hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1402 of 1402 FirstFirst ... 4029021302135213921399140014011402
Results 28,021 to 28,033 of 28033

Thread: M [USA Politics Thread] GA!

  1. #28021
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,143
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    I dont block opinions, i block cunts. If all someone does is insult over and over, mostly without actually saying anything about the actual discussion (while not even being funny) they go on the ignore list. Isyel is the perfect example, nothing but a toxic cunt - hence the ignorelist for him.
    If all you do is say stupid shit, you can't blame someone for calling you out.

    And you're amazingly dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  2. #28022

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    There should be a voting licence similar to a drivers licence which had to be renewed within 6 month to be able to vote on anything or something like that.


    Need that :wolfposts: emote.
    I actually dont disagree with him. If you're not educated enough on the matter at hand you really shouldnt vote.
    Conditional limits on a citizens right to vote are very dangerous and should be approached with the utmost caution. Even something as seemingly obvious as banning imprisoned criminals from voting needs to be very carefully legislated.

    Once a citizens right to vote can be hidden behind an exam, you open up the political system to an enormous amount of abuse via careful tailoring of the exam.

    Look at what is already happening with gerrymandering and voter ID laws, to see how initially innocuous systems can be perverted for political gain.
    The US had literacy tests after the Civil War. In the South. Do I need to point out why and how that was eventually was abolished?
    Seeing as they elected Trump maybe that wasn't such a smart idea after all now, was it?
    Considering it was done to keep African Americans from voting after they were disadvantaged in education thanks to segregation, it was a smart idea to get rid of those tests.
    But now we have public education. And people that cant even read shouldnt be allowed to vote anyways.
    Congratulations, you have just incentivised your political parties to cut education funding in areas that traditionally oppose them.

    Well done.
    No you havnt. Everyone with access to the internet can do educate themselves. Its not like schools or so can actually teach about actual political matters that will happen in 5 years or so. Its all about not being lazy and making an effort to inform oneself. Formal education has very little to do with that.
    So to summarise your position:

    -Formal education has little or no impact on a populations literacy.
    -Illiterate people should teach themselves to read with the internet.

    Do you actually parse what you have written before you hit the post button?
    I could ask you the same thing. I never said any of the above. I said that people should inform themselves on what they are voting for, if they dont they shouldnt be allowed to vote.
    No, I pointed out why making reading a requirement of voting would incentivise political parties to cut education funding in areas that don't vote for them. You responded with some amusing schpiel about educating yourself that had very little to do with my post. I highlighted your inability to grasp context by pushing your post into that context.

    Clearly you learned your ability to read, comprehend and respond from the internet.
    Which is totally irrelevant and a pointless argument. Making vast parts of your population illiterate because it would further your agenda is such a argument that it isnt even worth responding to.

    I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt, but no you really were that stupid about it.
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?

    Please, continue showing us all how valuable your opinion is.

  3. #28023
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    In the Shadows of the Trumpian Empire
    Posts
    10,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Conditional limits on a citizens right to vote are very dangerous and should be approached with the utmost caution.
    A few questions:

    1. Would you include being found guilty of a felony (and the subsequent loss of voting rights) are a conditional limit, and would you support elimination of this penalty in the U.S.?

    2. Does verification of identity (for example, a voter ID check at the time their vote is cast) count as a Conditional Limit in your view?
    I already mentioned the interaction between crime/voting in my first post on this subject. My opinion is that what seems obvious needs to be carefully considered by expert, independent legislators who are trained to look for all the ways the conditional limit could be abused by a political party.

    Verification of identity should be limited to a method that is totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state.

    If it is not, if there is any limitation to access to ID that can be correlated with a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation then it represents a dangerous conditional limit that needs to be very carefully considered and would probably have a larger, more damaging impact on voting than a very, very,very small amount of fraud.
    A couple of follow up questions:

    1. If the U.S. Federal Government Issued a free Photo ID (or provided funding to States to do it as part of their DMV systems) that required proof of citizenship to acquire, would that suffice to meet your criteria, or would (for example) you argue that someone living 2 miles from an ID office is being treated unequally under the law from someone 5 miles from an office? Questions as to the granularity of the term "equal access" have been raised a number of times over issues that do not involve fiscal matters. As another example, the very requirement of a specific document (birth certificate) has been described as unequal by some, due to some proposed number of people who lack one at current and (it seems) refuse to get one.

    2. Should your proposed criteria be expanded to cover more (or all) Government related services? I.e. without a "totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state" that is not in any way limited by "a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation", the State could not deny any person making any request of the State. I.e. for health services, for welfare support, for buying alcohol, etc? If you limit this expanded right of access only to voting, what is your rationale for not expanding it to all Govt. provided services/requirements?
    "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau



  4. #28024
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    In the Shadows of the Trumpian Empire
    Posts
    10,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau



  5. #28025

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    You only have to look at the rustbelt to see an area screwed by the Democrats.

  6. #28026
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    In the Shadows of the Trumpian Empire
    Posts
    10,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    You only have to look at the rustbelt to see an area screwed by the Democrats.
    Care to expand on that? How did the Democrats screw over the Rust Belt?
    "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau



  7. #28027
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Conditional limits on a citizens right to vote are very dangerous and should be approached with the utmost caution.
    A few questions:

    1. Would you include being found guilty of a felony (and the subsequent loss of voting rights) are a conditional limit, and would you support elimination of this penalty in the U.S.?

    2. Does verification of identity (for example, a voter ID check at the time their vote is cast) count as a Conditional Limit in your view?
    I already mentioned the interaction between crime/voting in my first post on this subject. My opinion is that what seems obvious needs to be carefully considered by expert, independent legislators who are trained to look for all the ways the conditional limit could be abused by a political party.

    Verification of identity should be limited to a method that is totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state.

    If it is not, if there is any limitation to access to ID that can be correlated with a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation then it represents a dangerous conditional limit that needs to be very carefully considered and would probably have a larger, more damaging impact on voting than a very, very,very small amount of fraud.
    A couple of follow up questions:

    1. If the U.S. Federal Government Issued a free Photo ID (or provided funding to States to do it as part of their DMV systems) that required proof of citizenship to acquire, would that suffice to meet your criteria, or would (for example) you argue that someone living 2 miles from an ID office is being treated unequally under the law from someone 5 miles from an office? Questions as to the granularity of the term "equal access" have been raised a number of times over issues that do not involve fiscal matters. As another example, the very requirement of a specific document (birth certificate) has been described as unequal by some, due to some proposed number of people who lack one at current and (it seems) refuse to get one.

    2. Should your proposed criteria be expanded to cover more (or all) Government related services? I.e. without a "totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state" that is not in any way limited by "a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation", the State could not deny any person making any request of the State. I.e. for health services, for welfare support, for buying alcohol, etc? If you limit this expanded right of access only to voting, what is your rationale for not expanding it to all Govt. provided services/requirements?
    You know that that is a false set-up you have there.
    In all real scenarios Republican states have tried to make it as difficult and as expensive to get ID as possible, in order to prevent poor and minorities from getting the IDs.

    And more important you know what federal universal ID is never going to happen.

  8. #28028
    W0lf Crendraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 27, 2012
    Location
    The United
    Posts
    7,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    There should be a voting licence similar to a drivers licence which had to be renewed within 6 month to be able to vote on anything or something like that.


    Need that :wolfposts: emote.
    I actually dont disagree with him. If you're not educated enough on the matter at hand you really shouldnt vote.
    Conditional limits on a citizens right to vote are very dangerous and should be approached with the utmost caution. Even something as seemingly obvious as banning imprisoned criminals from voting needs to be very carefully legislated.

    Once a citizens right to vote can be hidden behind an exam, you open up the political system to an enormous amount of abuse via careful tailoring of the exam.

    Look at what is already happening with gerrymandering and voter ID laws, to see how initially innocuous systems can be perverted for political gain.
    The US had literacy tests after the Civil War. In the South. Do I need to point out why and how that was eventually was abolished?
    Seeing as they elected Trump maybe that wasn't such a smart idea after all now, was it?
    Considering it was done to keep African Americans from voting after they were disadvantaged in education thanks to segregation, it was a smart idea to get rid of those tests.
    But now we have public education. And people that cant even read shouldnt be allowed to vote anyways.
    Congratulations, you have just incentivised your political parties to cut education funding in areas that traditionally oppose them.

    Well done.
    No you havnt. Everyone with access to the internet can do educate themselves. Its not like schools or so can actually teach about actual political matters that will happen in 5 years or so. Its all about not being lazy and making an effort to inform oneself. Formal education has very little to do with that.
    So to summarise your position:

    -Formal education has little or no impact on a populations literacy.
    -Illiterate people should teach themselves to read with the internet.

    Do you actually parse what you have written before you hit the post button?
    I could ask you the same thing. I never said any of the above. I said that people should inform themselves on what they are voting for, if they dont they shouldnt be allowed to vote.
    No, I pointed out why making reading a requirement of voting would incentivise political parties to cut education funding in areas that don't vote for them. You responded with some amusing schpiel about educating yourself that had very little to do with my post. I highlighted your inability to grasp context by pushing your post into that context.

    Clearly you learned your ability to read, comprehend and respond from the internet.
    Which is totally irrelevant and a pointless argument. Making vast parts of your population illiterate because it would further your agenda is such a argument that it isnt even worth responding to.

    I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt, but no you really were that stupid about it.
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?

    Please, continue showing us all how valuable your opinion is.
    I dont think that they will stay in office if they try to. At least not if the people that vote for them know what they are voting for (which is a given with the test that would force the issue). Some other party would get elected instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

  9. #28029
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Location
    florida hick land
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    If we're talking about who can and can't vote here's my personal 'voting rights list'

    must pass a civics test
    must not be a violent felon (murder/etc)
    must not be over 65 (Oh how I wish this would happen)
    Hmm. 65 is too young. You might be approaching senility at 30 but I know people at 65 who are smarter, kinder, and more well informed than most FHC posters (not a hard feat).

    Anyway the civics test would probably be enough to weed out the worst people. I suspect most of the shittiest voters wouldn't be able or would refuse to take a test of any kind that involved actually reading and learning something. Man, that would be nice.
    I'm trying to hold it together but my sanity has been shattered by an encounter with a psychic vampire

    Either way I'm undeniably an ageist. I don't think that people who are on their way out should have a say in decisions whose impact wont be fully felt until long after they are dead. Brexit is a perfect example of this.

    I know that's a pretty shitty opinion, and for example I love my abu, but she's almost 90 and can't let go of what happened 50 years ago. I don't think she should have a say in who's running the country.
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; March 1 2017 at 04:58:37 PM.

  10. #28030

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Conditional limits on a citizens right to vote are very dangerous and should be approached with the utmost caution.
    A few questions:

    1. Would you include being found guilty of a felony (and the subsequent loss of voting rights) are a conditional limit, and would you support elimination of this penalty in the U.S.?

    2. Does verification of identity (for example, a voter ID check at the time their vote is cast) count as a Conditional Limit in your view?
    I already mentioned the interaction between crime/voting in my first post on this subject. My opinion is that what seems obvious needs to be carefully considered by expert, independent legislators who are trained to look for all the ways the conditional limit could be abused by a political party.

    Verification of identity should be limited to a method that is totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state.

    If it is not, if there is any limitation to access to ID that can be correlated with a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation then it represents a dangerous conditional limit that needs to be very carefully considered and would probably have a larger, more damaging impact on voting than a very, very,very small amount of fraud.
    A couple of follow up questions:

    1. If the U.S. Federal Government Issued a free Photo ID (or provided funding to States to do it as part of their DMV systems) that required proof of citizenship to acquire, would that suffice to meet your criteria, or would (for example) you argue that someone living 2 miles from an ID office is being treated unequally under the law from someone 5 miles from an office? Questions as to the granularity of the term "equal access" have been raised a number of times over issues that do not involve fiscal matters. As another example, the very requirement of a specific document (birth certificate) has been described as unequal by some, due to some proposed number of people who lack one at current and (it seems) refuse to get one.

    2. Should your proposed criteria be expanded to cover more (or all) Government related services? I.e. without a "totally, universally and equally available to all and funded by the state" that is not in any way limited by "a persons area,wealth, ethnicity, gender, age or political affiliation", the State could not deny any person making any request of the State. I.e. for health services, for welfare support, for buying alcohol, etc? If you limit this expanded right of access only to voting, what is your rationale for not expanding it to all Govt. provided services/requirements?

    1. Given values for "equal access" needs very careful analysis. I don't know enough about the US federal governments photo ID/DMV systems to do that to the level you are asking for.

    2. Having the ability to rationally and critically analyse each request based on its own merits, criteria, direct impact and plausible negative effects.

  11. #28031

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    You only have to look at the rustbelt to see an area screwed by the Democrats.
    Care to expand on that? How did the Democrats screw over the Rust Belt?
    Massive investment into globalisation while only paying lip-service to the corresponding initiatives that are required to offset the negative impacts of globalisation.

  12. #28032
    W0lf Crendraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 27, 2012
    Location
    The United
    Posts
    7,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    You only have to look at the rustbelt to see an area screwed by the Democrats.
    Care to expand on that? How did the Democrats screw over the Rust Belt?
    Massive investment into globalisation while only paying lip-service to the corresponding initiatives that are required to offset the negative impacts of globalisation.
    Except they didnt do that to screw them over, it was an unfortunate byproduct. Only parties like the nsdap have really fucked over a specific group of people AS their actual agenda, and even there it served more then just that purpose. Politicans screwing over a region is usually because its a necessary byproduct, not the endgoal.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

  13. #28033

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    So you believe that political parties will not fuck over wide swathes of the population to further their agenda?
    Can you cite a relevant example of the American Democrat Party doing this? Or do you just mean Republicans when you say political parties? Just want to be clear on your point.
    You only have to look at the rustbelt to see an area screwed by the Democrats.
    Care to expand on that? How did the Democrats screw over the Rust Belt?
    Massive investment into globalisation while only paying lip-service to the corresponding initiatives that are required to offset the negative impacts of globalisation.
    Except they didnt do that to screw them over, it was an unfortunate byproduct. Only parties like the nsdap have really fucked over a specific group of people AS their actual agenda, and even there it served more then just that purpose. Politicans screwing over a region is usually because its a necessary byproduct, not the endgoal.
    The initiatives necessary to offset the negative impacts of globalisation (without wrecking the economy via trade-destroying import tariffs) mostly revolve around using various forms of wealth redistribution. You may not agree with that, but that's the approach to the problem (in one form or another) that the Dem's paid lip-service to.

    Wealth redistribution, in any form, is a very hard sell to the American public in general and Republican politicians in particular. Helping the rustbelt would have required a vast expenditure of political capital by the Dem's and (in their view) harmed their chances of success in marginal states. The Dem's considered much of the restbelt a relatively safe area, so they didn't do this in any real form. They put their agenda first and have only just (after 30 odd years) had it bite them in the ass.
    Last edited by Nicholai Pestot; March 1 2017 at 05:26:32 PM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •