Political Therapy

[Photekq]

Because politics has derailed many threads in the past. Vent about your country going down the toilet, ask questions, express opinions, whatever.

My University is entirely apathetic when it comes to politics.

We're bombing Syria now.

I'm disillusioned when it comes to my generation's political ideals.

Woe is me.

[kurplop]

Thanks for starting this. When I'm in the mood , I'll be back to rant.

[HoffmanMyster]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

[baldgye]

Labour have helped destroy politics in this country.

I'm not pro any party (bar the Monster Raving Luney Party) but Labor being totally weak and inept has made the Torys too strong, and David and his cronies can go about ****ing things up with little to no resistance. On top of that we have the moronic SNP to deal with who's only political agenda is '**** the English' which is a very mature approach for a country with so much power relative to its tiny population and for one that has benefitted monumentally from being apart of the U.K.

Oh yeah and then there is the whole '**** the EU' **** to deal with. You know when you have kids who argue and fight all the time, you tell them to grow up and make friends, why the **** our political elite can't do the same is a sad and pathetic reflection of the sad world we live in.

[HoffmanMyster]

Labour have helped destroy politics in this country.

I'm not pro any party (bar the Monster Raving Luney Party) but Labor being totally weak and inept has made the Torys too strong, and David and his cronies can go about ****ing things up with little to no resistance. On top of that we have the moronic SNP to deal with who's only political agenda is '**** the English' which is a very mature approach for a country with so much power relative to its tiny population and for one that has benefitted monumentally from being apart of the U.K.

Oh yeah and then there is the whole '**** the EU' **** to deal with. You know when you have kids who argue and fight all the time, you tell them to grow up and make friends, why the **** our political elite can't do the same is a sad and pathetic reflection of the sad world we live in.

Amazingly, I understood some of that.  Thank you British panel shows! 

[Photekq]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

We live in a historical world. In this historical world opinions and ideologies must fall victim to mortality just as everything else does. I'm of the opinion (yes, probably not forever) that we must all just act according to what we currently see as the truth, and also must attempt to develop what is currently true for us; choosing to talk about your current views and choosing to just absorb information are both equally fair things to do. Do whichever you currently see as the best thing to do.

[HoffmanMyster]

Here's my input:

In my short time as a human with thoughts and feelings, I have grown and changed enough that my political and world views have also changed quite drastically.  What's to say that my current "best opinion" is any more right than a previous one, or a future one?  It's so heavily influenced by recent experiences and other contextual factors that it almost seems fruitless to make sweeping claims about politics.  So I just sit here gathering experience and attempting to make some sense of it all.  I've given up on trying to "debate" in a point-proving sense, and have decided instead to absorb information and experiences from others.

So in summary - I have nothing to say here.

We live in a historical world. In this historical world opinions and ideologies must fall victim to mortality just as everything else does. I'm of the opinion (yes, probably not forever) that we must all just act according to what we currently see as the truth, and also must attempt to develop what is currently true for us; choosing to talk about your current views and choosing to just absorb information are both equally fair things to do. Do whichever you currently see as the best thing to do.

Fair enough.  I should clarify that I don't never discuss politics, it's just something that I've consciously done less of over the years.  I used to be very opinionated and discuss politics all the time, but have cut back due to the reasons in my original post. 

And I do vote and have a "political opinion".    Just am less outward with it. 

I'm happy to share my views though, I didn't mean to come off as mysterious in the first post.

[fohat.digs]

We're bombing Syria now.

Although I am a bleeding-heart flower-carrying pacifist, against war 99% of the time, believe that the Afghanistan war was marginal at best, acceptable only because the UN sanctioned it, and believe that the Iraq war was 100% egregious and unconscionable, an inexcusable crime against humanity perpetrated by some of the most despicable humans on the planet (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush Jr, Rumsfeld, etc) .....

ISIS is even worse and nothing short of total war and obliteration and ignominy in the eyes of the world can, or will, prevent their rise in the future.

But the "moderate" Muslims of the world will never truly get behind the effort until Israel ends its horrific occupation of the Palestinian territories.

[Spopepro]

I read something recently.  It was about a country damaged by a disastrous economy and frightened by advancement of other countries' interests near their border.  They would invade a peninsula of a neighboring country.  The official reason given was that they had an obligation to protect their own citizens that were in the area and in danger.  They would win control of the area, and proclaim not to occupy, but of course the government propped up was a puppet.  They would then participate in proxy fights between revolutionary forces, established governments, and other groups in near by countries as the military and nationalist war-hawks crowded out the democratic portions of the government.


Russia in the Crimea? 



No... this was Showa Japan in the 1930s invading Manchuria and expanding into China.  Anyone remember what happened next?

[billnye]

[swimmingbird]

Be weary when you're young - I've made so many dramatic changes from left to right to left to right that I still don't know what side I align with

Ironically in college I became quite right/libertarian leaning and I became somewhat left leaning when I started working professionally which is the complete opposite of what I thought would happen to a person

[kurplop]

I heard some lyrics to a song recently that I thought summed it up pretty well.

   The more I learn, the more I learn how little that I know,
   But I'm close to understanding, just how far I have to go.
   We give our hearts, we take our chances,
     And no, the fool ain't the one with all the questions,
   To tell the truth, it's someone who, believes he has the answers.

Finally, validation for the frequent vacillating, or maybe refining, of my position.
Most people who claim absolute certainty about a matter are typically wrong. It's tends to be a sign of myopic or selective thinking.
 Remember the Scarecrow?  He thought he was brainless and he turned out to be quite wise.

I once heard a quote that was attributed to Clint Eastwood. I assume it was from a movie, but it went something like this.  "If you go far enough to the Right, or far enough to the Left, you'll find the same bunch of a******s."     Probably not true in all  cases but a pretty good generalization, don't you think?

[tp4tissue]

Politics is the same as anything else..


Make Money,,  then Buy the one you like...

[fohat.digs]

right/libertarian leaning

This recent conceptual twist has always perplexed me.

Somehow, or perhaps inevitably, the *popularly espoused* libertarian ideals of "freedom of thought" have shifted (at least in the US) with the money to try to somehow equate libertarian-ism with "no taxes on the wealthy" and unrestricted weapon ownership.

Personally, I see the left as the ideology that encourages freedom of thought and life and the right as the side that restricts it.

And, my own trajectory is to have been raised as a deeply religious Presbyterian Republican but to have arced at an ever-increasing rate towards agnosticism and the political left as I have progressed through life. And yes, that is not the common course.

[swimmingbird]

right/libertarian leaning

This recent conceptual twist has always perplexed me.

Somehow, or perhaps inevitably, the *popularly espoused* libertarian ideals of "freedom of thought" have shifted (at least in the US) with the money to try to somehow equate libertarian-ism with "no taxes on the wealthy" and unrestricted weapon ownership.

Personally, I see the left as the ideology that encourages freedom of thought and life and the right as the side that restricts it.

And, my own trajectory is to have been raised as a deeply religious Presbyterian Republican but to have arced at an ever-increasing rate towards agnosticism and the political left as I have progressed through life. And yes, that is not the common course.

In all the contexts that I have seen it seems that libertarianism is used to describe a system of low government intervention in markets, low taxes and yes low restrictions on firearms ownership

It's hard to say where fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, assembly fall on the political spectrum - both the left and right have become incredibly regressive on both though

[fohat.digs]

both the left and right have become incredibly regressive on both though

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

How can a rational person say that the "fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, assembly" have been treated similarly by both sides?

[azhdar]

In France at the moment politics is a huge joke, only imbeciles subjected to capital are in big political position.


We had elected sarkozy in 2007, in 5years he sold a ton of French heritage (buildings, highways ... ) to outsiders (Emirates and China mainly) to get a small part of this money "under the table".





So people wanted to vote against him and voted for the opposite party, which was lead by Dominique strauss-kahn at the time who was president of the International Monetary Fund before attempting to become president. He got caught in a hotel raping the maid below. I'll let you judge how "rape-worthy" she is...



So people voted for the second sarkozy opponent on the line : Hollande who is a clown and his qualities are : not being Sarkozy, not caught in a "weird" rape incident. His popularity got down to 20% and below since he's a mollusc and has its elocution. Interesting to point out that his popularity only goes up when big incidents (Charlie & Pray for Paris) happen , conspiracy theorists love it, as it's always before big elections ...


So now that people have tried both left & right wing, they intend to vote for Marine Le Pen that is the far right and goes on a very protectionist campaign. Now that she's on top of the polls, every other politic agree that she's pretty much hitler and they want to unite against her.


Also right wing primary got rigged so the main candidate left to make his own party, Sarkozy is trying to make a rerun.
Hollande and his ministers go to the annual dinner of the CRIF and our president bows down to the CRIF's president calling him "dear president". Our prime ministery that isn't born French has said in interview that he's more attached to Israël than France. Every single one of our presidents since De Gaulle  (1965) has been dragged to court  right after their President immunity was gone . And so many other dirty things I'm forgetting.

So to make it simple, politics here are betraying friends, only to get big in politics and cash out. Long live democracy ...

______________________

On a personnal level, I still trust democracy but most of the countries under democracy are closer to an Oligarchy model.
I'm a firm believer of National-Socialism, and protectionism. Leaving the European Union would be the smartest thing France could do right now, integrating so many poop eastern country was a huge mistake.

[henz]

id consider myself a liberal scientific political person and are today really unhappy with my country's politics. I put emphasis in integrity, knowledge and culture. I am of the opinion that the government should not be  watching over people in any forms(internet,phones, cameras etc). Local politicians which are not held accountable when wasting tax payers money. The school system sucks balls, setting the standard on the people which are the worst in the class ie not giving any homework because not everyone is fortunate enough to have parents who can help them(if this **** still continues, i will hold extra classes at home for everyone who wants to come after school). I was happy with the economy, now we got a new party at throne and now that sucks too. Doing reforms on everything that was good. and  increase the tax level to waste more money on stupid **** like new statues and whatnot.

 I >hate< religion and  i am baffled that countries can be lead by religious followers adapting curriculums by their believes and then basically stupefying their own people. I think that schools should not teach young people  about stuff which are not scientific. Schools should not angle stuff, like saying the earth is flat and that Jesus Christ can walk on water.

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

I believe in gender equality, but in all aspects. Today there is too much of: im a girl i want the same pay as my male colleagues but i don't want try the same or harder(ofc if you are better than the males you should be paid more than them). And i want to be able to walk around with my tits out in the open, but i don't want anyone to stare at me.  Now governments are forcing in women onto manly dominated professions(like firemen and police officers) which is considered highly physical, and then failing on saving people because they do not have the appropriate physique to carry/wrestle a 120kg male. I like how the equality worked in the military. If you could not pass the test you would fail even if you are a short female or a tall big guy even if it was physical, mental or iq oriented test. Still did not stop most of them from complaining on stuff like: "Men have greater physique than us so we should be able to pass anyways", and no whine whatsoever when the less intelligent and unfortunate were failing the iq oriented tests". Get in if you are fit for the Job and get paid accordingly. Males needs to stop patronizing females, and women need to stop complaining and start acting(like **** riot ).

All kinds of hate crimes should be punished harder than today. Gays should be able to marry everywhere. SPREAD THE LOVE



i can continue forever but i need to stop

[trenzafeeds]

Eyyy I was going to start this when it was suggested. You beat me too it 

[fanpeople]

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what you consider an acceptable level of education? You get that educated people are just as capable of making uneducated decisions when it comes to voting, especially if there are penalties for failing to vote and said person has no interest in politics. Have you also considered the possibility that an educated person with certain interests may vote for someone because they have put forward policies which may help them further their personal development as opposed to good of the state/nation (so an educated political choice, but made from a selfish perspective).

I kinda get where you are coming from, I just think that we shouldn't assume that someone with a certain level of education is going to put more effort into their political choices. I guess from a numbers perspective you may be correct (for example the guy that lives next door to me would probably vote for someone that would legalise drink driving, pretty sure he didn't make it past year . This is why giving an example of what level you think the cut off should be would be beneficial just to help me understand your perspective a bit better.

[henz]

I also believe that if you don't reach  a certain level of education, you should not be able to vote. Because uneducated people will make uneducated political choices.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what you consider an acceptable level of education? You get that educated people are just as capable of making uneducated decisions when it comes to voting, especially if there are penalties for failing to vote and said person has no interest in politics. Have you also considered the possibility that an educated person with certain interests may vote for someone because they have put forward policies which may help them further their personal development as opposed to good of the state/nation (so an educated political choice, but made from a selfish perspective).

I kinda get where you are coming from, I just think that we shouldn't assume that someone with a certain level of education is going to put more effort into their political choices. I guess from a numbers perspective you may be correct (for example the guy that lives next door to me would probably vote for someone that would legalise drink driving, pretty sure he didn't make it past year . This is why giving an example of what level you think the cut off should be would be beneficial just to help me understand your perspective a bit better.

I am not sure about where one should draw the line, for example i just dont want some dilly dally  person which thinks all immigrants are terrorist and reads angled media which are fed to them and they belive everythighn they read. I have the same thoughts as you do in your example. im not saying that a rocket scientist are more obliged to vote than a nurse. Both tried to be a part of the society and are equally obliged to vote.

[katushkin]

Bombing Syria is not the best way to solve the problem there. But it is far from the worst.

Inaction leads to even worse consequences. Imagine if we/USA/Russia/France/Turkey/else did NOTHING about ISIS in Syria/Iraq, and focused on security at home. Syria and Iraq would LITERALLY turn into an Islamic State run by these bastards, and hundreds of thousands of people would die. Same thing happened in Kosovo and Rwanda while the UN half assed it and sent like 200 people to police a genocide of an entire race. Twice.

I would rather have this on my conscience if I was PM than doing nothing and having **** like that happen.

[kurplop]

Do you think a minimum proficiency test might be the answer? Something like: 

How many US Senators are there?
What are the functions of the 3 branches of gov't?
Who would the candidate you're voting for be replacing?
How long are the terms for the offices being voted on? etc...

 
Even if the Q&A's were made available before the test, it would still require people wishing to vote to know a little about the system they are participating in. 

Some of the examples I made were US ones. Naturally if you vote in another country, your questions would be relevant to its gov't.

[trenzafeeds]

Do you think a minimum proficiency test might be the answer? Something like: 

How many US Senators are there?
What are the functions of the 3 branches of gov't?
Who would the candidate you're voting for be replacing?
How long are the terms for the offices being voted on? etc...

 
Even if the Q&A's were made available before the test, it would still require people wishing to vote to know a little about the system they are participating in.

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

[katushkin]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

[kurplop]

That's why I didn't include questions like, "Why are all Republicans hateful?" or "Why don't Democrats just get jobs?".

If a neutral mix of people assembled a dozen generic questions with answers readily accessible, how would that restrict minimally informed people from voting?

[trenzafeeds]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong post? I said that I am in favor of people being educated... the problem is just finding a system that can't be manipulated like voter ID laws.

[Sinanju]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

We can't even get voter ID to happen due to it being discriminatory*, so I highly doubt a test would happen. 

* Sorry, fail to see how it is.  If it is such a financial burden to go to the DMV to get an ID, then it is also a financial burden just to go to the polls to vote.

[kurplop]

I'm not sure how showing proof of ID is an unreasonable requirement. Could you explain to me how that is?  I'm not disagreeing necessarily, I just don't know why that is ripe for abuse.

[Spopepro]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

[henz]

I'm not sure how showing proof of ID is an unreasonable requirement. Could you explain to me how that is?  I'm not disagreeing necessarily, I just don't know why that is ripe for abuse.

What's stopping people to vote more than once if they don't have to I'd themselves? We have to do it each person get a voting card by mail along with the I'd you can vote.

[baldgye]

I'm with Henz on restricting who should be allowed to vote. People who have always voted for one particular party shouldn't be allowed to vote, as one example.

[kurplop]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

Your point?

[katushkin]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong post? I said that I am in favor of people being educated... the problem is just finding a system that can't be manipulated like voter ID laws.

Oh ok. I thought you were saying that it's wrong to ask people questions about who they are voting for in the view to exclude them from voting, because it's seen as elitist, or excluding the poorer people in society. My bad.

[HoffmanMyster]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

This was exactly my first thought.  You'd have a helluva time implementing that.

[fanpeople]

The example you're giving seems quite reasonable, however the only problem is that such a system in concept could easily be manipulated into a means of preventing certain political groups from voting. While I couldn't agree more that something similar basically needs to be put in place, it's extremely difficult to come up with a system that couldn't be abused.

I don't think it's elitist trying to educate people in something before they go out and do it. It's like saying: "ok, I want to go out and bet money on the horses". Someone else says; "hey, don't you want to know about how well each horse has done and how it fairs on different surfaces etc etc?" "Nah, I'm ok, I'm just going to go with my gut".

You will probably make more money if you study the horses and their previous form. Like with politicians. You should probably find out if they are a racist ignoramus, or if they have any experience when it comes to running the most powerful company country in the world.

Problem being that there have been tests like this in the US's history.  Southern states used them to keep blacks from voting, so anything remotely resembling a voting test would quickly be met with backlash.

This was exactly my first thought.  You'd have a helluva time implementing that.

Considering a large portion of election time is devoted to developing a personality/cult following what if you made it a blind system similar to what they use for accepting papers into peer reviewed journals. Have a summary of a parties policies itemised on a sheet and label them group 1, group 2 etc. Votes based of what polices you like as opposed to religiously voting for the same party based off brand recognition.

I have had similar conversations before with regard to the Australian system, which requires you to register and then you must attend a voting station for every federal, state and local election. If you don't, you get fined which some people agree with I personally don't. A great deal of people turning up to the voting station are doing it just to avoid the fine, so imagine how much thought is going into their selection. Some people feel that the ability to vote on its own is a privilege that many people do not get, therefore the system should be honoured and you should always go and vote. There is also the argument that to truly reflect society in government you need everyone to vote.

I think that the current system is stacked against long term planning and that there are so many external forces at work that the physical results produced by the two major parties is probably not that great. I also think that there is a trend starting to develop in Australia where our prime minister is becoming a sacrificial lamb for that party, where they are used to absorb the blame for the public's dissatisfaction with policy. Then at the right moment they are internally voted out and a new figurehead is put in to make that party seem better than it is and increase the chances of re-election.

I don't think that there is ever a perfect system and there will always be some issues, I just wish the system was geared towards long term goals as opposed to short term electorate pleasing.

But then its Australia so who cares  )

[billnye]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

[Spopepro]

My goodness people, read some history:

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/sites/default/files/georgia_literacy_test_1949.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/miin/learn/historyculture/upload/LA-literacy-test.pdf

So who is the solicitor general of your circuit?

Your point?

Cicero can take it from here.

Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis accident, id est semper esse puerum.

[azhdar]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

Also is it true that in the US you vote during the week ? Why so ? I know I wouldn't have the time to vote during the week while I'm able to vote in France because it's during weeekend.

Your point on forcing people to vote is so wrong. This just bring random voting. People voting for wrong reasons isn't better but voting is a right, not an obligation.

[trenzafeeds]

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

No, we have a voter registry system that works very well, voter fraud is a basically nonexistent problem, although the republican party would have you think otherwise. I should clarify as well that I totally support working voter ID laws, that's all good, unfortunately the ones people are trying to pass right now are deliberately badly made to allow for exploitation.

Also is it true that in the US you vote during the week ? Why so ? I know I wouldn't have the time to vote during the week while I'm able to vote in France because it's during weeekend.

Yes, this is true, and it's about as stupid as it sounds. A part of the platform for one of the US presidential candidates right now is to make at least national elections a national holiday, so (basically) everyone has work off.

[kurplop]

Just because a policy was done in the past for wrong reasons doesn't make it wrong. The Founders of the American Constitution often referred to the need for its constituency to be both educated and virtuous.  Educated no doubt, so they could wisely choose their representatives.  By virtue I suspect they meant having the common good in mind. I think Alexis de Tocqueville understood the true unbridled nature of man when he wrote, "The AmericanRepublic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money".

Although there is probably little that a government can do to inspire good will in its people, much can and has been offered, in this day, to educate the people of the US. This leaves its citizens with little excuse to not know at least a small amount about the issues they are asked to decide on. Maybe 10 simple questions with at least 7 answered correctly.

I'm probably sounding like I'm trying to make a case when in reality I'm not very passionate about it.  I do think, however, that its not in any country's best interest to be steered by old folks with alzheimer whose children wheeled them to the voting booth or by some, not all, 18 year olds who know nothing about functioning governments but showed up at the polls because someone told them they needed to rock the vote. I don't think that this is what Adams and Madison had in mind almost 230 years ago.



   

[Phirr]

I think states and countries should pretty much divide into micro-nations with free exit and guarded entry of citizens, so that people can live in a political system that makes sense to them (as long as the current population there is willing to let them in). In such a way, these micronations could compete against one another in a form of social capitalism. Think immigrants are the key to a country's future, guns should be banned and socialism  enacted? Move to Californiastan. Want mandatory gun ownership, religious educational co-ops and low tax/low benefits? Move to the the Texican Republic etc. Basically devolve federal governance to the control of the states, or even smaller entities. In such a way, you would have a wider variety of governance models, giving the people more choice in the way they live. Failing governance models would also be easier to spot. If people want to live in a constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy, a la Singapore, I think that should be their choice. Overall the right to speech is less important to me than the right to exit. I'd rather walk out the door of a restaurant that only served crow rather than be able to choose it fried or baked.

Political musings somewhat inspired by The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson as well as Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed. By the way, don't check the latter out of a public library. Ever since I did, I've been "randomly selected" by the TSA for additional screening, on 5 out of 5 of my last flights.

[fanpeople]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

Do you think that a different city council would have not gone with the plans for toll lane? Serious question, I am not trying to be Tp, I am curious how your system works? Is the council getting payment for the building or do they just approve the process?

In Sydney pretty much our main road to the city is a toll road, you can take back streets but bad traffic. Oh wait you can take the toll road but bad traffic during peak hour. Either way there is bad traffic. Off peak it is generally ok.

That is a good point though, if you don't bother voting do you have the right to complain about a government? I guess if you vote at least you had input into the process.

[kurplop]

In the US you just show up to the voting location and that's all ? How do they know you haven't voted twice?
Here we have to show voter card + ID.

No, we have a voter registry system that works very well, voter fraud is a basically nonexistent problem, although the republican party would have you think otherwise. I should clarify as well that I totally support working voter ID laws, that's all good, unfortunately the ones people are trying to pass right now are deliberately badly made to allow for exploitation.

I don't know how much voter fraud there is but I know that the opportunity is there. During the last election cycle, next to my name and my wife's in the register, were my three daughters and a neighbor. This is to be expected since the names are listed by addresses. What was disturbing was that none of my daughters were  living with us anymore and were voting at other polling places with their new addresses. What was even more alarming is that my neighbor had been deceased for about 10 years at the time. Like I said, I didn't witness any fraud, but the opportunity is there.

[billnye]

I think there should be a fine for not voting.

Recently there has been a bunch of drama in Charlotte because a new toll road is being built. People complain and moan about it, and then when the time comes around the elect a new city council that could stop the construction of the toll lanes, only a fraction of people actually vote. It makes no sense to complain about something, and then when you get your chance to make your opinion worth something, you squander that opportunity.

I also think that some form of photo ID should be required to vote, such as a driver's license or a passport. It doesn't make sense to me that you can walk into a voting location without any proof of who you are and cast your vote, but apparently that's "racially disparate."

Do you think that a different city council would have not gone with the plans for toll lane? Serious question, I am not trying to be Tp, I am curious how your system works? Is the council getting payment for the building or do they just approve the process?

In Sydney pretty much our main road to the city is a toll road, you can take back streets but bad traffic. Oh wait you can take the toll road but bad traffic during peak hour. Either way there is bad traffic. Off peak it is generally ok.

That is a good point though, if you don't bother voting do you have the right to complain about a government? I guess if you vote at least you had input into the process.

Yes. There have been many propositions to expand the normal lanes on the interstate instead of adding toll lanes. The toll lanes won't even really solve the problem of traffic because they only have a few access points and are made for people who travel from the farther away suburbs into the city. The current highway only has 2 lanes once you get ~15 miles from the city. During rush hour, it can take about 45 minutes to travel 10 miles in the worst spot.

They city council had a vote whether or not to sign the contract with the Spanish company (another reason people are unhappy with the toll road) to build the road. The contract also includes a $100 million fine if it is terminated....

[fohat.digs]

The modern world is insanely complicated and everything is ridiculously expensive.

Nobody is happy and people are afraid, thus many of them want to withdraw into their shells like turtles and yearn for "simpler times"

Ain't gonna happen.

It's time to accept the fact that we are hurtling headlong into the future, and the only 2 choices are to steer the train or to de-rail it.

Progressives fear the Luddites who want to de-rail because they can't foresee any positive benefit of their actions.

But it is still important to always seek the "least bad" of all the bad choices and vigorously defend it. That's as good as it gets.

I am reading "Six Amendments" by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and so should every other US citizen.

[vivalarevolución]

Wake me up next November.  Thanks.

[TimIsABat]

Social media has ruined politics. I find that my peers (20-25) are opinionated and base their opinions on what they read on social media. None of them even know what happens to B if A happens. I hate talking to people even in my own ethnicity (Filipino) about politics because they are brainwashed like crazy. The whole two-party system here in America is the most broken system ever. You can't be side A because you believe in X, but you can't be side B because you believe in Z. You can't be in the middle because the middle has to either fully agree with side A or B. It drives me crazy. To think one side is better than the other is absurd. Social media makes it 100x worse. I just really hate politics at the moment.

[fohat.digs]

The whole two-party system here in America is the most broken system ever.

The Founding Fathers clearly saw the dangers of the 2-party system and saw how egregious its influence would be.

They assumed that the population would see it, too, and the Constitution was written specifically to a non-2-party system of government.

Washington and Adams were appalled to see how quickly the feud between Federalists and Republicans grew, and by the election of 1800 the system was pretty well entrenched.

[kurplop]

The modern world is insanely complicated and everything is ridiculously expensive.

Nobody is happy and people are afraid, thus many of them want to withdraw into their shells like turtles and yearn for "simpler times"

Ain't gonna happen.

It's time to accept the fact that we are hurtling headlong into the future, and the only 2 choices are to steer the train or to de-rail it.

Progressives fear the Luddites who want to de-rail because they can't foresee any positive benefit of their actions.

But it is still important to always seek the "least bad" of all the bad choices and vigorously defend it. That's as good as it gets.

I am reading "Six Amendments" by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and so should every other US citizen.

I understand and agree with you that the more interdependent we become as the world changes, both as a nation and globally, social structure must adapt. I think you misrepresent me and my fellow "Luddites" however and would offer this.  Instead of derailing we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.