I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic and refrain from gracing such garbage with a proper argument.
I think your referring to the guy's who get 50 girls pregnant and have 80 kids?5. "babies daddy" should not be allowed to vote.
I listen to some rap but I agree people should be slapped for confusing Rhyme and Rhythm with art.6. People who think rap music is a form of art should not be allowed to vote.
Oh didn't you hear? They are saying his kid did it now. He is already in prison why not lock up his demon seed too?8. People who think OJ Simpson is innocent should not be allowed to vote.
You forgot about fanny packs9. Males with earrings, carry a man purse, or wear mesh anything should not be allowed to vote.
Now you've gone too far.. I have 13 tattoos and like every one of em. Just because you're scared of needles, faint at the sight of blood or can't sit through one for hours its not my problem..10. People with tattoos should not be allowed to vote.
That's a rather interesting point that I never fully considered. For a democracy to work, people need to be informed before they vote. Seeing as how that is not the case (insert Churchill's quote about democracy), perhaps a select group of people who devote their time to politics and issues could serve as designated voters on behalf of the population.It does raise an interesting question though. If my understanding is correct, the electoral college used to be a method for ensuring only the "capable" participated in voting. The masses would appoint an intelligentsia to vote on their behalf, choosing someone(s) who would act in the state's best interests. (Ooh, sounds like communism hehe.) Now modern day convention dictates electors vote proxy to the majority vote of the state, is it not reasonable some other means is implemented to exclude those lacking the education to make an informed vote? If not, why?
Of course, since the size of that group would be rather small, it could easily become corrupt. I suppose that'd be a con.
It would be nice if only sufficiently educated people could vote, but if you start making conditions, where do you draw the line? I think this is one case in which the slippery slope argument is valid.
So what's the difference between the Electoral College of old and every other authoritarian regime? I presume any sort of voter exclusion, such as the current age limit, would be far less exclusive than the traditional system. What would make it fail this time, degrade down an alleged slippery slope?Thing is there is now way a few individuals should be in charge of who is in control of the the country. That's how dictatorships and genocide start. Its bad enough in this country we don't need to make it worse.
That makes sense, though you'd have to be really careful about writing the test.You should at least know about the 2 people and their politics.
...I already explained that, in the very post you quoted.So what's the difference between the Electoral College of old and every other authoritarian regime? I presume any sort of voter exclusion, such as the current age limit, would be far less exclusive than the traditional system. What would make it fail this time, degrade down an alleged slippery slope?
You explained it using a logical fallacy, the slippery slope, which is clearly ungrounded. If it was inevitable any such voting limitations would lead to a collapse of true democracy, the Electoral College would not have evolved into what it is, an expensive (and occasionally controversial) symbol like the monarch is to England....I already explained that, in the very post you quoted.
A little feedback for you....I have been saving money for years, and spending it putting my mom through college, and my daughter through college. I don't believe in welfare, and so I have also been supporting my granddaughter. I know I have said this before, but I have chosen to shack up at my mothers in her dining room so as I can focus on school full time without taking out a student loan...or rather a second one (this is my second round of college), and still make my obligations.OR, after the next election: do you think you should uphold the status quo by paying the same amount in tax, continue living in your mothers diningroom (no handout 4u), but make the multimillionaire in their mansion take a tax hit (fix the loopholes) to pay off the defecit?
Taxing corporations is quite reasonable and committed by many nations. As it is, corporate tax is graduated based on the income they generate. For instance, the first $50,000 a corporate makes has only a 15% tax rate (not including all the different tax credits available). This rate increases at higher earnings (with more tax credits available, commensurate ---> click here).For me it is the big picture. I have agreed that certain tax breaks need to be looked at. I am all for taxing higher for dividends, for bonuses etc etc. I am not for raising taxes on small business who make more than 200,000 a year. I find the idea of taxing Corporations assanine. I am more interested in Long term. I don't agree with what is being said about Ryan's plan. It isn't for those at 55. I have looked into it, and find it overall ok, not perfect, but definitely preferable.
It is exactly because the government was being pushed to "stay out of" the business industry that we had the exploitation of consumers by the banking industry (credit card interest rate fiasco), the housing industry collapse, the corporate shenanigans such as Madoff and Lay, the automobile industry's safety reductions, insurance premium explosion, etc and so on.The overall factor for me ended up being two things for me:
A) Since 2008 the government has become more active in the business industry. Before that, we were mainly a decentralized economic price system.....Now the government has a large stake in many industries, something I think the government needs to stay out of.
Would you like to take a gander at the Republican platform's proposed healthcare reform?I have stated, I dislike the Healthcare reform, not in what it is, but in how it is done.
What dream? The dream of corporations being allowed to exploit the U.S. citizenry without consideration of the impact such actions has on the nation's economy? Well, yeah, I guess that dream might be lost.I dislike the loss of the American dream.
Achieve what? The United States is still, by far, a nation that encourages capitalism. It is when capitalistic ventures endangers the economy of the nation as a whole that the Democratic "platform" takes issue.I dislike that the Democrats want to penalize those of us who have struggled to achieve, only to say but if you don't want to risk, no worries...we got your back.
Then you need to research this further, as there is ample evidence demonstrating that privatizing social services is not beneficial and is actually more costly, not less. Indeed, the mere process of bidding for services has repeatedly demonstrated that quality is compromised over competitive savings. After all, privatized industries have to satisfy their investors. The government merely has to satisfy its customers (the ones receiving the services). The focus of privatization is on profit, whilst the focus on government services is on service. The costs are dictated by the government, in either case, so there is no cost savings for the government and, in the case of privatization, there results a greater cost for those being served due to substandard care, a reduction in prevention, etc.II happen to agree with privatizing many services. I believe as with anything competition can improve the product, and I think that also is true with benefits.
Two points --- the budget is being blocked by the Republicans, not the Democrats. The next part is, the debt was stabilized by Clinton. It was Bush Jr and the Republican controlled Congress that blew it out of the water. The debt skyrocketed as a direct result of their actions. Despite the constant propagandist sell, it was not due to Obama's administration.I dislike the fact that our debt keeps growing, I dislike the fact that the democrats have refused to pass a budget.
And that, my dear, is mere propaganda, as you stated nothing. You are claiming the Democratic Party is unwilling to act because they don't want to tick off their base, but in fact the last four years have resulted in a multitude of beneficial changes (credit card protections, healthcare provisions, bankruptcy relief, etc and so on), over 200 beneficial changes. Indeed, the majority of non-beneficial continuances (not changes, but continuation of policies created during the Bush Jr. administration) have been the direct result of the Republican party's actions (inclusive of record breaking filibusters).II dislike the wizzing contest they are crying about. They had no issue bucking the bull on the healthcare bill, but to say now they don't want to is redundant. They don't want to because they are afraid to face the tough choices, and I have no interest in a party not wanting to put for anything in fear that they might tick off their base (and future votes)...it shows no true interest in our future.
Corporate success does not translate to government success. Ample records exist to show that Romney did a piss poor job of governing Massachusetts for the short stint in which he held office. As well, Romney's corporate success was as a raider, a person who capitalized on the hardships of other companies, even going so far as to force their hardships (watch Richard Gere's character in the movie Pretty Woman to get an idea of what Romney was doing). And let's not forget his participation in the outsourcing overseas, which I'm sure you'll agree is contra to the nation's interest.I think that about covers it. So, anyone with half a mind looks to the future and thus knows that there is really only one person to vote for....the very person who built his success, the same person who has run a successful company (or two) the same person who isn't afraid to at least try......
That's most unfortunate, because it is the "person" that is most important in the role of U.S. Presidency.don't get me wrong, I don't like Romney as a person...but I am not interested in the "person", I am more concerned with policy, and I waffled for a long time on this until I realized that fact.