indecency so we could see more titties?

I don't believe there needs to be restraints on voting. I think enacting such restraints would only lead to revolt and further the distancing between the upper, middle and lower class. Everyone should be allowed to vote without hindrance.

If there is a particularly large portion of the populace that is stupid then the answer isn't to disallow their participation in democracy but to fix the educational system of the country to better learn critical thinking.

The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?

There can be no compromise on the right to vote. If you give the government the power to decide who votes and who doesn't, the government will make sure those who vote keep it as it is, irrelevant of public opinion. "For the people, by the people," doesn't work if the government is choosing the people.

A republic where the government chooses who gets to participate in the republic simply isn't a republic. The policies by proposed by members here would strongly resemble the policies in places like Egypt and Russia.

If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.

And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Let's call it what it actually is, the practice of an oligarchy. If you believe we should be an oligarchy rather than a republic, then say so, otherwise let the republic be what a republic is supposed to be, a republic.

Also.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?

There can be no compromise on the right to vote. If you give the government the power to decide who votes and who doesn't, the government will make sure those who vote keep it as it is, irrelevant of public opinion. "For the people, by the people," doesn't work if the government is choosing the people.

A republic where the government chooses who gets to participate in the republic simply isn't a republic. The policies by proposed by members here would strongly resemble the policies in places like Egypt and Russia.

If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.

And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Let's call it what it actually is, the practice of an oligarchy. If you believe we should be an oligarchy rather than a republic, then say so, otherwise let the republic be what a republic is supposed to be, a republic.

Well when you just list out all the pros of one side without bothering to cross-examine the other side's arguments then of course it'll sound moronic, lmao. The one attempt at a rebuttal you make is that we can fix the education problem, which is soooooo easy to do, right? And the issue isn't merely education.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Honestly one of the better arguments for the free market is that it subtly filters competent people into positions of power. I mean, not perfectly by any means.

Far from it, imo.

The general pattern seems to be: Competent person builds empire, attracts hoards of vultures, and eventually gold diggers displace visionaries picking at the bones until the whole thing collapses..

Corporate raiders are one example of this decay. Happens wherever the money is, it seems.

Originally posted by cdtm
Far from it, imo.

The general pattern seems to be: Competent person builds empire, attracts hoards of vultures, and eventually gold diggers displace visionaries picking at the bones until the whole thing collapses..

Corporate raiders are one example of this decay. Happens wherever the money is, it seems.

Still better than politics, tbh.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't believe there needs to be restraints on voting. I think enacting such restraints would only lead to revolt and further the distancing between the upper, middle and lower class. Everyone should be allowed to vote without hindrance.

If there is a particularly large portion of the populace that is stupid then the answer isn't to disallow their participation in democracy but to fix the educational system of the country to better learn critical thinking.

Neither party wants voters to be intelligent and well versed in critical thinking.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well when you just list out all the pros of one side without bothering to cross-examine the other side's arguments then of course it'll sound moronic, lmao. The one attempt at a rebuttal you make is that we can fix the education problem, which is soooooo easy to do, right? And the issue isn't merely education.
Every single point I made directly addresses something someone has said. You weren't the only focus of this post, hence why I referred to the thread in general rather than just you. My "only rebuttal" was the only rebuttal I made for you as you made a grand total of one point.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2296746757/n37nkkimyns6wr51ud16_400x400.jpeg

No, of course it's not easy. That doesn't mean we should sacrifice principles for convenience.

And if you think the education system isn't adequate, and we have a voting system where those who aren't adequately educated can't vote, then why would politicians elected only by the well educated have any incentive to educate an uneducated populace that might not vote for them?

The issue with only letting the more fortunate vote, is that only the more fortunate will ever be represented in spite of the less fortunate needing more help.

So aside from a practice of oligarchy undermining the principles behind a republic, it'll also make the supposed reason we need an oligarchy, inadequate education, worse.

You can apply my reasoning regarding education to any of the other things said. Politicans who are kept in power by virtue of only a few being sufficiently well informed to vote will make sure that there's only a few sufficiently well informed to vote. Not only are you proposing we sacrifice our principles, but you're proposing that we make the issues forcing us to sacrifice our principles work.

What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this oligarchy of yours?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Every single point I made directly addresses something someone has said. You weren't the only focus of this post, hence why I referred to the thread in general rather than just you. My "only rebuttal" was the only rebuttal I made for you as you made a grand total of one point.

I...never said you were addressing me exclusively, I said that your entire case involves pointing out the very obvious problems with a differential voting system (abuse of power + perverse incentives) while only vaguely addressing part of the other side's case. You would have to explain why the need to defeat perverse incentives beats the need to have competent voters.



You're assuming that the issues brought up against the general population voting are malleable and not, say, some people just being dumb. Even if everything were 100% environmentally determined what, is your solution to quickly move towards a super-hyper-competent society to preempt the criticisms?



Actually the only position I made was that the free market is better at selecting for competence, not that success in the free market should dictate voting rights.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Actually the only position I made was that the free market is better at selecting for competence, not that success in the free market should dictate voting rights.
Yeah, DMB clarified, I was about to make a retraction, but I guess this will suffice.

I was under the impression you were referring to how those with economic power influence politicians.


Fine. Fair enough.

A government should represent the interests of all the people it expects to abide by it's laws and pay taxes. By only having "competent" voters vote, the government is only allowing some of it's members representation despite expecting all it's members to abide by it's laws. To me, this seems rather terrible on principle. In a system where only "competent" people are allowed to vote, politicians will ensure those who might vote against them remain incompetent. Hence not only would restrictions like this be bad on principle, but they would make the issues that make this bad on principle even worse. Your also setting a precedent that politicians can choose who votes and who doesn't and who qualifies as competent. Politicians could decide competence is no longer about being competent but rather about how would vote for them which ends up completely defeating the purpose of this sacrifice of principle.

I never assumed that anywhere. I'm sure there are just people being dumb, but whether there are people who are just dumb/lazy doesn't change my point as this kind of policy would give politicians to ensure that even those who might have otherwise become competent stay incompetent.

I never once used the word "quick" or implied such a process would be quick. What is this addressed at?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Discuss your constraints and prerequisites.
I would like things to go the STARSHIP TROOPERS route.
In order to become a full citizen (have the right to vote, conceive children, run for public office...) a civilian had serve in the Military or another capacity such as teaching, for at least two years.
I might scale it back to one, just so ppl wouldnt complain.

A ridiculous notion.

If you pay taxes then you have the right to dictate, on some level, where and how your money is being spent. If you pay taxes then you've already purchased the right to vote. Full stop.

I'm not even going to dip into the hilariously retarded debate about privatizing everything.

Originally posted by Tzeentch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0UudoppDDs

Originally posted by Tzeentch
A ridiculous notion.

If you pay taxes then you have the right to dictate, on some level, where and how your money is being spent. If you pay taxes then you've already purchased the right to vote. Full stop.

I'm not even going to dip into the hilariously retarded debate about privatizing everything.

What about the people that don't pay taxes?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Honestly more and more I've been being convinced that democracy in general doesn't work and that most voters are uninformed, easily mislead idiots. I was thinking, monkeys in clothing, but that's probably an insult to monkeys.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you pay taxes then you've already purchased the right to vote.
Rights shouldnt be purchased. They should be earned.

Originally posted by Silent Master
What about the people that don't pay taxes?
You mean the homeless? They still have to abide by the country's laws(including tax laws) and get punished for breaking them, hence they have the right to vote.

Originally posted by riv6672
Rights shouldnt be purchased. They should be earned.
Let's be consistent with this line of thinking;

-> Taxes should be earned, not given.

-> Law abiding citizens should be earned, not given.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You mean the homeless? They still have to abide by the country's laws(including tax laws) and get punished for breaking them, hence they have the right to vote.

Is that a yes?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that a yes?
That depends on what you were referring to by "those who don't pay their taxes." If you are referring to all people in that group, then those who are violating the law with that refusal to pay taxes should have to face whatever legal consequences are present first. Those who aren't paying taxes because they aren't legally required to should be allowed to vote.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That depends on what you were referring to by "those who don't pay their taxes." If you are referring to all people in that group, then those who are violating the law with that refusal to pay taxes should have to face whatever legal consequences are present first. Those who aren't paying taxes because they aren't legally required to should be allowed to vote.

Why? after all; if they didn't pay taxes then they didn't pay for the right to vote, which was your standard.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why? after all; if they didn't pay taxes then they didn't pay for the right to vote, which was your standard.
Uh, no, that wasn't my standard, that was the standard of the post you replied to.

Here is my standard:


Taxes are a legally permissible forfeiture of someone's property. Taxes are part of adhering to a country's laws. If a government isn't representing my interests, then why should I give a shit about what it tells me to do?

If your response is that the government will put you in jail, then you're supporting the government violating other people's freedoms without justification, which is also known as oppression.

My bad, that was said by Tzeentch

Do you have an opinion on my standards?

Originally posted by Silent Master
My bad, that was said by Tzeentch
Paying taxes is a citizen's responsibility, like obeying federal/state/local laws, jury duty, serving as a witness and registering for the draft.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Do you have an opinion on my standards?

At this point I think voting is pointless as both sides are extremely corrupt. so I stopped caring.

Fair enough!

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?

Since when did the educated become equated with corruption?

You show your true colors, Supreme Leader Pol Pot.

Your comment, right here, is more than enough to to convince me of what a truly disgusting and despicable person you are.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.


You chase the chicken and the egg, here. If the government controls education, and the electorate is woefully ignorant of who they vote for and the policies that they have, is not the government perpetuating corruption based on your logic?

Fact: the USA electorate is woefully ignorant of incumbent's, incumbent's policies and candidate's and their policies.

http://www.justfacts.com/news_2017_poll_voter_knowledge.asp

Fact: the USA has demonstrably provable corruption at all levels of government and that's just for the people who get caught:

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/measuring-illegal-and-legal-corruption-american-states-some-results-safra

Fact: the US Government does not represent the people.

5tu32CCA_Ig



So while you take the very conservative position that the US Government is "just fine, no need to change it", we clearly do need to change it.



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Let's call it what it actually is, the practice of an oligarchy. If you believe we should be an oligarchy rather than a republic, then say so, otherwise let the republic be what a republic is supposed to be, a republic.

We are already an oligarchy.


Also, I am curious as to why you think the rich = politically educated.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The "woefully ignorant" are more likely to vote against corrupt candidates than the rich who know the candidates will benefit them. Hence, restricting who can vote would help keep the corrupt in power.


No they do not. That vast majority are politically ignorant. From the post you quoted of mine, if what you said was correct, the majority elected to office would not be incumbents or people with Ds or Rs in front of their name.

Originally posted by riv6672
Paying taxes is a citizen's responsibility, like obeying federal/state/local laws, jury duty, serving as a witness and registering for the draft.
We have no responsibility to a government that doesn't represent us. That's kinda the reason America became it's own country in the first place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since when did the educated become equated with corruption?

You show your true colors, Supreme Leader Pol Pot.

laugh: Restricting voting rights are what dictators do. Protecting and expanding voting rights is the opposite of the kind of act that would make me worthy of being a "supreme leader."




Originally posted by dadudemon
You chase the chicken and the egg, here. If the government controls education, and the electorate is woefully ignorant of who they vote for and the policies that they have, is not the government perpetuating corruption based on your logic?

Indeed, so now explain to me why only representing the needs of the educated would make our populace more educated?

So? Regardless of ignorance, all citizens are expected to follow the law, hence, regardless of ignotance, all citizens should expect to vote. If the government wants an educated populace, then educate the populace.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: the USA has demonstrably provable corruption at all levels of government and that's just for the people who get caught:

Fact: This is a non-sequitir

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: the US Government does not represent the people.

Which is why I argued that it should represent the people, not that it does.




Actually, I've argued the opposite saying we do need to change it by expanding the right of voting, getting rid of lobies, getting rid of superpacs, getting rid of partisan gerrymandering, and making sure that in national elections, all people are given equal representation.

That's what any true liberal would advocate for. Advocating for oligarchy is taking away freedoms from the many and giving it to the few. It would seem you are the conservative here.

Naturally you don't respond to what I say, so you draw up a strawman arguing the exact opposite of what I've advocated for.





Right, now explain to my us having an oligarchy makes us having an oligarchy?

Whether we have an oligarchy or not was never disputed. What I've claimed and you need to argue is whether we should have an oligarchy.

This time when you respond to me, address what I say, or leave me alone.

If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.

The reality then would be that they voted, supported and defended a traitor to America, they should in the very least lose the right to vote. Maybe a "yuge' fine as well, a traitor's fine.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.

The reality then would be that they voted, supported and defended a traitor to America, they should in the very least lose the right to vote. Maybe a "yuge' fine as well, a traitor's fine.

So should everyone who voted for Nixon be banned from voting too?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So should everyone who voted for Nixon be banned from voting too?

Was Nixon a traitor?

They should be banned from life.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was Nixon a traitor?

Debatably?

He was definitely a criminal. Not sure about being a traitor.

If treason is defined as levying war against the United States or aiding an enemy in doing so, we're implying that interfering with elections is analogous to some sort of war. Then doing it yourself is treason just as doing it for another country would be.

i recall no treason by nixon...neither committed nor alleged.

Well then sure.

Of course presumably we're being facetious; disenfranchising almost half the voting population for supporting the "wrong" candidate is cancer to democracy lol.

Or is it weeding out traitors to our great nation? We don't allow convicts and parolees to vote. Food for thought.

There's a difference between committing a crime yourself and voting for someone who was later accused of and convicted for treason (hypothetically).

Yes, obviously, those can hide their actions under the ignorance "but we didn't know!" blanket. Even though this was a thing long before Nov 8th 2016.

I'm talking about the people (ie Trumpers) who will still be supporting Trump, in the hypothetical that Trump is found guilty.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, obviously, those can hide their actions under the ignorance "but we didn't know!" blanket. Even though this was a thing long before Nov 8th 2016.

I'm talking about the people (ie Trumpers) who will still be supporting Trump, in the hypothetical that Trump is found guilty.

Except they did know. Clinton raised the subject during the debates.

They can't "know" until the accusations are proven. Who's to differentiate between political slander and truth during presidential debates, lol?

Originally posted by SunRazer
They can't "know" until the accusations are proven. Who's to differentiate between political slander and truth during presidential debates, lol?

People with functioning brains. But do not take the word of our intelligence agencies for it, because Clinton was the messenger, amirite?

Name the accusations proven so we can discuss it. The actions of our intelligence agencies are questionable, specifically the FBI, so whining about that is naive.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
People with functioning brains. But do not take the word of our intelligence agencies for it, because Clinton was the messenger, amirite?

I'm not American, so I've not kept up to date with all of this, but last I heard, wasn't this still in the process of investigation?

And yes, nothing against Clinton herself, but her accusations aren't those of the intelligence agencies'. The idea that Clinton raising it up in the debates means we should ban everyone who voted for Trump for life is absurd.

Originally posted by Surtur
Name the accusations proven so we can discuss it. The actions of our intelligence agencies are questionable, specifically the FBI, so whining about that is naive.

It's a hypothetical "if Trump is found guilty", you silly bastard. So on those grounds, the accusations would be true. Again, it's a hypothetical. Jeez.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a hypothetical "if Trump is found guilty", you silly bastard. So on those grounds, the accusations would be true. Again, it's a hypothetical. Jeez.

But this little dweeb is acting like it's fact. Next.

I mean where do we draw the line here? Should we have disenfranchised everyone who voted for Lincoln because he suspended habeas corpus to keep Maryland in the Union or do we see that as a necessary act for the greater good? What if Trump supporters argue Trump's hypothetical treason is necessary for the greater good?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean where do we draw the line here? Should we have disenfranchised everyone who voted for Lincoln because he suspended habeas corpus to keep Maryland in the Union or do we see that as a necessary act for the greater good? What if Trump supporters argue Trump's hypothetical treason is necessary for the greater good?

It doesn't matter lol. It truly doesn't and the reason is Trump. He drives them crazy. Stays rent free in their heads.

I bet these people would hold anyone who voted for Nixon responsible for Watergate.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What if Trump supporters argue Trump's hypothetical treason is necessary for the greater good?

The "who cares if Trump colluded, it was to make America great again" flip has already been called. #collusionpivot

It's when people who are adamantly "there was no collusion!" ranters, suddenly don't care about the collusion once it's proven.

Originally posted by riv6672
Rights shouldnt be purchased. They should be earned. They are earned by paying taxes, you dip.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They are earned by paying taxes, you dip.

^

Surtur, read the above :0

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Surtur, read the above :0

Yes, and? Grow a sac and say your point. Go on

Originally posted by Robtard
The "who cares if Trump colluded, it was to make America great again" flip has already been called. #collusionpivot

It's when people who are adamantly "there was no collusion!" ranters, suddenly don't care about the collusion once it's proven.

So it's about targeting people who flake on their arguments?

Except I do care about collusion, I don't want it. But I don't know f it is illegal. Alan Dershowitz says no.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, and? Grow a sac and say your point. Go on


FFS, I even underlined the important bits for you. Still you fail to grasp. Moving on.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, I even underlined the important bits for you. Still you fail to grasp. Moving on.

So don't run your mouth if you can't say what you mean. Next.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
They are earned by paying taxes, you dip.

Not everyone pays taxes.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
laugh: Restricting voting rights are what dictators do. Protecting and expanding voting rights is the opposite of the kind of act that would make me worthy of being a "supreme leader."

You dodged my point entirely, Pol Pot. You equated education with corruption. Don't dodge because you don't like it that you're bedfellow is Pol Pot.





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Indeed, so now explain to me why only representing the needs of the educated would make our populace more educated?

So only the educated can be informed voters, eh? So now you think only the educated can be informed voters, eh? My position: the educated can be woefully ignorant voters, too.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If the government wants an educated populace, then educate the populace.

This is your red herring point, not mine. I want an informed electorate. You think education = corruption. Not sure how much of an idiot one has to be to argue against my position with your point....




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Fact: This is a non-sequitir

Sure, if you're an idiot, it would seem like that. Just take a wild guess why I would bring up corruption in the US as it relates to exactly what I quoted and responded to...go ahead...you may be intelligent enough to figure out why it is not non-sequitur.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Which is why I argued that it should represent the people, not that it does.

Great, so are you also willing to admit that you equating education with corruption was also a very stupid thing to do?




Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Actually, I've argued the opposite saying we do need to change it by expanding the right of voting,

Expand to whom? Criminals, minorities, and illegal immigrants?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
getting rid of lobies,



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
getting rid of superpacs,



But how?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
getting rid of partisan gerrymandering,

How about just getting rid of gerrymandering?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
and making sure that in national elections, all people are given equal representation.


What does this even mean? Explain what you mean.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's what any true liberal would advocate for.

Oh no, not the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

It is clearly not what "any true liberal" would advocate.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Advocating for oligarchy is taking away freedoms from the many and giving it to the few.

"a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes "

And when did I advocate for an oligarchy? Keep in mind, I wasn't the one who thinks education = corruption.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It would seem you are the conservative here.

How so? What exactly am I advocating we conserve in the current political system as it pertains to this particular topic?


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Naturally you don't respond to what I say, so you draw up a strawman arguing the exact opposite of what I've advocated for.

You're just upset because I clearly pointed out how your position is quite tacitly a conservative one. You've since just parroted things that myself and others have said over the years, after I pointed out how you're acting like a conservative.

What's the matter, you feel insulted by being labeled a conservative so you have to over-compensate?



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Right, now explain to my us having an oligarchy makes us having an oligarchy?

Explain to you why the US being an oligarchy means that the US is an oligarchy? That's because we are an oligarchy. Did you intend to present a tautology or did you make a typo? I make tons of mistakes in my posts so this is one thing I for which will not judge you negatively. Maybe ask the question again?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whether we have an oligarchy or not was never disputed. What I've claimed and you need to argue is whether we should have an oligarchy.


But why? Why do I need to argue that? I don't want to. It seems weird that you want to give me points to argue... It was never my point. I wanted to point out that you're throwing a tantrum about the strawman you created regarding my post but clearly you were ignorant that the US is already an oligarchy.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
This time when you respond to me, address what I say, or leave me alone.

I will leave you alone. I refuse to respond to you. lol

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not everyone pays taxes.

This is is a good point.


44.3% of American Households do not pay income taxes, to be more exact:

https://nypost.com/2017/04/18/almost-half-of-americans-wont-pay-federal-income-tax/



I underlined the important part, a la Robtard.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.

Total bullshit.

Punishing people for who they vote for is the act of dictatorships not republics.

If someone is found guilty, they do not share the guilt with people who did not commit a crime. Trump voters exercised their right. A government that oppresses people for exercising their rights has no business calling itself a republic.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I will leave you alone. I refuse to respond to you. lol

Double D in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Double D in a nutshell.

Did you miss the part where I responded to you and that part of my post is clearly a joke?