I'd wager a good amount that the correlation between "Jersey Shore Watchers" and "Likely Voters" is pretty low.

I wouldn't post such a blame on an entire party, but there are definite extremes to blame such absurd stuff on. But this goes for both sides.

 

Both parties are s*** but are not equally s***ty overall and especially on specific issues.

I'd wager a good amount that the correlation between "Jersey Shore Watchers" and "Likely Voters" is pretty low.

 

I'm not all that sure about that these days -- those are the target demographics of the 'get out the vote' campaigns. While designed to get people interested in their country/politics, all they're really doing is making being able to say "I voted" perceived as "cool"...forget the fact they have no f***ing clue what they're voting for or why.

 

Even if the number of them that vote is low -- it's 1 too many. Politically dumb people shouldn't be voting. And what I mean by that is, you should actually know something about the candidates before you just go punch a R or a D name.

Poll Tests!

 

Everyone should be able to vote. I know this board doesn't think poor people should be allowed to vote without severe restrictions, but just because they have low access to information doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Poll Tests!

 

Everyone should be able to vote. I know this board doesn't think poor people should be allowed to vote without severe restrictions, but just because they have low access to information doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

proving who you are is really such a difficult restriction.

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

I wouldn't post such a blame on an entire party, but there are definite extremes to blame such absurd stuff on. But this goes for both sides.

 

There's always this, which means we get the laws the lobbyists want (and wrote) passed by the representatives they paid to get elected.

Poll Tests!

 

Everyone should be able to vote. I know this board doesn't think poor people should be allowed to vote without severe restrictions, but just because they have low access to information doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

I agree that *almost* everyone should be able to vote with a few exceptions.

 

1) I do not think anyone on welfare should have the right to vote, it should be an incentive to get off the system (a system designed to get you back on your feet, not keep you on your knees).

 

2) Everyone else over 18 should be able to vote, regardless of how much money they have or do not have, regardless of religion, race, sex, etc. so long as they can pass a VERY simple test at the polling booth that asks VERY general questions about the candidates (at random), on their ballot or extremely major current events. If they cannot answer 3 out of 5 of these rather simple questions, they shouldn't be f***ing voting.

 

And I mean questions as simple as this:

 

At the top of the 2008 Presidential Ballot:

1) Is Sarah Palin Barrack Obama's running mate in this election?

2) Is McCain running for on the republican or democratic ticket?

3) Does the republican party want to raise taxes?

4) How many states are in the united states?

5) Who is the current President of the United States?

 

Sadly, I bet a f***ton of people would fail that. And sorry, but IMO, anyone that dumb shouldn't be voting.

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by Y2HH

I agree that *almost* everyone should be able to vote with a few exceptions.

 

1) I do not think anyone on welfare should have the right to vote, it should be an incentive to get off the system (a system designed to get you back on your feet, not keep you on your knees).

 

Holy f***, poor people shouldn't have a say in their own governance?

You're also advocating for a de facto literacy test. Stupid people deserve a say in their own governance.

Holy f***, poor people shouldn't have a say in their own governance?

 

Not poor people, people on welfare, there is a galaxy of difference here.

 

And yes, I'm requiring some f***ing semblance of literacy to make decisions on the future of this country. And we disagree about stupid people...I think they're part of the problem here.

 

I'm sorry my standards are oh so very high for you.

 

I'll even one up you, because you're so crazy. We can have people READ THEM THE QUESTIONS if they cannot read them themselves.

 

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by Y2HH

Not sure why needing government assistance should mean giving up one of your most fundamental rights.

 

There's also a world of difference between advocating for an informed electorate and restricting voting rights based on some sort of test, because the content of that test would inevitably be politicized.

 

Additionally, I could give a s*** about national or even state politics but desire to vote on a local referendum. Not sure how your test would capture that or why I shouldn't be able to vote in that case.

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Not sure why needing government assistance should mean giving up one of your most fundamental rights.

Agreed. Makes no sense to me.

Not sure why needing government assistance should mean giving up one of your most fundamental rights.

 

Because one party favors keeping people on welfare (take a guess which one), so one party is essentially buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

 

Good enough reason?

Not sure why needing government assistance should mean giving up one of your most fundamental rights.

 

Besides I am guessing the voting percentages of welfare recipients aren't exactly high anyway.

Because one party favors keeping people on welfare (take a guess which one), so one party is essentially buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

 

Good enough reason?

 

I sincerely hope that you're just trolling me and really don't believe that welfare recipients should lose their rights of self-governance.

I sincerely hope that you're just trolling me and really don't believe that welfare recipients should lose their rights of self-governance.

 

I think it depends on a few factors.

 

I don't believe anyone that's on welfare "for life" should be voting. That's just me. But IMO, that's a democratic bought vote with taxpayer money. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them and all.

 

I know trying to explain this to you is a futile thing, but logic and reason tell me that people like that "really don't f***ing care anyway", so why the hell do I want them helping to make decisions about the future of the country?

 

I don't.

 

And yes, I realize these views are very harsh.

 

But:

 

I don't think stupid people should vote.

 

I don't think people that lean on the system to live should vote.

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by Y2HH

Why? They are subject to the same government as you. Why do they deserve no say in it?

Why? They are subject to the same government as you. Why do they deserve no say in it?

 

Because as far as I'm concerned their stake in the game is making sure they keep people in office that keep giving them free money. That's a bleak future. I know it's not right, but it is what it is...at least I'm being honest about how I feel.

 

The problem is this.

 

Over time, our welfare system went from being something where the original intent was to get people back on their feet and help them through bad times to something designed to keep them where they are -- reliant on the government. I have no problem with the system existing, but it's abused...and IMO, those that abuse it deserve no say. While the liberals may have the best intentions of taking care of these people...this isn't the right way to do it. Feed a person fish, and they eat that day...teach them to fish, and they can eat for as long as fish exist. That said, the neocons have the opposite in mind and would rather see them die...or something, I don't know what they think would magically happen if they just cut these people off, and this is a mentality I also disagree with.

 

If the system was running as it was originally intended to design, I wouldn't have a problem with them having a say in this country's future. But the system isn't running as intended, it's being abused, and the politicians are helping them abuse it...the very politicians they will vote for.

Edited August 2, 201114 yr by Y2HH

You've now moved from anyone on welfare people abusing welfare. You're also perpetuating the stupid meme that welfare is enslavement and Democrats do it intentionally to buy votes.

 

Following the same logic, all wealthy people should be disallowed since they invariably vote for tax breaks, regulatory reform, trade policies etc. that benefit them and with a significantly larger cost.

Because as far as I'm concerned their stake in the game is making sure they keep people in office that keep giving them free money. That's a bleak future. I know it's not right, but it is what it is...at least I'm being honest about how I feel.

 

The problem is this.

 

Over time, our welfare system went from being something where the original intent was to get people back on their feet and help them through bad times to something designed to keep them where they are -- reliant on the government. I have no problem with the system existing, but it's abused...and IMO, those that abuse it deserve no say. While the liberals may have the best intentions of taking care of these people...this isn't the right way to do it. Feed a person fish, and they eat that day...teach them to fish, and they can eat for as long as fish exist. That said, the neocons have the opposite in mind and would rather see them die...or something, I don't know what they think would magically happen if they just cut these people off, and this is a mentality I also disagree with.

 

If the system was running as it was originally intended to design, I wouldn't have a problem with them having a say in this country's future. But the system isn't running as intended, it's being abused, and the politicians are helping them abuse it...the very politicians they will vote for.

 

OK. People on welfare control this country.

You've now moved from anyone on welfare people abusing welfare. You're also perpetuating the stupid meme that welfare is enslavement and Democrats do it intentionally to buy votes.

 

Following the same logic, all wealthy people should be disallowed since they invariably vote for tax breaks, regulatory reform, trade policies etc. that benefit them and with a significantly larger cost.

 

While it's a stupid meme, it has some degree of truth to it, that said, it's not enslavement. Slaves work for almost nothing. These people aren't working.

 

You're argument against the wealthy holds no water and is completely illogical, as they have a stake, and pay the majority of the taxes as is.

 

OK. People on welfare control this country.

 

You know who has too much power and sway in Washington? The destitute.

 

OK. People on welfare control this country.

 

See, that was never said. Talk about taking what I said and really twisting it.

You know who has too much power and sway in Washington? The destitute.

 

As I said to him, I repeat to you. I never said anything of the sort...nothing even close.

 

Way to go with the typical hyperbolic bulls*** I expect from you, though. Try to have a conversation with someone, and this is the kind of retardation I deal with in response.

See, that was never said. Talk about taking what I said and really twisting it.

 

Well a lot of conservatives blame the housing crash on them.