Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1668669671673674694

Comments

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    If Biden goes through with this the far-left isn't going to have a hell of a lot to complain about for a good long while. This is exactly the kind of move progressives assume Democrats will never make. But the fact is, in the wake of COVID-19, alot of stuff can be written off as necessary because of a crisis situation:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2021/04/01/biden-actively-considering-cancelling-student-loan-debt-of-up-to-50000/?sh=40b8007638e8

    Bottom line?? Everyone keeps underestimating Biden. The right, the left, and myself probably right up to his convention speech. No Administration is going to go up there and have a perfect batting average. But this one is risk-averse in all the right ways and swinging for the fences when they see an opening. And because of the economic hardship out there, people who would normally object to something like this aren't going to. I say do it. You won't lose a single vote, and you'll engage the voters most likely to stay home in 2022, which is young progressives.

    Yes, progressives have managed to drive Biden quite a bit more to the left than I think he is naturally inclined to be. I suspect this is indirectly the work of the Republicans - they have shown themselves to be so partisan and unreasonable that even the more centrist Democrats are starting to see that trying to work with them is a waste of time.
    DinoDinBallpointMansemiticgoddess
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    If Biden goes through with this the far-left isn't going to have a hell of a lot to complain about for a good long while. This is exactly the kind of move progressives assume Democrats will never make. But the fact is, in the wake of COVID-19, alot of stuff can be written off as necessary because of a crisis situation:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2021/04/01/biden-actively-considering-cancelling-student-loan-debt-of-up-to-50000/?sh=40b8007638e8

    Bottom line?? Everyone keeps underestimating Biden. The right, the left, and myself probably right up to his convention speech. No Administration is going to go up there and have a perfect batting average. But this one is risk-averse in all the right ways and swinging for the fences when they see an opening. And because of the economic hardship out there, people who would normally object to something like this aren't going to. I say do it. You won't lose a single vote, and you'll engage the voters most likely to stay home in 2022, which is young progressives.

    Wow. This is so ambitious it's almost hard for me to believe. But for his chief of staff, Klain, to say this at a public event, means that it's not just some reporter speculating. It also strikes me as politically bad to say this and then later back down, which they also must recognize.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    Ammar wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    If Biden goes through with this the far-left isn't going to have a hell of a lot to complain about for a good long while. This is exactly the kind of move progressives assume Democrats will never make. But the fact is, in the wake of COVID-19, alot of stuff can be written off as necessary because of a crisis situation:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2021/04/01/biden-actively-considering-cancelling-student-loan-debt-of-up-to-50000/?sh=40b8007638e8

    Bottom line?? Everyone keeps underestimating Biden. The right, the left, and myself probably right up to his convention speech. No Administration is going to go up there and have a perfect batting average. But this one is risk-averse in all the right ways and swinging for the fences when they see an opening. And because of the economic hardship out there, people who would normally object to something like this aren't going to. I say do it. You won't lose a single vote, and you'll engage the voters most likely to stay home in 2022, which is young progressives.

    Yes, progressives have managed to drive Biden quite a bit more to the left than I think he is naturally inclined to be. I suspect this is indirectly the work of the Republicans - they have shown themselves to be so partisan and unreasonable that even the more centrist Democrats are starting to see that trying to work with them is a waste of time.


    I think this is true - I also think the Biden's administration is a bit savvier than people have given it credit for. What it looks like to me is not that he's suddenly a progressive or leftist, so much as someone who recognizes that there are some very popular policies championed by progressives - and he's going to try to move on those policies while ignoring the less popular ones.

    For example: Cancelling student debt is broadly popular here. Defunding the police is not. He'll do the former and not the latter. He can make a credible claim to keep the left wing the base engaged without alienating the center (and the right wing).


    This is all just good politics. Something we've almost forgotten about between Trump's presidency and some of the obnoxious factors in the Democratic primaries in the past few years.
    Grond0Balrog99semiticgoddessDinoDin
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    Wow, Asa Hutchinson just vetoed that anti-trans bill I spoke about in regards to medical workers being able to refuse treatment based on moral beliefs in Arkansas. Did not see that coming. The state legislature can still override it however, and almost certainly will since the standards for doing so in Arkansas are so low. So this is more likely a case of having your cake and eating it too than any actual courageous stance.
    DinoDin
  • jonesr65jonesr65 Member Posts: 66
    Hutchinson did sign THAT Bill a few day's ago, the one he did veto was the one that would have stopped Transgender minors from being able from receiving medical treatment and the legislators will most likely override it. If my wife wasn't retiring in a few months, my house wasn't paid off and I didn't like living in Arkansas I would really think about moving somewhere else. The state is really going to go down hill if Sarah Huckabee gets the governor's seat.
    DinoDinsemiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    Hutchinson did sign THAT Bill a few day's ago, the one he did veto was the one that would have stopped Transgender minors from being able from receiving medical treatment and the legislators will most likely override it. If my wife wasn't retiring in a few months, my house wasn't paid off and I didn't like living in Arkansas I would really think about moving somewhere else. The state is really going to go down hill if Sarah Huckabee gets the governor's seat.

    I see, my mistake. Then he deserves even LESS credit than I was giving him, which wasn't much to begin with. This is basically just sleight of hand meant to give plausible deniability to certain people. As for Sarah Huckabee Sanders, I hate to say this, but I really don't see any reason she doesn't win that seat.
  • jonesr65jonesr65 Member Posts: 66
    I don't either, and I still find it hard to believe but I actually voted for and liked her dad for his second term as governor. He just slipped out of reality after he went to Fox News when his first run for the President didn't work out.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    I don't either, and I still find it hard to believe but I actually voted for and liked her dad for his second term as governor. He just slipped out of reality after he went to Fox News when his first run for the President didn't work out.

    He has spent the last half-decade making "jokes" on Twitter that really amount to nothing more than cruel jabs. For a time I believe he took over Paul Harvey's spot, but that ended right around the time I am talking about (2015). But MOST failed Republican Presidential candidates are simply looking to turn their campaign into a media career after they don't get the nomination, and Huckabee is the best example. If you can win a primary or two, all the better, but most people who get in have no illusions they are gonna be first across the finish line. It's a branding exercise.
    jonesr65
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Governor Inslee signed a bill today in Washington State restoring voting rights to felons who have served their prison sentence. I guess the question I'd like to pose about this is, what legitimate rational is there for a lifetime ban on voting for a convicted felon?? It's an extrajudicial punishment in EXCESS of the one handed out by the judge, It makes it literally impossible for ex-cons to have any agency in how they are treated after they have paid their debt to society. Hell, I'm pretty sure we have people here who have argued that currently incarcerated felons should still be able to vote.

    I guess this also ties into what has to qualify as the most amazingly asinine statement of the year thus far, which was supplied to us by Tom Cotton, who suggested this week that the United States has an UNDER-incarceration problem.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Governor Inslee signed a bill today in Washington State restoring voting rights to felons who have served their prison sentence. I guess the question I'd like to pose about this is, what legitimate rational is there for a lifetime ban on voting for a convicted felon?? It's an extrajudicial punishment in EXCESS of the one handed out by the judge, It makes it literally impossible for ex-cons to have any agency in how they are treated after they have paid their debt to society. Hell, I'm pretty sure we have people here who have argued that currently incarcerated felons should still be able to vote.

    I guess this also ties into what has to qualify as the most amazingly asinine statement of the year thus far, which was supplied to us by Tom Cotton, who suggested this week that the United States has an UNDER-incarceration problem.

    Throw 'em in jail and put 'em to work. Closest thing to real slavery he can get (right now anyway).
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Governor Inslee signed a bill today in Washington State restoring voting rights to felons who have served their prison sentence. I guess the question I'd like to pose about this is, what legitimate rational is there for a lifetime ban on voting for a convicted felon?? It's an extrajudicial punishment in EXCESS of the one handed out by the judge, It makes it literally impossible for ex-cons to have any agency in how they are treated after they have paid their debt to society. Hell, I'm pretty sure we have people here who have argued that currently incarcerated felons should still be able to vote.

    I guess this also ties into what has to qualify as the most amazingly asinine statement of the year thus far, which was supplied to us by Tom Cotton, who suggested this week that the United States has an UNDER-incarceration problem.

    As long as the likes of Trump and Rittenhouse and Chauvin remain free, I agree with Cotton. Not to mention Manafort, Stone and Flynn who should still all be in prison.

    But I doubt those were the people Cotton was talking about.
    jonesr65BallpointMan
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Anybody here watch the HBO documentary "Q: Into the Storm" yet? I binge-watched it the other night and it was pretty interesting. The journalist pretty much embedded himself into the lives of the folks behind 8-chan/8-kun and got some real Intel on who Q may be (or might have been since whoever it is they're on the down-low now).
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited April 2021
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    semiticgoddess
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Anybody here watch the HBO documentary "Q: Into the Storm" yet? I binge-watched it the other night and it was pretty interesting. The journalist pretty much embedded himself into the lives of the folks behind 8-chan/8-kun and got some real Intel on who Q may be (or might have been since whoever it is they're on the down-low now).

    Nope, but the director of the documentary has a guy on camera admitting he was Q in a slip up. There was a video on CNN about it. Allegedly it is Ron Watkins, AKA the site admin of the site Q posts on.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Anybody here watch the HBO documentary "Q: Into the Storm" yet? I binge-watched it the other night and it was pretty interesting. The journalist pretty much embedded himself into the lives of the folks behind 8-chan/8-kun and got some real Intel on who Q may be (or might have been since whoever it is they're on the down-low now).

    One episode, in which the most fascinating part was watching ardent believers move the goalposts on Q's predictions in real-time while the 2018 election returns came in.

    About a decade ago, I used to commute an hour each way to work. Driving home late at night, I could usually pick up a station out of Waterloo, Iowa, in which a doomsday preacher named Brother Stair had purchased one hour a night on the air. He sounded like he was broadcasting out of a cabin the woods, and I became obsessed with learning about him. Turns out he had been doing CB radio broadcasts in this manner since the early-80s, and basically had a small cult on a compound in South Carolina. He had predicted the end of the world no less than a dozen times in those 30 years, and yet, despite constantly being incorrect, dedicated followers still believed in him and lived on his land (at least until he was arrested for the exact type of things you'd imagine a leader of a religious cult would get arrested for).

    But what really creeped me out was awhile later, when I started to hear Michelle Bachmann (former House Representative from the district St. Cloud is in) use some of the same language this guy did in his "sermons".
    Balrog99semiticgoddess
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    As I commented in the National Review Twitter thread about this yesterday, if we're gonna play this game, let's play. Let's start with all the people who believe less people should be allowed to vote as the first people excluded from being able to do so and watch how fast their tune changes. I am quite certain everyone who thinks this is a good idea is not even entertaining the idea of it applying to THEMSELVES, only OTHERS. Because the inevitable basis for anyone's criteria for who shouldn't be voting is ultimately going to boil down to "people who disagree with me".

    I don't particularly think our country is better off with tens of millions of people voting for Donald Trump. I have never been inconsistent in my protection of their absolute right to do so. The alternative is a caste system. You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a more adamant belief in the idea that your average American is as dumb as a box of rocks than myself. That isn't sufficient cause to strip them of their most basic right.
    semiticgoddess
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.

    The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.

    I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.

    For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.
    semiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.

    The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.

    I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.

    For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.

    The founder of that magazine did explicitly make this argument in the 1950s and 60s. He just did it in a polite way with an aristocratic accent. Yet he (like Goldwater) is now viewed by "moderate" conservatives as some kind intellectual paragon and what the party should be at it's best.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.

    The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.

    I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.

    For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.

    Here's where I tend to disagree with you. If the people getting 'free shit' outnumber the people who are paying for the 'free shit' then how is that not tyranny of the people actually contributing the shit. It hasn't happened as of yet, but theoretically it certainly could. I don't think that a simple majority is some kind of mandate, nor do I think it should be.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    I'm just as consistent in my views across ideological lines as JJ btw. He might not have a problem with the average dipshit Trump voter having the right to vote, but I do.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:

    "Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."

    I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.

    If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.

    You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.

    Grond0BallpointMansemiticgoddess
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    deltago wrote: »
    So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:

    "Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."

    I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.

    If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.

    You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.

    There is an absolute belief among MANY people that if you don't have these things you have "bigger problems than not being allowed to vote". I heard this said verbatim on FOX within the last 48 hours. This is a completely subjective opinion, as is this entire intellectual exercise (if we even want to call it that).

    I'm sure Kevin Williamson (the author of this piece) thinks I'm too stupid to responsibly cast a vote. I think the same about him. The difference between us is I am the only one who seems to recognize that's all this is going to boil down to in the end. Everyone and their mother thinking they are absolutely intelligent and qualified to vote, and that everyone whose politics they despise isn't qualified. How does it turn out any other way??

    To be blunt, if ANYONE was going to be making this argument about intelligence based on the results of the last two Republican Administrations, it should be liberals. Yet it isn't on the radar at all as far as I can tell. Which means we actually believe in representative government, even when the results are a horror show of epic proportions. It's possible to have complete contempt for many Trump voters and still advocate for their basic rights, because I'm doing it right now. This OBVIOUSLY isn't a feeling that is reciprocated by the other side.
    BallpointMan
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:

    "Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."

    I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.

    If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.

    You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.

    There is an absolute belief among MANY people that if you don't have these things you have "bigger problems than not being allowed to vote". I heard this said verbatim on FOX within the last 48 hours. This is a completely subjective opinion, as is this entire intellectual exercise (if we even want to call it that).

    I'm sure Kevin Williamson (the author of this piece) thinks I'm too stupid to responsibly cast a vote. I think the same about him. The difference between us is I am the only one who seems to recognize that's all this is going to boil down to in the end. Everyone and their mother thinking they are absolutely intelligent and qualified to vote, and that everyone whose politics they despise isn't qualified. How does it turn out any other way??

    Wow. If a person has bigger problems in their life, maybe their should be a representative of their community who would be able to help them out with those problems. I wonder how they can get that type of representation in a democracy... I am stumped.

    And you can not tell me that not having a driver's license is a problem. I choose not to have one so I don't have to pick up drunk friends and their cars at 3:30 in the morning. That's avoiding problems thank you very much.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Maybe the answer is to make our potential representatives pass an intelligence test. Maybe also a psyche evaluation and a deep dive into their backgrounds. If we had that in our two-party system there'd be a really good chance that we'd be OK whichever candidate won...
    dunbar
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited April 2021
    deltago wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:

    "Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."

    I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.

    If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.

    You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.

    There is an absolute belief among MANY people that if you don't have these things you have "bigger problems than not being allowed to vote". I heard this said verbatim on FOX within the last 48 hours. This is a completely subjective opinion, as is this entire intellectual exercise (if we even want to call it that).

    I'm sure Kevin Williamson (the author of this piece) thinks I'm too stupid to responsibly cast a vote. I think the same about him. The difference between us is I am the only one who seems to recognize that's all this is going to boil down to in the end. Everyone and their mother thinking they are absolutely intelligent and qualified to vote, and that everyone whose politics they despise isn't qualified. How does it turn out any other way??

    Wow. If a person has bigger problems in their life, maybe their should be a representative of their community who would be able to help them out with those problems. I wonder how they can get that type of representation in a democracy... I am stumped.

    And you can not tell me that not having a driver's license is a problem. I choose not to have one so I don't have to pick up drunk friends and their cars at 3:30 in the morning. That's avoiding problems thank you very much.

    Oh boy can I relate. About 2 1/2 years ago, I decided to not get another beater car when mine bit the dust. I had gotten a job that allowed me quick access by bus, and with the pandemic, I am now likely in a position to work from home going forward. I am at least REASONABLY financially secure for the first time in my adult life, in no small part because I am not shelling out $600-$1200 for car repairs every 4-6 months. I have a decent amount of credit for the first time ever. Yet the #1 question I get asked is "when are you gonna get a car??", ignoring the fact that not having one has made my life better by orders of magnitude.
    Balrog99deltagoDinoDinGrond0
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    So this idiot is all over the place (and never, ever gives his opinion on who should be those eligible to vote except for those that have a driver's license because operating a vehicle is the litmus test to intelligent behavior apparently) , but he actually makes an argument about his stance in the opinion piece:

    "Representatives are people who act in other people’s interests, which is distinct from carrying out a group’s stated demands as certified by majority vote. Legitimacy involves, among other interests, the government’s responsibility to people who are not voters, such as children, mentally incapacitated people, incarcerated felons, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests matter, too, but we do not extend the vote to them. So we require a more sophisticated conception of legitimacy than one-man, one-vote, majority rule."

    I personally do not need to know all the issues, in fact, I can be ignorant on all the issues. The only thing that I, as a voter, need to know, is the person that I am casting my vote for, will represent my, and my community's, interests when laws are being crafted and debated.

    If I feel the person that I vote for does not reflect my interest, I and my community have the power to remove them from their position. That's what voting is for, its to elect a representative that speaks for the community.

    You do not need a driver's license or tax return, or reading test, or social issues assessment to determine who that person is.

    There is an absolute belief among MANY people that if you don't have these things you have "bigger problems than not being allowed to vote". I heard this said verbatim on FOX within the last 48 hours. This is a completely subjective opinion, as is this entire intellectual exercise (if we even want to call it that).

    I'm sure Kevin Williamson (the author of this piece) thinks I'm too stupid to responsibly cast a vote. I think the same about him. The difference between us is I am the only one who seems to recognize that's all this is going to boil down to in the end. Everyone and their mother thinking they are absolutely intelligent and qualified to vote, and that everyone whose politics they despise isn't qualified. How does it turn out any other way??

    Wow. If a person has bigger problems in their life, maybe their should be a representative of their community who would be able to help them out with those problems. I wonder how they can get that type of representation in a democracy... I am stumped.

    And you can not tell me that not having a driver's license is a problem. I choose not to have one so I don't have to pick up drunk friends and their cars at 3:30 in the morning. That's avoiding problems thank you very much.

    Oh boy can I relate. About 2 1/2 years ago, I decided to not get another beater car when mine bit the dust. I had gotten a job that allowed me quick access by bus, and with the pandemic, I am now likely in a position to work from home going forward. I am at least REASONABLY financially secure for the first time in my adult life, in no small part because I am not shelling out $600-$1200 for car repairs every 4-6 months. I have a decent amount of credit for the first time ever. Yet the #1 question I get asked is "when are you gonna get a car??", ignoring the fact that not having one has made my life better by orders of magnitude.

    I think most Americans still equate owning a car with freedom. No car meaning less control of your destiny or something along those lines. That's slowly changing with the advent of Uber and drive-sharing and such.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,366
    Here's what we're in for once the GoP figures out that the Latino vote (along with the Evangelicals) is their ticket to power. I wonder how the Democrats will feel about 'Democracy' once we're being run by a bunch of televangelists. Think it's not possible? Tell me that again in ten years.

    https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2021/04/06/pastor-running-for-governor-lives-in-luxury-16m-home-tax-free-1371774

    I do hope I'm wrong about this, for the record...
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,567
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.

    The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.

    I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.

    For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.

    Here's where I tend to disagree with you. If the people getting 'free shit' outnumber the people who are paying for the 'free shit' then how is that not tyranny of the people actually contributing the shit. It hasn't happened as of yet, but theoretically it certainly could. I don't think that a simple majority is some kind of mandate, nor do I think it should be.

    The problem with this view is that it's over-simplified, imo. Who's to say who the real contributors are? The private sector may reward Jeff bezos enormously, but, imo, that doesn't mean he contributed at the level he's getting. It's not like Bezos wrote all the programming code for Amazon.

    Is an op-ed writer like Williamson contributing as much to society as his salary? I'm not actually advocating for state control over who gets paid what, but I also think it's an incredibly naive position to think what people get in the private sector is some accurate, commensurate measure of their contributions. And that's the position that underlines the argument you are making here.

    Secondly, Williamson is advocating a policy that would permit politicians to choose their constituents. He may not want to own that logical consequence of his argument, but it's an undeniable consequence, imo. I hope we can all understand why that would be deeply problematic.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Biden announced gun control executive order (Gun show loop hole closure) - and predictably, the entire right wing of politics exploded as if the second amendment was being erased in real time. It's always been a phony argument that Obama was going to come and "Steal your guns". Biden's even less likely to do so.
    It's gross.

    In other news - Gaetz's associate is reported to be near a plea deal that is expected to make Gaetz's life a lot more difficult.


    Edit - there was also apparently a National Review article arguing that perhaps we should let less people vote in elections.

    Sigh.
    Here's the article. It's not as radical as you might think if you read the whole thing...

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/?utm_source=recirc-mobile&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    No - that's about as bad as I thought it'd be. It's not like the person writing it is going to be given the opportunity to explicitly say "Lets not let Black people vote". Instead, it'll be phrased an a nebulous way "Fewer more educated voters". Which is what is said.

    The only problem is - this thought exercise is specific to America and so comes with the context of all of American history - where the majority has routinely trampled upon and disenfranchised minority (and women) voters for most or all of its long history.

    I believe that if Arkansas was given the freedom to totally and utterly control its voting eligibility requirements without any backlash or ability to stop them, that voting eligibility would quickly be used to keep the GOP perpetually in power and part of that process would involve disenfranchisement of minorities.

    For that reason, I'm wholesale against the idea of limiting voter eligibility - and consider any argument to do so fairly radical.

    Here's where I tend to disagree with you. If the people getting 'free shit' outnumber the people who are paying for the 'free shit' then how is that not tyranny of the people actually contributing the shit. It hasn't happened as of yet, but theoretically it certainly could. I don't think that a simple majority is some kind of mandate, nor do I think it should be.

    The problem with this view is that it's over-simplified, imo. Who's to say who the real contributors are? The private sector may reward Jeff bezos enormously, but, imo, that doesn't mean he contributed at the level he's getting. It's not like Bezos wrote all the programming code for Amazon.

    Is an op-ed writer like Williamson contributing as much to society as his salary? I'm not actually advocating for state control over who gets paid what, but I also think it's an incredibly naive position to think what people get in the private sector is some accurate, commensurate measure of their contributions. And that's the position that underlines the argument you are making here.

    Secondly, Williamson is advocating a policy that would permit politicians to choose their constituents. He may not want to own that logical consequence of his argument, but it's an undeniable consequence, imo. I hope we can all understand why that would be deeply problematic.

    I think you misunderstand where Balrog is coming from here, he can correct me if I am wrong.

    But when he says 'free shit' he means special government projects that add to the collective debt or taxes that others need to pay for.

    The writer of the opinion piece made the same argument about debt being pushed down to the next generation. What he failed to mention is that the majority of the debt comes from the unneeded American military complex and not say, food stamps.

Sign In or Register to comment.