|
|
Post by marktaggart on Nov 10, 2012 13:33:29 GMT -5
Can't prove a negative and all of that. I don't believe you. Prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 13:40:14 GMT -5
Also, there's a happy medium between the Huffington Post and New York Times and the sites I'm talking about, and that includes the Examiner. The first two are at least willing to publish opposing viewpoints. The Examiner and Freeper sites are explicitly designed to push the conservative and only the conservative agenda.
I don't need the NYT or Huffington Post. Christ, I asked for an in-depth news story from Fox News--that would get my attention and certainly would be something they'd jump all over both on the website and on television. Show me something in a paper like the Columbus Dispatch, which I can assure you is a right-leaning newspaper. Show me something in the Wall Street Journal. Evidently, from looking at their homepage, Fox feels that the Petraeus resignation, the remaining too close to call races, and an upcoming storm are bigger deals than an apparently stolen election, and you can't blame that on the Liberal Media.
I'm not opposed to non-mainstream sources, but yes, I am going to reflexively dismiss sources that have already decided before the election what their agenda was going to be.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan once said. Anecdotes and vague, non-corroborated stories don't qualify.
I don't expect somebody to knock on my door and say "I cheated," but I would expect someone to come out and admit to it in public if they did, sooner or later (and this "Black Panthers running off voters" stuff was going on in '08, too). This is why I can't buy into most conspiracy theories and think Jesse Ventura is a loon--once you involve more than one person, the concept of keeping a secret is out the window. Even over the course of 12 years, I can't believe the same Party that couldn't keep a blowjob secret would be able to suppress this. If anything, it would have been easier back then when the Internet and social media weren't close to what they are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 13:43:40 GMT -5
Can't prove a negative and all of that. I don't believe you. Prove it. That's cute, but it's a longstanding legal maxim ("unfair burden") and philosophically the concept goes back to a guy named Aristotle. |
|
|
|
Post by Demosthenes on Nov 10, 2012 14:06:40 GMT -5
I truly believe there should be a test before you vote. You should be able to distinguish the basic platform of the person you are voting for compared to the opponent(s). Voting is a fundamental right, not a fundamental right for people that Demosthenes thinks are smart enough. I personally believe that voting is not a right. If it was a right, it could never be taken away. But that is neither here nor there. The 15 Amendment prohibits the elimination of the right of any citizen to vote based on color or race. While this Amendment was a direct action against "literacy" tests, this act does not prohibit tests on knowledge of the issues. Are you claiming that a majority of minorities (one of which I am), are not "smart enough" to pass tests that a majority of caucasians can pass? How are any tests not deliberately catered to serve a testmaker? Simple, they are derived from fact. Here are some simple basic questions that represent FACT that could have be used to determine if a citizen should be allowed to vote: 1. What does the judicial branch do? a) resolves disputes b) decides if a law goes against the Constitution c) reviews laws d) all of these answers 2. Name one branch or part of the government. a) United Nations b) parliament c) state government d) legislative 3. Who does a U.S. Senator represent? a) all people of the state b) the state legislatures c) only the people in the state who voted for the Senator d) all people of the state who belong to the Senator's political party 4. What is the highest court in the United States? a) the Supreme Court b) the Court of Appeals c) the District Court d) the Federal Court 5. If the President can no longer serve, who becomes President? a) the President Pro Tempore b) the Secretary of State c) the Vice President d) the Speaker of the House 6. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? a) checks and balances b) the President c) the people d) freedom of speech That is a sample of simple questions that I believe all people need to answer correctly before being allowed to vote. In fact, the US government believes with me as these questions are sample questions taken from the US Naturalization Test. If people who are born outside of the United States have to take this test to be allowed to vote, why shouldn't people who live here? Of course, I would have additional questions relevant to specific elections, but they would still be basic. Example would be: 1. Which candidates is in the top 1% of the wealthies Americans? a) Obama b) Romney c) Both d) Neither 2. Which candidate graduated from Harvard Law School? a) Obama b) Romney c) Both d) Neither 3. Which candidate is a Democrat? a) Obama b) Romney c) Both d) Neither 4. Which candidate served in the US military? a) Obama b) Romney c) Both d) Neither 5. Which candidate has promised same-sex marriage will be legal if he/she is elected President? a) Obama b) Romney c) Both d) Neither These are basic quesitons that all votes should answer a minimum of 80% correct. And are all based on fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 14:28:44 GMT -5
While this Amendment was a direct action against "literacy" tests, this act does not prohibit tests on knowledge of the issues. Are you claiming that a majority of minorities (one of which I am), are not "smart enough" to pass tests that a majority of caucasians can pass? No, I'm claiming that such tests are still inherently biased against people whose first language may not be English (and there is no official language of the U.S. and thus no requisite at all to learn it or learn it fluently). I'm claiming that such tests open the door for districts to make up their own criteria for grading them. For example, if a black person actually DID pass a literacy test in the days they existed, a pollster could (and did) make up something on the spot like how the test requires one to read at something like 80 wpm and the testee in question didn't meet that. The Voting Rights Act explicitly states that it doesn't matter if a test is INTENDED to be biased. As long as bias exists, such a test is unconstitutional. I hate the fact that public schools are so proficiency test-driven as they are now. Adding that to voting would make things exponentially worse. See? We're already getting vague. "State government" is a part of the government--it's a correct answer to the question as it's written. The question needs to be "name one of the three federal branches of the government." Actually A and D are both correct. See? This isn't as easy as it sounds. Well, you're moving the goalposts somewhat on the goal of the Naturalization Test. The goal is citizenship--voting registration is a wholly separate process. I am completely lost as to what relevance knowing this has to do with making a choice. I'd rather know each guy's policies and platforms, not how much money they made. The answer to that is "a lot" and that's all that matters--asking whether or not either is part of the 1% is pointless. You have to answer a question that the BALLOT answers for you? You can claim that you don't believe voting is a right all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees. "Voting is a right" is a fact, not subject to the belief or disbelief of anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Demosthenes on Nov 10, 2012 14:32:09 GMT -5
. THE WHOLE ELECTION AND VOTING PROCESS IN THIS COUNTRY IS FLAWED. This is not a left/right issue (as I don't ascribe to either of the two party/one party mindset). This is a right/wrong issue. Third party voices are shut out entirely and the two major cartels control the show. Could not agree more! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 14:34:16 GMT -5
I may come around on the civics test idea if one of the questions can be "What country was Obama born in?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 10, 2012 14:40:43 GMT -5
The answer to solve the problem of an uninformed electorate is to better education--you know, the source. The problem of low voter turnout is not solved by making it harder to vote.
What is the SPECIFIC connection between knowing the 3 branches of government and being informed on the issues of this particular election? Or do we change the test to a quiz on the stances of Obama and Romney (or whoever is running for governor of your particular state)? At that point all comparisons to the Naturalization Test are null and void.
I agree that everyone should be able to answer the 3 branches of federal gov't in two seconds. But even if you can, does that tell you the view of Obama or Romney on foreign policy? Or taxes? Or education? Not in the slightest. Which is more important for a specific election?
At some point you have to trust the voters to be able to educate themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by marktaggart on Nov 10, 2012 14:55:11 GMT -5
I don't believe you. Prove it. That's cute, but it's a longstanding legal maxim ("unfair burden") and philosophically the concept goes back to a guy named Aristotle. The law is no excuse for ignorance. Everybody knows Aristotle conspired with the black lodge to hide the existence of Nibiru from the adepts of the original OTO. |
|
|
|
Post by Demosthenes on Nov 10, 2012 14:57:00 GMT -5
While this Amendment was a direct action against "literacy" tests, this act does not prohibit tests on knowledge of the issues. Are you claiming that a majority of minorities (one of which I am), are not "smart enough" to pass tests that a majority of caucasians can pass? No, I'm claiming that such tests are still inherently biased against people whose first language may not be English (and there is no official language of the U.S. and thus no requisite at all to learn it or learn it fluently). I'm claiming that such tests open the door for districts to make up their own criteria for grading them. For example, if a black person actually DID pass a literacy test in the days they existed, a pollster could (and did) make up something on the spot like how the test requires one to read at something like 80 wpm and the testee in question didn't meet that. The Voting Rights Act explicitly states that it doesn't matter if a test is INTENDED to be biased. As long as bias exists, such a test is unconstitutional. I hate the fact that public schools are so proficiency test-driven as they are now. Adding that to voting would make things exponentially worse. See? We're already getting vague. "State government" is a part of the government--it's a correct answer to the question as it's written. The question needs to be "name one of the three federal branches of the government." Actually A and D are both correct. See? This isn't as easy as it sounds. Well, you're moving the goalposts somewhat on the goal of the Naturalization Test. The goal is citizenship--voting registration is a wholly separate process. I am completely lost as to what relevance knowing this has to do with making a choice. I'd rather know each guy's policies and platforms, not how much money they made. The answer to that is "a lot" and that's all that matters--asking whether or not either is part of the 1% is pointless. You have to answer a question that the BALLOT answers for you? You can claim that you don't believe voting is a right all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees. "Voting is a right" is a fact, not subject to the belief or disbelief of anyone. At no point did I ever say the test needed to be in English. Last time I looked, a naturalized citizen can vote. Therefore, the questions, taken from the naturalization test, are relevant. Farlex defines a human right as, "any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere." Ask any person outlawed to vote if voting is a right or a privilege. Again, how is this test biased? Are you saying, inherently, that minorities are inferior to whites? Are poor people not smart enough to pass a basic test just because they are poor? I grew up very poor, with a single mother, in a minority neighboorhood. I am disgusted by people (white, black, green, orange) who feel they need to "protect" poor minorities. I am disguested by affirmative action in this day and age. Essentially, it is saying I am not good enough to get a job or get into a college unless you take my skin color into consideration. It was important in the 60's and 70's, but not any more. What disgusted me most this election period was all the racism I saw. Grewing up, I felt and experience racism. But that racism came from the older generation. When I saw racism this eleciton period, it came mostly from the younger generation. That is what scares and angers me. And thinking that minorities need to be "protected" is just their further justification that we are inferior to white people. |
|
