- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:24 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
How many people would fail that test?
At least 40% of the population.
That would be good.
We could mollify the masses by allowing them to vote for National Prom Queen/King, That represents the content of their vote anyway.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:40 am to redbaron
quote:
Someone said it earlier, conflict of interest.
How is it a conflict of interest?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 12:05 pm to fr33manator
I lean Republican but I don't think IQ/public assistance tests would have the favorable result that many in this thread assume they would.
Just sayin.
Just sayin.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 12:49 pm to cwill
They have nothing to lose by voting for welfare. It's a complete freebie.
Go figure, the party that takes from those who actually contribute and redistribute to those who do not, is quite popular among the do-nots.
Go figure, the party that takes from those who actually contribute and redistribute to those who do not, is quite popular among the do-nots.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:07 pm to redbaron
quote:
Posted by redbaron
They have nothing to lose by voting for welfare. It's a complete freebie.
Yeah, OK, but that's not a conflict of interest.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:13 pm to cwill
quote:
Yeah, OK, but that's not a conflict of interest.
Fair. Poor choice of words on my part.
Situations like that one make me wonder how it would be if the US was an actual democracy, and not republic. Imagine voting for the actual bills instead of voting for a representative that has carte blanche for two/six years.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:34 pm to cwill
quote:
but that's not a conflict of interest.
It absolutely is.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:39 pm to TrueTiger
No, it isn't. Who's interest is in conflict?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:44 pm to cwill
Common definition:
The citizen on public assistance is incentivized to vote against the best interest of the citizenry.
quote:
the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.
The citizen on public assistance is incentivized to vote against the best interest of the citizenry.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:53 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
The citizen on public assistance is incentivized to vote against the best interest of the citizenry.
Everyone who votes has a conflicting interest with some segment of the citizenry. That's not a "conflict of interest" as that term is commonly understood.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 1:58 pm to fr33manator
{{{How about those who contribute to society and those who don't?}}}
In the interest of fairness and plain common sense; why should someone who pays no taxes be allowed to have a say in whether or not I should pay more?
In the interest of fairness and plain common sense; why should someone who pays no taxes be allowed to have a say in whether or not I should pay more?
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:02 pm to cwill
Sorry that you can't see clearly.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:03 pm to TrueTiger
Sorry that you don't understand "conflict of interest". GLTY. 
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:08 pm to geauxldeneye
quote:I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate:
In the interest of fairness and plain common sense; why should someone who pays no taxes be allowed to have a say in whether or not I should pay more?
-Why should someone who doesn't own a business be able to have a say in what rate businesses are taxed at?
-Why should someone who doesn't own property have a say in property tax rates?
Think the key is being able to objectively differentiate between "contributors" and "non-contributors" to society.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:10 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Should we bring back the literacy test?
Of course we should. It's never going to happen though.
quote:
What we really lose that much from not letting illiterate people vote?
Nope. Only unwanted problems.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:10 pm to cwill
Looks like we both dug in deep.
Time to declare an impasse.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:10 pm to fr33manator
Will never happen but I think it's reasonable to establish some kind of minimum threshold. We can start by verifying citizenship and residency.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:11 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Time to declare an impasse.
But I am right...objectively so.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 2:12 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
it would probably reduce a significant portion of both the democrat and republican party voting base
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 2:13 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News