Why is there no qualification test for politicians?

[Cellblock2429]

One of the biggest problems about democracy, is that even the dumbest idiot can run for election. This is laudatory for the principles of freedom, but it can have disastrous consequences if the dumb nut gets elected. Just look at the range of dingbats that are in the US Congress and Senate, and most likely, other state and local jurisdictions.

If you want to obtain US citizenship, you will have to sit a reasonably difficult test to verify that you understand the basic facts about the US system, From what I have seen, there are elected lawmakers who would fail this test.

Herschel Walker is probably the best (worst) example of what I am trying to illustrate. Just imagine what would happen if the electorate put that guy in the senate.

As a start, Congress should set basic qualifications for representatives. To be a teacher, a lawyer, an engineer, or any other position you have to be qualified. If you are going to be a lawmaker, then prove that you know how the law works, and how government functions. Let's put an end to electing people to congress who only make government more disreputable.

And while we are at it, put in a test to weed out election deniers, conspiracy proponents and people who are proven liars.

/----/ Then the ruling party will administer the test, score it and determine who passes and fails, eliminating the oppopsition. What could possibly go wrong? We voters need to pay attention, do research, and make the decision on who serves.

 

[Cellblock2429]

When it comes to that last sentence of your OP (Opening Post) who decides on this "weed out" and how?

As for the rest of it, this nation was founded on the concept of an informed and concerned electorate(citizens~voters).

In theory the Voters should be doing the "qualification test", especially via their voting.

What you propose is just another attempt to shirk voter/citizen duty, have someone else do your thinking and deciding for you.

Until you get better at learning and informing yourself on the issues and candidates that will be on your ballot, I'd hope you don't vote. Not voting is better than uninformed voting.

/----/ I can see the democrats' version: Do you own a gun? Yes -- FAIL. Are you pro-life Yes -- FAIL you can guess the rest.

 

[JoeB131]

He suppressed everyone of the bill of rights, shut down the media, habeas corpus, ignored the SC, scorched Earth..

A couple of things. No, everyone's bill of rights were not suppressed. Nowhere near.

Nothing you mentioned is really particularly bad, compared to other wars we have fought. What the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, the Philippines was far worse than anything Lincoln did to the inbred traitors of the south.

During WWI and WWII, we locked up Americans who were merely precieved to be Pro-Axis/Central powers.

The constitution doesnt give the president those powers regardless of your emotion.

Actually, it gives him a lot of powers... either stated or implied. But the bigger problem here is the old saying often misattributed to Lincoln - The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Lincoln did what he had to do to save the unions and end slavery. Both of those are a greater good.

He was a tyrant by a definition of the word.
I know you dont care or probably even understand. Because you are a boot licker. An authoritarian.
You dont care what the gov does as long as you agree with it.
Frankly, its pathetic. People just like you are why shit like NAZI Germany happened.

Uh, no, Nazi Germany happened because when the Allies won WWI, they put the screws to Germany so hard that Germans literally resorted to Cannibalism. That's why Nazi Germany happened.

Hitler led his country to ruin and defeat and instigated the worst the greatest crime against humanity in history.

Lincoln saved the Union and brought slavery to an end.

That you can't see the obvious difference morally in those two things, is kind of beyond you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

A couple of things. No, everyone's bill of rights were not suppressed. Nowhere near.

Nothing you mentioned is really particularly bad, compared to other wars we have fought. What the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, the Philippines was far worse than anything Lincoln did to the inbred traitors of the south.

During WWI and WWII, we locked up Americans who were merely precieved to be Pro-Axis/Central powers.



Actually, it gives him a lot of powers... either stated or implied. But the bigger problem here is the old saying often misattributed to Lincoln - The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Lincoln did what he had to do to save the unions and end slavery. Both of those are a greater good.



Uh, no, Nazi Germany happened because when the Allies won WWI, they put the screws to Germany so hard that Germans literally resorted to Cannibalism. That's why Nazi Germany happened.

Hitler led his country to ruin and defeat and instigated the worst the greatest crime against humanity in history.

Lincoln saved the Union and brought slavery to an end.

That you can't see the obvious difference morally in those two things, is kind of beyond you.

/——/ Don’t be too hard on the Libtard. They don’t teach WWII anymore, except the evil US nuked innocent folks just going about their business.

 

[TNHarley]

A couple of things. No, everyone's bill of rights were not suppressed. Nowhere near.

Nothing you mentioned is really particularly bad, compared to other wars we have fought. What the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, the Philippines was far worse than anything Lincoln did to the inbred traitors of the south.

During WWI and WWII, we locked up Americans who were merely precieved to be Pro-Axis/Central powers.

WTF?
Yes, FDR was a tyrant as well. And we do bad shit to other countries but he did that to US.

Actually, it gives him a lot of powers... either stated or implied. But the bigger problem here is the old saying often misattributed to Lincoln - The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Lincoln did what he had to do to save the unions and end slavery. Both of those are a greater good.

It gives him enumerated powers that are listed. Nothing more. And congress doesnt have the power to give him more. That would require an amendment.

Uh, no, Nazi Germany happened because when the Allies won WWI, they put the screws to Germany so hard that Germans literally resorted to Cannibalism. That's why Nazi Germany happened.

Hitler led his country to ruin and defeat and instigated the worst the greatest crime against humanity in history.

Lincoln saved the Union and brought slavery to an end.

That you can't see the obvious difference morally in those two things, is kind of beyond you.

You obviously missed my point. Isnt surprising.

 

[TNHarley]

/——/ Don’t be too hard on the Libtard. They don’t teach WWII anymore, except the evil US nuked innocent folks just going about their business.

yeah, im a libtard. Binary dumbfuck
You say that while talking to a LEFTIST.
You people need to grow the fuck up.

 

[JoeB131]

WTF?
Yes, FDR was a tyrant as well. And we do bad shit to other countries but he did that to US.

No, the Secessionists did that to themselves... And mostly because a bunch of stupid white people who didn't own slaves didn't want the black man to be an equal.

It gives him enumerated powers that are listed. Nothing more. And congress doesnt have the power to give him more. That would require an amendment.

Not at all. Pragmatically, Inter arma enim silent lēgēs in times of war, the law stands silent. Lincoln and FDR were fighting for the existence of the country.

You obviously missed my point. Isnt surprising.

You don't have a point... you just are trying to rationalize the awful shit the South did, before, during and after the war.

The problem with a benevolent peace is that the losers don't understand they were wrong.

 

[TNHarley]

No, the Secessionists did that to themselves... And mostly because a bunch of stupid white people who didn't own slaves didn't want the black man to be an equal.

Nope, obviously that isnt true.

Not at all. Pragmatically, Inter arma enim silent lēgēs in times of war, the law stands silent. Lincoln and FDR were fighting for the existence of the country.

as i said, "the end justifies the means" is something stupid tyrants say. You probably mumble it all day long.

You don't have a point... you just are trying to rationalize the awful shit the South did, before, during and after the war.

The problem with a benevolent peace is that the losers don't understand they were wrong.

I havent tried to rationalize anything they did. This is just a cliche response people have because they either cant understand my point or they refuse to. Because they are bootlickers.
"zomg you hate lincoln so you must want slaves" Fucking lazy, brain dead dumbfuck.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, obviously that isnt true.

Uh, yeah, it is. The Civil War was about slavery. Not "States rights", not "Tariffs" or any of the other shit that you guys blather because they don't want to admit their ancestors were racists assholes who thought a black man could satisfy their women better than they could.

as i said, "the end justifies the means" is something stupid tyrants say. You probably mumble it all day long.

I don't mumble anything, I get the job done.

I havent tried to rationalize anything they did. This is just a cliche response people have because they either cant understand my point or they refuse to. Because they are bootlickers.
"zomg you hate lincoln so you must want slaves" Fucking lazy, brain dead dumbfuck.

Actually, you haven't give us a good reason why you hate Lincoln other than he won a war that he didn't start.

That's the key thing. Lincoln didn't start the war. The South did.

 

[TNHarley]

Uh, yeah, it is. The Civil War was about slavery. Not "States rights", not "Tariffs" or any of the other shit that you guys blather because they don't want to admit their ancestors were racists assholes who thought a black man could satisfy their women better than they could.

Your boy offered them slavery FOREVER. It was about the economy. HE SAID SO HIMSELF you fucking liar.

Actually, you haven't give us a good reason why you hate Lincoln other than he won a war that he didn't start.

That's the key thing. Lincoln didn't start the war. The South did.

I have stated my peace. It isnt my fault you cant read.

 

[JoeB131]

Your boy offered them slavery FOREVER. It was about the economy. HE SAID SO HIMSELF you fucking liar.

You mean he was willing to work with them. If that was the offer, why secede at all. They seceded before he even took office.

I have stated my peace. It isnt my fault you cant read.

Uh, when you don't know the difference between "peace" and "piece", I don't think you can really claim literacy as an argument.

 

[TNHarley]

You mean he was willing to work with them. If that was the offer, why secede at all. They seceded before he even took office.


Uh, when you don't know the difference between "peace" and "piece", I don't think you can really claim literacy as an argument.

All of your bullshit rhetoric and you say he was willing to work with them like that was noble or something?
You disingenuous twat
They are both used. Of course, I know you cant read, I cant expect you to understand how complicated the english language is lolz

 

[JoeB131]

All of your bullshit rhetoric and you say he was willing to work with them like that was noble or something?
You disingenuous twat
They are both used. Of course, I know you cant read, I cant expect you to understand how complicated the english language is lolz

No, guy you completely used the word wrong... They should have explained that to you at Home School.

Uh, yeah, Lincoln was willing to work with the south for the eventual end of slavery, which was making the US an international pariah, as we were one of the last countries to abolish it.

So you had a bunch of dumb inbreds in the south dying so a few rich people could keep owning other people. Kind of like the same inbreds who keep voting for Republicans who screw them.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

One of the biggest problems about democracy, is that even the dumbest idiot can run for election. This is laudatory for the principles of freedom, but it can have disastrous consequences if the dumb nut gets elected. Just look at the range of dingbats that are in the US Congress and Senate, and most likely, other state and local jurisdictions.
Herschel Walker is probably the best (worst) example of what I am trying to illustrate. Just imagine what would happen if the electorate put that guy in the senate.

You haven't noticed the president, Joe Biden???

If you want to obtain US citizenship, you will have to sit a reasonably difficult test to verify that you understand the basic facts about the US system, From what I have seen, there are elected lawmakers who would fail this test.

I doubt it, but exaggeration is a common trait of common people.

As a start, Congress should set basic qualifications for representatives. To be a teacher, a lawyer, an engineer, or any other position you have to be qualified. If you are going to be a lawmaker, then prove that you know how the law works, and how government functions. Let's put an end to electing people to congress who only make government more disreputable.

And while we are at it, put in a test to weed out election deniers, conspiracy proponents and people who are proven liars.

I agree, and the only way is by a constitutional convention. It is an extremely difficult campaign to inspire people to recognize the need. I am the only person working on it.

It would be nice if you would help. It would be nice if anyone would help, but nobody understands the need.

 

[DudleySmith]

One of the biggest problems about democracy, is that even the dumbest idiot can run for election. This is laudatory for the principles of freedom, but it can have disastrous consequences if the dumb nut gets elected. Just look at the range of dingbats that are in the US Congress and Senate, and most likely, other state and local jurisdictions.

If you want to obtain US citizenship, you will have to sit a reasonably difficult test to verify that you understand the basic facts about the US system, From what I have seen, there are elected lawmakers who would fail this test.

Herschel Walker is probably the best (worst) example of what I am trying to illustrate. Just imagine what would happen if the electorate put that guy in the senate.

As a start, Congress should set basic qualifications for representatives. To be a teacher, a lawyer, an engineer, or any other position you have to be qualified. If you are going to be a lawmaker, then prove that you know how the law works, and how government functions. Let's put an end to electing people to congress who only make government more disreputable.

And while we are at it, put in a test to weed out election deniers, conspiracy proponents and people who are proven liars.

Even the dumbest idiot is allowed to vote; a better idea is literacy tests combined with civics tests in order to register to vote.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

One of the biggest problems about democracy, is that even the dumbest idiot can run for election. This is laudatory for the principles of freedom, but it can have disastrous consequences if the dumb nut gets elected. Just look at the range of dingbats that are in the US Congress and Senate, and most likely, other state and local jurisdictions.

If you want to obtain US citizenship, you will have to sit a reasonably difficult test to verify that you understand the basic facts about the US system, From what I have seen, there are elected lawmakers who would fail this test.

Herschel Walker is probably the best (worst) example of what I am trying to illustrate. Just imagine what would happen if the electorate put that guy in the senate.

As a start, Congress should set basic qualifications for representatives. To be a teacher, a lawyer, an engineer, or any other position you have to be qualified. If you are going to be a lawmaker, then prove that you know how the law works, and how government functions. Let's put an end to electing people to congress who only make government more disreputable.

And while we are at it, put in a test to weed out election deniers, conspiracy proponents and people who are proven liars.

Change "politician" to "journalist" and you're on to something...politicians at least have the Marion Barry standard as a guideline, nothing prevents one from becoming a journalist or from them protecting the rights of the "Marion Barry's" of our democracy to hold office...nor should they in my opinion

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You guys did that... It was called Literacy Tests...

this time it's called "the wall"

If you can't explain your positions simply, then you don't understand the subject matter.

Paraphrasing Forrest now

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If you can't explain your positions simply, then you don't understand the subject matter.

There is a qualification test for politicians.

They are called "elections".

I gotta admit, that's the perfect example...of simple

 

[TNHarley]

No, guy you completely used the word wrong... They should have explained that to you at Home School.

Uh, yeah, Lincoln was willing to work with the south for the eventual end of slavery, which was making the US an international pariah, as we were one of the last countries to abolish it.

So you had a bunch of dumb inbreds in the south dying so a few rich people could keep owning other people. Kind of like the same inbreds who keep voting for Republicans who screw them.

He offered them slavery forever, redneck. READ what I write.
Goddamn

 

[JoeB131]

He offered them slavery forever, redneck. READ what I write.
Goddamn

Except no one really thought that was sincere, Cleetus. They knew he was an abolitionist who would end slavery. That's why the inbreds went to war, their fear that once blacks were freed, they would do what they did in Haiti and inflict vengeance on the white man.