Trump isn’t on the ballot, and they won’t pay enough attention to their Congress critters to know whether they should keep them. People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted pushed (word change due to an admittedly poor choice of word, but if you read the entirely of what I’ve written then it’s obvious what problem I’m trying to address) to vote, IMHO, because for them it’s purely a popularity of the moment contest rather than the choice of who will actually work towards improving their constituents’ lives - an utterly absurd basis for determining the future of us all.
Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but it’s a single example - it’s not an invalid point, but neither is mine. I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.
Too many people just aren’t interested in what those running their lives are up to, and yet they’re routinely told to go vote if they want to be considered good citizens. So it’s become a circus every election cycle. I think those people shouldn’t be pushed to vote if they’re not interested in understanding what’s going on in their capitals, plain and simple. They’ll learn the hard way to have an interest.
No, it isn’t. In fact, the South wasn’t even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren’t paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.
Even if you ignore that:
Jim Crow-era literacy tests happened over a period of 75 years. That’s not “one example”; that’s a bunch of states over the course of nearly a century disenfranchising millions.
It’s so blatantly obvious once you examine that “one example”™ why this system fundamentally cannot work and will be abused. If you can’t see that, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to turn you away from the polling station, because you’re clearly unequipped to vote.
Okay, so “not permitted” may not have been the best choice of words. "Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.
You haven’t provided a single rebuttal against the overall concept that those who aren’t following along shouldn’t be peer-pressured into voting for something they know little to nothing about. Yet, we do it because the spin-doctors realized those people are so easy to manipulate into voting against their interests, and it’s become a part of the American political process ever since.
"Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.
No, I actually don’t know what you’re saying. Because at first, you said “not permitted”, then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: “I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.” You’re still, in that second (“previous”) comment, going on about how we can use tests of people’s political understanding to bar them from voting if we’re just clever about it.
Now you’re just claiming it “may have not been the best choice of words”, abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.
That’s not what “not the best choice of words” means; going from “People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO” to “not pushed” and then crying “pedantry” is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I’m actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.
Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness. One poorly chosen word should not have thrown you off what I was after when considering the entirely of what I said. You are blatantly unserious, and just looking to play high & mighty while you still haven’t addressed the central problem I’ve described multiple times.
I cannot imagine someone not being VERY sure how to vote in this next American election.
Trump isn’t on the ballot, and they won’t pay enough attention to their Congress critters to know whether they should keep them. People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be
permittedpushed (word change due to an admittedly poor choice of word, but if you read the entirely of what I’ve written then it’s obvious what problem I’m trying to address) to vote, IMHO, because for them it’s purely a popularity of the moment contest rather than the choice of who will actually work towards improving their constituents’ lives - an utterly absurd basis for determining the future of us all.Ironically, you’d have to not be paying a certain minimal amount of attention to checks notes middle school US history to not understand how catastrophic this is in practice. Incidentally, that SPLC quiz isn’t even nearly the extent of the questions.
I would bar you from voting for this statement alone on the merits of “paying attention”.
Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but it’s a single example - it’s not an invalid point, but neither is mine. I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.
Too many people just aren’t interested in what those running their lives are up to, and yet they’re routinely told to go vote if they want to be considered good citizens. So it’s become a circus every election cycle. I think those people shouldn’t be pushed to vote if they’re not interested in understanding what’s going on in their capitals, plain and simple. They’ll learn the hard way to have an interest.
No, it isn’t. In fact, the South wasn’t even the first in the US to do this for the express purpose of disenfranchising a minority – more evidence that you aren’t paying sufficient attention to the policy you want implemented. Some decades earlier, Connecticut implemented literacy tests to specifically (and successfully) disenfranchise Irish immigrants.
Even if you ignore that:
Okay, so “not permitted” may not have been the best choice of words. "Not pushed” to vote, as I just described in my previous comment is what I’m after. You know what I’m saying, and you seem to be deliberately pedantic just because you can - while completely ignoring the issue I’m trying to address.
You haven’t provided a single rebuttal against the overall concept that those who aren’t following along shouldn’t be peer-pressured into voting for something they know little to nothing about. Yet, we do it because the spin-doctors realized those people are so easy to manipulate into voting against their interests, and it’s become a part of the American political process ever since.
No, I actually don’t know what you’re saying. Because at first, you said “not permitted”, then in your second comment, you retained that position by saying: “I think there may be ways of addressing that potential problem if we try hard enough to find a way, but we haven’t for fear of repeating that issue.” You’re still, in that second (“previous”) comment, going on about how we can use tests of people’s political understanding to bar them from voting if we’re just clever about it.
Now you’re just claiming it “may have not been the best choice of words”, abandoning the position you took in those two comments and then lambasting me for, like, taking you at your word that what you said is what you meant.
That’s not what “not the best choice of words” means; going from “People who don’t pay a certain minimal amount of attention shouldn’t be permitted to vote, IMHO” to “not pushed” and then crying “pedantry” is being comically dishonest to save face. You completely changed positions mid-argument and then got offended that I addressed your first position before you changed it. I’m actually kind of stunned at how brazen this is.
Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness. One poorly chosen word should not have thrown you off what I was after when considering the entirely of what I said. You are blatantly unserious, and just looking to play high & mighty while you still haven’t addressed the central problem I’ve described multiple times.
I’m done with you. Good night.
I’ve figured it out: this is part of a poll test to see how well I respond to a politician gaslighting me about the things they’ve said.
Beautiful, well-played. Can I get my ballot now please?
Lemme guess. Blue no matter who?