Politics

[Epic Fail Girl]

squicks

I am moderately conservative because I disagree with the majority of politicians and the less they get to decide what I do the better. I am actually considered a little extremist because I think that democracy as we run it is the wrong form of government for the US. If you're over 18 and not a criminal or a foreigner we let you vote, but that doesn't work when so much of the population is of mediocre intelligence and there is no way of verifying that everyone voting even understands what they are voting for. Supposedly the electoral college is there to balance that out, but it's an inefficient system. The only proof you need - Bush... Re-elected...

There are many explanations for why Bush was re-elected. Some which make sense, some which do not. I'm not going into them at this point though.

Ignorance is a disease spread out amongst say 95% of the country. There will always be dumbasses in a country even if you require citizens to have an IQ of 130. Also, humans are lazy sonzabitches (excuse the French, it's just sooo appropriate.) We do not wish to know more than we have to in order to get by. This explains low voter turn-out on city elections, where people have to read the newspaper, go down to city hall, and actually care about things that are happening.

Politicians are also getting worse in how they are "marketing" themselves. They use subliminal messaging in order to get voters to feel connected with them (i.e. Bill Clintons excessive crying while on TV. The women loved this, and ate it all up without chewing.)

Also, America is much larger than it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and the way people act has also changed. We can no longer lean on the Constitution to support us. Change is required to make America stronger, but many are far to afraid to make the plunge.  

[EJ_Nova]

AgentKeg

There are many explanations for why Bush was re-elected. Some which make sense, some which do not. I'm not going into them at this point though.

He was elected because people voted for him... You're not one of those conspiracy theorists are you? O.o

AgentKeg

Ignorance is a disease spread out amongst say 95% of the country. There will always be dumbasses in a country even if you require citizens to have an IQ of 130. Also, humans are lazy sonzabitches (excuse the French, it's just sooo appropriate.) We do not wish to know more than we have to in order to get by. This explains low voter turn-out on city elections, where people have to read the newspaper, go down to city hall, and actually care about things that are happening.

Not everyone is like that. Are you saying you don't pay attention to current events? I sure as heck do. Don't you think that having a test to determine your familiarities with the issues before voting would be a good thing? Just a test that covers the issues being voted on at the time. You don't tell anyone what answers they got wrong or right, just modify the value of their vote to be dependant upon their score on the test.

AgentKeg

Politicians are also getting worse in how they are "marketing" themselves. They use subliminal messaging in order to get voters to feel connected with them (i.e. Bill Clintons excessive crying while on TV. The women loved this, and ate it all up without chewing.)

There is no such thing as subliminal advertising... It has been quite sufficiently proven that to react to a stimuli you have to be aware of it. (Aware of the stimuli, not your reaction to it). I think you've confused subliminal advertising with pandering to the audiences' emotions. That works because people are simple minded. Some words make people feel good, so politicians use them. If you really know what they are talking about, it shouldn't confuse you. If you don't really know what they are talking about, you shouldn't vote.

AgentKeg

Also, America is much larger than it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and the way people act has also changed. We can no longer lean on the Constitution to support us. Change is required to make America stronger, but many are far to afraid to make the plunge.

Unfortunately, our founding fathers were idealists who believed that everyone would always agree with them. Luckily, the constitution still protects us from becoming a police state entirely.  

[Epic Fail Girl]

squicks

He was elected because people voted for him... You're not one of those conspiracy theorists are you? O.o

Not at all. Only that there are certain reasons for why people voted for Bush that actually are partially understandable.

squicks

Not everyone is like that. Are you saying you don't pay attention to current events? I sure as heck do. Don't you think that having a test to determine your familiarities with the issues before voting would be a good thing? Just a test that covers the issues being voted on at the time. You don't tell anyone what answers they got wrong or right, just modify the value of their vote to be dependant upon their score on the test.

Not everyone is ignorant, only about 95%, like I said.

In an ideal country some sort of test would be wonderful, but in an ideal country this issue would not exist. Yes, a test would be wonderful, but I realize that the chances of this ever being accomplished are so small that its not worth getting bothered with. There are other ways of getting people to pay attention.

squicks

There is no such thing as subliminal advertising... It has been quite sufficiently proven that to react to a stimuli you have to be aware of it. (Aware of the stimuli, not your reaction to it). I think you've confused subliminal advertising with pandering to the audiences' emotions. That works because people are simple minded. Some words make people feel good, so politicians use them. If you really know what they are talking about, it shouldn't confuse you. If you don't really know what they are talking about, you shouldn't vote.

Yes, I admit that I did err in my wording a bit. Though I don't believe that politicians should be trying to win votes this way. If just the facts are boring to some people then they will not end up voting.

Also if you truly believe people are incompetent of voting, why give them the right at all?  

[EJ_Nova]

AgentKeg

Also if you truly believe people are incompetent of voting, why give them the right at all?

My point exactly, however you can't just tell them outright that they are not allowed to vote. As soon as you start talking about earning the privilege to vote they say it's unfair because you should get to vote on what effects you. My problem with this is, very few people actually understand how it effects them. It sucks when Joe Shmoe who's opinions are based on how many bumper stickers he gets for free can decide on things that effect my life. What I'm talking about is viable and I can already see how to market it in an attractive way. Just take a hint from the way they marketed Reganomics... Make everyone think that they're votes will be counted and the idiot next door's vote will be discredited. As for implementation, it wouldn't be too difficult now that they use computers for actual voting and not just tallying. (Of course that is pending the end of the controversy surrounding the corruptability of said systems). The only opposition really, would be the politicians. I'm pretty sure they don't want a more intelligent, informed voter. rolleyes But arguing about that is really just conjecture and I could go on forever... Lol  

[Dark-meets-Light]

squicks

AgentKeg

There are many explanations for why Bush was re-elected. Some which make sense, some which do not. I'm not going into them at this point though.

He was elected because people voted for him... You're not one of those conspiracy theorists are you? O.o

Actually in the U.S. your vote doesn't DIRECTLY count. So even if 75% of the people voted for candidate A, candidate B can still win. While my memory on all this is a bit fuzzy, I still remember enough to make my point. By the time the terms for elections were set, the North and Southern U.S. were really divided. The north decided to make sure that Lincoln would win so they divided the amount of votes by states. That means that if candidate A gets the most votes in New York he'll get about 30 points, I don't remember exactly how many for N.Y. But for Texas all you get are like 7 points! Not to mention that it's not even directly your votes that decide. Even if most people in new york voted for candidate A the "middle men" who are there when they count the votes are the ones who choose who win. The people's votes are supposed to just help influence them.

Kinda hard to get motivated to vote knowing it probably won't even make a difference


Anyway more on topic I consider that Socialism would be the ideal thing. The progress of all before individual progress. I think that in an IDEAL world, and an ideal world only communism would be pretty good. Unfortunately our world is nowhere near ideal so communism is out for me. The problem with Socialism is that it'll take a while for it to start being as effective as it can be.  

[psaturn]

squicks

AgentKeg

There are many explanations for why Bush was re-elected. Some which make sense, some which do not. I'm not going into them at this point though.

He was elected because people voted for him... You're not one of those conspiracy theorists are you? O.o

AgentKeg

Ignorance is a disease spread out amongst say 95% of the country. There will always be dumbasses in a country even if you require citizens to have an IQ of 130. Also, humans are lazy sonzabitches (excuse the French, it's just sooo appropriate.) We do not wish to know more than we have to in order to get by. This explains low voter turn-out on city elections, where people have to read the newspaper, go down to city hall, and actually care about things that are happening.

Not everyone is like that. Are you saying you don't pay attention to current events? I sure as heck do. Don't you think that having a test to determine your familiarities with the issues before voting would be a good thing? Just a test that covers the issues being voted on at the time. You don't tell anyone what answers they got wrong or right, just modify the value of their vote to be dependant upon their score on the test.

AgentKeg

Politicians are also getting worse in how they are "marketing" themselves. They use subliminal messaging in order to get voters to feel connected with them (i.e. Bill Clintons excessive crying while on TV. The women loved this, and ate it all up without chewing.)

There is no such thing as subliminal advertising... It has been quite sufficiently proven that to react to a stimuli you have to be aware of it. (Aware of the stimuli, not your reaction to it). I think you've confused subliminal advertising with pandering to the audiences' emotions. That works because people are simple minded. Some words make people feel good, so politicians use them. If you really know what they are talking about, it shouldn't confuse you. If you don't really know what they are talking about, you shouldn't vote.

AgentKeg

Also, America is much larger than it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and the way people act has also changed. We can no longer lean on the Constitution to support us. Change is required to make America stronger, but many are far to afraid to make the plunge.

Unfortunately, our founding fathers were idealists who believed that everyone would always agree with them. Luckily, the constitution still protects us from becoming a police state entirely.

I am one of those conspiracy theorists, and Bush did not win fairly. The first or the second time. He sucks, and he looks like a monkey, and worst of all he's a yucky republican  

[psaturn]

Let's see. How about this? I am a communist, which is probably why I don't like Bush, and would have voted Democrat had I had the chance to vote. I believe that no one person should make millions of dollars while a single parent with two kids struggles to make ends meet every month. I was one of those kids. My mom struggled. We didn't have heat or electricity (in winter), because we couldn't afford it. We could barely afford to eat. Shouldn't everything be divided equally? It says in the constitution that every man is created equal, so why not? But people aren't equal, and we don't treat people like their our equal, when they are. The main concern with this, is who would divide everything equally? In a true communist society? The people. Because the poeple govern themselves. Think of it as a big town meeting. biggrin  

[EJ_Nova]

psaturn

Let's see. How about this? I am a communist, which is probably why I don't like Bush, and would have voted Democrat had I had the chance to vote. I believe that no one person should make millions of dollars while a single parent with two kids struggles to make ends meet every month. I was one of those kids. My mom struggled. We didn't have heat or electricity (in winter), because we couldn't afford it. We could barely afford to eat. Shouldn't everything be divided equally? It says in the constitution that every man is created equal, so why not? But people aren't equal, and we don't treat people like their our equal, when they are. The main concern with this, is who would divide everything equally? In a true communist society? The people. Because the poeple govern themselves. Think of it as a big town meeting. biggrin

Unfortunately, concepts like communism rely upon the inherent good of man, which simply doesn't exist. As long as there is someone out there willing to step on other people for their own gain, communism can't work. You can use Wikipedia as a sort of social experiment to this effect- When you can run a website like that, that is written entirely by anonymous users, without having to moderate it to keep it accurate, that's when communism will work.  

[Epic Fail Girl]

squicks

Unfortunately, concepts like communism rely upon the inherent good of man, which simply doesn't exist. As long as there is someone out there willing to step on other people for their own gain, communism can't work. You can use Wikipedia as a sort of social experiment to this effect- When you can run a website like that, that is written entirely by anonymous users, without having to moderate it to keep it accurate, that's when communism will work.

I completely agree with you. Communism really is the ideal way to run the world, but too many people out there aren't happy with that. That is why no communist government has succeeded so far. It's a good idea on paper, but in practice it's generally a catastrophe.  

[Contra mundus]

You know what I think. I think it's great on paper, but wiat everything is greater on Paper! Even Capitalism!

But the flaws in Communism certainly aren't enough to send this system spirallign into failure.  

[Epic Fail Girl]

M-mann

You know what I think. I think it's great on paper, but wiat everything is greater on Paper! Even Capitalism!

But the flaws in Communism certainly aren't enough to send this system spirallign into failure.

How would you make it work?  

[tatterkin]

Right, I don't want to sound like a dumb kid here but can someone explain the american voting system sweatdrop I'm not from American.
I've never understood it .Why are the vote's indirect? and whats this points thing?  

[Epic Fail Girl]

tatterkin

Right, I don't want to sound like a dumb kid here but can someone explain the american voting system sweatdrop I'm not from American.
I've never understood it .Why are the vote's indirect? and whats this points thing?

It's slightly confusing, so I don't blame you for not knowing.

Each state has a certain number of representatives from it depending on the population. The people in that state usually vote on these representatives according to how they believe.

Along with the U.S. population voting, these representatives each cast their own vote.

The people's vote is usually the same as the reps, but occasionaly they are not.

I know I missed some details, if anyone else would like to add, but that is the basic idea.  

[lord exious]

i am a little bit odd because im a imperialist but i useraly call my self undecided. i belive if an empire is ran correctly it can still be supported by the citizens.  

[shadow_alchemist92]

i am not of a specific party. of any party i know of, i share most of my views with republicans, but i dont let that affect any of my opinions or decisions. i like who i like, i support what i support, not what republicans or democrats like or support. i take no claims to the title of a specific party.