Fox News Host says women shouldn't vote or be on juries Video

[rdean]

This lie has already been tried as a thread, and the person telling the lie was duly thrashed and refuted.

Fox News is telling young women not to vote US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now it sounds like little rdean is trying to resurrect the lie again. I guess he figures enough time has passed since it was debunked, that he can now start telling the same lie again, and might even find someone who believes him.

Hello. Knock knock. "VIDEO".

 

[rdean]

Not really. I could ask the same of a number of people. Shouldn't 10 year olds be represented? They don't get a voice. What about those that are severely retarded? Should we ensure that even those with the functional equivalent of a third grader get to the polls so they can be represented? A literacy test seems rather silly though as literacy has no real bearing on your current understanding of political hopefuls.

I would think that would be an obvious no - they do not have the capability of understanding who would represent them or how.

On that same concept, I don't see education or intelligence (beyond that of a normal functioning adult) particularly meaningful either. I know a lot of people that are VERY educated or VERY intelligent that are complete political morons. One of the smartest people I know is essentially a communist. Gates and Trump are both extremely intelligent people (you don't accomplish what they have without intelligence) but I would not hold any of their political views above that of my neighbor. Hell, I hold my neighbors view much higher than Trumps. There is nothing new there - if you had watched Einstein go about his day you would think him a child even though he very well might be one of the most intelligent people in modern history.

What I cant abide by is people voting that have not done due diligence in understanding the issues and/or platform of their chosen candidates. Most people vote along party lines or simply randomly select a name. How do you think that Alvin Green won the nomination for the democrat party against DeMint despite not even having a platform? How do we expect to have competent politicians that actually represent us if the electorate does not even bother to investigate those it is putting into office? The two parties FEED off this because they can continue to ignore the electorate altogether, fail to represent them at all yet still retain complete power over our political system.

Unfortunately, I do not support any kind of test or measuring stick to exercise the right to vote. I would LIKE to have a basic civics and platform test to vote BUT I don't think that is even remotely possible to implement. If you don't like the gerrymandering and current manipulation of the voting public then I dread to see what it would look like WHEN (because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when) one of the parties manages to gain influence over that 'test.' It WILL happen if there are tests or other such requirements on voting and it will likely end the right to vote entirely.

I would not mind requiring votes to essentially be cast on a blank sheet of paper though or a simple bubble sheet. At the very least, you would need to be able to write in the NAME of the candidate you were voting for. It would certainly take the steam out of those that keep voting a straight party line without ever bothering to see who those candidates even are. The presidential race would be almost identical but I guarantee that you would see massive differences in all other candidates. Most people have no idea who is running for the senate and congress let alone the local elections.

10 year olds ARE represented. They have very limited rights and very limited responsibility, the rest being in the hands of their family, who will then vote, you'd have thought, for their best interests.

Politicians do look to the family as an important issue.

Those people who have limited capacity to make decisions will have had their right to vote taken away by due process on an individual basis, along with other rights. An illiterate person has no reasons to have rights taken away from them.


The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

Who says Democrats are the party of the poor? And Republicans are the party of the rich?

Republicans are the party which represents the best interests of the rich. The GOP base has a lot of poor. Those are one issue and terrified voters. The Republicans leadership keeps in power by playing to the fears of the base. Worse, the GOP base is 90% white. So it's easy for the GOP leadership to use blacks and other minorities as a "whip" against their terrified white base.

The Democrats are everyone else and the whites Republicans don't want. Like Atheists and gays and scientists and college professors and liberals and so on. Many are rich, many are poor.

 

[FJO]

There is nothing new here. Conservatives told US youth that we were all brainwashed commies without a lick of sense when we protested the Vietnam war. We managed to end it anyway, and without any support from the Right. Since then, Vietnam has become a "favored nation" trading partner of the USA, and nobody can remember exactly why we were going half way around the world to kill them.

So, WHAT?

America was magnanimous in victory over Germany and Japan, no surprise it could be magnanimous with an enemy that is willing to show that it deserves decent treatment by America.

It only shows that the worst communists are still better than the best Muslims, because there is no way that Iran or any Muslim country would ever be civilized enough towards the United States.

Just look at the back-stabbing so-called NATO ally, Turkey.

 

[FA_Q2]

10 year olds ARE represented. They have very limited rights and very limited responsibility, the rest being in the hands of their family, who will then vote, you'd have thought, for their best interests.

Politicians do look to the family as an important issue.

Those people who have limited capacity to make decisions will have had their right to vote taken away by due process on an individual basis, along with other rights. An illiterate person has no reasons to have rights taken away from them.

No, they are not represented as they dont get a vote. I could use the exact same logic about your illiterate person - someone that loves them or cares for them will vote and get them represented - it does not work that way. Right now, society has deemed that you are not ready to represent yourself untill you are 18 - anyone not that age is simply not represented. There are others that we have decided do not get representation as well, some with due process and others without. Again, not really a new concept.

I agree with the illiterate point though I said as much in my first post - that is no measure with which to infringe on anthers rights.

Politicians only look to family as an 'issue' when campaigning. When it actually comes to representing the people, they could care less.

The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Really? That last statement is utter garbage. That is simple partisan hackery. Considering that I don't think you are a hack, I have no idea why you would make such a statement. I could just as well say the republicans are for smaller, freedom based government and the democrats are for trying to turn this nation into a communist one. It would be just as accurate and just as partisan. I can tell you for a fact, though, that my 'representative' does not represent any of the values I hold - IOW they DON'T represent me. There is essentially no one on the ballot (and definitely no one on the presidential ballot) that would. The scary part is that almost everyone I know is in the same boat - most just don't realize it. Partly because some of them have bought into that silly line that you used (the democrats) and partly because others have bought into the line that I did (the republicans) even though they pass 80 percent of the SAME legislation.

There is nothing further from the truth than the 'democrats are for the poor and the republicans are for the rich.' The democrats like that line because they think that class warfare is a winning strategy but it is utter bunk.

The idea that we only have 2 choices is also completely self inflicted through an apathetic and ignorant electorate. Solve THAT problem and then we can take apart the parties. Allowing that power base influence over our government I personally believe is one of the core reasons that we cannot get decent representation. Hell, even the idea that we have 2 is rather misguided - they are virtually 2 sides of the same monster.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

I don't really see it working in Germany to be honest. I have lived in Germany - they have far fewer rights than we do. They have a police force that is corrupt and has an insane amount of power over you (they can LEGALLY rob you out if they so decide to on a random stop) and people continually overestimate how Germans actually live. I can guarantee you that the average American has far more than the average German.

I am not fond of the idea of proportionate representation mostly because I am not fond of the idea of parties period. All that does is solidify the power base of the parties. Sure, they have to deal with a few annoying flies that have a few seats but for the most part a proportionate parliament codifies the parties as an integral and necessary part of the government itself. Something that is counter to the solution.

 

[whitehall]

Dino hit the nail on the head. The reason low information lefties depend on Comedy Channel personalities like Jon Stewart for their news analysis is that the radical left has lost the ability to reason. Thanks to a hundred years of pop-culture and Wally Cronkite and Dan Rather treason the left can't comprehend the difference between satire and the truth. The low information left is the democrat party's most important base.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they are not represented as they dont get a vote. I could use the exact same logic about your illiterate person - someone that loves them or cares for them will vote and get them represented - it does not work that way. Right now, society has deemed that you are not ready to represent yourself untill you are 18 - anyone not that age is simply not represented. There are others that we have decided do not get representation as well, some with due process and others without. Again, not really a new concept.

I agree with the illiterate point though I said as much in my first post - that is no measure with which to infringe on anthers rights.

Politicians only look to family as an 'issue' when campaigning. When it actually comes to representing the people, they could care less.

Sure, you could use the same argument, however you'd be going against centuries of precedent.

Children are considered to have limited rights and limited responsibilities. The responsibilities are often put onto the adults who are their parents or legal guardians.

This is the point here. Illiterate people aren't STUPID people, they aren't irresponsible and they might actually know what they're voting for, they can watch TV, can't they? They can talk to people. So your argument is nothing much.

The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Really? That last statement is utter garbage. That is simple partisan hackery. Considering that I don't think you are a hack, I have no idea why you would make such a statement. I could just as well say the republicans are for smaller, freedom based government and the democrats are for trying to turn this nation into a communist one. It would be just as accurate and just as partisan. I can tell you for a fact, though, that my 'representative' does not represent any of the values I hold - IOW they DON'T represent me. There is essentially no one on the ballot (and definitely no one on the presidential ballot) that would. The scary part is that almost everyone I know is in the same boat - most just don't realize it. Partly because some of them have bought into that silly line that you used (the democrats) and partly because others have bought into the line that I did (the republicans) even though they pass 80 percent of the SAME legislation.

There is nothing further from the truth than the 'democrats are for the poor and the republicans are for the rich.' The democrats like that line because they think that class warfare is a winning strategy but it is utter bunk.

The idea that we only have 2 choices is also completely self inflicted through an apathetic and ignorant electorate. Solve THAT problem and then we can take apart the parties. Allowing that power base influence over our government I personally believe is one of the core reasons that we cannot get decent representation. Hell, even the idea that we have 2 is rather misguided - they are virtually 2 sides of the same monster.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

I don't really see it working in Germany to be honest. I have lived in Germany - they have far fewer rights than we do. They have a police force that is corrupt and has an insane amount of power over you (they can LEGALLY rob you out if they so decide to on a random stop) and people continually overestimate how Germans actually live. I can guarantee you that the average American has far more than the average German.

I am not fond of the idea of proportionate representation mostly because I am not fond of the idea of parties period. All that does is solidify the power base of the parties. Sure, they have to deal with a few annoying flies that have a few seats but for the most part a proportionate parliament codifies the parties as an integral and necessary part of the government itself. Something that is counter to the solution.

You say my last statement is garbage, then you say it's partisan hackery.

Problem for you is, partisan hackery makes up a large part of US politics. How many people will vote for either one of the other and not the opposing party? Quite a lot. We're talking like 40 million people on either side. Republicans seem to higher numbers of partisans than Democrats. It's a hard number to actually come up with, the numbers who vote when it's a presidential election are higher, this doesn't mean there aren't people who only vote every 4 years who would only vote for one party.

If you were to say the Republicans were for smaller govt, I'd laugh. They've increased military spending massively over the last 10 years. They've done nothing for gay marriage which should be one of the biggest small govt policies going, ie, the govt stays out of your life.
"Small govt" is lower taxes, it's what it means. It's something that sounds good to people who haven't got a clue, ie, it's a sales job, but it really means lower taxes, but in a manner which makes it harder for people to associate smaller govt with them losing out, ie, it's selling lower taxes to people who won't benefit from lower taxes. ie, the poor.

As for freedom based govt, again, opposing gay marriage equals freedom based? Opposing alcohol for 18-21 year olds is freedom based? Attacking Iraq, messing it all up, growing Islamic groups as if the world were a petri dish, and putting the fear of god into people is freedom? Nah, I don't think so.

As for Democrats trying to turn the US into a Communist state. What? They're so far from Communism it makes your statement "utter garbage". Communists want Communism. I doubt 5% are even Socialists, and these sorts of groups are likely to be in the Democratic Party as the neo-Nazis are in the Republican Party.

Put it this way, most other first world countries have a center left wing party that is more left wing than the Democrats.

But the point you seem to be making is that representatives don't represent the people because the political system is a football game between the reps and dems and there is no other choice.
The reps and their freedom support a continuing of a system that is good for them and not for you. The same with the dems who are supposedly for the people.

When I say the reps are for the rich and the dems for the poor. I'm closer to the truth than anything else.

Almost impossible to find out, but who do you think is richer, republicans or democrats?

Okay, this is a little silly because there are poor people who vote republican, I'd bet they're also quite down the IQ level. The US has such a large political spectrum. Not every poor person votes Democrat, it depends on state factors and things like that.

However, it's as close as you're ever going to get to a simple statement about the two parties.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who says Democrats are the party of the poor? And Republicans are the party of the rich?

Well clearly that was me.

Republicans are the party which represents the best interests of the rich. The GOP base has a lot of poor. Those are one issue and terrified voters. The Republicans leadership keeps in power by playing to the fears of the base. Worse, the GOP base is 90% white. So it's easy for the GOP leadership to use blacks and other minorities as a "whip" against their terrified white base.

The Democrats are everyone else and the whites Republicans don't want. Like Atheists and gays and scientists and college professors and liberals and so on. Many are rich, many are poor.

I'm generalizing, so.....

 

[Noomi]

Young women shouldn't be on juries, says Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle, because "they just don't get it." Young women also shouldn't bother voting, she added, because their opinions are bad and wrong, and only older people who have evolved into cranky conservatives should be allowed to participate in democracy.

Fox News Host Says Young Women Shouldn t Vote -- NYMag

Just go to Youtube and do a search: fox news women shouldn't vote

No wonder Republicans think women shouldn't get equal pay for equal work.

White men should then be banned from owning a gun, as they are the ones who always go on shooting sprees. Wonder if she'd agree with that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not really. I could ask the same of a number of people. Shouldn't 10 year olds be represented? They don't get a voice. What about those that are severely retarded? Should we ensure that even those with the functional equivalent of a third grader get to the polls so they can be represented? A literacy test seems rather silly though as literacy has no real bearing on your current understanding of political hopefuls.

I would think that would be an obvious no - they do not have the capability of understanding who would represent them or how.

On that same concept, I don't see education or intelligence (beyond that of a normal functioning adult) particularly meaningful either. I know a lot of people that are VERY educated or VERY intelligent that are complete political morons. One of the smartest people I know is essentially a communist. Gates and Trump are both extremely intelligent people (you don't accomplish what they have without intelligence) but I would not hold any of their political views above that of my neighbor. Hell, I hold my neighbors view much higher than Trumps. There is nothing new there - if you had watched Einstein go about his day you would think him a child even though he very well might be one of the most intelligent people in modern history.

What I cant abide by is people voting that have not done due diligence in understanding the issues and/or platform of their chosen candidates. Most people vote along party lines or simply randomly select a name. How do you think that Alvin Green won the nomination for the democrat party against DeMint despite not even having a platform? How do we expect to have competent politicians that actually represent us if the electorate does not even bother to investigate those it is putting into office? The two parties FEED off this because they can continue to ignore the electorate altogether, fail to represent them at all yet still retain complete power over our political system.

Unfortunately, I do not support any kind of test or measuring stick to exercise the right to vote. I would LIKE to have a basic civics and platform test to vote BUT I don't think that is even remotely possible to implement. If you don't like the gerrymandering and current manipulation of the voting public then I dread to see what it would look like WHEN (because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when) one of the parties manages to gain influence over that 'test.' It WILL happen if there are tests or other such requirements on voting and it will likely end the right to vote entirely.

I would not mind requiring votes to essentially be cast on a blank sheet of paper though or a simple bubble sheet. At the very least, you would need to be able to write in the NAME of the candidate you were voting for. It would certainly take the steam out of those that keep voting a straight party line without ever bothering to see who those candidates even are. The presidential race would be almost identical but I guarantee that you would see massive differences in all other candidates. Most people have no idea who is running for the senate and congress let alone the local elections.

10 year olds ARE represented. They have very limited rights and very limited responsibility, the rest being in the hands of their family, who will then vote, you'd have thought, for their best interests.

Politicians do look to the family as an important issue.

Those people who have limited capacity to make decisions will have had their right to vote taken away by due process on an individual basis, along with other rights. An illiterate person has no reasons to have rights taken away from them.


The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

"Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?"

If you really believe that, Frigid...why even bother having elections? You honestly don't think there are things to think about? I would make the point that there has never been a time when it was more important for the electorate to "think" than right now! We've reached a tipping point where we have more people taking out of the system then we have people putting into the system. Ultimately, how we address that issue is going to determine whether or not the United States survives. Now isn't the time to tell people NOT to think...now is the time to tell them to think long and hard about what it is their politicians really stand for.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, they are not represented as they dont get a vote. I could use the exact same logic about your illiterate person - someone that loves them or cares for them will vote and get them represented - it does not work that way. Right now, society has deemed that you are not ready to represent yourself untill you are 18 - anyone not that age is simply not represented. There are others that we have decided do not get representation as well, some with due process and others without. Again, not really a new concept.

I agree with the illiterate point though I said as much in my first post - that is no measure with which to infringe on anthers rights.

Politicians only look to family as an 'issue' when campaigning. When it actually comes to representing the people, they could care less.

Sure, you could use the same argument, however you'd be going against centuries of precedent.

Children are considered to have limited rights and limited responsibilities. The responsibilities are often put onto the adults who are their parents or legal guardians.

This is the point here. Illiterate people aren't STUPID people, they aren't irresponsible and they might actually know what they're voting for, they can watch TV, can't they? They can talk to people. So your argument is nothing much.

The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Really? That last statement is utter garbage. That is simple partisan hackery. Considering that I don't think you are a hack, I have no idea why you would make such a statement. I could just as well say the republicans are for smaller, freedom based government and the democrats are for trying to turn this nation into a communist one. It would be just as accurate and just as partisan. I can tell you for a fact, though, that my 'representative' does not represent any of the values I hold - IOW they DON'T represent me. There is essentially no one on the ballot (and definitely no one on the presidential ballot) that would. The scary part is that almost everyone I know is in the same boat - most just don't realize it. Partly because some of them have bought into that silly line that you used (the democrats) and partly because others have bought into the line that I did (the republicans) even though they pass 80 percent of the SAME legislation.

There is nothing further from the truth than the 'democrats are for the poor and the republicans are for the rich.' The democrats like that line because they think that class warfare is a winning strategy but it is utter bunk.

The idea that we only have 2 choices is also completely self inflicted through an apathetic and ignorant electorate. Solve THAT problem and then we can take apart the parties. Allowing that power base influence over our government I personally believe is one of the core reasons that we cannot get decent representation. Hell, even the idea that we have 2 is rather misguided - they are virtually 2 sides of the same monster.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

I don't really see it working in Germany to be honest. I have lived in Germany - they have far fewer rights than we do. They have a police force that is corrupt and has an insane amount of power over you (they can LEGALLY rob you out if they so decide to on a random stop) and people continually overestimate how Germans actually live. I can guarantee you that the average American has far more than the average German.

I am not fond of the idea of proportionate representation mostly because I am not fond of the idea of parties period. All that does is solidify the power base of the parties. Sure, they have to deal with a few annoying flies that have a few seats but for the most part a proportionate parliament codifies the parties as an integral and necessary part of the government itself. Something that is counter to the solution.

You say my last statement is garbage, then you say it's partisan hackery.

Problem for you is, partisan hackery makes up a large part of US politics. How many people will vote for either one of the other and not the opposing party? Quite a lot. We're talking like 40 million people on either side. Republicans seem to higher numbers of partisans than Democrats. It's a hard number to actually come up with, the numbers who vote when it's a presidential election are higher, this doesn't mean there aren't people who only vote every 4 years who would only vote for one party.

If you were to say the Republicans were for smaller govt, I'd laugh. They've increased military spending massively over the last 10 years. They've done nothing for gay marriage which should be one of the biggest small govt policies going, ie, the govt stays out of your life.
"Small govt" is lower taxes, it's what it means. It's something that sounds good to people who haven't got a clue, ie, it's a sales job, but it really means lower taxes, but in a manner which makes it harder for people to associate smaller govt with them losing out, ie, it's selling lower taxes to people who won't benefit from lower taxes. ie, the poor.

As for freedom based govt, again, opposing gay marriage equals freedom based? Opposing alcohol for 18-21 year olds is freedom based? Attacking Iraq, messing it all up, growing Islamic groups as if the world were a petri dish, and putting the fear of god into people is freedom? Nah, I don't think so.

As for Democrats trying to turn the US into a Communist state. What? They're so far from Communism it makes your statement "utter garbage". Communists want Communism. I doubt 5% are even Socialists, and these sorts of groups are likely to be in the Democratic Party as the neo-Nazis are in the Republican Party.

Put it this way, most other first world countries have a center left wing party that is more left wing than the Democrats.

But the point you seem to be making is that representatives don't represent the people because the political system is a football game between the reps and dems and there is no other choice.
The reps and their freedom support a continuing of a system that is good for them and not for you. The same with the dems who are supposedly for the people.

When I say the reps are for the rich and the dems for the poor. I'm closer to the truth than anything else.

Almost impossible to find out, but who do you think is richer, republicans or democrats?

Okay, this is a little silly because there are poor people who vote republican, I'd bet they're also quite down the IQ level. The US has such a large political spectrum. Not every poor person votes Democrat, it depends on state factors and things like that.

However, it's as close as you're ever going to get to a simple statement about the two parties.

You didn't even bother to read what I was saying.

My entire point about your statement was that it was JUST AS BUNK AS calling democrats communists. I realize that they are nowhere near communists and stated exactly that. However, the idea that the right is for the rich and the left for the poor is asinine in the extreme. The fact that they support virtually the same policies highlights that extremely well. It is even better illustrated by the asinine 'debate' the democrats have with the republicans about taxes. The dems constantly scream about taxing the rich more. Guess what the policies they pass do?

Tax the middle class.

If you truly have bought that swill then there really is not much else to say - you are not willing to look at the parties without the partisan glasses. Look at the POLICIES, not the bullshit rhetoric. You see the BS on the right - they obviously don't support smaller government. They certainly do not want lower spending or more rights for the people. But then we go over to the democrats and we see the same shit with a few different 'hot button' topics - ALL of which are UTTERLY meaningless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?"

If you really believe that, Frigid...why even bother having elections? You honestly don't think there are things to think about? I would make the point that there has never been a time when it was more important for the electorate to "think" than right now! We've reached a tipping point where we have more people taking out of the system then we have people putting into the system. Ultimately, how we address that issue is going to determine whether or not the United States survives. Now isn't the time to tell people NOT to think...now is the time to tell them to think long and hard about what it is their politicians really stand for.

Oh, sometimes I wonder why there are elections in the US.

Do I think there are things to think about? Not much. You have two choices. Sometimes quite clear, sometimes there's no difference at all.

The US won't survive with the current system in place. Simple as. Obama isn't able to save the system, Bush isn't able to save the system, nor Clinton nor anyone else. Presidents don't save systems. Congress is just rotten to the core. It's bad, and each new president will see things going downhill from the last, people will blame the president depending on which party they support, and it will continue to go downhill.

Until people have a choice, nothing will change.

I'm not telling people not to think. I'm saying unless people think outside the box (which is the reps and dems) nothing will change. But change is harder and harder and harder each year. The only change that is easy seems to be invading other countries and getting rid of their leader and replacing them with rouge groups.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, they are not represented as they dont get a vote. I could use the exact same logic about your illiterate person - someone that loves them or cares for them will vote and get them represented - it does not work that way. Right now, society has deemed that you are not ready to represent yourself untill you are 18 - anyone not that age is simply not represented. There are others that we have decided do not get representation as well, some with due process and others without. Again, not really a new concept.

I agree with the illiterate point though I said as much in my first post - that is no measure with which to infringe on anthers rights.

Politicians only look to family as an 'issue' when campaigning. When it actually comes to representing the people, they could care less.

Sure, you could use the same argument, however you'd be going against centuries of precedent.

Children are considered to have limited rights and limited responsibilities. The responsibilities are often put onto the adults who are their parents or legal guardians.

This is the point here. Illiterate people aren't STUPID people, they aren't irresponsible and they might actually know what they're voting for, they can watch TV, can't they? They can talk to people. So your argument is nothing much.

The problem is, I think most people on this board don't really seem to understand how representatives will represent them, or not as the case seems to be a lot, seeing as big money seems to get a better representation.
How many people know what they voted for with Obama, Bush, Clinton? How many even cared what they were voting for?

Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps.

Really? That last statement is utter garbage. That is simple partisan hackery. Considering that I don't think you are a hack, I have no idea why you would make such a statement. I could just as well say the republicans are for smaller, freedom based government and the democrats are for trying to turn this nation into a communist one. It would be just as accurate and just as partisan. I can tell you for a fact, though, that my 'representative' does not represent any of the values I hold - IOW they DON'T represent me. There is essentially no one on the ballot (and definitely no one on the presidential ballot) that would. The scary part is that almost everyone I know is in the same boat - most just don't realize it. Partly because some of them have bought into that silly line that you used (the democrats) and partly because others have bought into the line that I did (the republicans) even though they pass 80 percent of the SAME legislation.

There is nothing further from the truth than the 'democrats are for the poor and the republicans are for the rich.' The democrats like that line because they think that class warfare is a winning strategy but it is utter bunk.

The idea that we only have 2 choices is also completely self inflicted through an apathetic and ignorant electorate. Solve THAT problem and then we can take apart the parties. Allowing that power base influence over our government I personally believe is one of the core reasons that we cannot get decent representation. Hell, even the idea that we have 2 is rather misguided - they are virtually 2 sides of the same monster.

Who needs to know much else? The choice isn't there.
A monkey with a pencil is probably going to make a very similar choice to an intelligent person who knows what they's voting for.

Reagan managed to get elected without much of a platform but more of a personality based platform. It was more of a sales job than anything else. "There you go again" defined his first presidential win, it was a way of just ignoring any criticism of himself.

Your point about having a test and people controlling it is spot on.

However I still believe that Proportional Representation is the only way forwards, especially for the House and President. People are going to vote for parties, so let them vote for parties. You can have a German style system with people who are representatives of areas too, and then the rest of the make up of the House is PR. It works thee, you have 4 to 5 different parties, ie, far more choice.

Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?

I don't really see it working in Germany to be honest. I have lived in Germany - they have far fewer rights than we do. They have a police force that is corrupt and has an insane amount of power over you (they can LEGALLY rob you out if they so decide to on a random stop) and people continually overestimate how Germans actually live. I can guarantee you that the average American has far more than the average German.

I am not fond of the idea of proportionate representation mostly because I am not fond of the idea of parties period. All that does is solidify the power base of the parties. Sure, they have to deal with a few annoying flies that have a few seats but for the most part a proportionate parliament codifies the parties as an integral and necessary part of the government itself. Something that is counter to the solution.

You say my last statement is garbage, then you say it's partisan hackery.

Problem for you is, partisan hackery makes up a large part of US politics. How many people will vote for either one of the other and not the opposing party? Quite a lot. We're talking like 40 million people on either side. Republicans seem to higher numbers of partisans than Democrats. It's a hard number to actually come up with, the numbers who vote when it's a presidential election are higher, this doesn't mean there aren't people who only vote every 4 years who would only vote for one party.

If you were to say the Republicans were for smaller govt, I'd laugh. They've increased military spending massively over the last 10 years. They've done nothing for gay marriage which should be one of the biggest small govt policies going, ie, the govt stays out of your life.
"Small govt" is lower taxes, it's what it means. It's something that sounds good to people who haven't got a clue, ie, it's a sales job, but it really means lower taxes, but in a manner which makes it harder for people to associate smaller govt with them losing out, ie, it's selling lower taxes to people who won't benefit from lower taxes. ie, the poor.

As for freedom based govt, again, opposing gay marriage equals freedom based? Opposing alcohol for 18-21 year olds is freedom based? Attacking Iraq, messing it all up, growing Islamic groups as if the world were a petri dish, and putting the fear of god into people is freedom? Nah, I don't think so.

As for Democrats trying to turn the US into a Communist state. What? They're so far from Communism it makes your statement "utter garbage". Communists want Communism. I doubt 5% are even Socialists, and these sorts of groups are likely to be in the Democratic Party as the neo-Nazis are in the Republican Party.

Put it this way, most other first world countries have a center left wing party that is more left wing than the Democrats.

But the point you seem to be making is that representatives don't represent the people because the political system is a football game between the reps and dems and there is no other choice.
The reps and their freedom support a continuing of a system that is good for them and not for you. The same with the dems who are supposedly for the people.

When I say the reps are for the rich and the dems for the poor. I'm closer to the truth than anything else.

Almost impossible to find out, but who do you think is richer, republicans or democrats?

Okay, this is a little silly because there are poor people who vote republican, I'd bet they're also quite down the IQ level. The US has such a large political spectrum. Not every poor person votes Democrat, it depends on state factors and things like that.

However, it's as close as you're ever going to get to a simple statement about the two parties.

You didn't even bother to read what I was saying.

My entire point about your statement was that it was JUST AS BUNK AS calling democrats communists. I realize that they are nowhere near communists and stated exactly that. However, the idea that the right is for the rich and the left for the poor is asinine in the extreme. The fact that they support virtually the same policies highlights that extremely well. It is even better illustrated by the asinine 'debate' the democrats have with the republicans about taxes. The dems constantly scream about taxing the rich more. Guess what the policies they pass do?

Tax the middle class.

If you truly have bought that swill then there really is not much else to say - you are not willing to look at the parties without the partisan glasses. Look at the POLICIES, not the bullshit rhetoric. You see the BS on the right - they obviously don't support smaller government. They certainly do not want lower spending or more rights for the people. But then we go over to the democrats and we see the same shit with a few different 'hot button' topics - ALL of which are UTTERLY meaningless.

My father always told me never to put as much stock in what people "say" they are going to do...as I did in what they have actually "done". That goes doubly for most politicians who will say just about anything to get elected.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You didn't even bother to read what I was saying.

My entire point about your statement was that it was JUST AS BUNK AS calling democrats communists. I realize that they are nowhere near communists and stated exactly that. However, the idea that the right is for the rich and the left for the poor is asinine in the extreme. The fact that they support virtually the same policies highlights that extremely well. It is even better illustrated by the asinine 'debate' the democrats have with the republicans about taxes. The dems constantly scream about taxing the rich more. Guess what the policies they pass do?

Tax the middle class.

If you truly have bought that swill then there really is not much else to say - you are not willing to look at the parties without the partisan glasses. Look at the POLICIES, not the bullshit rhetoric. You see the BS on the right - they obviously don't support smaller government. They certainly do not want lower spending or more rights for the people. But then we go over to the democrats and we see the same shit with a few different 'hot button' topics - ALL of which are UTTERLY meaningless.

Yes, I did read your post. It makes no difference whether this is your opinion or not, it IS the opinion of many.

I didn't say the right was for the rich and dems for the poor. I said this is how they are viewed by the people who go out and vote.

"Also you only have two viable choices, that's it. For many you don't need to understand much. The Republicans are the party of the rich, Democrats are the party of the poor. Are you poor? Sure, vote Dems. Are you rich? Sure, vote reps. "

"For many" means that people don't think much, they vote based on how much money they have, dems are for the poor, if you're poor vote dems, why would you vote reps.

This is how people think. People voted Obama because he's a democrat, they voted democrat because they're poor.

Is it asinine? Sure it is. Most reasons people have for voting for a political party are.

We are basically making the same point here. However the difference is I'm presenting it from the point of view of the mindless masses. Not my own views. I don't vote either.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Why expect people to think when there's not much to actually think about?"

If you really believe that, Frigid...why even bother having elections? You honestly don't think there are things to think about? I would make the point that there has never been a time when it was more important for the electorate to "think" than right now! We've reached a tipping point where we have more people taking out of the system then we have people putting into the system. Ultimately, how we address that issue is going to determine whether or not the United States survives. Now isn't the time to tell people NOT to think...now is the time to tell them to think long and hard about what it is their politicians really stand for.

Oh, sometimes I wonder why there are elections in the US.

Do I think there are things to think about? Not much. You have two choices. Sometimes quite clear, sometimes there's no difference at all.

The US won't survive with the current system in place. Simple as. Obama isn't able to save the system, Bush isn't able to save the system, nor Clinton nor anyone else. Presidents don't save systems. Congress is just rotten to the core. It's bad, and each new president will see things going downhill from the last, people will blame the president depending on which party they support, and it will continue to go downhill.

Until people have a choice, nothing will change.

I'm not telling people not to think. I'm saying unless people think outside the box (which is the reps and dems) nothing will change. But change is harder and harder and harder each year. The only change that is easy seems to be invading other countries and getting rid of their leader and replacing them with rouge groups.

The "system" is fine, Frigid! It's been fine for hundreds of years. The problem is that we the voters are kidding ourselves. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the idea of a Republic was wonderful unless the people started voting to give themselves things and then it would all fall apart. We've reached that point where the voters elect politicians who promise them free stuff for doing nothing. Congress as an idea isn't rotten to the core...we've simply filled it with people who lie to us in return for our votes and we KNOW that they are lying to us but don't care.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My father always told me never to put as much stock in what people "say" they are going to do...as I did in what they have actually "done". That goes doubly for most politicians who will say just about anything to get elected.

But it's sales. People get sold to on the streets, in their own homes and buy rubbish. People can sell stuff for a massive mark up in price.

TONY HETHERINGTON Why is my London Mint coin collection only worth a tenth of what I paid Daily Mail Online

Here's a great example. Man buys worthless "coins", then finds out they're worthless after he spent $5000 on them. What a moron. A complete idiot who didn't know what he was buying, he got sold too, then when he found out he complained, and got his money back because the company didn't want negative rep, so they can continue to sell worthless carp to idiots.

Politics isn't different.

A presidential election year will see something like $6.5 billion being spent on the elections. Where does this money go? A lot goes on selling themselves to the morons who don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Obama played the system perfectly. He had his catchy slogan, he made a few promises and he wasn't Bush. Easy, he won, then he can do what he likes. He's made for life. He was popular, he won the popularity contest. Enough said.

Is anything going to change in 2016? Hell no it isn't. The winner will be the person with the best sales team, and someone who is presentable as a salesman. Good looking, good with words, and has a gimmick or two.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The "system" is fine, Frigid! It's been fine for hundreds of years. The problem is that we the voters are kidding ourselves. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the idea of a Republic was wonderful unless the people started voting to give themselves things and then it would all fall apart. We've reached that point where the voters elect politicians who promise them free stuff for doing nothing. Congress as an idea isn't rotten to the core...we've simply filled it with people who lie to us in return for our votes and we KNOW that they are lying to us but don't care.

It's fine is it?

You get to choose two parties who control everything. That's not fine in my book. I've lived in countries with no democracy. I've lived in countries with half PR half FPTP (winner takes all) system, I've lived in two party states like the US, I've seen a lot of different systems, and the US's system is probably one of the worst.

Nothing can happen for the right reasons.

The US govt can't even get rid of the dollar bill. It'd save the people an estimated $13 billion over 30 years. Who cares about saving money? Whenever a bill comes through to stop the production of dollar bills, it gets stopped by a few politicians. A few, like 2 or 3.

You say Congress isn't rotten, then say it's full of people who lie. I'd say that's rotten to the core.

 

[Oldstyle]

My father always told me never to put as much stock in what people "say" they are going to do...as I did in what they have actually "done". That goes doubly for most politicians who will say just about anything to get elected.

But it's sales. People get sold to on the streets, in their own homes and buy rubbish. People can sell stuff for a massive mark up in price.

TONY HETHERINGTON Why is my London Mint coin collection only worth a tenth of what I paid Daily Mail Online

Here's a great example. Man buys worthless "coins", then finds out they're worthless after he spent $5000 on them. What a moron. A complete idiot who didn't know what he was buying, he got sold too, then when he found out he complained, and got his money back because the company didn't want negative rep, so they can continue to sell worthless carp to idiots.

Politics isn't different.

A presidential election year will see something like $6.5 billion being spent on the elections. Where does this money go? A lot goes on selling themselves to the morons who don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Obama played the system perfectly. He had his catchy slogan, he made a few promises and he wasn't Bush. Easy, he won, then he can do what he likes. He's made for life. He was popular, he won the popularity contest. Enough said.

Is anything going to change in 2016? Hell no it isn't. The winner will be the person with the best sales team, and someone who is presentable as a salesman. Good looking, good with words, and has a gimmick or two.

Obama illustrates my point, Frigid. How did we elect a President on a "catchy slogan" and a few promises that common sense tells you aren't feasible? The answer to that is we didn't USE common sense and look at what Obama had actually "done" rather than what he said he would do! Too many people bought the hype...

Most people wouldn't buy those worthless coins you spoke of because they use common sense in their purchases...but an appallingly large number of people totally ignore common sense when they elect those who represent them in government.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "system" is fine, Frigid! It's been fine for hundreds of years. The problem is that we the voters are kidding ourselves. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the idea of a Republic was wonderful unless the people started voting to give themselves things and then it would all fall apart. We've reached that point where the voters elect politicians who promise them free stuff for doing nothing. Congress as an idea isn't rotten to the core...we've simply filled it with people who lie to us in return for our votes and we KNOW that they are lying to us but don't care.

It's fine is it?

You get to choose two parties who control everything. That's not fine in my book. I've lived in countries with no democracy. I've lived in countries with half PR half FPTP (winner takes all) system, I've lived in two party states like the US, I've seen a lot of different systems, and the US's system is probably one of the worst.

Nothing can happen for the right reasons.

The US govt can't even get rid of the dollar bill. It'd save the people an estimated $13 billion over 30 years. Who cares about saving money? Whenever a bill comes through to stop the production of dollar bills, it gets stopped by a few politicians. A few, like 2 or 3.

You say Congress isn't rotten, then say it's full of people who lie. I'd say that's rotten to the core.

I said that the "idea" of Congress isn't rotten. We simply need to send people to Congress that don't lie to us to get elected. That's on US...not on them!

 

[Oldstyle]

The sad fact is...if politicians think that they CAN lie to us and get elected...then that is what they will do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obama illustrates my point, Frigid. How did we elect a President on a "catchy slogan" and a few promises that common sense tells you aren't feasible? The answer to that is we didn't USE common sense and look at what Obama had actually "done" rather than what he said he would do! Too many people bought the hype...

Most people wouldn't buy those worthless coins you spoke of because they use common sense in their purchases...but an appallingly large number of people totally ignore common sense when they elect those who represent them in government.

So why do so many people get caught up in this?

The reality is the system works for the parties, not for the people.

When was the last time you heard a politician talking about the need for PR? Never maybe. Why? Because policies are based on things that separate two political parties, and are comfortable for both. Abortion, easy, doesn't change the political structure, doesn't damage either party. Strong battle lines that everyone can associate with, but never, ever damage the system, or the two political parties ever.

Those coins are one example. I did a sales job for 2 weeks and hated it, and saw how people were being manipulated, how they ever sold the job, and to a large extent it works. There isn't a difference between sales on the streets and political sales.

People ignore common sense with both. Okay, I don't have $5000 to waste on rubbish, and people will look at their own needs. But with politics, does it matter (directly in the minds of these people) if they vote or not, or if they vote rep or dem or whatever?

Simple fact is, the system is for these two parties, and for those who will pay the money to control these two parties.