Restrictions As To Whom Can Vote....

[ElFenix]

Originally Posted by Greenman

Why not just charge for voting. You vote as many times as you want, no I.D., no registration, no questions. Just a flat $200 every time you push the button.

how fast do you think we could pay down the debt with that?

[dank69]

Originally Posted by yllus

The funny thing is, the problems the United States faces today are exclusively due to people over the age of 40 having almost absolute control of government.

How many young people vote themselves into going overseas to fight wars?

How many young people make enough money to pay for lobbyists?

How many young people pull down Medicare and Social Security?

The society you live in is completely biased against the young - yet they're the scapegoat. Amazing.

Yes but young people are the ones getting abortions.

[DLeRium]

Originally Posted by Genx87

Heh 1st generation immigrants would probably be more inclined to vote for our american way of life than 2nd,3rd, or 4th generation immigrants. The people who are fucking up this country are not 1st generation immigrants. They are 2nd+ generation entitled people who were born here.

I dont have a definitive opinion on this subject. But I will share my experience in 2011 that bothered me. I went to vote on a school funding measure in my city that would be paid for by property owners. And there was a huge line of 18 year old highschool kids. I understand that they have a right to vote. But it did bother me knowing they were going to vote me a higher property tax and graduate. They didnt have any skin in the game and had nothing to lose by voting yes.

But in defense of the kids, how many kids are voting in high school? Not that many. Not even all the senior class is 18+ by the time the election rolls in. A few really.

I think what you're talking about is simply bias when a certain proposition is on the table and a certain group is favored. My friend told me not to hate on teachers and told me to vote for Prop 30. I told him that he shouldn't be making decisions because his sister is a teacher. It's if you think it's for the good of the state. My position was that Prop 30 for CA would provide temporarily relief. Yes new taxes. At the end of the day CA needs to get its spending and taxation priorities right and reshuffle the whole budget around. While more money now might help his sister now, what's to say 10 years down the road we get slammed with a bigger crisis?

Same with all my friends in school talking about Prop 30 giving them a refund for this year. Great you can buy yourself a new iPad with that money, but who funds that? Me. Furthermore, now that Prop 30 has passed, I'd rather the schools keep that extra tuition and spend it now and invest on the future.

Back to the issue, in the end you just hope there's more educated folks than non educated folks. Those who use emotional appeals and kneejerk reactions to make decisions in elections are the ones making the bad decisions. I don't mind someone being on the other side of me--but they need to have good reasoning for being there. That's probably why I was so disappointed in 2008. Half of the Obama supporters didn't know what they were voting for, and just figured magic would happen. Are you serious? In fact I was quite disappointed 2012 too. A good number of my friends wrote things on Facebook like "Thank goodness I don't have to move out of the country." Serious? Are you THAT dumb? Thankfully there's a good number of educated folk who don't buy into that.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

So proposing solutions that keep women and children out of poverty is "hating" them now...



Great! Thanks for asking.

Yeah somehow I doubt that.

[Geosurface]

I've seen some very interesting theory from an anti-feminist writer who goes by the name girlwriteswhat (she's female herself) on some of the outgrowths of giving women the vote.

Now, keep in mind she doesn't say that women SHOULDN'T have the right to vote, and neither do I. It's just interesting some of the theory she laid out on it's impacts.

To sum it up quickly, the idea is that women are genetically programmed by natural selection to always look for a bigger, better male provider. Once the government got into the business of being a provider, no individual man could ever compete with it. In effect, the government triggers as a mate/provider to the instinctual female brain, and being able to vote to make it a better provider ensured the downfall of the family... which is why divorce rates are so high, and if women can get the government to force the men who provided the genetic material to create children to provide financial support for 18 or 21 years, or make men in GENERAL provide that financial support via taxation, redistribution, etc... it effectively eliminates the need to keep an individual man in her life.

And being raised by a single-mother has been shown to lead to just about every societal ill imaginable increasing. Ironically, though our system HEAVILY favors giving custody to the mother, being raised by a single-FATHER has been shown to produce healthier, better adjusted children of both genders on every possible measure.

Perhaps this ties in with the old "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing. Women's instinct is typically to nurture, nurture, nurture. Men are a little more practical and perhaps harsh, to a degree. It feels very nice in the short term to give your kid everything they want, it takes strength to not do this. To instill discipline, etc.

The problem is, if you give your child everything they want, treat them like a friend more than a child, you see the results all around you in our society today. You end up with ungrounded, airy, flaky children who are the same way as adults... who aren't practical, aren't responsible, who feel entitled, who linger in their parents home much later into life, who are less suited to start their own families, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

Think of all the little brats you see these days who don't mind their parents at all, who emotionally manipulate their parents, and the parents who freak out about every possible allergy, like the woman recently who wanted her kid's school to cut down all the oak trees because they had acorns on them

Endless babying of children, refusing to make them GROW UP. More and more single-mothers... cycle perpetuates, cycle gets worse.

Our society is a reflection of who has the power, men used to have the political power just about exclusively, and the society reflected it. If society and government used to be analogous to a father, it's increasingly becoming analogous to a mother. The problem is that men are programmed to protect women, give them what they want, and so once women had the vote, the result was nearly inevitable. Government and society were slowly (kinda quickly really) reformed in the image of a woman, or perhaps a woman's desire, the ideal, ultimate provider.

A father tends to expect growth, self-sufficiency, standing on your own two feet. Society used to expect likewise. Now? Not so much.

Just food for thought. Not saying I agree with all of this, but this is basically the ideas I've seen laid out, and there may be some merit to it.

I am by no means saying women shouldn't have the right to vote, but I do think the feminist movement was too extreme, and got too much of what it wanted. I think society should've been more cautious in the changes it undertook, and tempered them more with caution and restraint. I think men should be more inclined to think of themselves as a group, like women do, and stand up for their rights, like women do. Rights of fatherhood, etc.

Here's a good video from girlwriteswhat that touches on some of this, really worth your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHvcFzzUues

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

And being raised by a single-mother has been shown to lead to just about every societal ill imaginable increasing. Ironically, though our system HEAVILY favors giving custody to the mother, being raised by a single-FATHER has been shown to produce healthier, better adjusted children of both genders on every possible measure.

Hogwallop, along with the rest of it. As single mother families have increased, violent crime has also gone down. Not that I'm claiming cause & effect, but rather that real data offers contrarian evidence to you unsubstantiated assertion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...nymore/265576/

Maybe violence at home breeds violence on the street, huh?

Couldn't be!

[RabidMongoose]

Racists probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by RabidMongoose

Racists probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Other than perhaps Helen Keller, I'm not sure a single non-racist has ever walked this Earth. In-group/Out-group preference/distrust etc is all very deeply ingrained in all animals, us included.

We've been trying to whitewash the reality of our instincts and prejudices for a very short flash of time historically speaking, some with more success than others... though, really only whites are even expected to try.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Hogwallop, along with the rest of it. As single mother families have increased, violent crime has also gone down. Not that I'm claiming cause & effect, but rather that real data offers contrarian evidence to you unsubstantiated assertion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...nymore/265576/

Maybe violence at home breeds violence on the street, huh?

Couldn't be!

From your own article

By my reading of the research, it is true that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

From your own article

That doesn't really refute what he is saying. While it may be true that children of single mothers are more prone to violence than those coming from perfect non-violent two-parent homes, the crime trends suggest that children of single mothers are likely less prone to violence than children from violent two-parent homes.

I know you don't care. You think it would be a woman's fault for choosing to be with a violent man, ignoring the fact that he may not have been violent until after she got knocked up. You think it would be fine to force such a woman to abort the baby when she decides to leave the man, simply because data suggests that the child *might* end up more violent.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by dank69

That doesn't really refute what he is saying. While it may be true that children of single mothers are more prone to violence than those coming from perfect non-violent two-parent homes, the crime trends suggest that children of single mothers are likely less prone to violence than children from violent two-parent homes.

I know you don't care. You think it would be a woman's fault for choosing to be with a violent man, ignoring the fact that he may not have been violent until after she got knocked up. You think it would be fine to force such a woman to abort the baby when she decides to leave the man, simply because data suggests that the child *might* end up more violent.

The problem is that your claims are based on lies. You are pretending that violence is only something committed by a man...

See for example page 45 in this pdf.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/.../cm01/cm01.pdf

Eighty-four percent of child victims were maltreated by one or more parents.
Almost half of child victims (40.5%) were maltreated by a “Mother Only,” and a fifth of victims
(19.3%) were maltreated by a “Mother and Father” (figure 4–4). These percentages were
similar to those in 2000

EDIT: And the costs of single motherhood are far more than just increased crime.

But hey lets pretend that a significant number of men bust out the rod as soon as their gf gets knocked up.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

The problem is that your claims are based on lies. You are pretending that violence is only something committed by a man...

See for example page 45 in this pdf.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/.../cm01/cm01.pdf



EDIT: And the costs of single motherhood are far more than just increased crime.

But hey lets pretend that a significant number of men bust out the rod as soon as their gf gets knocked up.

Maltreatment does not necessarily mean violence. Try again.

[Geosurface]

I've seen statistics that show domestic violence between partners is about equally done by women and men.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

I've seen statistics that show domestic violence between partners is about equally done by women and men.

I've seen statistics that show that Jews did WTC.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by dank69

I've seen statistics that show that Jews did WTC.

Someone is getting all butthurt about reality contradicting their liberalism.



Trying using science instead of faith.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Someone is getting all butthurt about reality contradicting their liberalism.



Trying using science instead of faith.

If you want me to consider science, you have to present the science first. What you are doing is asking me to take Geo's word for it. That's because you are intellectually dishonest. This intellectual dishonesty contributes to your bizarre views toward women and reproductive rights.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by dank69

If you want me to consider science, you have to present the science first. What you are doing is asking me to take Geo's word for it. That's because you are intellectually dishonest.

I don't recall you providing any evidence that men are more likely than men to be violent in relationships.

Originally Posted by dank69

This intellectual dishonesty contributes to your bizarre views toward women

You mean that they should be held accountable for their choices.

Originally Posted by dank69

and reproductive rights.

You mean abortion rights.

[Murloc]

everyone can vote in my country, the people is sovereign and has unparalleled power, unlike in any other country. It's also one of the best countries in HDI.
So I find such proposals stupid.
What would make more sense is abolishing bipartytism (and the systems that promote those, namely presidentialism or coalition governments), this way the extremes even each other out and you're left with pragmatic and moderate solutions.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

I don't recall you providing any evidence that men are more likely than men to be violent in relationships.

The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. I made no assertion.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by dank69

The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. I made no assertion.

Oh really?

Originally Posted by dank69

That doesn't really refute what he is saying. While it may be true that children of single mothers are more prone to violence than those coming from perfect non-violent two-parent homes, the crime trends suggest that children of single mothers are likely less prone to violence than children from violent two-parent homes.

I know you don't care. You think it would be a woman's fault for choosing to be with a violent man, ignoring the fact that he may not have been violent until after she got knocked up. You think it would be fine to force such a woman to abort the baby when she decides to leave the man, simply because data suggests that the child *might* end up more violent.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Oh really?

Why do you feel the need to switch topics? Is it because you can't "win" without diverting? I did not assert in the post you just quoted that "men are more likely than men[sic] to be violent in relationships."