Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stupid Obama Voters

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 12:49:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not all Obama voters are like this, but many of them are.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://psychology.uwo.ca...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I wouldn't generalize, but yes, stupid voters on both sides. More on one side over the other? I dunno.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:06:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:06:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Well, I wouldn't generalize, but yes, stupid voters on both sides. More on one side over the other? I dunno.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:08:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:06:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Well, I wouldn't generalize, but yes, stupid voters on both sides. More on one side over the other? I dunno.

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:12:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

+10000
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

doesn't that mean Obama woudl have lost?! XD
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:13:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:12:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

doesn't that mean Obama woudl have lost?! XD

Of course.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:42:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

They should, at the very least, know who is on the ticket.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.
Debate.org Moderator
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:51:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.

As we've seen in the last elections, those that are ignorant and know nothing about politics show up in masses when one of their beloved is running.

So no, letting everybody vote is not the ideal scenario.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

dumb people can research too...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That very well could have been faked. I doubt it though. Yeah tons of people vote on presidents to do charisma, or race, or any number of things. It sucks. IF there was a way to implement a proper voting system, I don't know if people would like it because it would limit our freedom, even though it is more fair.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The effect of dumb people is overrated. Random errors cancel each other out. However, the effects of systematic errors are the greater concern.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 1:58:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:12:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

doesn't that mean Obama woudl have lost?! XD

Probably not, no
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.

As we've seen in the last elections, those that are ignorant and know nothing about politics show up in masses when one of their beloved is running.

So no, letting everybody vote is not the ideal scenario.

I didn't say ideal, I said simpler. My only concern is that one group will hold power too long. As long as everyone can vote and the pendulum of power continues to shift reliably, my freedoms can be maintained just a little bit longer. Granted, I'll agree that the current situation is not ideal for me, but I prefer this to any potential for long term one party rule.

I don't really see how such tests could be fairly and practically implemented, but would very interested to hear any such reasonable plan.
Debate.org Moderator
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:05:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:03:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.

As we've seen in the last elections, those that are ignorant and know nothing about politics show up in masses when one of their beloved is running.

So no, letting everybody vote is not the ideal scenario.

I didn't say ideal, I said simpler. My only concern is that one group will hold power too long. As long as everyone can vote and the pendulum of power continues to shift reliably, my freedoms can be maintained just a little bit longer. Granted, I'll agree that the current situation is not ideal for me, but I prefer this to any potential for long term one party rule.

The only circumstance under which one party can rule if only those knowledgeable can vote is if the party that is ruling is the most knowledgeable one. I don't see a problem with electing the most knowledgeable party.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:07:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:05:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 2:03:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:51:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.

As we've seen in the last elections, those that are ignorant and know nothing about politics show up in masses when one of their beloved is running.

So no, letting everybody vote is not the ideal scenario.

I didn't say ideal, I said simpler. My only concern is that one group will hold power too long. As long as everyone can vote and the pendulum of power continues to shift reliably, my freedoms can be maintained just a little bit longer. Granted, I'll agree that the current situation is not ideal for me, but I prefer this to any potential for long term one party rule.

The only circumstance under which one party can rule if only those knowledgeable can vote is if the party that is ruling is the most knowledgeable one. I don't see a problem with electing the most knowledgeable party.

guiz its eazy. Only Wealthy, White, Protestant Males can vote.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:07:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
'I voted for Barack because he was black.'
- Samuel L Jackson

I don't think we'll ever have a well-informed voting population.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:33:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:49:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:47:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:45:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:12:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.

THIS.

I think you should only be able to vote after you prove you understand the issues, and what the candidate stand for, and can pass a test about it.

so the less intelligent of our society will be ruled tyrannically by the intelligent. If you claim to value freedom and support this policy you're a hypocrite.

It's not a matter of intelligence. Anybody can pick up a book and see what Obama or Mcain stand for. It's a matter of ignorance that lands them in this path.

So if you are asking me if the non-ignorant should have more privileges, then yes.

I think you'd agree though that this system could easily be abused, and has been historically. It simpler for our society to just let everyone vote (for the most part) and just hope half don't show up.

That's why we have electors. But ignorant or perhaps stupid law makers, decided to establish punishments for electors who vote against the voters of their district.

Originally Representatives were elected by popular vote, Senators were chosen by the State Governments, and the President was chosen by electors. There is a reason for this method, but law makers decide to screw it up.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 2:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with the policy that only intelligent people be allowed to vote!

Let me draw up some questions:

Q1 - Is Gay Marriage good for the state?

Yes/No

All the questions will be bias and the result will lead to a government making up questions to suit their needs. No amount of idealism changes this.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:03:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 1:10:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Anybody who does not have a rudimentary understanding of politics and the feasible candidates for election should not be allowed to vote. Their vote is a useless stain on society.


I remember reading a proposal somewhere where voters had to pass an immigration test in order to vote
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2012 3:31:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/4/2012 2:46:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I agree with the policy that only intelligent people be allowed to vote!

Let me draw up some questions:

Q1 - Is Gay Marriage good for the state?

Yes/No

All the questions will be bias and the result will lead to a government making up questions to suit their needs. No amount of idealism changes this.

No it would be like this:

Q1: Does Mitt Romney support abortion

yes/no

it is about the candidate, not the thing. BTW The answer to your question is no.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross