Export thread
No non-partisan Politics allowed in NC
#1
Covar
Covar
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=home_cube_position1#
/facepalm
basically, residents of Kinston North Carolina last year voted to strip party affiliation from local elections. Federal Justice department rules that this is racist, and without being able to see who is a democrat would disenfranchise black voters and canidates.
/facepalm
basically, residents of Kinston North Carolina last year voted to strip party affiliation from local elections. Federal Justice department rules that this is racist, and without being able to see who is a democrat would disenfranchise black voters and canidates.
#2
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
Huh.
Candidates aren't listed by party for local elections here in Canada. Never have as far as I'm aware. But then, the party system doesn't exist at the local level here anyway.
Candidates aren't listed by party for local elections here in Canada. Never have as far as I'm aware. But then, the party system doesn't exist at the local level here anyway.
#3
GasBandit
This little guy's probably shouted himself hoarse over the last year.
GasBandit
This little guy's probably shouted himself hoarse over the last year.
#4
Shakey
Shakey
As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.
Making it an issue of race is pretty silly though. They're coming off as saying black people are too stupid to find out who they should vote for.
Making it an issue of race is pretty silly though. They're coming off as saying black people are too stupid to find out who they should vote for.
#5
Adammon
Adammon
Yeah, that's always a shocker when I drive across into Washington state and the sheriff advertises whether he's a democrat or a republican - let alone the mayor, council members, etc.Huh.
Candidates aren't listed by party for local elections here in Canada. Never have as far as I'm aware. But then, the party system doesn't exist at the local level here anyway.
#6
Covar
I'm also annoyed because I spent most my life growing up right next to Kinston.
Covar
I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uninformed.As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.
And that's part of what irks me. The other is the blatant disregard to the will of the citizens, and the ability of a non-elected federal bureaucrat to overturn an small town's local election.Making it an issue of race is pretty silly though. They're coming off as saying black people are too stupid to find out who they should vote for.
I'm also annoyed because I spent most my life growing up right next to Kinston.
#7
Shakey
[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have people vote based on party than by making a random pattern on their ballot.
Shakey
I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.
[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have people vote based on party than by making a random pattern on their ballot.
#8
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
cops, firefighters and soldiers don't deserve to vote? I know that's my anti-authoritarian position, but I'm surprised to see you espouse it.I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.
#9
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Loretta King's logic in that article makes no sense to me. 
If there's a problem with voter apathy, what does that have to do with race or partisan elections?
A lot of towns in northern jersey have non-partisan local elections just because so many of the candidates in those elections identify as Democrats, and when there are Republican candidates, they're scarcely different from the Democrats, the partisan identifier is meaningless.
---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------
*high-fives Grue*
If there's a problem with voter apathy, what does that have to do with race or partisan elections?
A lot of towns in northern jersey have non-partisan local elections just because so many of the candidates in those elections identify as Democrats, and when there are Republican candidates, they're scarcely different from the Democrats, the partisan identifier is meaningless.
---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------
*high-fives Grue*
#10
Covar
Fixed, thanks.
Covar
cops, firefighters and soldiers don't deserve to vote? I know that's my anti-authoritarian position, but I'm surprised to see you espouse it.[/QUOTE]I'd rather someone not vote than vote uniformed.
Fixed, thanks.
#11
GasBandit
GasBandit
In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.
#12
Shakey
Shakey
Unfortunately that's not how it works here. If one word at the end of a candidates name helps people decide which candidate better fits with their political beliefs, I'm all for it.In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.
#13
Steven Soderburgin
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*
Steven Soderburgin
*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*
#14
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Regardless of whether or not removing party affiliation on ballets is a good idea, claiming that it's racist because it won't allow Black people to know who's the Democrat is without a doubt THE DUMBEST THING I have ever heard.
#15
Krisken
Krisken
I agree with this. This is a good example of playing the race card in a situation that doesn't warrant it. The problem with that is it delegitimizes those instances when it is really called for.Regardless of whether or not removing party affiliation on ballets is a good idea, claiming that it's racist because it won't allow Black people to know who's the Democrat is without a doubt THE DUMBEST THING I have ever heard.
#16
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST
Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
Basically it seems like an argument could be made that it's attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)
Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
Basically it seems like an argument could be made that it's attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)
#17
Rob King
[/QUOTE]
I did this in our latest municipal election. I wasn't nearly informed enough about any of the candidates, so I figured it would be best not to vote than to vote ignorant. Especially considering I'm planning on leaving the city in the next year, and I won't really be around to see the full result.
Rob King
I hope it would lead to more empty ballots. I'd rather someone not vote than vote uninformed.As much as we would like to think that everyone will research every candidate for every elected position, it isn't going to happen. So people rely on voting their party of choice. Removing that option is simply going to lead to blank ballots and people paying even less attention to who they are voting for.
[/QUOTE]
I did this in our latest municipal election. I wasn't nearly informed enough about any of the candidates, so I figured it would be best not to vote than to vote ignorant. Especially considering I'm planning on leaving the city in the next year, and I won't really be around to see the full result.
#18
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Voting an empty ballot is actually a good thing for young voters to do, as far as bumping up our total voting numbers and showing that there isn't a candidate speaking to our concerns.
#19
SpecialKO
It also sounds like the residents of the area overwhelmingly voted to support non-partisan elections. Unless there's reason to believe that vote was non-representative, or even a tyranny of the majority type of situation, there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about in regards to the change.
SpecialKO
I think you're reaching a little bit. Granted, I know nothing about the locale in question that isn't in the article, but they don't seem to be talking about preventing democrat candidates from advertising themselves as democrats, or preventing people's access to actual information during the campaign.The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST
Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
Basically it seems like a pretty clear attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)
It also sounds like the residents of the area overwhelmingly voted to support non-partisan elections. Unless there's reason to believe that vote was non-representative, or even a tyranny of the majority type of situation, there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about in regards to the change.
#20
GasBandit
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*[/quote]
*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*
Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?
Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.
Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.
You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.
Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
GasBandit
*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*[/quote]
*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*
Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?
Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.
Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.
You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.
Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
#21
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
I think wanting poor people to not be able to vote is COMPLETELY DIRECTLY hating them.Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
#22
Krisken
You'll never get into the Gas Bandit Country Club with that attitude.
Krisken
I think wanting poor people to not be able to vote is COMPLETELY DIRECTLY hating them.[/QUOTE]Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
You'll never get into the Gas Bandit Country Club with that attitude.
#23
Steven Soderburgin
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*[/quote]
*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*
Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?
Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.
Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.
You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.
Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.
Steven Soderburgin
*has a computer and easy access to boundless information and time to assimilate that information*In my opinion, if you don't know which candidate stands for what without a party affiliation spelled out for you on the ballot, you have no business voting.
*ironically chooses to read michelle malkin and glenn mccoy comics and claims to be "informed"*
*hates and wants to disenfranchise poor people*
*is gasbandit*[/quote]
*puts a lot of words in mouths other than his*
Obviously, those must be the ONLY source of my information, right? It's not like I can read anything else, and it's not like I work at an ABC News affiliated radio station and am bombarded by news at the top of every hour, 9+ hours a day?
Nice non sequitur though. I don't hate poor people (at least not for being poor), I hate stupid people. Granted, that means I hate most people.
Here's a little refresher course on voting, though, folks. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. There is only a guarantee that enfranchisement cannot be determined (or denied) due to reasons of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc.
You do not have a right to vote, except how your state determines if you are eligible to vote.
Universal suffrage is like trying to drive a bus by committee. It is in our nation's interest to shrink the voter rolls, not grow them. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I support enfranchisement (and an express pass to citizenship) via military service. I support disenfranchisement for those on government-provided living assistance.
And don't give me this "you hate the poor" bullshit. In this nation, outside of cataclysmic events or down economic cycles such as we're currently in, the only reason to be and remain "poor" is because of mental or moral defect. Even under the current world of obamanomics, no nation has more income mobility than the US. Hell, even our so-called "poor" are actually more wealthy than "middle class" designated europeans.
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.[/QUOTE]
Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.
HmmmmmmMaybe you should look at how much you spend on... fubu....
#24
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Haha, holy shit, how did I miss the FUBU line.
FYI, I copy-pasted that post to share with my friends to laugh at.
FYI, I copy-pasted that post to share with my friends to laugh at.
#25
GasBandit
GasBandit
Income mobility.
Win the lottery, go back to broke. Stupid people are often such because American public education is there to make you a subservient little federal dependent, not a thinking, striving person. They are brainwashed into being poor.
America's poor better off than europe's middle class.
Become less stupid, ye blind and ignorant drelbs.
Win the lottery, go back to broke. Stupid people are often such because American public education is there to make you a subservient little federal dependent, not a thinking, striving person. They are brainwashed into being poor.
America's poor better off than europe's middle class.
Become less stupid, ye blind and ignorant drelbs.
#26
makare
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
makare
Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.Win the lottery, go back to broke. Stupid people are often such because American public education is there to make you a subservient little federal dependent, not a thinking, striving person. They are brainwashed into being poor.
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
#27
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
How about some non-biased sources
EDIT: LOL no, i'm just fucking with you, I know you'll never provide a source that doesn't agree with your twisted, repugnant worldview
EDIT: LOL no, i'm just fucking with you, I know you'll never provide a source that doesn't agree with your twisted, repugnant worldview
#28
Shakey
Shakey
Money is not a measure of intelligence, and it shouldn't be used as a barrier for voting. If anything we should try to help inform people on the candidates and their goals while in office instead of trying to prevent people from voting. If we try to block out a group of people they are going to become disenfranchised and resort to violence to get their point across. Voting makes people feel like they are making a difference, maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I'd just rather help them make informed decisions rather than random ones.
#29
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
heritage dot org what the fuck
#30
Covar
Sure though. Fuck the will of the people. After all, someone up in Washington clearly knows whats best for the people of Kinston.
Covar
~9000 of the ~15000 voters in Kinston are black. Kinston had one of the largest voter turnouts in the state this past November. The measure was passed on nearly a 2 to 1 basis. I trust even you can see where I'm going with this.The situation warrants it in that poor voters tend to be far less informed due to less access to information, and OHOHO GUESS WHICH RACE TENDS TO BE THE POOREST
Incidentally GUESS WHICH RACE ALSO TENDS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
Basically it seems like an argument could be made that it's attempt to disenfranchise certain poor voters (though not necessarily poor black voters, though they would be the largest affected demographic)
Sure though. Fuck the will of the people. After all, someone up in Washington clearly knows whats best for the people of Kinston.
#31
GasBandit
I also didn't say all poor people should not be allowed to vote, I said those on government financial assistance, IE Welfare. You get off welfare, you vote again.
And spare me the "voting makes them feel better." How about they accomplish something, thus giving them REASON to feel better about themselves?
GasBandit
You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
Yeah, shame on me for providing links that support my assertions. I should only ever supply links that disagree with my own points. That's how discussion works, after all. Where are YOUR links that don't support YOUR view? Matter of fact, where are ANY of your links at all?How about some non-biased sources
EDIT: LOL no, i'm just fucking with you, I know you'll never provide a source that doesn't agree with your twisted, repugnant worldview
Where did I ever say that money was a measure of intelligence? I didn't say smart people were rich and poor people are stupid, I said that, abarring other understandable circumstance, a lot of people who find themselves perpetually poor do so because of their own stupidity. There's a distinction.Money is not a measure of intelligence, and it shouldn't be used as a barrier for voting. If anything we should try to help inform people on the candidates and their goals while in office instead of trying to prevent people from voting. If we try to block out a group of people they are going to become disenfranchised and resort to violence to get their point across. Voting makes people feel like they are making a difference, maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I'd just rather help them make informed decisions rather than random ones.
I also didn't say all poor people should not be allowed to vote, I said those on government financial assistance, IE Welfare. You get off welfare, you vote again.
And spare me the "voting makes them feel better." How about they accomplish something, thus giving them REASON to feel better about themselves?
A very smart bunch of guys out there. You'd do well to... well, at this point, you're so tragically moronic you'd do well to pretty much start with even the knowledge gleaned from the side of a cereal box and work your way up from there.heritage dot org what the fuck
#32
makare
[/QUOTE]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.
makare
You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
[/QUOTE]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.
#33
GasBandit
[/quote]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]
I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.
GasBandit
You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
[/quote]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]
I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.
#34
makare
[/quote]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]
I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.[/QUOTE]
I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
makare
You're completely wrong, but why should that surprise anyone? You're always wrong about everything. If anything, people who have had to really struggle to make ends meet should be BETTER equipped to keep money once they have it - after all, haven't they had to make the tough choices about whether to clothe the kids or buy a new XBOX? Those that make money and keep it are those who continue to make decisions as if they were poor even after they stop being such... those that become poor are those who live like they are rich even when they don't have the income stream to provide it. Many of the stories in that link illustrated just that - a complete lack of common sense.Gas you know nothing about the poor, why they are poor, or what would help them. All you know are statistics and news designed to thrill and divide.
In that example above, how is it a surprise that people who never had money did not know how to handle having money? It is something you learn by having it all your life. That is like a person who never drove a car, winning a car and then wrecking it. Doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
[/quote]
No. That is contrary to reality. I have alot of experience dealing with poor people. I grew up poor myself. I don't like to pull the "I am edumacated" card but I have spent great deal of time with groups dealing with poverty and educating people on how to deal with money issues, getting it,having it and keeping it. Especially in local native american communities that are among the poorest in the nation. I know how the poor think and I know that handling money is difficult because they never had an opportunity to learn how to do it.
What I do not know is how you come up with these ideas of yours. They are not based on education OR experience.[/quote]
I was poor too, once. I work with poor people too (most people at this station make less than 22k a year). Bingo-bango, we're equally qualified! Wasn't that fun? Native Reservations may be a special case, but I'm not speaking of the niches, the disabled or those who have experienced genuine tragic catastrophe.[/QUOTE]
I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
#35
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
makare those people don't exist
EDIT: in gasbandit's world
EDIT2: which is a fantasy world full of bootstraps and gold standards
EDIT: in gasbandit's world
EDIT2: which is a fantasy world full of bootstraps and gold standards
#36
Shakey
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.
Shakey
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.
#37
GasBandit
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.[/quote]
The idea is, if you're incapable of keeping yourself off welfare, it would be folly to make your political voice worth as much as someone who is actually able to manage their affairs and NOT royally screw their own lives up. You need to show some sound decision making and priority setting before you should be allowed to have an equal voice in dictating the course of the nation.
And this is such an easy, simple fix. You get off welfare, bada bing bada boom, you get to vote again.
GasBandit
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.[/quote]
The idea is, if you're incapable of keeping yourself off welfare, it would be folly to make your political voice worth as much as someone who is actually able to manage their affairs and NOT royally screw their own lives up. You need to show some sound decision making and priority setting before you should be allowed to have an equal voice in dictating the course of the nation.
And this is such an easy, simple fix. You get off welfare, bada bing bada boom, you get to vote again.
#38
Covar
Covar
You're the reason the FAFSA is the most invasive POS ever aren't you? Believe it or not there are people who aren't supported by their parents.I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
#39
makare
No, I figured he meant growing up poor. Not the time frame after you leave your parents before you get a job of your own poor that most people go through.
That is not poor that is a transitional period.
And I am one of those unsupported people so I guess.. I believe it.
makare
You're the reason the FAFSA is the most invasive POS ever aren't you? Believe it or not there are people who aren't supported by their parents.[/QUOTE]I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
No, I figured he meant growing up poor. Not the time frame after you leave your parents before you get a job of your own poor that most people go through.
That is not poor that is a transitional period.
And I am one of those unsupported people so I guess.. I believe it.
#40
GasBandit
GasBandit
She was and he was. She died when I was 14. My father left the military after gulf war 1. When I was going to college, he was so poor I qualified for a Pell grant. Needless to say, I have not been supported by old money. I started off living in a shitty apartment with no TV and a $250 dollar car.I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
#41
makare
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.
makare
She was and he was. She died when I was 14. My father left the military after gulf war 1. When I was going to college, he was so poor I qualified for a Pell grant. Needless to say, I have not been supported by old money. I started off living in a shitty apartment with no TV and a $250 dollar car.[/QUOTE]I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.
#42
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Look, GOD, makare, can't you understand? He totally lived in a crappy apartment for a couple years, so he knows what real poverty is like, JEEZ
#43
GasBandit
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, that because my father had a house and a TV, that the fact that hit the street after college with nothing but what I could fit in my car and thousands of dollars of debt, and never, not once received any financial assistance from my parents paying it off is irrelevant and I've never known poverty?
NOW who's contrary to reality?
---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
GasBandit
She was and he was. She died when I was 14. My father left the military after gulf war 1. When I was going to college, he was so poor I qualified for a Pell grant. Needless to say, I have not been supported by old money. I started off living in a shitty apartment with no TV and a $250 dollar car.[/quote]I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, that because my father had a house and a TV, that the fact that hit the street after college with nothing but what I could fit in my car and thousands of dollars of debt, and never, not once received any financial assistance from my parents paying it off is irrelevant and I've never known poverty?
NOW who's contrary to reality?
---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------
Well, you're right in that I was fortunate enough not to have to endure it for TOO long, because I wasn't stupid.Look, GOD, makare, can't you understand? He totally lived in a crappy apartment for a couple years, so he knows what real poverty is like, JEEZ
#44
makare
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, that because my father had a house and a TV, that the fact that hit the street after college with nothing but what I could fit in my car and thousands of dollars of debt, and never, not once received any financial assistance from my parents paying it off is irrelevant and I've never known poverty?
NOW who's contrary to reality?[/QUOTE]
You are equating moving out of your father's house and living in a shitty apartment with descending from three or four generations of people who lived in a one room shack without a car, tv, food, clothes...
I stand by what I said. You do not know a damn thing about poverty. Or the struggle to rise out of REAL poverty.
Your entire "hardluck" story makes a mockery of the actual poor.
makare
She was and he was. She died when I was 14. My father left the military after gulf war 1. When I was going to college, he was so poor I qualified for a Pell grant. Needless to say, I have not been supported by old money. I started off living in a shitty apartment with no TV and a $250 dollar car.[/quote]I thought your mother was a lawyer and your father is in the military. how were they poor?
I am talking no tv, no car, no phone, clothes from the church, welfare, food from the pantry poor. Were you poor?
On your own or with your parents? Because if it is on your own my above statement applies.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, that because my father had a house and a TV, that the fact that hit the street after college with nothing but what I could fit in my car and thousands of dollars of debt, and never, not once received any financial assistance from my parents paying it off is irrelevant and I've never known poverty?
NOW who's contrary to reality?[/QUOTE]
You are equating moving out of your father's house and living in a shitty apartment with descending from three or four generations of people who lived in a one room shack without a car, tv, food, clothes...
I stand by what I said. You do not know a damn thing about poverty. Or the struggle to rise out of REAL poverty.
Your entire "hardluck" story makes a mockery of the actual poor.
#45
GasBandit
GasBandit
A statistically negligible number of Americans experience what you describe, as was described in one of the links I posted. You are perfectly aware that when people at large, especially politicians, talk about doing things "for the poor" they're really talking about anyone who makes under 25k a year... if THAT low.You are equating moving out of your father's house and living in a shitty apartment with descending from three or four generations of people who lived in a one room shack without a car, tv, food, clothes...
I stand by what I said. You do not know a damn thing about poverty. Or the struggle to rise out of REAL poverty.
Your entire "hardluck" story makes a mockery of the actual poor.
#46
Shakey
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.[/quote]
The idea is, if you're incapable of keeping yourself off welfare, it would be folly to make your political voice worth as much as someone who is actually able to manage their affairs and NOT royally screw their own lives up. You need to show some sound decision making and priority setting before you should be allowed to have an equal voice in dictating the course of the nation.
And this is such an easy, simple fix. You get off welfare, bada bing bada boom, you get to vote again.[/QUOTE]
That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
Shakey
If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
I don't really see the point in not allowing people on welfare to vote though. If you think they are only going to vote in people who will allow them to stay on welfare, would the reverse be true? People who are rich are only going to vote in people who will allow them to pay less in taxes?
And I wasn't saying voting makes them feel better. Just that it gives them a voice in the process.[/quote]
The idea is, if you're incapable of keeping yourself off welfare, it would be folly to make your political voice worth as much as someone who is actually able to manage their affairs and NOT royally screw their own lives up. You need to show some sound decision making and priority setting before you should be allowed to have an equal voice in dictating the course of the nation.
And this is such an easy, simple fix. You get off welfare, bada bing bada boom, you get to vote again.[/QUOTE]
That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
#47
makare
Cue the violins
Gas all I care about is that I know people who have nothing, I know children who do not eat on the weekend because school is the only place they get food, I know people who have had to watch relatives die because they didnt have the means to get them to the hospital let alone a way to pay for the care once it was over (remember I live in south dakota an extremely rural state). I have witnessed this struggle and felt the pain with these people who strive for better lives but never seem able to get out of the shit they were born into.
On the opposite hand, I have seen mothers get their welfare check and then CASH it and gamble it away while their children go with out basic needs. And you think it doesn't gall me? You think I am not filled with rage? Especially considering that my mother, faulted as she is, pulled us out of that misery and made a real life for us. She took all the welfare assistance she could get, went to school, and was so proud the day she no longer needed the state's charity or anyone else's.
This is an extremely personal issue for me.
You can complain about the moral and economical cost of caring for the poor fine, but what is your solution exactly? Yes, the vast majority of them are fucking ignorant and it is not bliss for them or their poor children. but what do you suggest exactly?
makare
A statistically negligible number of Americans experience what you describe, as was described in one of the links I posted. You are perfectly aware that when people at large, especially politicians, talk about doing things "for the poor" they're really talking about anyone who makes under 25k a year... if THAT low.[/QUOTE]You are equating moving out of your father's house and living in a shitty apartment with descending from three or four generations of people who lived in a one room shack without a car, tv, food, clothes...
I stand by what I said. You do not know a damn thing about poverty. Or the struggle to rise out of REAL poverty.
Your entire "hardluck" story makes a mockery of the actual poor.
Cue the violins
Gas all I care about is that I know people who have nothing, I know children who do not eat on the weekend because school is the only place they get food, I know people who have had to watch relatives die because they didnt have the means to get them to the hospital let alone a way to pay for the care once it was over (remember I live in south dakota an extremely rural state). I have witnessed this struggle and felt the pain with these people who strive for better lives but never seem able to get out of the shit they were born into.
On the opposite hand, I have seen mothers get their welfare check and then CASH it and gamble it away while their children go with out basic needs. And you think it doesn't gall me? You think I am not filled with rage? Especially considering that my mother, faulted as she is, pulled us out of that misery and made a real life for us. She took all the welfare assistance she could get, went to school, and was so proud the day she no longer needed the state's charity or anyone else's.
This is an extremely personal issue for me.
You can complain about the moral and economical cost of caring for the poor fine, but what is your solution exactly? Yes, the vast majority of them are fucking ignorant and it is not bliss for them or their poor children. but what do you suggest exactly?
#48
Dave
Dave
Gas is wrongity-wrongity-wrong.
Advocating that the poor don't get to vote? And also advocating Republican rules on business and governance?
George Bush and GasBandit do not care about black people.
Advocating that the poor don't get to vote? And also advocating Republican rules on business and governance?
George Bush and GasBandit do not care about black people.
#49
GasBandit
And is quoting Kanye West really going to bolster your position, or are you making self parody? It's hard to tell.
GasBandit
You can be poor without being on welfare.... and thus, under my proposal, still vote.Gas is wrongity-wrongity-wrong.
Advocating that the poor don't get to vote? And also advocating Republican rules on business and governance?
George Bush and GasBandit do not care about black people.
And is quoting Kanye West really going to bolster your position, or are you making self parody? It's hard to tell.
#50
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
What are some other entertainments that poor people should do without, GasBandit?
#51
Dave
And is quoting Kanye West really going to bolster your position, or are you making self parody? It's hard to tell.[/QUOTE]
Little from column A, little from column B.
And at one time I was on welfare. This means I shouldn't have been allowed to vote? Gas, buddy, you're full of shit on this one.
But it's good to see you back.
Dave
You can be poor without being on welfare.... and thus, under my proposal, still vote.Gas is wrongity-wrongity-wrong.
Advocating that the poor don't get to vote? And also advocating Republican rules on business and governance?
George Bush and GasBandit do not care about black people.
And is quoting Kanye West really going to bolster your position, or are you making self parody? It's hard to tell.[/QUOTE]
Little from column A, little from column B.
And at one time I was on welfare. This means I shouldn't have been allowed to vote? Gas, buddy, you're full of shit on this one.
But it's good to see you back.
#52
GasBandit
---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------
And thanks. It's slightly less intolerable to be back.
GasBandit
Well, it isn't 100% perfect, but do you not even air up a tire with a slow leak just because you can't plug the leak perfectly? Just let it continue to roll while flat, ripping itself to shreds?That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
... who cause you to have an entirely selective opinion based on some unfortunates who represent a fraction of a percentile of the population, far less than to whom the "poor" label is applied.Cue the violins
Gas all I care about is that I know people who...
Where did I complain about the cost of caring for the poor? I didn't say we should just leave the poor to starve. I just said we perhaps should not be giving people on welfare the keys to the country's helm. I didn't say anything like end welfare. I only said that inmates should not be running the asylumn.You can complain about the moral and economical cost of caring for the poor fine, but what is your solution exactly? Yes, the vast majority of them are fucking ignorant and it is not bliss for them or their poor children. but what do you suggest exactly?
---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------
You were. WERE. You WERE on welfare. You got out. Your enfranchisement continues. Congratulations.Little from column A, little from column B.
And at one time I was on welfare. This means I shouldn't have been allowed to vote? Gas, buddy, you're full of shit on this one.
But it's good to see you back.
And thanks. It's slightly less intolerable to be back.
#53
makare
I get what you are saying. But sorting out voters by special interest isn't going to work. It sounds good in theory.
makare
Well, it isn't 100% perfect, but do you not even air up a tire with a slow leak just because you can't plug the leak perfectly? Just let it continue to roll while flat, ripping itself to shreds?That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
... who cause you to have an entirely selective opinion based on some unfortunates who represent a fraction of a percentile of the population, far less than to whom the "poor" label is applied.Cue the violins
Gas all I care about is that I know people who...
Where did I complain about the cost of caring for the poor? I didn't say we should just leave the poor to starve. I just said we perhaps should not be giving people on welfare the keys to the country's helm. I didn't say anything like end welfare. I only said that inmates should not be running the asylum.[/QUOTE]You can complain about the moral and economical cost of caring for the poor fine, but what is your solution exactly? Yes, the vast majority of them are fucking ignorant and it is not bliss for them or their poor children. but what do you suggest exactly?
I get what you are saying. But sorting out voters by special interest isn't going to work. It sounds good in theory.
#54
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'm not sure I follow how whether someone is or is not on welfare qualifies as an unsortable special interest. But what do you think WOULD work? I think there's too much of a stigma now attached to intelligence/literacy tests, which make them nonviable.I get what you are saying. But sorting out voters by special interest isn't going to work. It sounds good in theory.
#55
Shakey
[/QUOTE]
The problem is it doesn't do what it's intended to do. Why not suggest requiring an IQ test instead? Or is IQ not a good enough gauge of how well someone will choose a candidate?
I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
With no good way to measure someones ability to make a good informed decision at the voting booth we should not deny some simply because we do not like the way they live their life. That is exactly what you are suggesting.
Shakey
Well, it isn't 100% perfect, but do you not even air up a tire with a slow leak just because you can't plug the leak perfectly? Just let it continue to roll while flat, ripping itself to shreds?That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is it doesn't do what it's intended to do. Why not suggest requiring an IQ test instead? Or is IQ not a good enough gauge of how well someone will choose a candidate?
I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
With no good way to measure someones ability to make a good informed decision at the voting booth we should not deny some simply because we do not like the way they live their life. That is exactly what you are suggesting.
#56
GasBandit
[/quote]
The problem is it doesn't do what it's intended to do. Why not suggest requiring an IQ test instead? Or is IQ not a good enough gauge of how well someone will choose a candidate? [/quote] We can't do straight-up intelligence or literacy tests (especially not the IQ test) because they either have been used in the past in a way that has been ruled as de facto racial discrimination, and it has been asserted that the IQ test itself is inherently predisposed to caucasians getting higher scores. They're now beyond the pale and can't be used to determine enfranchisement.
GasBandit
Well, it isn't 100% perfect, but do you not even air up a tire with a slow leak just because you can't plug the leak perfectly? Just let it continue to roll while flat, ripping itself to shreds?That's selectively choosing who gets to vote based on how much money they make. Under your plan someone with the same inability to manage their affairs, yet has a ton of money and financial advisors to make sure they are unable to run themselves into a hole, would still be able to vote.
[/quote]
The problem is it doesn't do what it's intended to do. Why not suggest requiring an IQ test instead? Or is IQ not a good enough gauge of how well someone will choose a candidate? [/quote] We can't do straight-up intelligence or literacy tests (especially not the IQ test) because they either have been used in the past in a way that has been ruled as de facto racial discrimination, and it has been asserted that the IQ test itself is inherently predisposed to caucasians getting higher scores. They're now beyond the pale and can't be used to determine enfranchisement.
Yes, they are. They have not yet demonstrated that they can't even keep their own finances in order.I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
It has nothing to do with "how they live their life," just their ability to avoid becoming a ward of the state.With no good way to measure someones ability to make a good informed decision at the voting booth we should not deny some simply because we do not like the way they live their life. That is exactly what you are suggesting.
#57
Shakey
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.
Shakey
They haven't demonstrated that they can keep their finances in order.Yes, they are. They have not yet demonstrated that they can't even keep their own finances in order.I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.
#58
Adammon
Adammon
What makes the Western world great is our abandonment of enfranchisement based on class. By taking away the one privilege in which a 'lower' class can direct society, we are in essence ensuring their demise. And once that class goes, the only direction disenfranchisement goes is up.
#59
Steven Soderburgin
Seriously, good post, man.
Steven Soderburgin
Good post.What makes the Western world great is our abandonment of enfranchisement based on class. By taking away the one privilege in which a 'lower' class can direct society, we are in essence ensuring their demise. And once that class goes, the only direction disenfranchisement goes is up.
Seriously, good post, man.
#60
GasBandit
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.[/QUOTE]
They haven't demonstrated that they can't. I guess I'm just a nice guy and am giving people the benefit of the doubt until they royally screw what should be the most important of pooches - their own well being.
GasBandit
They haven't demonstrated that they can keep their finances in order.Yes, they are. They have not yet demonstrated that they can't even keep their own finances in order.I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.[/QUOTE]
They haven't demonstrated that they can't. I guess I'm just a nice guy and am giving people the benefit of the doubt until they royally screw what should be the most important of pooches - their own well being.
That would be true if it were impossible to move from one class to another. But as previously noted, we have the highest income mobility in the world. Furthermore, I'm not disenfranchising the entire lower class. I feel like I'm really beginning to repeat myself ad nauseum here, but you can be poor without being on welfare.What makes the Western world great is our abandonment of enfranchisement based on class. By taking away the one privilege in which a 'lower' class can direct society, we are in essence ensuring their demise. And once that class goes, the only direction disenfranchisement goes is up.
#61
Adammon
Income mobility doesn't necessarily mean moving out of the lower class, it also means moving from middle-class to the upper-class which is where the majority of mobility comes from thanks to machinations like the stock market, prudent financial planning, etc.
I think you'll find that in the last 10 years, it's actually gotten harder to move out of the lower-class (Barring the lottery! WOOO)
And just because I don't want to post anything without proof:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
Many studies have documented the long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the
U.S. economy. U.S. Census data, for example, show that the share of household income of the top 20 percent of households increased from 44.1 percent in 1980 to 50.4 percent by 2005, with the share of the bottom 20 percent decreasing from 4.2 percent to 3.4 percent.
and
The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor decreased over the past 20 years.
Adammon
You're over-estimating income mobility. Education is well-nigh unaffordable for a greater sector of the population and the preponderance of overly stated educational requirements means that you need more and more education for less and less of a job.That would be true if it were impossible to move from one class to another. But as previously noted, we have the highest income mobility in the world. Furthermore, I'm not disenfranchising the entire lower class. I feel like I'm really beginning to repeat myself ad nauseum here, but you can be poor without being on welfare.
Income mobility doesn't necessarily mean moving out of the lower class, it also means moving from middle-class to the upper-class which is where the majority of mobility comes from thanks to machinations like the stock market, prudent financial planning, etc.
I think you'll find that in the last 10 years, it's actually gotten harder to move out of the lower-class (Barring the lottery! WOOO)
And just because I don't want to post anything without proof:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
Many studies have documented the long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the
U.S. economy. U.S. Census data, for example, show that the share of household income of the top 20 percent of households increased from 44.1 percent in 1980 to 50.4 percent by 2005, with the share of the bottom 20 percent decreasing from 4.2 percent to 3.4 percent.
and
The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor decreased over the past 20 years.
#62
Shakey
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.[/quote]
They haven't demonstrated that they can't. I guess I'm just a nice guy and am giving people the benefit of the doubt until they royally screw what should be the most important of pooches - their own well being.
[/QUOTE]
You're giving them the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than their parents have enough money to send them to college. Where is the benefit of doubt for people who are genuinely trying to get out of the hole they are in, but just haven't made it yet? Or the 18 year old who grew up on welfare and hasn't had the chance to prove their worth yet?
If you are going to deny the ability to vote you better make damn sure that every person you are denying it to is deserving of it.
Shakey
They haven't demonstrated that they can keep their finances in order.Yes, they are. They have not yet demonstrated that they can't even keep their own finances in order.I was in college when Jesse Ventura was elected as the governor of MN. Do you think all those college kids voted for him because of his policies? No, they voted for him because he had cool commercials and action figures. These are the people you are suggesting are better fit to vote.
If you want to make sure the people voting are able to make good informed decisions, this isn't the way.[/quote]
They haven't demonstrated that they can't. I guess I'm just a nice guy and am giving people the benefit of the doubt until they royally screw what should be the most important of pooches - their own well being.
[/QUOTE]
You're giving them the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than their parents have enough money to send them to college. Where is the benefit of doubt for people who are genuinely trying to get out of the hole they are in, but just haven't made it yet? Or the 18 year old who grew up on welfare and hasn't had the chance to prove their worth yet?
If you are going to deny the ability to vote you better make damn sure that every person you are denying it to is deserving of it.
#63
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
No, see, GasBandit's plan is perfect because if the people on welfare can't vote, then eventually welfare will disappear and then everyone will be able to vote.
#64
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
Hey! Gassy's back! Welcome back, dude.
I've missed not wanting to post in political threads.
I've missed not wanting to post in political threads.
#65
Covar
Covar
I know you didn't just call voting an entertainment.What are some other entertainments that poor people should do without, GasBandit?
#66
Steven Soderburgin
Correct! I didn't! I was referring to this earlier post
Steven Soderburgin
I know you didn't just call voting an entertainment.[/QUOTE]What are some other entertainments that poor people should do without, GasBandit?
Correct! I didn't! I was referring to this earlier post
and was wondering if GasBandit would provide more examples.If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
#67
Covar
Correct! I didn't! I was referring to this earlier post
Ok, then. Carry on.
Covar
I know you didn't just call voting an entertainment.[/QUOTE]What are some other entertainments that poor people should do without, GasBandit?
Correct! I didn't! I was referring to this earlier post
and was wondering if GasBandit would provide more examples.[/QUOTE]If you get yourself poor and keep yourself there, there is something wrong with your ability to think. Maybe you should look at how much you spend on iphones, cable TV, fubu, and other forms of entertainment.
Ok, then. Carry on.