Mad props to Megan McCain

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Are you ok with the political party that you disagree with making the test?

I once supported this sort of thing, but came to oppose it.

The real issue is the inherent political power eah citizen is entitles to to vote.

To support your point, as lesser issues, these tests have been either given only to blacks, orthere have been many tests, said ti be random but actually with harder ones given to blacks, that discriminated.

For example, how many days does the president have to veto legislation before it becomes law without his signature? Not many know that, though the answer is ten. That was a question on the 'black' test,
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
The problem with what she's doing is that she's trying to fix one thing in a group who wants to do many other things wrong, namely their core value of moving the nation to plutocracy.

It's not surprising - it's sort of 'daddy's little girl' being loyal to the party not considering which party is best to support, but it's supporting a lot of wrong.

The issue isn't 'how to get more minorities in the Republican party by reducing racism', it's how to fix the broken Republican agenda for the rich.

I'm curious how many Republican here, if they felt Republicans stood to gain 10 votes by appealing to racists for every one minority vote they lose, would feel it's very important to reduce that racism.

Is the motive here to get more votes, or to do the right thing even if it lost them votes?

As for Megan, she is trying to get more Republicans despite many other flaws, and that's not good.

A non-racist party for plutocracy is less bad than a racist party for plutocracy, but it's still bad. Of course its also convenient how they used race while it helped them politically, and 'improve' when that changes.

I agree with a lot of what you said except your bias and partisanship made you stop short.

The Democrats have proven that they are in favor of the same plutocracy through their actions. Perhaps you will argue that the Democrats want a less bad plutocracy than the Republicans but as you said "thats not good".

Your also spot on about voters but again it goes to both parties. Hypothetically, if 90% of illegal immigrants would vote for Republicans if given the chance do you think there would be a chance in hell that Democrats would be in favor of granting them citizenship and the right to vote? As you said, more Republican voters would be bad.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I once supported this sort of thing, but came to oppose it.

The real issue is the inherent political power eah citizen is entitles to to vote.

To support your point, as lesser issues, these tests have been either given only to blacks, orthere have been many tests, said ti be random but actually with harder ones given to blacks, that discriminated.

For example, how many days does the president have to veto legislation before it becomes law without his signature? Not many know that, though the answer is ten. That was a question on the 'black' test,

Exactly. One thing I hope we can agree upon is that politicians biggest goal is to remain in and gain power and even more so when it comes to political parties. They have proven that they will exploit just about any tool given them that allows them to so. Giving them the power to exclude people from the voting pool is a huge tool that has, can and will be used to exclude "undesirable" voters (Nothing to do with race, everything to do with who they will vote for). Even if their is potential for good to come out of this the risks and consequences of it being abused are far greater.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I agree with a lot of what you said except your bias and partisanship made you stop short.

The Democrats have proven that they are in favor of the same plutocracy through their actions. Perhaps you will argue that the Democrats want a less bad plutocracy than the Republicans but as you said "thats not good".

Your also spot on about voters but again it goes to both parties. Hypothetically, if 90% of illegal immigrants would vote for Republicans if given the chance do you think there would be a chance in hell that Democrats would be in favor of granting them citizenship and the right to vote? As you said, more Republican voters would be bad.

Yes, there's an issue with Democrats, too. Some are worse than the better Republicans. But remember, I view Democrats not as a monolithic group, but largely divided beween 'corporatists' and 'progressives'.

No group is perfect, but some are better than others. If you have a 'lesser evil' (D), and a 'greater evil' (R), improving the greater evil but it still being by far the greater evil doesn't lead to supporting it.

You're largely right in your analogy, but I think some Dems would not let their party preferences change what they felt is right regarding citizenship; and there's a difference between blocking citizens from voting, and not letting illegal immigrants become illegal voters. But as far as I'm concerned, I seem to agree with you, there's not a big difference between the parties' voters on their preference for helping their party win. But the Republicans do have a bigger problem with their minority of members who are racist wanting to deny some citizens rights like voting than Dems IMO (the Dems had the bigger problem for a century after the civil war).
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
Citizenship and the ability to read/write in English SHOULD be a requirement to vote. I'm not so backwards as to believe that only property owners or people who actually had to pay taxes should be allowed to vote, but I do feel that in order to have some input on how the country is run, you should actually be a part of that country and society as a whole.

Immigrants who refuse to become citizens (or get visas) and who refuse to assimilate into our culture have no place in determining our policy. Ballots should be English-only and you should be required to prove citizenship in order to receive one.

It doesn't matter what you think. A naturalized citizen who only speaks Spanish, Chinese, or Korean is still a citizen whose voting rights are guaranteed by the Constitution... You know, or highest legal document and the foundation of this nation. You should read it some time.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Voter turn outs already suck, a literacy test would slow it down even more and make people even less likely to go. Apathy is the way to be.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
In this day and age I do not see a problem with having a test to see if you are competent enough to vote.

I believe that only people with verified IQs of at least 175 and at least one PhD in the physical sciences should be allowed to vote.
 

zeruty

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2000
2,276
2
81
How about this?

In order to vote for a candidate running for a particular office, you have to be able to name the current occupant of that office.
Say... two side by side questions on the ballot. You have to select the current occupant on the left, and who you want to vote for on the right. If you fail on the left, your vote on the right is void.

To vote for president, you should be required to name the current President, VP, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader.

These would be just basic litmus tests to ensure you have some semblance of a clue what is going on in our government. If you don't know who has the position currently, you have no fucking idea who would be the best person to have it next.
 

Tsavo

Platinum Member
Sep 29, 2009
2,645
37
91
What is a mad prop anyway? Something a mad cow uses to keep the barn door open?
 

zeruty

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2000
2,276
2
81
Term limits for congress would be nice, too. No more voting for Teddy Kennedy just because you always voted for Teddy Kennedy.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
In this day and age I do not see a problem with having a test to see if you are competent enough to vote.

While I agree with it, it will never happen.

It used to be a way of keeping the blacks from voting because they didn't have the opportunity to get an education. Now everyone has equal access to education and if someone doesn't take advantage of it, they should suffer the consiquences of it. But there are groups (led by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) that don't want blacks to be successful because it hurts thier( Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton types) ability to prey on the poor blacks and keep their seats of power and income.

Ultimately, a compitency test should be administered not to disinfranchise anyone, but to keep the people that vote based on popularity and skin color from voting.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Nothing wrong with throwing a little red meat out there once in a while. As I've said many times in these forums, I will NOT vote for Palin if she is the Repub candidate in 2012. I will stay home. I'm confident however, that the tea party movement is about so much more than Republicans. In fact in many ways it's the antidote to Republican big tent/big govt spending that went on from 2000 - 2006. But if it's shaped wrongly...in the direction of the fundie nut cases like Palin, it will fail.

Hopefully it will continue and grow as a fiscal conservative/socially moderate political movement that is much needed in govt today.

Regardless of who their 'leader' is I don't see the TEA party voting for anyone but (R)'s in Nov. When I see pics and videos of their rallies I see plenty of anti-gay and pro-life stuff in the crowd (IOW not very socially moderate let alone liberal).
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Term limits for congress would be nice, too. No more voting for Teddy Kennedy just because you always voted for Teddy Kennedy.

To repeat yet again some of why this is terrible for the public, having strangers the party selects, who are indebted to the party not the public for getting into office, who aren't accountable by re-election, is bad.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,962
27,640
136
While I agree with it, it will never happen.

It used to be a way of keeping the blacks from voting because they didn't have the opportunity to get an education. Now everyone has equal access to education and if someone doesn't take advantage of it, they should suffer the consiquences of it. But there are groups (led by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) that don't want blacks to be successful because it hurts thier( Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton types) ability to prey on the poor blacks and keep their seats of power and income.

Ultimately, a compitency test should be administered not to disinfranchise anyone, but to keep the people that vote based on popularity and skin color from voting.

But this argument would be made by peoploe who would vote for a presidential candidate who had no concept of why there is a North and South Korea
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Term limits for congress would be nice, too. No more voting for Teddy Kennedy just because you always voted for Teddy Kennedy.
But also no voting for Teddy Kennedy because you think he represents your state well. Term limits just trade one problem for another.