Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[frigidweirdo]

Having a job and more money is simply an indication of the CEO's ability to rationally think and act.

Those sleeping under bridges may be highly intelligent and millionaires that choose to eschew the trappings of civilization, but why take the risk of giving such people a say in matters that impact the prosperity and safety of the entire country?

Do you want the vagrant or CEO casting the deciding vote?

Really? To think rationally and act? Hmm. Maybe they got lucky. Some CEOs are there because their father ran the company and handed it over to their son. Doesn't mean the son has these abilities.

Maybe they just simply made a company that did well because an opening existed, or because they had inside information, or because they bribed someone.....

If you do business in China, for example (and many American businesses do), you have to know how to play the system, and you can get lucky, or you can get the govt on your back and end up in prison, it's all about luck, all about Guanxi, a system of "favors" or "knowing the right people".

People sleeping under bridges might just have got unlucky in life. They might have lost their wife to cancer and become depressed. They might have been born with a mental illness and been unable to work for a particular company, been fired and others look at their work history and their letter of "recommendation" and not want to give them a new job.
So many reasons.

But here's the reason why votes should be one person one vote no matter why.

If politicians know that homeless people can't vote, they'll do nothing for homeless people. If they know homeless people can and do vote then they might change things and homeless people might have opportunities to get out of their situation.

The same theory holds for all groups of people.

Black people, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs.
Women, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs.

Why should homeless people be different? Surely they need someone looking out for their needs so they can get out of homelessness.

You reap what you sow.

Good night.

So if you happen to be unlucky, you reap what you sow and you should never have representation ever again? You should remain homeless because no one will ever look out for you?

I'm reading a novel about Ancient Rome and a boy who ends up in slavery. Many slaves were slaves from birth. Did they reap what they sowed? The boy had a good life but his father got killed and the boy ended up as a slave. Did he reap what he sowed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you not see the point I was making? Should I be more explicit here?

What happened in Germany in the 1990s is an EXAMPLE of how people function.

Politicians make up stuff because people PREFER to listen to the made up stuff rather than the truth. Do you see how my example PROVES that this is the case?

This is an example of someone who is not only saying what they think, but also BACKING UP what they think with EVIDENCE. Do you understand this?

Why yes it is, but you can't tie it to this conversation.

You imply A & B, state A is true so therefore B has to be true.

The sky is blue. Babies eat pussy.

Just because the first statement is true does not make the second statement true.

Are you going to carry on being pedantic, or are you going to debate sensibly? If you're going to be pedantic I'll ignore you, simple as. Last warning.

Dude you made my ignore list .............

Good. You're one of those people who deserves to be on mine.

 

[rightwinger]

The simple concept of our form of government is that you get to vote for the person who represents you

That person represents the rich, the poor
The highly educated, the slightly educated
Men, women
White, minorities
Urban, rural

One person, one vote

Why do conservatives oppose it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DrDoomNGloom said:

"What are you referring to as far as right wing made up stuff??"

You can't be serious:

Obama was born in Kenya

Obama's a Muslim

Obama's a socialist/Marxist/Fascist

Obama's 'responsible' for an 'increase' of racism

Obama's 'guilty' of 'treason' because of the Iran accord

Obama wants to 'destroy Israel'

Obama 'knew about' and orchestrated a 'cover up' for fast and furious, Benghazi, and the IRS

The president's EO deferring action on some undocumented immigrants is 'amnesty'

Obama tried to 'ban' 5.56 NATO ammunition

States have the 'right' to 'secede'

The law doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants

HRC 'lied' about or tried to 'cover up' Benghazi

HRC 'broke the law' concerning emails

Planned Parent 'broke the law' concerning tissue samples used in research

An embryo/fetus is a 'baby'

Abortion is 'murder'

And this just scratches the surface of all the lies, fallacies, and like made up nonsense that comes from the right.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

No, it's actually a rather intelligent question.

Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

No, it's actually a rather intelligent question.

Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.

No. Not at all.

Knowing the 1st Amendment doesn't help you make the best choice of who will represent you the most effectively, quite clearly.

Imagine. Two people stand for election. One represents your needs, the other doesn't. Do I need knowledge of the 1st amendment to make that choice?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

No, it's actually a rather intelligent question.

Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.

No. Not at all.

Knowing the 1st Amendment doesn't help you make the best choice of who will represent you the most effectively, quite clearly.

Imagine. Two people stand for election. One represents your needs, the other doesn't. Do I need knowledge of the 1st amendment to make that choice?

To make an intelligent, informed choice? Absolutely.

 

[frigidweirdo]

DrDoomNGloom said:

"What are you referring to as far as right wing made up stuff??"

You can't be serious:

Obama was born in Kenya

Obama's a Muslim

Obama's a socialist/Marxist/Fascist

Obama's 'responsible' for an 'increase' of racism

Obama's 'guilty' of 'treason' because of the Iran accord

Obama wants to 'destroy Israel'

Obama 'knew about' and orchestrated a 'cover up' for fast and furious, Benghazi, and the IRS

The president's EO deferring action on some undocumented immigrants is 'amnesty'

Obama tried to 'ban' 5.56 NATO ammunition

States have the 'right' to 'secede'

The law doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants

HRC 'lied' about or tried to 'cover up' Benghazi

HRC 'broke the law' concerning emails

Planned Parent 'broke the law' concerning tissue samples used in research

An embryo/fetus is a 'baby'

Abortion is 'murder'

And this just scratches the surface of all the lies, fallacies, and like made up nonsense that comes from the right.

Don't encourage him. He's going off on tangents for the fun of it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

No, it's actually a rather intelligent question.

Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.

No. Not at all.

Knowing the 1st Amendment doesn't help you make the best choice of who will represent you the most effectively, quite clearly.

Imagine. Two people stand for election. One represents your needs, the other doesn't. Do I need knowledge of the 1st amendment to make that choice?

To make an intelligent, informed choice? Absolutely.

But knowing about the 1st Amendment doesn't help me to make an intelligence informed choice about the candidates.

To do that I have to know ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. I also need to have the skill of interpreting what is being said, and weighing up the evidence and coming to a decent conclusion based on all of this.

Nowhere does this involve knowing anything about the 1st Amendment.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

 

[paddymurphy]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is the same reason why Israelis won't let "Palestinians" vote in their elections; they see what a fucking mess we've made of it

They let anyone who is a citizen of Israel vote.

 

[paddymurphy]

Do any of you idiots who make such ridiculous suggestions ask yourselves how you would accomplish your moronic ideas? How do you determine if someone is working? Self employed people sometimes forego income while they build their business; living off savings, loans or money from relatives. Some people do very well; save millions and take a year or more off.

Ever heard of Income taxes, you are required to file SS and medicare tax on any income above $500.

Being a total fucking moron you have no clue self employed are required to file self employment taxes.

Individuals dba / business's are required to file taxes yearly.

Seriously, you come out acting as if you are a hero and now look you are a big fat zero....................

Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote! As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes. The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote. Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?

 

[paddymurphy]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting? Or only poor people?

If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.

How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?

Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...

Unemployment benefits? Social security disability?

 

[paddymurphy]

A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO

That is how our country was founded

No it's not. Here's some history of the vote: Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Does it really make sense to you that a homeless person has as much say in how America is run as a CEO?

Yes. If you don't, you have no fucking idea what makes this nation great.

 

[paddymurphy]

A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO

That is how our country was founded

No it's not. Here's some history of the vote: Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Does it really make sense to you that a homeless person has as much say in how America is run as a CEO?

Absolutely

A homeless man will vote for the candidate who will make his life better
A CEO will vote for the candidate who will make his life better

It all evens out

The number of CEO's is pretty fixed. The number of homeless, indigent, non-working citizens has no bounds. The unproductive will overwhelm the productive. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Atlas Shrugged? A fictional, poorly written story by a talentless leech.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote! As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes. The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote. Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?

That would be the same prick you want to take what % of his money.

Fucking ni$$er hypocrites ...................

Just like I told the last fucking ignorant moron, anyone with $10 million is going to be paying taxes and contributing to society, if nothing else but the interest income on the fucking $10 million.

What makes tit sucking entitled little black piece of shit like you make you can take other's wealth??
-