Bad News for Bush Haters

I have no idea how rare they are. All I know is they exist. And by the same token, there are many, many people who 'get' math, just as there are those who don't. And you want to use a test that the vast majority of adults never use after learning it in high school as a means to determine if they should be allowed to vote or not. That just doesn't make very much sense to me.

I have no idea how rare they are. All I know is they exist. And by the same token, there are many, many people who 'get' math, just as there are those who don't. And you want to use a test that the vast majority of adults never use after learning it in high school as a means to determine if they should be allowed to vote or not. That just doesn't make very much sense to me.

Well, I disagree that quadratics have no use in adult life.

Regardless, if one can forget how to do one of the simplest and fundamental basics of mathematics, perhaps they shouldn't be voting, either.

So, how about my statement concerning your assertion that many Americans can't balance a checkbook without help: How can you responsibly vote for people that will be overseeing government finance when you can't oversee your own?

Meh, if you can't make sense of it, let's just go with the property owners, then.

I didn't say they have no use, I said the vast majority of people DON'T use them. There's a huge difference.

And just like everything else, if you don't use something, over time, your memory will fail you. That's a plain simple fact.

You seem to have some sort of thinking that if someone doesn't get math, they're stupid. I don't agree with that.

I also don't agree with property owners deciding. As today's housing situation proves, there are truely a lot of stupid people that would be allowed to vote by your standards that have no business voting. Seems anymore the only skill required in owning property is finding the right bank.

I didn't say they have no use, I said the vast majority of people DON'T use them. There's a huge difference.

You didn't read the page I posted, did you. It also had a linked Part 1. People use the quadratic formula all of the time. If you are late and want to calculate how much faster you will need to go to get to your destination on time, you are using quadratics.

You seem to have some sort of thinking that if someone doesn't get math, they're stupid. I don't agree with that.

You not agreeing doesn't make me uncorrect. If you can't figure out that, if a=b and b=c than a=c, then you ARE stupid or, at the very least, ignorant.

I also don't agree with property owners deciding. As today's housing situation proves, there are truely a lot of stupid people that would be allowed to vote by your standards that have no business voting. Seems anymore the only skill required in owning property is finding the right bank.

At least they have a vested interest in the community, state and country.

So, we should let the populace just continue voting for their bread and circuses?

I must assume so as you have offered no solutions, just criticism.

Terry,

At the risk of agreeing with you:) I think that our present "get out the vote" efforts are terribly misguided. While I would not disenfranchise the stupid, I certainly think that encouraging them to vote is not good practice. Working in academia, this amounts to heresy. Fortunately they don't pay me enough to even tempt me not to tell them what I think.

I would say that in place of the current get out the vote efforts, our media and our government should actually try to educate people on the issues in which the Dems and Reps disagree (and the alternatives presented by the minor parties) and then encourage people to make informed and non-manipulated choices of their own. I think it would behoove us then to discourage votes made in ignorance.

TerryRC wrote:
I must assume so as you have offered no solutions, just criticism.

We have that in common then, don't we Terry!!!

We have that in common then, don't we Terry!!!

No, we don't. I proposed some solutions to the problem of ignorant voters.

You proposed none.

How does that put us in common?

Once again Terry, you are mistaken. I made the first proposal, before you came up with your poor selection.

A general knowledge test all voters must take and pass before casting their vote would weed out those with little or no knowledge of the current events and also would be the most fair.

As I correctly pointed out, just because one knows mathmetics doesn't mean they have a clear grasp on politics or the political climate. You yourself are living proof of that.

As I correctly pointed out, just because one knows mathmetics doesn't mean they have a clear grasp on politics or the political climate. You yourself are living proof of that.

I know you don't know how to spell.

The fact is that you have no idea of what I grasp about politics or "the political climate".

Nice ad hom, though. Been taking debate lessons from Sam C.?

So, what "general knowledge" would be on your test? How would you keep from disenfranchising certain areas of the countries or groups? How would you even define "general knowledge"?

At least math or property ownership are objective rather than subjective.

You made a statement that I proposed none.

I proved you wrong.

Again.

And I even spelled all the words corect in doing so.

You made a statement that I proposed none.

My mistake. You still know nothing about my "grasp on politics or the political climate". Attack my arguments, not my person or character. It will make you more credible.

So how about this statement of mine:

So, what "general knowledge" would be on your test? How would you keep from disenfranchising certain areas of the countries or groups? How would you even define "general knowledge"?

At least math or property ownership are objective rather than subjective.

TerryRC wrote:So how about this statement of mine:

[i]So, what "general knowledge" would be on your test? How would you keep from disenfranchising certain areas of the countries or groups? How would you even define "general knowledge"?

How about the "First Test" to be put into practice ...... being the omission/deletion of any and all references to Party affilation of the Candidates.



.

TerryRC wrote:You made a statement that I proposed none.

My mistake. You still know nothing about my "grasp on politics or the political climate". Attack my arguments, not my person or character. It will make you more credible.

So how about this statement of mine:

So, what "general knowledge" would be on your test? How would you keep from disenfranchising certain areas of the countries or groups? How would you even define "general knowledge"?

At least math or property ownership are objective rather than subjective.

Terry,

Attacks on character never win arguments on this forum, so why not just ignore them?

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:So how about this statement of mine:

[i]So, what "general knowledge" would be on your test? How would you keep from disenfranchising certain areas of the countries or groups? How would you even define "general knowledge"?

How about the "First Test" to be put into practice ...... being the omission/deletion of any and all references to Party affilation of the Candidates. [/center].

Amen to that, brother.

I would like to see that combined with one paragraph statements, devoid of partisan identification, on what each candidate would like to do with his/her office. That way if a voter who is not aware of the candidates comes in to vote, they can have something to base their vote on.

Can you give us an example of such a comprehensive "one paragraph statement"?

A one paragraph statement might be useful to single issue candidates and single issue voters. But it tells us little about a general philosophy of life and living and the purposes of government that I would like to see in candidates I might contemplate voting for.

Obviously such would not be "ideal" but neither is the voters' attention spans.

However, one can do a lot in a paragraph. This is off the top of my head, so please forgive it, and I'm sure a politician could do much better.

"If elected to the US Senate, I will support justices who restrain themselves and defer to the elected branches of government, vote to protect gun rights, oppose elective abortions, encourage a fairer trade policy with other nations (particularly China), encourage the development of alternative energy as well as support increased drilling for oil in the United States, and support the immediate removal of troops from South Korea and Germany."

I could very easily have mentioned drug laws, sentencing practices, racial profiling, foreign aid to the middle east, etc.

" I will support justices who restrain themselves and defer to the elected branches of government,"

What if the legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional?

Should they defer, or overturn?

SheikBen wrote:Obviously such would not be "ideal" but neither is the voters' attention spans.

However, one can do a lot in a paragraph. This is off the top of my head, so please forgive it, and I'm sure a politician could do much better.

"If elected to the US Senate, I will support justices who restrain themselves and defer to the elected branches of government, vote to protect gun rights, oppose elective abortions, encourage a fairer trade policy with other nations (particularly China), encourage the development of alternative energy as well as support increased drilling for oil in the United States, and support the immediate removal of troops from South Korea and Germany."

I could very easily have mentioned drug laws, sentencing practices, racial profiling, foreign aid to the middle east, etc.

That is a pretty good summary paragraph, Sheik.

As you simply answered my request to give an example, I will not try to tear it apart. But my first though was the same as what Sherm asks- about elected lawmakers designing unconstitutional legislation.

Sure, Zig and Sherm, that is quite legitimate and worthy of its own thread.

I just wanted to show kind Ziggy that a summary paragraph is pretty easy to write and could give voters (whatever their inclination) good material (and indeed better material) than is provided by party labels in determing how they might choose to vote.

How about the "First Test" to be put into practice ...... being the omission/deletion of any and all references to Party affilation of the Candidates.

I proposed that very thing on the old boards.

I doubt too many would go for it and, even if they did, the Big Two would never allow it.

I'm all for it, though.

Well Mike are you naive enough to believe a statement would indicate their true intent?

Does political party affiliation indicate their true intent?

I read an article today that address that very concept. And we in WV refer to Joe Manchian as WV democrats only, basically admitting that in other states, they would likely be Republicans.

I also find it hard to believe that a WV democrat or a southern democrat or a working democrat share the same liberal views as the democrats that have been nominated for the Presidential office and their most ardent supporters, including this years candidate.

I'm not saying Obama won't win but if he does it will be BECAUSE of partisan politics and the disdain Republicans have brought upon themselves and not because Obama's views are in line with the bulk of Americans.

"In America the same political labels — Democratic and Republican — cover virtually all public officeholders, and therefore most voters are everywhere mobilized in the name of these two parties," says Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science, in the book New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution. "Yet Democrats and Republicans are not everywhere the same. Variations — sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant — in the 50 political cultures of the states yield considerable differences overall in what it means to be, or to vote, Democratic or Republican. These differences suggest that one may be justified in referring to the American two-party system as masking something more like a hundred-party system."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Partisan

Here's a nifty idea. How about if the winner gets the Presidency with the loser getting VP responsibilities, including some form of veto power. You think Washington’s screwed up now, imagine Al Gore as GWB’s VP?