Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Voting in America

Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!
Fernyx
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 2:40:22 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I wouldn't say a kid because there are many women who don't want kids but the draft might be too much as well. Other than that there definitely should be a requirement for a high school diploma, if you had to drop out for family reasons or something related there should be a specific test to make sure you know enough to vote. Also you should have to take a test where you have to prove that you have some political knowledge. As far as being on government help, you should have to be applied or have applied for a job withing the month you voted, you should have to prove a desire for a job. This would be lifted after a certain age like 60 or so.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 11:23:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I don't understand. Is living in the country, and a citizen, not enough skin?
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 12:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 11:23:10 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I don't understand. Is living in the country, and a citizen, not enough skin?

No. There are illegal immigrants in this country that can vote. Just living is not a qualifier.

We can add as an "or" must own a business.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 12:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 2:40:22 AM, Fernyx wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I wouldn't say a kid because there are many women who don't want kids but the draft might be too much as well. Other than that there definitely should be a requirement for a high school diploma, if you had to drop out for family reasons or something related there should be a specific test to make sure you know enough to vote. Also you should have to take a test where you have to prove that you have some political knowledge. As far as being on government help, you should have to be applied or have applied for a job withing the month you voted, you should have to prove a desire for a job. This would be lifted after a certain age like 60 or so.

I do agree with everything but the first sentence. Offspring are crucial to the survival of society. Help out or don't vote.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:27:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

nope

overcrowding=/=overpopulation
scarcity=/=overpopulation
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:27:24 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

nope

overcrowding=/=overpopulation
scarcity=/=overpopulation

There are not enough resources on the planet to support the number of people we will have. That means overpopulation is a problem.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 3:24:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:37:54 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:27:24 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

nope

overcrowding=/=overpopulation
scarcity=/=overpopulation

There are not enough resources on the planet to support the number of people we will have. That means overpopulation is a problem.

This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up
Oil? If government got out of the way, we would have several types of sustainable energy. Even with government in the way we have: Wind, water, solar, nuclear, on and on
Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.
Land? Only 6% of American land is occupied.
Food? It's renewable

Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 3:24:20 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:37:54 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:27:24 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

nope

overcrowding=/=overpopulation
scarcity=/=overpopulation

There are not enough resources on the planet to support the number of people we will have. That means overpopulation is a problem.

This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

http://pai.org...

Oil? If government got out of the way, we would have several types of sustainable energy. Even with government in the way we have: Wind, water, solar, nuclear, on and on

The government needs to incentivize the free market to do what is does best: innovate and find affordable methods of renewable energy.

Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Land? Only 6% of American land is occupied.

First of all, only 47% of American land is unoccupied.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Second of all, a substantial portion of that is uninhabitable.

Third of all, land is the only thing on here that there IS enough of.

Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.

Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:13:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:01:43 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 3:24:20 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:37:54 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:27:24 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:08:19 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:58:42 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

There is no evidence to show that the world is overpopulated.

Are you joking?
http://graduate.norwich.edu...
http://aplus.com...
http://www.marketwatch.com...
http://www.pewresearch.org...

nope

overcrowding=/=overpopulation
scarcity=/=overpopulation

There are not enough resources on the planet to support the number of people we will have. That means overpopulation is a problem.

This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

Seriously Reverse Osmosis, look it up.

http://pai.org...

Oil? If government got out of the way, we would have several types of sustainable energy. Even with government in the way we have: Wind, water, solar, nuclear, on and on

The government needs to incentivize the free market to do what is does best: innovate and find affordable methods of renewable energy.

Free Market is guided by individual greed, "the invisible hand," not government

Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Again there are more trees than we thought like several magnitudes more.

Land? Only 6% of American land is occupied.

First of all, only 47% of American land is unoccupied.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Shut that A$$. I will baulk on the UNOCCUPPIED space. 320+ million and still 44 percent left, we good.
http://news.heartland.org...

Second of all, a substantial portion of that is uninhabitable.

Everything is uninhabitable until it is made inhabitable. Think igloos. Humans are highly adaptable.

Third of all, land is the only thing on here that there IS enough of.

What is enough? Fat people think 5 big macs is enough; I think 1 is enough.

Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.
You're welcome for the entertainment. But you can grow food, it's science.


Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.

No this is in the world.

http://brilliantmaps.com...
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:24:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:13:45 PM, Robkwoods wrote:


This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

Seriously Reverse Osmosis, look it up.

Which is not a solution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://www.globalcitizen.org...

http://pai.org...

Oil? If government got out of the way, we would have several types of sustainable energy. Even with government in the way we have: Wind, water, solar, nuclear, on and on

The government needs to incentivize the free market to do what is does best: innovate and find affordable methods of renewable energy.

Free Market is guided by individual greed, "the invisible hand," not government

Which is why the government needs to incentivize the market rather than regulate it to find alternative energy sources.

Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Again there are more trees than we thought like several magnitudes more.

Which is still not enough. It's still not sustainable.
http://www.takepart.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

Land? Only 6% of American land is occupied.

First of all, only 47% of American land is unoccupied.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Shut that A$$. I will baulk on the UNOCCUPPIED space. 320+ million and still 44 percent left, we good.

http://news.heartland.org...

Second of all, a substantial portion of that is uninhabitable.

Everything is uninhabitable until it is made inhabitable. Think igloos. Humans are highly adaptable.

There are plenty of environments we are biologically incapable of surviving in.

Third of all, land is the only thing on here that there IS enough of.

What is enough? Fat people think 5 big macs is enough; I think 1 is enough.

What? This makes no sense. We're not in any danger of running out of land. We are in extreme danger of running out of everything else.

Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.
You're welcome for the entertainment. But you can grow food, it's science.

Sure. That doesn't mean you can grow enough quickly enough.
https://www.populationinstitute.org...


Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.

No this is in the world.

LOL WTF? The world population has been growing like mad for awhile now, and that will only continue. Literally NO ONE denies the huge population growth in the world.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...

http://brilliantmaps.com...
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:24:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:13:45 PM, Robkwoods wrote:


This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

Seriously Reverse Osmosis, look it up.

Which is not a solution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://www.globalcitizen.org...

Why? It makes water, seems like a great solution.


http://pai.org...

Oil? If government got out of the way, we would have several types of sustainable energy. Even with government in the way we have: Wind, water, solar, nuclear, on and on

The government needs to incentivize the free market to do what is does best: innovate and find affordable methods of renewable energy.

Free Market is guided by individual greed, "the invisible hand," not government

Which is why the government needs to incentivize the market rather than regulate it to find alternative energy sources.

Government doesn't incentivize market, the individual incentivizes market.


Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Again there are more trees than we thought like several magnitudes more.

Which is still not enough. It's still not sustainable.
http://www.takepart.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

1% of our global wood supply a year, we good.


Land? Only 6% of American land is occupied.

First of all, only 47% of American land is unoccupied.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Shut that A$$. I will baulk on the UNOCCUPPIED space. 320+ million and still 44 percent left, we good.

http://news.heartland.org...

Second of all, a substantial portion of that is uninhabitable.

Everything is uninhabitable until it is made inhabitable. Think igloos. Humans are highly adaptable.

There are plenty of environments we are biologically incapable of surviving in.

Third of all, land is the only thing on here that there IS enough of.

What is enough? Fat people think 5 big macs is enough; I think 1 is enough.

What? This makes no sense. We're not in any danger of running out of land. We are in extreme danger of running out of everything else.


Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.
You're welcome for the entertainment. But you can grow food, it's science.

Sure. That doesn't mean you can grow enough quickly enough.
https://www.populationinstitute.org...

If every family had a garden we would be fine. I have a garden. Why do you need to wait on someone else to provide for you? Do it yourself.


Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.

No this is in the world.

LOL WTF? The world population has been growing like mad for awhile now, and that will only continue. Literally NO ONE denies the huge population growth in the world.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...

http://brilliantmaps.com...

Population growth reach 2% in mid 20th. It is around 1% now.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:40:09 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:24:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:13:45 PM, Robkwoods wrote:


This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

Seriously Reverse Osmosis, look it up.

Which is not a solution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://www.globalcitizen.org...

Why? It makes water, seems like a great solution.

Read the links.

Free Market is guided by individual greed, "the invisible hand," not government

Which is why the government needs to incentivize the market rather than regulate it to find alternative energy sources.

Government doesn't incentivize market, the individual incentivizes market.

Do you really not know anything about economics? Of course the government can incentivize the market.


Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Again there are more trees than we thought like several magnitudes more.

Which is still not enough. It's still not sustainable.
http://www.takepart.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

1% of our global wood supply a year, we good.

? 300 years until there's not a single tree on earth. So how many years until there's not enough trees for oxygen, carbon sequestration, timber products, etc? Much less than that, especially coupled with a growing population.


Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.
You're welcome for the entertainment. But you can grow food, it's science.

Sure. That doesn't mean you can grow enough quickly enough.
https://www.populationinstitute.org...

If every family had a garden we would be fine. I have a garden. Why do you need to wait on someone else to provide for you? Do it yourself.

Yeah, because everyone can grow a garden everywhere...oh wait, no they can't. Well, a garden can definitely support a family of four year-round...oh wait, no it can't. Well at least everyone can afford all the resources and time it takes to growing and protecting a garden...oh wait, no they can't.


Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.

No this is in the world.

LOL WTF? The world population has been growing like mad for awhile now, and that will only continue. Literally NO ONE denies the huge population growth in the world.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...

http://brilliantmaps.com...

Population growth reach 2% in mid 20th. It is around 1% now.

And yet it was 1 billion in 1800 and will be 10 billion in 2050.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 5:12:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:59:46 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:40:09 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:24:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:13:45 PM, Robkwoods wrote:


This is verifiably false, take off the tin hat. What resources are you speaking of?
Water? 70% of the earth is water, Reverse Osmosis look it up

And less than 3% is fresh water, which is what we can actually consume without dying. An even smaller portion of that is accessible. Less than 1% of water on the planet can be used for human needs.

Seriously Reverse Osmosis, look it up.

Which is not a solution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://www.globalcitizen.org...

Why? It makes water, seems like a great solution.

Read the links.

Why? I worked on R/O machines. One setup could make 3000 gallons in few hours. That is a lot of potable water.

Free Market is guided by individual greed, "the invisible hand," not government

Which is why the government needs to incentivize the market rather than regulate it to find alternative energy sources.

Government doesn't incentivize market, the individual incentivizes market.

Do you really not know anything about economics? Of course the government can incentivize the market.

I do. Do you?
Yeah and how is that working out. The government as a whole can be seen as a person. I don't want one person control the market. It never works out.



Trees? A study trying to find out if we have enough, found that we underestimated the amount by a few trillion.

There are literally hundreds of studies warning us that we deforesting an unsustainable rates.

Again there are more trees than we thought like several magnitudes more.

Which is still not enough. It's still not sustainable.
http://www.takepart.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...

1% of our global wood supply a year, we good.

? 300 years until there's not a single tree on earth. So how many years until there's not enough trees for oxygen, carbon sequestration, timber products, etc? Much less than that, especially coupled with a growing population.


You would have to assume that trees aren't being replaced.

Food? It's renewable

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, that was funny.
You're welcome for the entertainment. But you can grow food, it's science.

Sure. That doesn't mean you can grow enough quickly enough.
https://www.populationinstitute.org...

If every family had a garden we would be fine. I have a garden. Why do you need to wait on someone else to provide for you? Do it yourself.

Yeah, because everyone can grow a garden everywhere...oh wait, no they can't. Well, a garden can definitely support a family of four year-round...oh wait, no it can't. Well at least everyone can afford all the resources and time it takes to growing and protecting a garden...oh wait, no they can't.

That not EVERYONE has to have one, just a majority. Actually can and did. It is called make time, no one is that busy.



Birthrates have been plummeting since the mid 20th, we are not overpopulated. There are no studies that have determine what the earth can actually support. Have you ever heard of Homeostasis, it is BIO 101 sh!t. Everything thing is in a constant state of finding balance. If we were overpopulated we would know it.

In the US. Not in the world as a whole. Look at the growing population rate in Africa, for example, not to mention India.

No this is in the world.

LOL WTF? The world population has been growing like mad for awhile now, and that will only continue. Literally NO ONE denies the huge population growth in the world.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...

http://brilliantmaps.com...

Population growth reach 2% in mid 20th. It is around 1% now.

And yet it was 1 billion in 1800 and will be 10 billion in 2050.

Growth happens but it's not unsustainable nor is there this massive population a explosion.

250 years is a long time.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 7:06:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

This all violates the Constitute AND it would lead to more benefits for the wealthy and less for the poor.

If the poor/uneducated cannot vote, no one is going to represent their interest, so they're schools will be underfunded. This will lead to an increase in crime as more students fail to move to college or even graduate high school.

Poor people also tend to have more children for a variety of factors so the uneducated population will see a huge rise. The US will fall behind in the global economy as its writers, engineers, scientists, teachers all drop in population.

This would also target immigrants who may not be the most skilled in English (and they wont be able to learn it either because the schools will be bad) so immigrants would be less likely to move to the US, also affecting the economy negatively.

Bascially, these are all terrible, terrible, unethical ideas more reminiscent of fascism and oligarchy than democracy.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 9:12:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 7:06:58 PM, bhakun wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

This all violates the Constitute AND it would lead to more benefits for the wealthy and less for the poor.

obviously i am not concerned about the constitution
How so? 100K and up income households only represent 10%. Most of your voting block would be lower and middle middle class.

If the poor/uneducated cannot vote, no one is going to represent their interest, so they're schools will be underfunded. This will lead to an increase in crime as more students fail to move to college or even graduate high school.
Poor people also tend to have more children for a variety of factors so the uneducated population will see a huge rise. The US will fall behind in the global economy as its writers, engineers, scientists, teachers all drop in population.


Didn't say you can't vote if you are not educated, just said you need to be able to read, write, and speak English. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This would also target immigrants who may not be the most skilled in English (and they wont be able to learn it either because the schools will be bad) so immigrants would be less likely to move to the US, also affecting the economy negatively.


I only want the best immigrants. Ones that actually want to assimilate into American culture.

Bascially, these are all terrible, terrible, unethical ideas more reminiscent of fascism and oligarchy than democracy.

Very Interesting. You don't think people would rise to the occasion.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I think that the voting age should be raised to 30. You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:49:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 12:54:10 PM, Semiya wrote:
Definitely not. The world is already overpopulated, the draft is unconstitutional and a violation of freedoms, and not being on a subsidy has f*ck-all to do with voting.

The world is not overpopulated. In fact, scientists measure that we have enough space to hold 9 billion people comfortably.

Also, allowing welfare users to vote makes for ostentatious politicians that try to appeal to them, and that's why most people on welfare vote Democrat, as they will expand the benefits.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:26:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:12:05 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 7/22/2016 7:06:58 PM, bhakun wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

This all violates the Constitute AND it would lead to more benefits for the wealthy and less for the poor.

obviously i am not concerned about the constitution
How so? 100K and up income households only represent 10%. Most of your voting block would be lower and middle middle class.
Rich politicians dont share the same interests as the middle and lower class. Poor people dont vote for politicians that will benefit the rich, so of course the rich are going to make people as uneducated as possible so that there is a higher percentage of wealth voters.
If the poor/uneducated cannot vote, no one is going to represent their interest, so they're schools will be underfunded. This will lead to an increase in crime as more students fail to move to college or even graduate high school.
Poor people also tend to have more children for a variety of factors so the uneducated population will see a huge rise. The US will fall behind in the global economy as its writers, engineers, scientists, teachers all drop in population.


Didn't say you can't vote if you are not educated, just said you need to be able to read, write, and speak English. I don't think that is too much to ask.
You'd be surprised. Currently, I think about roughly 25% of the adult population has never finished high school and 10% are not literate. These numbers would only increase under your terms.


This would also target immigrants who may not be the most skilled in English (and they wont be able to learn it either because the schools will be bad) so immigrants would be less likely to move to the US, also affecting the economy negatively.


I only want the best immigrants. Ones that actually want to assimilate into American culture.
Speaking English is not American culture. Nor is having a child. Nor is joining the draft.

Bascially, these are all terrible, terrible, unethical ideas more reminiscent of fascism and oligarchy than democracy.

Very Interesting. You don't think people would rise to the occasion.
Do you seriously think this is a good idea? It's been done before. By the wrong people.

https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

These kinds of things were done by supporters of Jim Crow--racists--to prevent the black population from gaining traction politically.

The point of a democracy is that no matter your social status, no matter your beliefs, no matter your religion, your gender, your income... if you are an adult you have the right to have your interests represented.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:33:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I think that the voting age should be raised to 30.
This would not work well for young people. (though to be fair not many people under 30 vote) This would put way too much pressure on citizens just out of college that cannot have their interests represented. You'd end up with a bunch of laws that benefit the 60+ crowd.
You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
Proper education, especially for economics (not many schools teach this), is hard to find in poorer communities. And I love the irony of having to take a Constitution exam to vote when that idea goes against the values of the Constitution.

And voter turnout in the US today is already a problem. Having to file all these forms and tests and such would be such a hassle for a working family. Voting season would be just as busy as tax season.

Voting is a fundamental principle of a democracy, and I think it needs to be a simple process. If you are a citizen 18 or older, you to your local school and you vote. We dont need some Orwellian government all in our noses just to vote.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:34:15 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:37:54 PM, Semiya wrote:
There are not enough resources on the planet to support the number of people we will have. That means overpopulation is a problem.
"Overpopulation" isn't coming from the first world. It's coming from Africa and India and the Middle East. Where birth rates are in decline, by the way, so it won't be a long-term issue.

The West actually has the opposite problem - decline in birth rates leads to population aging, among other things.

The US has many, many, many problems. Overpopulation isn't one of them.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:36:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:12:05 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
I only want the best immigrants. Ones that actually want to assimilate into American culture.
Imaginary immigrants it is.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:36:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I think that the voting age should be raised to 30. You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
Why?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:42:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:36:57 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I think that the voting age should be raised to 30. You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
Why?

Less minority voters, meaning no more Democrats. I also am fiercely against suffrage for most people as I find democracy to be leadership by the worthless masses.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:48:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:33:10 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I think that the voting age should be raised to 30.
This would not work well for young people. (though to be fair not many people under 30 vote) This would put way too much pressure on citizens just out of college that cannot have their interests represented. You'd end up with a bunch of laws that benefit the 60+ crowd.
You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
Proper education, especially for economics (not many schools teach this), is hard to find in poorer communities. And I love the irony of having to take a Constitution exam to vote when that idea goes against the values of the Constitution.

And voter turnout in the US today is already a problem. Having to file all these forms and tests and such would be such a hassle for a working family. Voting season would be just as busy as tax season.

Voting is a fundamental principle of a democracy, and I think it needs to be a simple process. If you are a citizen 18 or older, you to your local school and you vote. We dont need some Orwellian government all in our noses just to vote.

That's my intended goal. I want less voters, especially minority voters.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:48:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:36:47 AM, someloser wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:12:05 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
I only want the best immigrants. Ones that actually want to assimilate into American culture.
Imaginary immigrants it is.

There are very few exceptions, but most of those are immigrants that came when they were very young and are hailing from Europe, not from anywhere else.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:49:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:48:07 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:33:10 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:47:50 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:16:34 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
If your going to vote you need to have some skin in the game.

If you are an American Citizen man you must sign up for the draft to vote.

If you are an American Citizen woman you must have a baby to vote.

To vote you must be able to speak, read and write English.

To vote you can not be on a Government Subsidy.

Before you scream sexist or racism, understand this is hypothetical and those two terms provide no solution.

Discuss!

I think that the voting age should be raised to 30.
This would not work well for young people. (though to be fair not many people under 30 vote) This would put way too much pressure on citizens just out of college that cannot have their interests represented. You'd end up with a bunch of laws that benefit the 60+ crowd.
You must have an education, you must be employed and have been employed for a couple of months/years. You must not be making below a certain income threshold. You must not be on government assistance or have been on it within the past couple of years. You have to pass a history exam, a Constitution exam, and an economics exam as well.
Proper education, especially for economics (not many schools teach this), is hard to find in poorer communities. And I love the irony of having to take a Constitution exam to vote when that idea goes against the values of the Constitution.

And voter turnout in the US today is already a problem. Having to file all these forms and tests and such would be such a hassle for a working family. Voting season would be just as busy as tax season.

Voting is a fundamental principle of a democracy, and I think it needs to be a simple process. If you are a citizen 18 or older, you to your local school and you vote. We dont need some Orwellian government all in our noses just to vote.

That's my intended goal. I want less voters, especially minority voters.

Why less minorities?
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr