Tired of Republicans.

[CastletonSnob]

Every time the Republicans are in power, they run the country into the ground, and every single time, the Democrats have to clean it up. It's like a bunch of little kids trash the house, and the parents have to clean up after them.

At what point do you just kick the kids out of the house? Why can't we just have consecutive Democrat presidents?

 

[SupahEwok]

Yes, why should we have a democracy.

Big galaxy brain thoughts.

 

[Houseman]

I don't usually get involved in political debates, but it seems like the republicans blame the democrats for everything and the democrats blame the republicans for everything, and there's rarely any concession or agreement between the two. From the outside looking in, it seems a bit silly.

 

[fOx]

Yes, why should we have a democracy.

Big galaxy brain thoughts.

Maybe we shouldn't

 

[CastletonSnob]

Yes, why should we have a democracy.

Big galaxy brain thoughts.

It's been proven over and over that Republicans are bad at governing.

Hoover caused The Great Depression. Reagan and Bush caused a recession and a needless war, and Bush caused a recession and a needless war.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Maybe we shouldn't

 

[SupahEwok]

Maybe we shouldn't

 

[CastletonSnob]

IMO, you should need AT LEAST a high school diploma to be eligible to vote.

 

[fOx]

IMO, you should need AT LEAST a high school diploma to be eligible to vote.

There should be a civics and literacy test as well.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

There should be a civics and literacy test as well.

An IQ test one might say, based on standard deviation perhaps?

 

[Houseman]

There should be a civics and literacy test as well.

Then people would argue that the tests and education system are rigged against certain minorities in order to deny them the ability to vote.

 

[Worgen]

Then people would argue that the tests and education system are rigged against certain minorities in order to deny them the ability to vote.

That's only because those were the exact methods used in the past to deny minorities the ability to vote.

 

[fOx]

An IQ test one might say, based on standard deviation perhaps?

That would probably be best. 85 and above may enjoy the privelege to vote, assuming they can also pass the other tests. If you can't even outline the basic tenents of marxism, you really have no business voting.

 

[09philj]

Every time the Republicans are in power, they run the country into the ground, and every single time, the Democrats have to clean it up. It's like a bunch of little kids trash the house, and the parents have to clean up after them.

As much as I utterly loathe the Republican party, this is not really a position that stands up to scrutiny. The only times since the start of the last century I could honestly say that the GOP fucked everything up and then a Democratic president sorted it out were Herbert Hoover getting ousted in favour of FDR and Barack Obama replacing George W Bush. Taft was from the good old days when the Republicans were actually the good guys, and was replaced by Woodrow Wilson, who's basically the architect of US imperialism. It would be highly uncharitable to call Eisenhower a bad president, and Kennedy had terrible foreign policy. The Nixon/Ford administration was succeeded by Jimmy Carter who... tried, I guess. The Reagan/Bush years were a car crash but were followed by the Clinton administration, which was broadly similar except luckier and less stupid. In any case, the Democratic Party is an institution so big tent as to be beyond parody. "I'm a Democrat" doesn't indicate anything about economic, social, or social policy. All it really means is that you're not a Republican, which is why the last batch of primaries came down to a contest between Joe Biden, who is considerably to the right of Richard Nixon, and Bernie Sanders, one of the most left leaning candidates ever to contest the candidacy. If general elections aren't working as a way to sustainably challenge the Republicans, the solution is not to ban the ballot, it's to find alternative modes of power which can enact the policies you'd like to enact outside of the mechanics of the federal government.

 

[Hawki]

I'm really against the idea of limiting voting based on IQ or school achievement.

With the latter, suppose John Doe doesn't graduate high school. However, he instead goes on to do an apprenticeship, or maybe starts his own business, or excels in some other area. Maybe he didn't graduate due to some misfortune. Should John Doe be prohibited from voting, even if he's an accomplished individual?

As for IQ, again, very wary. If someone is deemed retarded/mentally disabled/whatever, I mean, okay, sure, if John Doe can only drool and moan, then it's probably fair to say that he lacks the ability to vote, but if someone's deemed sane, then what's to stop them? There's a lot of debate as to how efficient IQ is at measuring intelligence. I'd rather sane/insane be used a benchmark, rather than some arbitrary number. Like, Fox has suggested 85. The last time I took an IQ test, I got 88. If someone arbitrarily decides that the 85 limit has to be increased to 90, then I'm out of luck.

At what point do you just kick the kids out of the house? Why can't we just have consecutive Democrat presidents?

Well, the Republicans took over from the Whigs effectively. Maybe, I dunno, the Libertarians would take over from the Republicans?

 

[fOx]

Then people would argue that the tests and education system are rigged against certain minorities in order to deny them the ability to vote.

If we implemented these measures today, it would destroy the republican party within 5 years. We could then usher in a proper one party system, which could then be transformed into a communist system.

 

[Hawki]

If we implemented these measures today, it would destroy the republican party within 5 years. We could then usher in a proper one party system, which could then be transformed into a communist system.

Based on what reasoning?

The Republicans predominantly rely on white voters. Within the United States, whites tend to do better than blacks and Latinos on IQ tests. If you do an IQ barrier, it's these groups who are going to suffer. And it wouldn't be the first time, because IQ tests have been used before to suppress the vote.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Based on what reasoning?

The Republicans predominantly rely on white voters. Within the United States, whites tend to do better than blacks and Latinos on IQ tests. If you do an IQ barrier, it's these groups who are going to suffer. And it wouldn't be the first time, because IQ tests have been used before to suppress the vote.

No no, leftists skew smarter than right wing people, it's actually a really smart idea!

 

[Trunkage]

Based on what reasoning?

The Republicans predominantly rely on white voters. Within the United States, whites tend to do better than blacks and Latinos on IQ tests. If you do an IQ barrier, it's these groups who are going to suffer. And it wouldn't be the first time, because IQ tests have been used before to suppress the vote.

I mean, it sounds like a great way to get money to predominantly white schools and abandon others. Because, a lot of your school achievements are based on the teachers (and parents) you had, not your IQ. You could just cut out a large swathe of voters out by deliberately sending ineffective teacher to targeted areas

 

[Worgen]

Based on what reasoning?

The Republicans predominantly rely on white voters. Within the United States, whites tend to do better than blacks and Latinos on IQ tests. If you do an IQ barrier, it's these groups who are going to suffer. And it wouldn't be the first time, because IQ tests have been used before to suppress the vote.

Its based on very rigorous research into the field sunshine and fairies. He has no backing for it, he just assumes it would work.