Is it time for this... change

• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1511425 wrote:... Still haven't provided a response on why you want stupid people making decisions on the future of the country. ...

  ...because it's their country to screw up as much as it is yours.
• Me?

  

  For the record, I'm not advocating an intelligence test for voting. But proof of employment, I could go for.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1511910 wrote:...because it's their country to screw up as much as it is yours.

  It's a sad state of affairs when someone provides a solution to prevent screwing up the country and then is told that its simply their right to screw up the country. Shame on your Con_Alma.
• Belly35

  

  ding ding ding ... Solution: If you can legal be a gun owner in your state you can vote....
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Spelling test in order to vote.
• Belly35

  

  ernest_t_bass;1512224 wrote:Spelling test in order to vote.

  . No need for spelling, just a punch
• gut

  For starters, do away with the "D" or "R" designation on ballets.
  
  Second, a voter disenfranchises a particular "choice" if they cannot select one of the two actual candidates from a list that includes several fakes. If you don't even know who is running, your vote should not count.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Belly35;1512412 wrote:. No need for spelling, just a punch

  You are so fucking retarded. "gun owners, mo-fo. But me know not kneed to speel."
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1511983 wrote:It's a sad state of affairs when someone provides a solution to prevent screwing up the country and then is told that its simply their right to screw up the country. Shame on your Con_Alma.

  
  It may be sad but it's reality. What you think is a solution may be in opposition to what they think is a solution. Their thoughts are as equally weighted as yours.
• Devils Advocate

  

  The Sleeper Litmus Test for Qualified Voting
  
  
  1. Do you have a job If you Answerd yes, Go to Question 2. If you answered NO Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2. Do you believe in GOD? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 3. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  3. Are You a Democrat or have Liberal leanings? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 4. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  4. ... .... .....
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512534 wrote:It may be sad but it's reality. What you think is a solution may be in opposition to what they think is a solution. Their thoughts are as equally weighted as yours.

  So a PHD in economics opinion should be equally weighted with someone like BoatShoes on economic topics? I hope that's not what you are implying...
• sleeper

  

  Devils Advocate;1512604 wrote:The Sleeper Litmus Test for Qualified Voting
  
  
  1. Do you have a job If you Answerd yes, Go to Question 2. If you answered NO Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2. Do you believe in GOD? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 3. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  3. Are You a Democrat or have Liberal leanings? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 4. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
  
  
  4. ... .... .....

  The 1st question is relevant the other two are not. However, a belief in god would signal mental and potentially intellectual weakness and therefore question 1 would 9 times out of 10 solve that problem.
• Con_Alma

  With regards to the right to vote, it's not what I'm implying, it's a fact.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512614 wrote:With regards to the right to vote, it's not what I'm implying, it's a fact.

  However if one can demonstrate via a test that they are qualified by a bi-partisan standard, wouldn't you prefer them to have their opinion elevated above others? Why are you content with the status quo?
• Con_Alma

  I would not rather have on person's opinion elevated over another's ...no matter their partisanship. Why would you assume I am content with the status quo? Is it because I pointed out the current civil rights laws don't support your solution?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512627 wrote:I would not rather have on person's opinion elevated over another's ...no matter their partisanship. Why would you assume I am content with the status quo? Is it because I pointed out the current civil rights laws don't support your solution?

  Perhaps because I'm trying to change the status quo with my solution. If we allow intelligent people to make decisions and punish those who are either lazy and/or stupid, then we create an environment where there is either A) an incentive to become intelligent and be a productive member of society or B) all those who are productive and have demonstrated intelligence the ability to control the future of the country.
  
  I don't see how any rational person would think this is a bad idea. :huh:
• Con_Alma

  I appreciate you acknowledging your inability to see any other rational solutions.
  
  Our form of government was created in such a way that permits the people to design the type of society they collectively want. Those people include the non-"productive" and non-"intelligent". That collective desire may in fact not be that which you or I might desire individually. You'll need a broader and deeper solution than voting qualifications. The judicial branch would most likely not rule in your favor.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512635 wrote:I appreciate you acknowledging your inability to see any other rational solutions.
  
  Our form of government was created in such a way that permits the people to design the type of society they collectively want. Those people include the non-"productive" and non-"intelligent". That collective desire may in fact not be that which you or I might desire individually. You'll need a broader and deeper solution than voting qualifications. The judicial branch would most likely not rule in your favor.

  Hence why I'm proposing a solution to the problem. Not sure why you are unable to grasp such a simple concept Con_Alma; this isn't a dictatorship.
• BoatShoes

  sleeper;1512609 wrote:So a PHD in economics opinion should be equally weighted with someone like BoatShoes on economic topics? I hope that's not what you are implying...

  Grade A trolling. : thumbup: Good to have you back.
• Con_Alma

  I understand your proposal and am telling you it won't work. The reason it won't work is because it has no chance of being put into place without a much greater proposal being much broader and deeper completely changing our entire government. Without it such a "solution" each man, no matter his intelligence or productivity is equal.
  
  Maybe it's the simplicity of your proposal that has it doomed to fail.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512682 wrote:I understand your proposal and am telling you it won't work. The reason it won't work is because it has no chance of being put into place without a much greater proposal being much broader and deeper completely changing our entire government. Without it such a "solution" each man, no matter his intelligence or productivity is equal.
  
  Maybe it's the simplicity of your proposal that has it doomed to fail.

  Unfortunately I have to keep it simple in order for the stupids to understand it. I think my proposal would pass if it was tied to a bill that gave anyone who voted for it a free iPhone 5c. I'm unsure why you think its not possible; please learn to think outside the box Con_Alma.
• LJ

  

  It's a right to vote and you are just creating more classes, like the British, when trying to do something like this. I'm against anything other than just proving you are who you are say you are when you go to vote.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1512707 wrote:Unfortunately I have to keep it simple in order for the stupids to understand it. I think my proposal would pass if it was tied to a bill that gave anyone who voted for it a free iPhone 5c. I'm unsure why you think its not possible; please learn to think outside the box Con_Alma.

  
  What do you mean by it would pass? It's a civil right ruled on by the judicial branch....thus the reason for my comments with regards your proposal would have to be much broader and deeper...for it would require ridding the ability of such legal rulings by a branch like the courts. That's "outside the box".
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1512747 wrote:What do you mean by it would pass? It's a civil right ruled on by the judicial branch....thus the reason for my comments with regards your proposal would have to be much broader and deeper...for it would require ridding the ability of such legal rulings by a branch like the courts. That's "outside the box".

  Con_Alma, I'm willing to work with you or anyone in order to get the job done. By it would pass, I mean a new constitutional amendment banning stupid people and those without a job from voting. This would pass if we gave people free iPhones in exchange(which judging by how Obama won, it would be a landslide).
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1512750 wrote:Con_Alma, I'm willing to work with you or anyone in order to get the job done. By it would pass, I mean a new constitutional amendment banning stupid people and those without a job from voting. This would pass if we gave people free iPhones in exchange(which judging by how Obama won, it would be a landslide).

  You think giving free phones to people would convince representatives to pass such a bill? I disagree.
  
  In addition, the judical branch has no reason to pander for such votes. I disagree that such a bill would be deemed acceptable. Your suggestion is too simple.
  
  P.S. It'a not me you need to work with no matter if you're willing or not.