*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, December 2nd, 2010 11:11pm PST - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

As in: I'll see your mindless tax cuts and raise you one level of insanity!

With enough repetition, a bad idea can go mainstream.

Unthinkable > Radical > Acceptable > Sensible > Popular > Policy

Let's keep this one unthinkable.

Yeah lets go back to what the founding fathers said. They were brilliant so lets just stay in that line of thinking for the rest of time. Never progress always stay neutral forever. That way we won't even have to think or create anything, it's written down just live our lives according to that which is already written and the rest is history...because there will be no more history.

It's deceptive to say Tea Party: _____ when it's a populist movement and one guy talks out of his ass. Criticize the movement for what it is. You shouldn't need straw men. Depressingly, in the long term I think this idea would actually be less damaging to personal liberty than the current federal budget. And even if you disagree, the budget is the problem we actually do have.

This guys voice is setting off my gaydar. Let me guess, is he strongly against the "homosexual agenda"?

>> ^robolove:

It's deceptive to say Tea Party: _____ when it's a populist movement


Except that it's not. I can buy the argument that the "Ron Paul Patriots" were a small libertarian populist movement that used the tea party and Boston harbor as organizing themes. As soon as the corporate shill machine started screaming tea-party, they threw those guys right into the harbor, and the grass roots populists have not been seen under that moniker since.

The now corporate-funded proto-fascist splinter groups that call themselves "tea party _____", and the "movement" they constitute, are run by wacka-loons of this type who really should not be taken any more seriously than the US Maoist party.

Removing the right to vote from non-property-owners would be less damaging to personal liberty that the inflated federal deficit?

Is that what you're saying? I just want to be clear I understand, because that sounds insane to me.>> ^robolove:

It's deceptive to say Tea Party: _____ when it's a populist movement and one guy talks out of his ass. Criticize the movement for what it is. You shouldn't need straw men. Depressingly, in the long term I think this idea would actually be less damaging to personal liberty than the current federal budget. And even if you disagree, the budget is the problem we actually do have.

And while we're at it we might as well take the right to vote away from women

One question I would like answered.... does this guy own property?

Democracy is dead or dying in the US. Lets hope for our sake it can be brought back. What I mean is the concept of for the people by the people. Not for the corporations by the corporations.

Better buy a square of corn then.

robolove, is my description not clear enough? There is only so much you can fit in a title.

Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

Look - there is no evidence from this 30 second selection that the guy was seriously suggesting removing sufferage. He may have just been making an exaggerated example within the context of a completely different point. Regardless of whether or not this is contextually challenged or not, the guy is accurate. The FF's did in fact recommend that voting rights be restricted to property owners specifically because property owners were more likely to be informed, educated, and qualified to render an intelligent vote. They were the ones with 'skin in the game'.

There is a very solid argument that giving voting rights in a Republic to people who have no 'skin in the game' is a long-term fuse on a bomb that ultimately results in the collapse of civilizations. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The argument the guy is making appears to be rooted in this perception. The bottom 50% of our wage-earners contribute less than 5% of our tax revenue, and their only voting interests are driven by using the public treasury for benefits. That kind of voting mentality will result in loose fiscal policy (we see this), and will be followed by a dictatorship. Want to stop a dictatorship from rising? Then just maybe you'll have to consider the possiblity that some things you don't like may be necessary to prevent fiscal collapse.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

Given the recent issues in the housing market I'm not so sure that owning property is a clear sign of intelligence.

What happened to "No taxation without representation"?

So if you don't own land, and you can't vote, do you still have to pay taxes?

^ I was just about to say that not only the recent housing market but I have known plenty of smart people who rent and plenty of stupid people who own property. Owning property does not mean anything.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

^ I was just about to say that not only the recent housing market but I have known plenty of smart people who rent and plenty of stupid people who own property. Owning property does not mean anything.


Indeed. Though, I am starting to hold the position that voting shouldn't be a birth right. Being born isn't anything special either. It holds even less weight than property...any idiot can be born, even one who wants to use his voting powers to enrich himself at the cost of others. I have been trying to work out a system whereby you aren't commissioned into citizenship via birth, but some other means that requires some form of rational agreement. The model of Israel mandatory military service is close to the mindset of having to go through some citizenship initiation undertaking, though I don't think I would choice military as the sole means..or even primary means to obtain it is the direction I would want to go.

There is still a problem of what is the state of those whom haven't undertaken the process. I think that is a smaller problem to deal with, though, than the problem of people using the power in which was granted to them by just being popped out of a fetus. In other words, I think birth and death rights are a very arbitrary, irrational way for rights systems to be based on. It requires no choice to be born. Choices are the only thing we have.

Given the recent issues in the housing market I'm not so sure that owning property is a clear sign of intelligence.

True enough. But keep in mind that the entire housing bubble fiasco was not traditional home ownership. It was more like government subsidized leasing. There was very little 'traditional ownership' going on in the housing bubble unless you were smart.

That said, responsible home ownership tells a lot about a person. I bought one affordable property at a good rate and stuck with it from 1997 to present so I own a two-story single-family unit that costs me less than renting a dumpy apartment (and I'll pay off in half the term). Compare that to the typical housing boom property flipper, banker, or the government. Out of all the above parties - which one proved they have a decent head on their shoulders?

There's no trick, gimmick, secret, or political free-lunch that makes a person have 12+ years of reliability and trustworthiness. It isn't difficult but it does require personal morality, common sense, work, and discipline. It isn't a flashy life, but it is worthwhile. The reward? Personal security, total independance, and being the kind of guy you would trust with the key to your house, to drive your car, to sleep in the same room as your wife - and to render a good VOTE. There are a lot of people that shouldn't be voting because they have proven track records of abuse, failure, short-sightedness, and incompetence - and this includes people across a lot of spectra.

It's alarming how nakedly plutocratic right wing rhetoric is becoming. Pennypecker and GeeSussFreak both just laid out arguments for the disenfranchisement of huge segments of the population. This is how fascism begins. And when I say fascism, I'm not being hyperbolic or metaphoric. Disenfranchising a massive percentage of the population - most of whom are your political adversaries - is bald-faced fascism.

Inane.

I could probably buy a house in some apocalyptic corner of the country that was gutted by Wall Streets latest raid on the public till via collateralized debt obligations for a dollar, thus making me more of a citizen in this man's eyes than I am while paying well more than most mortgages in rent for my apartment in San Francisco.

A 'stake' in a community doesn't come from property ownership. It comes from actually feeling a connection to the place you live in on a deeper level.

I bought a moderate house in a moderate neighborhood, and financed it for 15 years instead of 30. I'm half done with that.

Do I think that makes me more "worthy" to vote than my sister-in-law who rents?

No.

WP you're a 1st degree, grade A blow-hard. Keep patting yourself on your back.

I am CERT trained and on my neighborhoods CERT team (Community Emergency Response Teams), I organize a weekly neighborhood cleanup, my girlfriend is on our neighborhood city council, and we rent our house where we've lived for four years and have no plan on moving. If we do, it will be to another house in our community.

According to WP, we don't have any "skin in the game".

Although, I'll bet a gazillion dollars that WP has probably never lifted a finger for his community.

Also, as is usually with the fake conservatives who squack loudly on the internet, let's look at this a different way:


Home Ownership:
---
Whites: 70%
Asian American: 51%
African American: 42%
Hispanic/Latino: 41%

I think I now know the real reason why people like WP only want home owners to vote.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It's alarming how nakedly plutocratic right wing rhetoric is becoming. Pennypecker and GeeSussFreak both just laid out arguments for the disenfranchisement of huge segments of the population. This is how fascism begins. And when I say fascism, I'm not being hyperbolic or metaphoric. Disenfranchising a massive percentage of the population - most of whom are your political adversaries - is bald-faced fascism.


IM thinking out loud and you lambaste me for fascism. For a progressive person, you have an astounding ability to not allow for any dialogue that differs from main stream ideology. You display a level of demagoguery that I find uninteresting, and I will most likely digress from conversation of political nature with you at this point, as it isn't worth the time. I have had many interesting political and philosophical conversation on the sift, but all I get is backlash from you...even about the smallest of things...like thinking out loud. So go ahead on invoke Godwin at every corner, for I will just ignore your statements in the future.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It's alarming how nakedly plutocratic right wing rhetoric is becoming. Pennypecker and GeeSussFreak both just laid out arguments for the disenfranchisement of huge segments of the population. This is how fascism begins. And when I say fascism, I'm not being hyperbolic or metaphoric. Disenfranchising a massive percentage of the population - most of whom are your political adversaries - is bald-faced fascism.

IM thinking out loud and you lambaste me for fascism. For a progressive person, you have an astounding ability to not allow for any dialogue that differs from main stream ideology. You display a level of demagoguery that I find uninteresting, and I will most likely digress from conversation of political nature with you at this point, as it isn't worth the time. I have had many interesting political and philosophical conversation on the sift, but all I get is backlash from you...even about the smallest of things...like thinking out loud. So go ahead on invoke Godwin at every corner, for I will just ignore your statements in the future.


Hows this for stifling debate. Shut the fuck up or I'll kick your fucking teeth in you bloody Wanker!

You don't get to pull that sanctimonious bullshit on me after making a case for disenfranchising Americans based on their social status. Not allowing people to vote because they don't own property, are poor (or Jewish) is outright fascism, and it's outright fascist whether you are "thinking out loud" or not. I'm sure plenty of Nazi's "thought out loud" about why Jews should not be able to vote before their rights were eventually stripped away.

Some common sense advice for you:
1) If you don't like being called fascist, then don't say things that are blatantly fascist.
2) If you don't like people judging your thoughts, THEN DON'T WRITE THEM DOWN ON THE INTERNET!?!

Finally, you are the last, THE LAST, person on this site who should be giving lectures about 'demagoguery'. By all means ignore people when they criticize you. That's the best way to ensure your mind will remain closed forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It's alarming how nakedly plutocratic right wing rhetoric is becoming. Pennypecker and GeeSussFreak both just laid out arguments for the disenfranchisement of huge segments of the population. This is how fascism begins. And when I say fascism, I'm not being hyperbolic or metaphoric. Disenfranchising a massive percentage of the population - most of whom are your political adversaries - is bald-faced fascism.

IM thinking out loud and you lambaste me for fascism. For a progressive person, you have an astounding ability to not allow for any dialogue that differs from main stream ideology. You display a level of demagoguery that I find uninteresting, and I will most likely digress from conversation of political nature with you at this point, as it isn't worth the time. I have had many interesting political and philosophical conversation on the sift, but all I get is backlash from you...even about the smallest of things...like thinking out loud. So go ahead on invoke Godwin at every corner, for I will just ignore your statements in the future.

Voting shouldn't be a birth right.


Voting should be earned by having at least a basic knowledge about the voting process, what it means and what the different parties and people stand for, I'm not saying that everyone have to be a pol-sci, but just to eliminate the "I voted for him 'cause I saw him on the tv-box" voters and let the people who do not want to know out of it.

I propose a two tier citizen level - one is "adults", who function as a normal adult today, with all the rights and privileges that we enjoy today - the other is "children" which essentially has the rights and privileges of a child (with certain modifications). The children have not yet grown up enough to take part in the political process and this growing up is not based on age, it's based on simple tests and willingness. That is, if I really want to be treated as an adult I can be done so by passing some simple tests, then I get the rights to vote, to enter politics, to essentially decide things for other people than myself.

Sure, it can be viewed as a slippery slope to fascism, but I still think it would be better than the straight representative democracy that exists today. I wouldn't have had my voting privileges until I was at least 20, because before that I just didn't care.

The biggest problem is if someone starts putting in values in the tests, so you for instance have to answer a question conservatively or liberally to pass, that would defeat the purpose and make the tests politically molding, rather than educating.

Anyway technocracy ftw.

@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

@gwiz665

Your proposal is akin to literacy tests for voting, and there has been ample debate on that...probably since the late 1800s. Since they've been used to disenfranchise blacks for a long time, I doubt you're going to find much support for your noble sounding but unfortunately similarly corruptible idea.

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing about "tv box" voters, but any sort of test is too easy to corrupt in the context of politics, IMO. Representative democracies (especially in the USA) already have enough problems related to corruption, campaign contributions, back room deals, etc, that damn near disenfranchise the entire population. We don't need more tools for disenfranchising people...

Let's find a different, smarter solution.

If I were the sort of person who enjoyed childish pranks, I'd probibly find the website below helpful.

http://www.judsonphillips.com/

Ignoring the "You're racist" trolling...

At no point did I say that the property ownership should be the "only" yardstick. I said that the OP quote was accurate. And it is. I then commented on how a reliable history of sensible property ownership says something about a person. Ooo - how edgy.

What I'm talking about in general is looking at people's behaviors to see if they have shown they deserve the right to vote, as opposed to just assuming any Tom, Dick, & Harry can vote no matter how stupid they are or how badly they behave. A person can be a property owner and be a scoundrel unworthy of voting. Likewise, they could be renters who are as trustworthy as the SLJ.

I don't think that a 'test to qualify' is the right mentality, though I do think people should have to pass (successfully) a civics class to vote so they know the proper role of government, the courts, and so forth. No - my thoughts are more along the lines that there are things that DISQUALIFY you from voting. Anyone with a felony record. Deadbeat dads. Repeat DUI offenders. Histories of child abuse. People with too much debt and not enough income. Stuff like that. I think people who have proven track records of screwing up, making bad choices, and otherwise failing at life in general should be either put in a 'voter lite' pile with limited voting rights, or in a banned pile where they remain until have a documented history of straighten up and flying right. I think voting should be a MERITED priveledge, not just something you get if you have two legs and a brain.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think". If all you got out of those several paragraphs I wrote was the couple of lines about literacy tests, you missed the point.

Also, don't twist your words. You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good. Now you're coming back talking about only wanting to DISqualify people. That's the opposite idea. Qualifying people to vote based on some fact can be very arbitrary (property owners, race, gender, etc). Our country has made constant progress away from this way of thinking. Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

It's not that what you're saying here is completely whacko to me (like most of the time) it's that IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with. It's already bad enough that only 50% of people vote in Presidential elections...the dog gets wagged pretty hard as it is. You start taking away more and more voting rights and an ever smaller percentage of the population ends up controlling politics. i.e. the far left and the far right...the crazies. Hideous.

You graduate high school at 18. You can vote at 18. If you want to make civics classes in high school more rigorous and harder to pass, that's cool with me. Much beyond that is getting ugly. Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Personally, I think ideally everyone should have to take a class like this to graduate high school:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/

Responding to pennypacker's "Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote?"

Yes, it's frustrating that huge chunks of the population believes in stupid shit and votes based on misinformation (Iraq attacked us on 9/11, etc) but that's an argument for better education and accurate journalism, not for taking the knuckleheads' right to vote away!

Winstonfeld Pennydickface said:
"People with too much debt and not enough income."

What a total fucking cunt thing to think. There are a zillion reasons why this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

So hilarious.

You turn 18 and join the military and are shipped overseas. You don't own a house, because you're only fucking 18 fucking years old and you're in the military and live in fucking Seoul or whatever.

By WP's standards, you can't vote. Sure, you can go die a horrible death so WP's daddy warmongers can have their fun. But vote? NO WAY!!

Reasons to take away people's civil rights, according to winstonfield_pennypecker

1. lack of private property
2. bad behavior*
3. stupidity*
4. not taken a civics class
5. committed a felony
6. missed a child support payment
7. drunk driving
8. spanked your kid
9. balance on your credit card
10. between jobs
11. screwed up*
12. made a bad choice*
13. failed at life*

This is abhorrent, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bullshit that it is.

*as determined by winstonfield_beauregard_pennypecker III esq.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What I'm talking about in general is looking at people's behaviors to see if they have shown they deserve the right to vote, as opposed to just assuming any Tom, Dick, & Harry can vote no matter how stupid they are or how badly they behave.

Others have already pointed out that this creates a very slippery slope. Me, I just want to revisit one of the first things you said in this thread:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

It's a common refrain from either side of the political divide to blame a loss on voters being ignorant. What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

The right, on the other hand, can never quite believe it when they lose elections. It's always, always "voter fraud" if liberals win. You even have kept alive the idea that Obama himself is somehow illegitimately in the White House because he's black they think there's been a massive conspiracy to hide that he was born in Africa.

The effect of every right wing anti-fraud proposal I've ever seen ends up shrinking the overall share of people voting. Literacy tests were the original (don't want those ex-slaves voting!), nowadays it's slandering organizations that try to register the poor and minorities (e.g. ACORN), driver's license requirements to scare away immigrants, and making sure that it stays as inconvenient as possible to vote (you must register months in advance, you must come to a set polling place between 7am and 7pm on a weekday, etc.).

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote. For example, allowing people to register to vote on election day, being able to vote as much as 2 months early, make election day a mandatory day off nationwide, etc.

We're also concerned about election fraud, or fraud committed by the people counting the votes. Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same.

Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

Oddly enough I agree with you on this point. I see no reason to restrict someone's voting rights because of a criminal conviction. I'm surprised so many people support such a restriction.


When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits.

That's true of any voting group. If only rich people could vote then you would see extremely low upper-income tax rates. If only property owners could vote then I wouldn't be surprised to see larger voter support for restrictions on who can own property.


When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people.

You have defended your own name-calling and demonizing of Obama citing that he is a "public figure", so why would you imply such behavior is inappropriate if "the left" is criticizing public figures you agree with?

You have also argued that Social Security should be repealed even while admitting that doing so would be extremely unpopular. Why would your same "dictate by fiat" criticism not apply to conservatives when they violate "the will of the people"?


The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes.

Irrelevant misdirection. Restriction of voting rights for citizens should be opposed regardless of who proposes it.

I'll be the first to point out that what is "best" is rarely what is "popular", but in my opinion the solution is education, not exclusion.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".

That's okay if you want to just have a schoolyard discussion, but I honestly can't think of any exceptions to what I asserted. Based on how you didn't even try to point to a specific counterexample, I don't think you can either.

Hell, you actually supported my argument by defending tougher restrictions on voting. These things always sound reasonable.

I mean, when we're talking about a written ballot, it should be okay to test people for literacy before allowing them to vote, right?

The minimum voting age should be raised to 25 for everyone except US military. Tho as proven by liberalsift, this won't help everywhere.

I was in the military, quantum dooshbag.

What was that sound? Oh, right, your mind blowing.>> ^quantumushroom:

The minimum voting age should be raised to 25 for everyone except US military. Tho as proven by liberalsift, this won't help everywhere.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The minimum voting age should be raised to 25 for everyone except US military.

People under 25 vote?

>> ^KnivesOut:


I was in the military, quantum dooshbag.



Yet you still missed your calling as a grenade catcher. More's the pity.

Rather than address the meat of my argument, Geesuss ran off crying and Pennypecker has resorted to insults.

Do you two notice how difficult things get when you are forced out of your talking point comfort zone? This is a clue; a clue that you have not properly thought these things through; a clue that you have adopted a pre-fab belief system wholesale without skepticism or scrutiny. I see this all the time. You know what you believe, but not why, and when that weakness is exposed you run away, change the subject or get mean. This thread is a good illustration of my point.

I'd love to hear either of you explain to me why denying civil rights to poor people is not fascist.

@dystopianfuturetoday it's not fascist if white people are in power... It's the american way!

I guess you're not a real republican. If you were, you'd support the troops.

Tell you what, you can support deez nuts with your chin.>> ^quantumushroom:

>> ^KnivesOut:

I was in the military, quantum dooshbag.


Yet you still missed your calling as a grenade catcher. More's the pity.

@mgittle A different solution, instead of restricting votes, could be to make them much easier, so that younger people would do it too. For instance, it could be done electronically, not with those diebold touch shit, but over the internet. If banks can use it, why not voting?

The real problem is that people has to be interested in it to vote, and the people who are interested tends to be people who have no opinion of their own but are only fired up by some jock strap of a radio host.

If we could vote on politicians like we vote on VideoSift videos, the system would be much fairer.

As far as using VideoSift as a model, I'd actually eliminate the legislature and have the sift sifting policies.

You'd need to let people be able to rescind votes, and you'd need to put some sort of cap on the overall number of votes people can express at any given time, and make promote and quality cost something like 1% of GDP (with the money going into the national treasury)...

>> ^gwiz665:

If we could vote on politicians like we vote on VideoSift videos, the system would be much fairer.

I'm consistently amazed at how immature some of you get around here when any serious discussion/debate comes up.

A lot of you are pretty intelligent people but it's greatly overshadowed by all the unjust cries of racism, fascism, sexism; the straw men; the dysphemisms; the insults; the tribalism; and flat-out absurdity.

Holy shit, people. Nobody on this website is your mortal enemy and, if you think they are, I'd suggest you take a few steps back and reacquaint yourself with the big picture.

That's true of any voting group.

Quite so. This is why federal governments should be extremely limited in its powers, with most functional legislation at the state or local level where there is more accountability, higher churn, and restricted capacity to impact unrelated citizens.

Why would you imply such behavior is inappropriate if "the left" is criticizing public figures you agree with?

I didn’t. I was refuting Net’s position that when the left loses the intellectual and popular debate that they behave like some sort of gentleman’s club. Bull feathers.

You have also argued that Social Security should be repealed even while admitting that doing so would be extremely unpopular. Why would your same "dictate by fiat" criticism not apply to conservatives when they violate "the will of the people"?

It does apply. Who said it didn’t? I’m fully aware that my personal position of eliminating Social Security would be against the will of the people as far as they are currently aware of the issue. But that can change with information. Reagan rolled that way.

I'll be the first to point out that what is "best" is rarely what is "popular", but in my opinion the solution is education, not exclusion.

Experience is the best educator. Let’s take an example of a typical market boom property flipper. Uh oh! It’s September, 2008 and the market collapses. Guy has three properties, he can’t afford to pay the mortgages on any one of them with his base salary, and he can’t sell them for squat.
A lot of parties are involved here, but this GUY bears the ultimate responsibility for his predicament. He was a moron who put himself in a bad position with reckless borrowing. No one held a gun to him and forced him to take out three mortgages when he only had the earning power for one. People who behave in ways that are this foolish deserve probationary, limited voting rights for a time. If he claws his way out of debt, wiser for the experience, and demonstrates he deserves a shot then more voting rights can be restored. Same logic applies for a lot of screw-ups.

basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".

That’s your opinion, and I disagree with it. Valid counters you do not like are not “rubber/glue” just because you don't like them. For example, you made a clear, statement that “the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.” I said that is not true, but that they resort to insults, slander, and attacks. I think MSNBC, Kos, HuffPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, NPR, Pelosi, Obama, Ried, Greyson, Frank, Olbermann, Maddow, and a billion other leftist persons, outlets, and organizations prove me right on a daily basis.

Rather than address the meat of my argument, Geesuss ran off crying and Pennypecker has resorted to insults.

Oh? Where? I try to never make things personal. Rather, I respond accurately. Some people may find that insulting, but accuracy is not insult. Describing your hyperbole as hyperbole is not an insult. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not right. It must be said that you are the one dealing in personal insults. I’m intellectually addressing a valid question about appropriate voting, and you started putting words in my mouth and flinging maledictions. Quite frankly, you need to learn how to argue an ISSUE instead of just attacking the messenger. I thought I was quite polite, really, all things considered.

I'd love to hear either of you explain to me why denying civil rights to poor people is not fascist

Well in the first place you are framing your posit very badly. I never said poor people shouldn’t vote. That kind of poor argumentation is why I suggested to you (very artfully) that you should reinstitute your policy of self-recusal. You appear to argue from pure emotion. Believe me that I'm not being 'insulting' when I say that it makes you really bad at intellectual discussion.

I say something like "bad management of property ownership should result in voting restrictions"... Your interpretation is, "He's a fascist who hates poor people!" If you can't see the difference then it must be said that our perspectives are too far seperated to bridge and you really shouldn't even try. I can understand and intellectually address a liberal argument. You seem unable to do the same when faced with a conservative one. So your position of self recusal was wise. Your decision to abandon it was not.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".
That’s your opinion, and I disagree with it. Valid counters you do not like are not “rubber/glue” just because you don't like them. For example, you made a clear, statement that “the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.” I said that is not true, but that they resort to insults, slander, and attacks. I think MSNBC, Kos, HuffPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, NPR, Pelosi, Obama, Ried, Greyson, Frank, Olbermann, Maddow, and a billion other leftist persons, outlets, and organizations prove me right on a daily basis.

And you're just expressing your opinion by saying that, and then claiming it's some sort of "valid counter" to what I said.

Your opinion of the content of the left's arguments doesn't in any way invalidate my claim that what the left does when it loses is try to communicate their positions better, not claim that we need to trim the size of the voter base.

To counter my claim, you'd need to present a case of the left advocating that someone's right to vote be taken away.

Like I said before, you can't, can you?

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
People who behave in ways that are this foolish deserve probationary, limited voting rights for a time.

First off, lets ignore how trivial it would be to buy small worthless plots of land in the middle of nowhere just for the ability to vote. It's just a poll tax by another name. The ability to get around the restriction will just lead to a stronger desire for restrictions by those who can vote, which leads to my next point.

While removing a non-random sample of people from the voter pool would affect voting trends, it also removes representation for those removed. Politicians wouldn't have to worry about proposing legislation that hurt those who can't vote as long as it benefited those who can. That may seem like a good thing if you believe it will consolidate power with a group you agree with, but once power shifts to someone you don't like then there are far fewer avenues available to combat their policies.

Voter exclusion is not a path to "better" voters because you cannot accurately predict the effects of such a specific change in a complex system. Conservatives talk all the time about the "unintended consequences" of government intervention in free markets. Restrictions that are meant to fix one problem create entirely unforeseen new problems that can be even worse than the original issue, and that becomes very powerful and dangerous when those changes are distilling the views of a specific subset of the population.