Mandatory knowledge

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Troponin

New member
Shouldn't it be a law that when people to go vote, they must give atleast 5-10 views that they share with the candidate they are voting for?

I just spoke to a co-worker about the elections. He thinks that HIllary will be a good president. She "makes things happen". Are you kidding me? I asked him if he knew what her views were or beliefs and he replied, "She's democrat. She has all the beliefs that Bill Clinton had". Wow, just wow. I told him he was in for a rude awakening if she gets elected. He is very wrong in his assumption.

I tried to tell him a few of the things she would try to accomplish, but I think he was ignoring me or denying what I was saying. He didn't care, he had it in his head that she was best suited. Then, what hit me next is unbelievable. He then stated that Obama should run as VP with her. :confused: This guy gets crazier and crazier. He is even military...well, Air Force reserves.

This just kills me. People like this should not even be allowed to vote.
 
That's funny. Last night my wife and I had a similiar discussion regarding Hillary. When my wife said that she would vote for her, I asked her what positions Hillary took that she agreed with. After a couple of minutes of thought my wife said "I really don't know, but she's a democrat". That's kind of like my mother, a true "yellow dog" democrat if there ever was one.
 
Here's the easy answer to the quandary expressed in the above anecdotes: If some kind of quick-scoring I.Q. test were given to all voters, with those scoring less than 80 being disenfranchised, then we'd never have another Democrat elected to office. It really is just as simple as that.
 
The way the country was originally framed, you had to be a land-owning white male to vote.

Later, you had to be a white male.

Later, you had to be a male who knew how to read.

Later, you just had to be male.

Now, we've decided that all those requirements are fundamentally wrong. Anyone can vote, and you don't have to have a scintilla of education to do so. It doesn't matter what ethnicity or socio-economic background you are from; your opinion still matters. And, I think that's basically fair.

Unfortunately, the free exercise of the vote means that, occasionally, stupid people get to vote, too. But, don't blame the stupid people. Blame the candidates for pandering to the idiocy of the masses, for not placing their true political views in the front light.

I am comforted by the fact that, by and large, stupid people don't vote. And, there sure are alot of them in this country!
 
That's funny... That's kind of like my mother, a true "yellow dog" democrat if there ever was one.
Click to expand...
It might/could be funny... if it wasn't so pathetic! :(
If some kind of quick-scoring I.Q. test were given to all voters, with those scoring less than 80 being disenfranchised...
Click to expand...
It would be even better if the cutoff was at 90... ;)
That way it would keep certain Liberals from even running... :D :D :D
 
Here's the easy answer to the quandary expressed in the above anecdotes: If some kind of quick-scoring I.Q. test were given to all voters, with those scoring less than 80 being disenfranchised, then we'd never have another Democrat elected to office. It really is just as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Because IQ tests are reliable? Because they've never been culturally and racially biased? Because somehow intelligence corresponds to political affiliation?

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Smart guy. Barack Obama is a very smart guy. But let's not misunderestimate the smartness of Bush and his followers...
It would be even better if the cutoff was at 90...
That way it would keep certain Liberals from even running...
Click to expand...
Really now? Have a list of politicians with such low IQs? Wanna tell me that people who hold multiple degrees have low IQs? Care to explain which low IQ liberals are in office and where you got your data? Or should I just make another baseless comment like the previous one and claim that the 90 IQ limit would have kept Bush from running and his supporters from voting? :rolleyes: Maybe the second time around the irony can sink in.

Or maybe we'll just stick to facts. What a concept.
 
All I ask for is that people know something about who they are voting for. It's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of common sense.
 
All I ask for is that people know something about who they are voting for. It's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of common sense.
Click to expand...
While I agree, "common sense" usually isn't. Some people feel it's common sense to ban guns because guns kill. Some people feel it's common sense to ban gay marriage because it somehow affects their marriage. Some people feel it's common sense to ban flag burning while some feel it's common sense to allow people free speech.
 
I asked my step daughter what she thought about Hillary running and she said I'll vote for her because she is a women. Now this is a well educated women with a law degree and she answers like that????? No wonder this country is going to the dogs. At least my wife knows what Hillary supports and does not want her to be president.
 
Shouldn't it be a law that when people to go vote, they must give atleast 5-10 views that they share with the candidate they are voting for?
Click to expand...

What will that prove, or accomplish? If the views of the candidate are all wrong to you, they may not be to someone else. I think Hillary spells doom for this country, but there are some people that think she would be great.:barf: So what good would a law do where you have to state your views of the candidate?
 
WSM MAGNUM
I think Hillary spells doom for this country, but there are some people that think she would be great. So what good would a law do where you have to state your views of the candidate?
Click to expand...
Mostly they are voting for slogans and platitudes and the liberal left counts on that...

Perhaps if they were to really examine the issues... they, too, would realize she "spells doom"...

Such a law would be attract the "screecher creatures" from the ACLU and ultimately be found un-Constitutional anyway... :(
...to state your views of the candidate?
Click to expand...
Stating their views of a candidate was not the suggestion...
Only that they know what he/she really considers important.

This whole idea is a "pipe-dream"... and it has little substance.
It will disappear...like the "smoke and mirrors" she uses to decieve them in the first place...

At least when we voted for Bush, we were not "Mis-directed by illusions"...
We knew what the issues were, and it's all too sad that we (conservatives) were sold out by his treachery...
 
You know, just about every denigration you can throw at a party that isn't policy-related (sloganeering, placing politics over solutions, etc...) applies to both parties. I.e. the Republican party relies just as much on ignorant voters as the Democratic party does. It's just that the Democrats are currently the in thing because of public frustration with a war that is widely viewed as both futile and pointless. But that's another thread...

Anyway, knowing the issues isn't really that important to most people. It's Democrats vs Republicans, and everybody is aware (in general terms anyway) what the two parties stand for. In the general election, it's entirely reasonable to let the "idiots" vote "uninformed" (well, uninformed on specific issues, but not on general policy priorities). It's the primaries where you need to understand policy preferences, but only the more zealous partisans vote in those anyway (hence moderates tending to get the shaft).
 
Did I misunderstand Troponin`s post? Does he mean that the candidate you are voting for should post his/her views on issues?
 
Shouldn't it be a law that when people go to vote, they must give at least 5-10 views that they share with the candidate they are voting for?
Click to expand...
They would have to reveal who they are voting for... :rolleyes:
Did I misunderstand Troponin`s post? Does he mean that the candidate you are voting for should post his/her views on issues?
Click to expand...
Yes...
and No...;)
It's just that the Democrats are currently the in thing
Click to expand...
They have been the in thing since Franklin D. Roosevelt...
The Republicans have not had a deciding majority, even when there was a Republican Presidency... :rolleyes:

The "in thing" is decided by "feelings" and ever so rarely, by intellectual knowledge or moral understanding.

Ignorance is cannibalistic and, therefore, feeds on it's own children...

Imigration run amok...
Taxes greater than 50% of the average citizen's income...
State Governments are given mandates by the Federal Gov'mint and have little or nothing to say about the really important issues within their States...
Little or no patriotic pride...
Police Officer's being punished instead of the criminals... (i.e., Rodney King)
Permissive courts... (i.e., the 9th Circus Court)
Misunderstood criminals and revolving door prisons...
Charles Manson is still alive...
Liberal flat-sided news media...
False, non-existant and/or half-baked histories taught in public schools...

Our children are now taught using the same slogans of communism/socialism and the same sense of dependency that the Gov'mint OWES them a living... and many more such examples...

You can see plainly ("If you have eyes to see") the results after 50-60 years of Democrat rule...

Remember and never forget... it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of these United States of a free America, that met with Stalin at Yalta and agreed to cede the freedom of millions of people to Russia. (Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lituania, Romania etc, etc, etc.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."
 
Police Officer's being punished instead of the criminals... (i.e., Rodney King)
Click to expand...
because half a dozen men beating one unarmed suspect is not a crime?
False, non-existant and/or half-baked histories taught in public schools...
Click to expand...
lol yeah, how dare we teach children that the natives weren't evil murderers that attacked the honorable settlers without provocation...how dare we limit science to science class...how dare we describe the atrocities of slavery and segregation. it's not like that stuff really matters or anything, those uppity minorities should just get over it!
You can see plainly ("If you have eyes to see") the results after 50-60 years of Democrat rule...
Click to expand...
despite the republicans being in control for half that time? oh I forgot, if they don't agree with you they're not really republican


I think you missed a spot when polishing the conservative halo.
 
Sheesh, you sure know how to make a dude feel like a pinko...

Though in all fairness, what did six years of Republican rule do? No Child Left Behind? Unfunded mandate taking choice away from the states. The new prescription drug program? Massive entitlement spending (though whether it's entitling seniors or major drug firms is open for debate). Patriotism has gone into the basement, nothing meaningful is being done about immigration, and government spending hasn't been reigned in, meaning any hope you may have had about further tax reductions is out the window.

So it's really pointless to act like the Republicans are any better. Both parties exist to play politics, and that's all.

I want to say a bit about the subject being owed a living: the market will stabilize itself in the long run, but in the short run market forces can wreak havoc on somebody's livelihood. If our government is going to openly embrace and encourage the market that allows this, one would think it should also be responsible for cleaning up after the market's downsides as well.

(Just to make sure here, this is all meant as amicable disagreement. It's not my style to attack people, especially when I can understand and even identify with their frustration.)
 
If some kind of quick-scoring I.Q. test were given to all voters, with those scoring less than 80 being disenfranchised, then we'd never have another Democrat elected to office. It really is just as simple as that
Click to expand...

Half the people on this board (probably the same half that can't spell "amendment" and "lose") might not be able to vote.
 
In some places there were tests given to voters to see if they had sufficient constitutional knowledge. Would you like it if only expert pistol shots were the only people allowed to own pistols? In some places at one time, or so I have been given to understand, you could only vote if your grandfather voted. I am also starting to believe that some contributors to this fine forum believe that people should be only allowed to vote for one canditate--their's. All others should leave the country!

Are you socialist or anti-social?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top