Is it time for this... change

• Belly35

  

  It’s time in the history of the American Federal, State and Local government to place term limit on career politicians. Personal career goals, party agenda weights to heavy to make rational judgments. The governing processes to make decisions on what is right for America are now skewed because of careers and agenda not diplomacy.
  
  Presidential is not in the Obama character, he think it is because of his ego but he is not Presidential nor a Leader. Let’s list the many area of his lack of being Presidential and all can see his incompetence. Is it all Obama fault mostly but also part and parcel failure of a political structure flaw now in our system call Senate and Congress careers.
  At what point does being President stop taking party sides and demonstrate Leadership and Integrity to do what is right for the American people and not for political gain.
  
  As long as the Senate and Congress can be deemed as career position this Party Power mentality will fester the basic fiber of the America Constitution and the Prosperity of this great Country.
• sleeper

  

  I'd like to fix voting rights for the country. Must have proof of employment and ACT score above 25 in order to vote. Note: These criteria are not based on race, gender, sexual orientation, income, or any other category so that any insinuation that I'm trying to restrict people from voting is you own racist admission that you think black women(or other category) are incapable of holding a job or being intelligent. I'd also support ACT testing be free for those who can't afford it(although those that can't afford it likely don't have a job anyway).
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511309 wrote:I'd like to fix voting rights for the country. Must have proof of employment and ACT score above 25 in order to vote. Note: These criteria are not based on race, gender, sexual orientation, income, or any other category so that any insinuation that I'm trying to restrict people from voting is you own racist admission that you think black women(or other category) are incapable of holding a job or being intelligent. I'd also support ACT testing be free for those who can't afford it(although those that can't afford it likely don't have a job anyway).

  This is dumber than what Belly said.
• queencitybuckeye

  While I'd prefer the desired end be accomplished through the election process, it's pretty obvious that isn't going to happen anytime soon. QCB votes "Aye" for term limits.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1511331 wrote:This is dumber than what Belly said.

  Elaborate. Why are you okay with stupid people who don't want to work having the right to vote? Even if you are able to determine that not everyone who doesn't have a job simply wants to live on the dole(a valid point), is really that one or two election of you not voting going to matter? Most people who want to work are going to work most of their lives and temporary unemployment is not going to make much of a difference. I'm sick of these baby mammas and derelicts with their Obamaphones and morons who take biased media as the be all end all of truth having the same rights to vote and decide the future of the country.
  
  Please explain why you support stupid people making decisions.
• Con_Alma

  Are any civil rights based on intelligence or contributions to society?
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511338 wrote:Elaborate. Why are you okay with stupid people who don't want to work having the right to vote? Even if you are able to determine that not everyone who doesn't have a job simply wants to live on the dole(a valid point), is really that one or two election of you not voting going to matter? Most people who want to work are going to work most of their lives and temporary unemployment is not going to make much of a difference. I'm sick of these baby mammas and derelicts with their Obamaphones and morons who take biased media as the be all end all of truth having the same rights to vote and decide the future of the country.
  
  Please explain why you support stupid people making decisions.

  I mean seriously, how the fuck would you even set the bar to determine the intelligence level? 25 on the ACT? What's the distinction from 24 to 25 that makes you magically worth the right of voting? Why not the SAT or any other test? How is it right to have a private company make the test that determines whether people can vote? If that's wrong then what department will make the government voting test and who gets to decide the questions? How do we avoid the party in control influencing the test to shape outcomes to their benefit?
  
  There's about a million reasons you're idea is astoundingly dumb. However, despite that I still think you should be allowed to vote.
• rocketalum

  There are countless reasons to not like European style governments but there are two things I've always kind of admired and could probably help us through our current political state. First is a true multi party system that forces coaltion and cooperation in order to form a governing majority. Second being, if that governing majority is a complete failure then we go to the vote of zero confidence and start over. That second part sounds pretty good right about now.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1511365 wrote:I mean seriously, how the fuck would you even set the bar to determine the intelligence level? 25 on the ACT? What's the distinction from 24 to 25 that makes you magically worth the right of voting? Why not the SAT or any other test? How is it right to have a private company make the test that determines whether people can vote? If that's wrong then what department will make the government voting test and who gets to decide the questions? How do we avoid the party in control influencing the test to shape outcomes to their benefit?
  
  There's about a million reasons you're idea is astoundingly dumb. However, despite that I still think you should be allowed to vote.

  All of these can be hashed out in a non-partisan matter. I'm still unsure why you are okay with stupid people being allowed to make decisions that negatively affect the future of the country?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1511344 wrote:Are any civil rights based on intelligence or contributions to society?

  Sir, not that I am aware of at this time.
• sleeper

  

  sleeper;1511380 wrote:All of these can be hashed out in a non-partisan matter. I'm still unsure why you are okay with stupid people being allowed to make decisions that negatively affect the future of the country?

  And like anything else, if minorities aren't able to pass the bar we will just lower the bar otherwise that's just racist.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511380 wrote:All of these can be hashed out in a non-partisan matter. I'm still unsure why you are okay with stupid people being allowed to make decisions that negatively affect the future of the country?

  I don't think they can be hashed out. Not even close. We can't even agree to keep our government operating and you're trying to say that we'd be able to craft a scheme that bars people from voting? Please. And how often would we have to retake this test? If the test has to be retaken you're probably going to be excluding a lot of the elderly.
  
  I think the danger from deny people from voting based on an arbitrary benchmark like a score on a specific test is far greater than people I don't think are very smart voting. Besides, many of them don't vote anyway. The US has what 60% voter turnout? I doubt it's the intelligent people who think "nope, that's not important".
• Gblock

  most people who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to vote or register to vote so im not sure it would change a whole lot
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1511384 wrote:I don't think they can be hashed out. Not even close. We can't even agree to keep our government operating and you're trying to say that we'd be able to craft a scheme that bars people from voting? Please. And how often would we have to retake this test? If the test has to be retaken you're probably going to be excluding a lot of the elderly.
  
  I think the danger from deny people from voting based on an arbitrary benchmark like a score on a specific test is far greater than people I don't think are very smart voting. Besides, many of them don't vote anyway. The US has what 60% voter turnout? I doubt it's the intelligent people who think "nope, that's not important".

  I don't have all the answers to your questions but I find it interesting you are vehemently against anything that restricts stupid people from voting. Worried?
• Belly35

  

  I somewhat agree with Sleeper but on a different level of standards.
  Prosperous, productive, employed, legal citizen, unwarranted, law bidding and registered voter.
  Voter fraud 10 years in jail and lose all social services entitlements forever. .
  
  Now this is a little crazy but a $5.00 fee to be a registered voter (never to increase or drop) that applies to the presidential election parties equally … cap on campaign spending…
  
  This would be paid via your employer or atm machine ...
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511391 wrote:I don't have all the answers to your questions but I find it interesting you are vehemently against anything that restricts stupid people from voting. Worried?

  You mean you don't have answers to any of my questions.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1511409 wrote:You mean you don't have answers to any of my questions.

  Why bother? I posed a simple question, one that contains no ever changing hypotheticals, and you have not provided a response. Why do you support a country where stupid people are allowed to make decisions? You are not interested in rational debate, you are interested in cliche bullshit that you read on CNN. Come talk to me when you want to debate like an adult and think for yourself.
• sleeper

  

  Belly35;1511403 wrote:I somewhat agree with Sleeper but on a different level of standards.
  Prosperous, productive, employed, legal citizen, unwarranted, law bidding and registered voter.
  Voter fraud 10 years in jail and lose all social services entitlements forever. .
  
  Now this is a little crazy but a $5.00 fee to be a registered voter (never to increase or drop) that applies to the presidential election parties equally … cap on campaign spending…
  
  This would be paid via your employer or atm machine ...

  $5 is stupid. I'd rather it be $1,000 so people have to think about things other whether someone is a D or R since every vote is so expensive.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511419 wrote:Why bother? I posed a simple question, one that contains no ever changing hypotheticals, and you have not provided a response. Why do you support a country where stupid people are allowed to make decisions? You are not interested in rational debate, you are interested in cliche bullshit that you read on CNN. Come talk to me when you want to debate like an adult and think for yourself.

  You're the one talking about limiting people from voting based on an arbitrary definition of who is and isn't smart enough to vote. Your opinion on thinking and acting like an adult carries no weight.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1511422 wrote:You're the one talking about limiting people from voting based on an arbitrary definition of who is and isn't smart enough to vote. Your opinion on thinking and acting like an adult carries no weight.

  They are only arbitrary because the idea is new and thus needs more time to vet. I'm open to any discussion on how to determine the intelligence of an individual but I find it interesting you give up and say "Nope, need to let the stupids vote because we can't figure out a way to see who is stupid". Still haven't provided a response on why you want stupid people making decisions on the future of the country. I think you are mostly worried that you will be unable to vote given almost any criteria lol. Don't worry, just say you like it up the butt and they will lower the standards for you! : thumbup:
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I like the idea of needing to be working, or at least actively (ACTIVELY) seeking employment, in order to vote.
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;1511429 wrote:I like the idea of needing to be working, or at least actively (ACTIVELY) seeking employment, in order to vote.

  It's already a requirement of welfare to be actively seeking a job. However, the way it actually works is people apply for jobs they have no chance of getting or they are very open that they want a salary that's always ridiculously well above what the market is paying. I think people on welfare should have to 'work' even if it means digging ditches and filling them back up.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1511425 wrote:They are only arbitrary because the idea is new and thus needs more time to vet. I'm open to any discussion on how to determine the intelligence of an individual but I find it interesting you give up and say "Nope, need to let the stupids vote because we can't figure out a way to see who is stupid". Still haven't provided a response on why you want stupid people making decisions on the future of the country. I think you are mostly worried that you will be unable to vote given almost any criteria lol. Don't worry, just say you like it up the butt and they will lower the standards for you! : thumbup:

  You aren't even a good troll.
• Me?

  

  I Wear Pants;1511331 wrote:This is dumber than what Belly said.

  Is it really? Or do you just think that "everyone should have a say"? While I tend to agree with that line of thinking, the problem we are now facing is the dependent class of people is growing. They will continue to vote for politicians who will give them free stuff, it's a pretty simple concept. They aren't putting into the coffers, but they get to decide what comes out of them. I don't care what side you stand on, it's wrong to force productive citizens to subsidize the life of people who just won't do anything.
• Me?

  

  In most places you don't even need an ID to VOTE, but you do to buy cigarettes or beer. We should AT LEAST be able to agree that THAT is insanity.