• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Texas Voter-Identification Law Is Blocked by Justice Department as Biased

Doubtful to be sure. Both sides would suffer as there are large voting blocks on both sides that vote for their particular brand no matter what the issues. Remember, there are people that voted for Bush twice and there are those that will vote for Obama again.

Over 75% of voters would be kicked off if something like Tigger suggested was put into place.
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.
 
Doubtful to be sure. Both sides would suffer as there are large voting blocks on both sides that vote for their particular brand no matter what the issues. Remember, there are people that voted for Bush twice and there are those that will vote for Obama again.

Over 75% of voters would be kicked off if something like Tigger suggested was put into place.

It would, however, remove Sarah Palin from any list of potential Presidential Candidates. She's smart enough, but more than half of her support would be ineligible to vote.
 
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.

Can you actually document this with evidence or are we about to go down the "Republicans are smarter than Democrats, I should know because I'm smart and I'm a Republican" road again?
 
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.

I don't see why, many that have college degrees have higher IQs usually and that falls on the left. The right, if you were to go by IQ alone, would suffer more.

I was referring more to the competency test Tigger suggested where you would have to know the candidates positions for a legitimacy test.

However, your partisan rhetoric is on par for conservatives cause you sure aren't a libertarian.
 
It would, however, remove Sarah Palin from any list of potential Presidential Candidates. She's smart enough, but more than half of her support would be ineligible to vote.


Like I said to Meathead I was referring mainly to Tigger's suggestion where voters would have to pass a competency test about knowing what the candidates positions are. In that respect, both sides would suffer heavily in that regard.
 
Can you actually document this with evidence or are we about to go down the "Republicans are smarter than Democrats, I should know because I'm smart and I'm a Republican" road again?
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.
 
If you vetted those functionally illiterate and so on, it would be far worse for the Democrats than photo id, that's for sure. Obama would not have a prayer.

Delude yourself anyway you'd like facts are facts.
 
Perhaps, but with the disenfranchisement of certain groups for minimal competency reasons, it is certainly reasonable to assume that Obama's camp would suffer far worse. If you were to factor in IQ as someone suggested, it would be a done deal.

Didn't you hear what Santorum said, "College's are indoctrination mills and are for snobs"...the GOP wants to keep their sheep stupid so they believe anything...
 
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.

Yes, and that all pooints to those with degrees and that is more on the left than right. Carry on the partisanship rhetoric though conservative.
 
As much as I am sure you would be a hoot to drink with, I am very glad that you are in no position of power to even remotely make your style of voting come true.

Not really. I don't drink alcohol. I find most of it to taste awful and its effects on the body are not something I care to encourage, thank you very much.

Why would you be so against the idea of actually requiring people to be competent in order to vote? Would you hire a general contractor who didn't know anything about construction? Would you go to a surgeon who has no idea how to perform the operation you need?


Can you imagine how civil rights groups would respond to a competency requirement?

Can you imagine that I give a crap what a bunch of civil libertarians think, period? NOPE.


Since the average IQ in Connecticut is 100.6 and ranks 7th in the US what are you trying to say. Ten of the bottom 14 states are red. What are you saying? The top seven in IQ ranking are blue.

It's not about IQ, katie. I grew up in Connecticut. I was at the 1990 election when the hue and cry went up that the "party lever" had been removed from the voting booths. These people had NO ****ING CLUE who or what they were voting for, except that there was a "D" after their names. Having lived in Massachusetts for the last decade and a half, I see the same thing up here. American Voters in general, appear to me to be amongst the LEAST compentent, educated (on their task), and/or informed people in the world. That's a problem in my mind.
 
Didn't you hear what Santorum said, "College's are indoctrination mills and are for snobs"...the GOP wants to keep their sheep stupid so they believe anything...

Yep, and my system clears those people out of the voting pool as well. Both the willfully ignorant and the unintentionally ignorant would be carved out of the system entirely.
 
Yep, and my system clears those people out of the voting pool as well. Both the willfully ignorant and the unintentionally ignorant would be carved out of the system entirely.

no offense, but no one cares about your system, the one we have now is sufficient...no one understands why the right feels the need to change it...
 
Didn't you hear what Santorum said, "College's are indoctrination mills and are for snobs"...the GOP wants to keep their sheep stupid so they believe anything...

No, he's just trying to appear more populist than anybody else. So he's trying to paint Romney as "the rich guy" and Gingrich as the "intellectual" who are both out of touch. Ironically, Santorum actually has a few degrees, so it's not like he didn't get plenty of schooling.

(His characterizations of Romney as rich and Gingrich as intellectual are fairly accurate, BTW)
 
It's a simple academic matter of demographics, voter patterns and studies on intelligence.

Here is the proof state votes in 2004 according to IQ.
State Avg. IQ 2004
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Now tell me again that the Republicans are more intelligent.
 
Why would you be so against the idea of actually requiring people to be competent in order to vote? Would you hire a general contractor who didn't know anything about construction? Would you go to a surgeon who has no idea how to perform the operation you need?

Because in your system, I don't think it would really help because it doesn't weed out the REAL problem and that is partisanship. People can know about the candidates and STILL choose to vote for one based solely on partisanship.

Partisinship does not equal competancy.
 
Yep, and my system clears those people out of the voting pool as well. Both the willfully ignorant and the unintentionally ignorant would be carved out of the system entirely.
Kinda like electoral eugenics.
 
no offense, but no one cares about your system, the one we have now is sufficient...no one understands why the right feels the need to change it...

That's fine Jason because there's nobody here that I give enough of a **** about to care whether they care or not. The system currently in place is NOT sufficient. It has led us to a century and a half of decline and has us on the precipice of a fall from which this nation cannot and will not survive. There was a reason the Founders LIMITED who had the right to vote. We've totally ignored that reasoning in the last century, and it may soon be our downfall.
 
No, he's just trying to appear more populist than anybody else. So he's trying to paint Romney as "the rich guy" and Gingrich as the "intellectual" who are both out of touch. Ironically, Santorum actually has a few degrees, so it's not like he didn't get plenty of schooling.

(His characterizations of Romney as rich and Gingrich as intellectual are fairly accurate, BTW)

yeah, so is his wife...yet he chooses to keep his kids at home and home school them...he made a statement that is very telling...he said that 60% of students who have a strong faith entering college come out questioning that faith...I wonder why? He doesn't want you to think on your own...he wants to tell you what to believe...that guy is dangerous!!!
 
That's fine Jason because there's nobody here that I give enough of a **** about to care whether they care or not. The system currently in place is NOT sufficient. It has led us to a century and a half of decline and has us on the precipice of a fall from which this nation cannot and will not survive. There was a reason the Founders LIMITED who had the right to vote. We've totally ignored that reasoning in the last century, and it may soon be our downfall.

a century and a half of decline? we have been far more prosperous and powerful as a nation over the last 150 years than the time before that...

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk. My YP-G1 is a very nice device that hardly ever explodes or shoots jets of burning acid at my face. Samsung has done a good job in that respect in building it. However one has to consider hamsters in regard to android as cyborg hamsters are very cool. Imagine how fast an Android hamster could run in their exercise wheel for example.
 
That's fine Jason because there's nobody here that I give enough of a **** about to care whether they care or not. The system currently in place is NOT sufficient. It has led us to a century and a half of decline and has us on the precipice of a fall from which this nation cannot and will not survive. There was a reason the Founders LIMITED who had the right to vote. We've totally ignored that reasoning in the last century, and it may soon be our downfall.

oh no, the sky is falling!!! AGAIN!!!!

go spread your alarmist propaganda elsewhere....sheesh!!!
 
Because in your system, I don't think it would really help because it doesn't weed out the REAL problem and that is partisanship. People can know about the candidates and STILL choose to vote for one based solely on partisanship.

Partisinship does not equal competancy.

People deserve the government they choose, TNE. If an individual chooses to vote purely for one party, that's their choice and more power to them. What I want to make sure is that they at least know who and what it is they are voting for. Then, when they stand in front of their Maker on the Judgement Day, there can be no question that they knowingly and willingly ignored Right to vote for Wrong and may the Gods and Goddesses have not the least bit of Mercy on their filthy, disgusting Souls.

For example.... I live in Massachusetts, home of some of the most vitriolic anti-gun legislators in the entire country. Almost all of them are members of the Democratic Party. Yet, when the gun owners and hunters of this state go to the polls they almost always re-elect these people by a wide margin. In large part because they buy into the rhetoric of the candidate rather than looking at their voting record. I can't tell you how many of these people, when faced with the written proof are dumbfounded.... "But HE TOLD ME he wouldn't...."


Kinda like electoral eugenics.

Very much so, Meathead.
 
People deserve the government they choose, TNE. If an individual chooses to vote purely for one party, that's their choice and more power to them. What I want to make sure is that they at least know who and what it is they are voting for. Then, when they stand in front of their Maker on the Judgement Day, there can be no question that they knowingly and willingly ignored Right to vote for Wrong and may the Gods and Goddesses have not the least bit of Mercy on their filthy, disgusting Souls.

For example.... I live in Massachusetts, home of some of the most vitriolic anti-gun legislators in the entire country. Almost all of them are members of the Democratic Party. Yet, when the gun owners and hunters of this state go to the polls they almost always re-elect these people by a wide margin. In large part because they buy into the rhetoric of the candidate rather than looking at their voting record. I can't tell you how many of these people, when faced with the written proof are dumbfounded.... "But HE TOLD ME he wouldn't...."

and that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve the problem. The only thing it does is satisfy your "When they meet their maker" rhetoric which I don't buy or agree with. It solves nothing in the real world.

Sorry, but in this case I am definitely going to have to disagree with you because you said you wanted competency and this doesn't provide that.

If you were really interested in competency you would have to find a way around partisinship.
 
Last edited:
a century and a half of decline? we have been far more prosperous and powerful as a nation over the last 150 years than the time before that....

Success without Values is nothing worth bragging about mega.
 
Is the topic voter id laws or voter competency and partisan bickering?
 
and that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve the problem. The only thing it does is satisfy your "When they meet their maker" rhetoric which I don't buy or agree with. It solves nothing in the real world.

Sorry, but in this case I am definitely going to have to disagree with you because you said you wanted competency and this doesn't provide that.

If you were really interested in competency you would have to find a way around partisinship.

That's fine, TNE. The next moment I seek your agreement or opinion on anything will be the first, so it's not an issue I'm concerned with.

Competency simply means that one knows and understands what one is doing. It doesn't require you to make the Right choice, only an informed one. The only way to take Partisanship out of politics is to remove all political parties and political action committees from the equation entirely. I am 100% in favor of such a move, but we both know it will never happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom