US Voters: Weird as they wanna be

  • News
  • Thread starter plover
  • Start date
  • #26
221
0
Smurf said:
See now that simply doesn't mean anything.
It does not mean anything? If you are not joking then any credibility I had for you is gone and so should it be with everyone else. The idea that I should pay taxes to a government and not have a representative in office that I can choose to vote for or against is grounds for war. If you were to take away any group of Americans right to vote based on any kind of unfair discrimination I would take up arms against the government of the United States and I am sure that a lot of other people would too. One of the single most important things for the government of the United States to do is to protect an individual’s right to vote for elected officials that represent his or her views. Take away that right and everything else is meaningless. I would die today to protect that right and I would kill anyone and everyone I could that tried to take away that right. Too many people have died to defend that right to lose it!
Regards
 
  • #27
221
0
I said I would kill anyone and everyone who tried to discriminate unfairly against voters but what I mean is that I would kill anyone and everyone who poses an actual threat. Since there is no real threat it is a moot point. But if it ever reached the point that action was needed to protect an individual’s rights I would do whatever would be necessary.
 
  • #28
356
3
loseyourname said:
Whoever said voting with your money is wrong?
I also said that. Obviously you disagree with it, then tell me why is it wrong to vote with your intelligence but not with some other money.. such as wealth? I find that one is the same as the other now that i've thought about it.

No, it means that no body has any right to govern any group of people if it does not allow that group of people a say in how they are governed.
Having a say in their government is not the same as voting.
 
  • #29
221
0
Smurf said:
I also said that. Obviously you disagree with it, then tell me why is it wrong to vote with your intelligence but not with some other money.. such as wealth? I find that one is the same as the other now that i've thought about it.


Having a say in their government is not the same as voting.
Please do give me an example of what you mean.
 
  • #30
356
3
Townsend said:
It does not mean anything? If you are not joking then any credibility I had for you is gone and so should it be with everyone else. The idea that I should pay taxes to a government and not have a representative in office that I can choose to vote for or against is grounds for war. If you were to take away any group of Americans right to vote based on any kind of unfair discrimination I would take up arms against the government of the United States and I am sure that a lot of other people would too. One of the single most important things for the government of the United States to do is to protect an individual’s right to vote for elected officials that represent his or her views. Take away that right and everything else is meaningless. I would die today to protect that right and I would kill anyone and everyone I could that tried to take away that right. Too many people have died to defend that right to lose it!
Regards

me wonders why you arn't taking up arms now, your president has twice in a row committed election fraud.
 
  • #31
356
3
Townsend said:
Please do give me an example of what you mean.
Direct Action, electing someone to represent you in the government... to me that just seems the lazyest, most ridiculous thing in the world, you get to choose between 2 people.. 2 (sometimes 3, but the 3rd never gets elected), and your accual vote matters so little.. you can have your entire lifes work to lose in the election, or you could have been coerced into voting by your wife.. you still get the same, tiny, little voice in the ballet box.

What is direct action?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
221
0
Smurf said:
me wonders why you arn't taking up arms now, your president has twice in a row committed election fraud.
You are guilty of using the straw man tactic and affirming the Consequent, so we have two fallacies.
:rolleyes:
Regards
 
  • #33
356
3
Townsend said:
You are guilty of using the straw man tactic and affirming the Consequent, so we have two fallacies.
:rolleyes:
Regards
e? what the hell is the straw man tactic ... what are you on about?
 
  • #34
221
0
Smurf said:
Direct Action, electing someone to represent you in the government... to me that just seems the lazyest, most ridiculous thing in the world, you get to choose between 2 people.. 2 (sometimes 3, but the 3rd never gets elected), and your accual vote matters so little.. you can have your entire lifes work to lose in the election, or you could have been coerced into voting by your wife.. you still get the same, tiny, little voice in the ballet box.

What is direct action?
Yeah those darn accual votes do not amount to very much.

The presidency is not the only person who I vote for. My state has about a 600K population and by the 400k or so voters who voted here, the senate majority leader Tom Daschle was removed from office.

Tell me again how my vote does not matter please because that was one of the most important elections the United States had and believe me when I say that that was a very close election. Everyone in South Dakota who voted had a very powerful voice that day and it shows by the total election campaign cost that average to about 100 dollars per vote.

Regards
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Smurf said:
I also said that. Obviously you disagree with it, then tell me why is it wrong to vote with your intelligence but not with some other money.. such as wealth? I find that one is the same as the other now that i've thought about it.
You can vote with your intelligence. What you can't do is take away someone else's right to vote because they are less intelligent. Anyone being governed has a right to a say in who governs.


Having a say in their government is not the same as voting.
So what? You'd let them lobby and contribute campaign funds, but not allow them to vote? Come on. If you mean having a say in some form of government other than democracy, then maybe I can feel you if you exlain further, but you can't just selectively allow some groups to vote and disallow others. If you're going to do that, then just be more overt and don't allow certain groups to live in your country.
 
  • #36
221
0
Smurf said:
e? what the hell is the straw man tactic ... what are you on about?
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

By suggesting that Bush rigged the election you are making a different argument in which no one can prove true or false.
 
  • #37
356
3
loseyourname said:
You can vote with your intelligence. What you can't do is take away someone else's right to vote because they are less intelligent. Anyone being governed has a right to a say in who governs.
1.
by "voting with your money" I meant, the more money you have, the more say in Government you have... i think this is wrong.
by "Voting with your intelligence" I mean, the more intelligent you are, the more say you get in government... since this is descrimination of the same sort as "voting with your money" this is also wrong.
2.
I would never say that anyone below this IQ can't vote. Simply because it'd be too difficult to determine where the bar is... and because that is clearly racist, refer to point 1.

So what? You'd let them lobby and contribute campaign funds, but not allow them to vote? Come on. If you mean having a say in some form of government other than democracy, then maybe I can feel you if you exlain further, but you can't just selectively allow some groups to vote and disallow others. If you're going to do that, then just be more overt and don't allow certain groups to live in your country.
*whistles*
this is not my argument at all, it's understandable that you don't understand me because I was not responding to you, look at my previous few posts.. thats what I meant.
 
  • #38
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Smurf said:
1.
by "voting with your money" I meant, the more money you have, the more say in Government you have... i think this is wrong.
by "Voting with your intelligence" I mean, the more intelligent you are, the more say you get in government... since this is descrimination of the same sort as "voting with your money" this is also wrong.
2.
I would never say that anyone below this IQ can't vote. Simply because it'd be too difficult to determine where the bar is... and because that is clearly racist, refer to point 1.
All right, clearly you weren't the person making that argument then. Never mind.


*whistles*
this is not my argument at all, it's understandable that you don't understand me because I was not responding to you, look at my previous few posts.. thats what I meant.
If you weren't responding to me, why the heck were you quoting my posts?
 
  • #39
221
0
“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.
 
  • #40
356
3
loseyourname said:
If you weren't responding to me, why the heck were you quoting my posts?
We're both getting confused in this thread :rofl:
 
  • #41
356
3
Townsend said:
“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.
There's no reason why a leadership cannot exist.
 
  • #42
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
So, you're an "anarchist", Smurf?
 
  • #43
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Townsend said:
“So, in a nutshell, direct action is any form of activity which people themselves decide upon and organize themselves which is based on their own collective strength and does not involve getting intermediates to act for them.”

Of course for any group to organize themselves they must have a leader who can speak for them all. Oh wait, that would not be a direct action….. Reductio ad absurdum.

This of course assumes that for a group of people to become organized they must need a leader. I do not want to drive down this slippery slope but I think it is clear to most people that no group of people can have one voice without a leader.
Consider Athens during its democratic phase. Every few months they would appoint a randomly chosen set of citizens to be the governing council. These people would have to leave their work, what ever it was and be public servants for a while. It was more like jury selection in modern US than an election as we know it; people tried to get out of it. Whether it worked well or not is another question, but it certainly showed you can run a small government without a political class.
 
  • #44
GENIERE
selfAdjoint said:
... Consider Athens during its democratic phase...
Athens would only have been a Democracy if all the females had left. Of course the gals were able to influence the guys as in Aristophanes’ “Lysistrata”.


...
 
  • #45
356
3
russ_watters said:
So, you're an "anarchist", Smurf?
The term 'Anarchist' is attached to too many pre-conceived notions which do not represent me what-so-ever. No, I'm not an anarchist, but I do support some forms of Anarchism.
 
  • #46
123
1
how about nihilistic form of government?
One thing is sure: it would be much better for our naturall world :approve:
That is my two cents to the discussion :blushing:
See you later.
 

Related Threads on US Voters: Weird as they wanna be

  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
198
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
889
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
3K
Top