2012 US Presidential Election thread

[CaveBear]

Holy muti-quote batman!!!!!!

[Floyd1982]

In oc's plan, hard working minimum wage workers with 5 starving kids can't vote, because they are crooks and are on welfare.

That is the majority of people on public assisstance?

To be honest, it isn't even about that when it all comes down to it (although it is still a valid argument). Our society is failing when trying to lift people up. The hard-working minimum wage worker with 1 kid makes too much money for assistance but if she quits her job or gets knocked up, she will qualify. If she takes a raise or a promotion, she could end up losing money. How is that not a broken ass system that just screams "abuse the hell out of me?"

However, anytime talk about changing the current system comes up, the libs start the Math is Hard approach and paint those people as racist bigots who hate poor people....

[PatSox]

Why should you get a vote? Serious question. Why are you above the knowledge threshold that allows people to vote in your system? So I'll ask more directly: would you be in favour of your proposed system even if it prevented you from voting?


What the fuck?

Seriously?

What is futile and unnecessary? Democracy?

Right, just white male landowners. But that wasn't based on a knowledge test, was it? Was that a matter of trust, or just racism and sexism? If that's the system you want, just say so. Dressing it up as protecting people from their own stupidity doesn't change what it is.

Right, when really it's just white men who own property that know what's best. It's funny, people accuse 'liberals' and 'academics' of elitism all the time, but arguments like this almost always come from white conservative men who want to protect the masses from their own ignorance.


But you should still get to vote. Because you're special.

Yes yes, you've said this many times, but you still have said absolutely nothing to justify such a system. I get that it's your opinion, but your opinion is stupid, impractical, and incredibly open to abuse in this case.

I will leave the government assistance portion out and focus my response on an aptitude test. Yes, because I believe in an ideal, I should have everything worked out from the test questions to the minimal foundation of knowledge. To get it started, how about some basic questions such as: Name the 3 branches of government, How many Senators is each state allotted, If the president is killed who takes over that role? That is some pretty rudimentary questions that A LOT OF PEOPLE don't know. So I ask you again, why should they vote on something they know nothing about? Would you cast your vote for best author if you never read a book? SHould your opinion actually be relevant if it has no basis in fact or experience? Answer is no.

I know what you are getting at with the suppression of voting but nobody is claiming only the elite of the elite should vote, just have a RUDIMENTARY understanding of our system, most people don't. If they decided to make a test and I failed, looks like I would study and try again come next election. I am all about personal accountability and expect all people to make informed decision, not vote like they were asked which president they would like to have lunch with.
Yes seriously your royal smugness (I know, fresh coming from me). Would you allow somebody who did not know how to build your house build it and then feel comfortable living under that roof? How is that any different than someone making a decision on who represents our country with no knowledge of the issues? We ARE FORCED TO LIVE in said conditions, no different than you would be forced to live under your roof after it was built.
Well for one, arguing over the internet about America w/ a Canadian (HA). Yes, democracy was exactly what I was getting at, that is unnecessary. It wasn't like I was talking about the future of our country being decided by people that don't even understand our system or what a platform is. Have you not watched late night TV? Who won the first lady debate? And these are the people voting? No fucking thank you.

A typical liberal response. Yes, I want to suppress all people except white males. That isn't alarmist (or typical) at all is it? Jumping to conclusions and then attacking someone's character b/c they believe, like our founding fathers in an educated electorate. This guy says it better than me but I fully agree:
The process proscribed within the Constitution allowed the document to be amended, and without the help of any judicial interpretation. The founding fathers believed, as I do, that the long term welfare of our nation is best served by an informed, invested electorate. Thus, I question the assumption that the original intent fails at all – not only for these reasons, but due to the fact that women were not allowed to vote then because they were not regarded as well enough educated or informed, and that only property owners were thought to have enough of an investment in the long term welfare of the state to qualify as voters.

It isn't about suppressing the women's vote, it was about an ideal. Society evolves and social norms change, that doesn't change the spirit in which the constitution was written. It was about being well informed, not about rich white dudes but since that doesn't help you case, I see why you go on the attack.
You come off as elitists when you pretend to be the protector of humanity. I'm not singling out one single race, color, creed, or gender but YOU ARE which shows EXACTLY what I am talking about. I make a statement that people should be informed and your basic response is, "no they shouldn't you bigoted, woman-hating racist." You are contributing to the problem b/c you enable poor behavior. Yes, taking a responsibility like voting for granted is poor behavior and you fully support it behind the guise of being a humanitarian.

No, I should get to vote because I am informed...

Exactly, somebody doesn't like someone saying people should take their responsibility seriously and you attack it b/c you don't think people should have responsibility. How does it feel to be painted with such broad strokes?

How is it impractical and open to abuse if it is a standardized exam such as the one you take to get your driver's license? People want rights but don't want the responsibility that comes with those rights. You are a prime example of that mentality.

Megan Fox . . .

[ocmmafan]

In oc's plan, hard working minimum wage workers with 5 starving kids can't vote, because they are crooks and are on welfare.

Someone on minimum wage would be able to vote. Where did I say otherwise? I said someone who has never worked or paid taxes should not be able to but admit we wouldn't want to isolate the stay at home parent NOT on government assistance. You and the Canadian socialists can spin it any way you want to but we have an ever increasing population relying on the government to take care of them with no end plan. It concerns me that its strategic plan of liberals to ensure future victory in elections. And, someone on minimum wage that has 5 kids is an irresponsible piece of ****. You lunatic liberals want to argue they have a right to pump out children and then demand others pay for them. Its absurd.

The free-for-all bribery of the poor that will keep them voting for democrats is a nice little story the day after an Obama victory but NOT a good story for the state of the republic.

And, you are a fcking jackass that will never, ever earn more money than I do. I just read your little nonsense post but its pretty funny. Doctor? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, ok. And Obama is an avid golfer not a basketball player. Where the fck does a middle aged man play basketball? A rec league? Obama has played over a 100 rounds of golf since his EOD as president.

You're the dumbest fcking ***** that posts here.

[BJPENNSTATE]

It is widely known Obama plays ball with the secret service.


Megan fox.

[math is hard]

However, anytime talk about changing the current system comes up, the libs start the Math is Hard approach and paint those people as racist bigots who hate poor people....

I don't think you're racist; I think your ideas are half-baked, and you haven't considered the logical consequences of what you're proposing. Just so we're clear.

[math is hard]

Ugh, I really don't want to get too much more into this, so I'm going to only address a few points.

So I ask you again, why should they vote on something they know nothing about? Would you cast your vote for best author if you never read a book? SHould your opinion actually be relevant if it has no basis in fact or experience? Answer is no.

They're voting on who runs the country. They're not deciding who the best human being is. Your analogy is flawed. I believe that people should always have a say in who governs them. You don't agree with that, fine, but your analogy still sucks. I agree that it would be awesome if people understood the system, but that's a problem with education. It's not enough of a reason to disenfranchise people, IMHO.

If they decided to make a test and I failed, looks like I would study and try again come next election.

It's easy to say how you'd react, but that cannot possibly be representative how everybody would react. In fact, that might not even be how'd you react. You might just give up voting altogether. Not only that, the criteria you're choosing for who can vote is tied pretty much solely to income. It's a step backwards, but again, that's just my opinion.

Yes seriously your royal smugness (I know, fresh coming from me). Would you allow somebody who did not know how to build your house build it and then feel comfortable living under that roof? How is that any different than someone making a decision on who represents our country with no knowledge of the issues? We ARE FORCED TO LIVE in said conditions, no different than you would be forced to live under your roof after it was built.

That is another shitty analogy. President is not comparable to home builder for any number of reasons. The guy who builds your house doesn't get to tell you how much your taxes should be or what should and shouldn't be legal. I don't get why you're so opposed to the notion that people should be able to choose who governs them regardless of wealth or education. You want an educated populace? That's fine. So do I.

Well for one, arguing over the internet about America w/ a Canadian (HA).

This isn't an America vs Canada thing to me. The same argument you're advocating comes up here all the time, and we have our own problems with welfare abuse.

A typical liberal response. Yes, I want to suppress all people except white males. That isn't alarmist (or typical) at all is it? Jumping to conclusions and then attacking someone's character b/c they believe, like our founding fathers in an educated electorate.

You completely missed my point. I'm not saying you're racist, so enough with this persecution complex. I'm saying that those are originally the only people who could vote, and your regressive proposal will more or less only let the modern analog of those people vote now. Understand?

You come off as elitists when you pretend to be the protector of humanity. I'm not singling out one single race, color, creed, or gender but YOU ARE which shows EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Again, I was making an analogy. Get over yourself.

No, I should get to vote because I am informed...

Says you. I say you're not informed enough to vote, and I keep moving the goal posts to keep me and my ilk in power. What's to prevent that under what you're advocating?

How is it impractical and open to abuse if it is a standardized exam such as the one you take to get your driver's license?

Of course it's impractical! You guys let each state decide how it collects votes and the requirements. You don't think that your system would ever be used to suppress certain demographics from voting when that shit already fucking happens? The United States is almost unique among western democracies in how it runs elections, and that is to your detriment. You get fiascos like Florida 2000 because you have no standardized rules about voting for president. And now you want to make it so that certain people have to pass a test to vote? Yeah, there's no possible way that could be abused. Sure.

[CaveBear]

Ugh, I really don't want to get too much more into this, so I'm going to only address a few points.

They're voting on who runs the country. They're not deciding who the best human being is. Your analogy is flawed. I believe that people should always have a say in who governs them. You don't agree with that, fine, but your analogy still sucks. I agree that it would be awesome if people understood the system, but that's a problem with education. It's not enough of a reason to disenfranchise people, IMHO.
.


It's easy to say how you'd react, but that cannot possibly be representative how everybody would react. In fact, that might not even be how'd you react. You might just give up voting altogether. Not only that, the criteria you're choosing for who can vote is tied pretty much solely to income. It's a step backwards, but again, that's just my opinion.

That is another shitty analogy. President is not comparable to home builder for any number of reasons. The guy who builds your house doesn't get to tell you how much your taxes should be or what should and shouldn't be legal. I don't get why you're so opposed to the notion that people should be able to choose who governs them regardless of wealth or education. You want an educated populace? That's fine. So do I.

This isn't an America vs Canada thing to me. The same argument you're advocating comes up here all the time, and we have our own problems with welfare abuse.


You completely missed my point. I'm not saying you're racist, so enough with this persecution complex. I'm saying that those are originally the only people who could vote, and your regressive proposal will more or less only let the modern analog of those people vote now. Understand?

Again, I was making an analogy. Get over yourself.

Says you. I say you're not informed enough to vote, and I keep moving the goal posts to keep me and my ilk in power. What's to prevent that under what you're advocating?


Of course it's impractical! You guys let each state decide how it collects votes and the requirements. You don't think that your system would ever be used to suppress certain demographics from voting when that shit already fucking happens? The United States is almost unique among western democracies in how it runs elections, and that is to your detriment. You get fiascos like Florida 2000 because you have no standardized rules about voting for president. And now you want to make it so that certain people have to pass a test to vote? Yeah, there's no possible way that could be abused. Sure.

LMAO...thats hysterical....seriously...way to funny...If you aint already Canadian...you should be


oh edit...You are a cunuck ...lmao

[Lord Garth]

Postmortem is this simple:

Romney received fewer republican votes that McCain did. The reason? He's a mormon, and it's that simple. The dumb dumb bible banging vote stayed home because they dont trust Mormons. Had Romney been a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, then he wins.

[(v2)ROVPitViper]

Postmortem is this simple:

Romney received fewer republican votes that McCain did. The reason? He's a mormon, and it's that simple. The dumb dumb bible banging vote stayed home because they dont trust Mormons. Had Romney been a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, then he wins.

So the female, youth, and minority vote had nothing to do with it? Or all those states that went for Romney which were predominantly in the bible belt region and the Midwest weren't about being lily white?

Ah the GarthKKKnight - forever blind and therefore weak. When those camps come that you are so afraid of (Da Commies) you will be one of the first ones tricked into it because your intelligence level only goes so far as what you have been programmed to say by local right wing radical radio. Or did you really think you were original?