If you had to pass an IQ test (100+) to vote, would liberals run the country?

[Brazilian HKD]

Wow the elitism in this thread is simply disgusting. I expected that from euro trash, but americans used to be better than that.

 

[Greoric]

So everyone? It's truly bizarre that people want to cherry pick certain things.

Obviously it's an awful idea but I do tend to think we would avoid disasters like Trump.

Its funny how you turned that around to a strawman about Trump. Do you have an argument for why we should allow a conflict of interest when voting on what to do with other people's money?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

This is false.

The Simpsons is the best show ever, and its only rivals are some of the recent dramas (Breaking Bad, the Wire, etc.). If we're just looking at comedy, some shows have had similar peaks (AD Seasons 1 and 2, for example), and some have had similarly long runs of at least decency (like South Park), but nothing even comes close to the combo.

And even among animated shows, I don't think those are the tops. Spongebob, Phineas and Ferb, Futurama, King of the Hill, and Bob's Burgers at least are better than all of the ones you mentioned except maybe SP.

Agreed, though it may be an age thing for folks too young to have enjoyed the Simpson's in the 90's. I have not watched the Simpson's in a couple of years but tuned in last night for the Treehouse of Horror, and it disappointed.

 

[kpt018]

Its funny how you turned that around to a strawman about Trump. Do you have an argument for why we should allow a conflict of interest when voting on what to do with other people's money?

WTF? That post has nothing to do with Trump.

My point is we all have a "conflict of interest" when it comes to what we do with our tax dollars, so your post was pretty pointless. I am also pointing out that you're singling out welfare recipients for example, but we spend on the military (which we all benefit from), infrastructure spending, education, etc. etc.. We all have a skin in the game which is why the exercise is stupid. It's noteworthy that you didn't mention corporate subsidies or weapons contractors or something like that.

 

[Greoric]

WTF? That post has nothing to do with Trump.

My point is we all have a "conflict of interest" when it comes to what we do with our tax dollars, so your post was pretty pointless. I am also pointing out that you're singling out welfare recipients for example, but we spend on the military (which we all benefit from), infrastructure spending, education, etc. etc.. We all have a skin in the game which is why the exercise is stupid. It's noteworthy that you didn't mention corporate subsidies or weapons contractors or something like that.

Those aren't handouts or conflicts of interests. Those are services that I'm obligated to pay a coercive monopoly to provide (as ridiculous as it is). Conflicts of interests are the potential votes drawn to apportion other people's money for self interested applications, ones that I can't benefit from.

Why do the ones who are being given money or subsidies also have a say in how much or to whom those subsidies are necessarily allocated?

Edit: Corporate subsidies to weapon contractors included...

 

[Jack V Savage]

WTF? That post has nothing to do with Trump.

My point is we all have a "conflict of interest" when it comes to what we do with our tax dollars, so your post was pretty pointless. I am also pointing out that you're singling out welfare recipients for example, but we spend on the military (which we all benefit from), infrastructure spending, education, etc. etc.. We all have a skin in the game which is why the exercise is stupid. It's noteworthy that you didn't mention corporate subsidies or weapons contractors or something like that.

It's a ridiculous point, like you said. Can't believe a grown man is even advancing it. Let's not allow any property owners, employers, employees, anyone with kids, single people, married people, whatever not to vote because they all have conflicts of interest. That's probably would right-wing authoritarians want, anyway.

 

[Greoric]

It's a ridiculous point, like you said. Can't believe a grown man is even advancing it. Let's not allow any property owners, employers, employees, anyone with kids, single people, married people, whatever not to vote because they all have conflicts of interest. That's probably would right-wing authoritarians want, anyway.

What handout do they get?

 

[kpt018]

Those aren't handouts or conflicts of interests. Those are services that I'm obligated to pay a coercive monopoly to provide (as ridiculous as it is). Conflicts of interests are the potential votes drawn to apportion other people's money for self interested applications, ones that I can't benefit from.

Why do the ones who are being given money or subsidies also have a say in how much or to whom those subsidies are necessarily allocated?

Edit: Corporate subsidies to weapon contractors included...

Dude, we all have a conflict of interest. You're framing it in the typical slimy way (the stuff I support is ok but the stuff I don't support is a conflict of interest). Defense of property would create the same conflict you describe. People that don't own a lot of property pay in for defense of that property, to uphold property laws, etc.. Why don't you take issue with that I wonder (I don't really wonder I know).

 

[Greoric]

Dude, we all have a conflict of interest. You're framing it in the typical slimy way (the stuff I support is ok but the stuff I don't support is a conflict of interest). Defense of property would create the same conflict you describe. People that don't own a lot of property pay in for defense of that property, to uphold property laws, etc.. Why don't you take issue with that I wonder (I don't really wonder I know).

No it doesn't. I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is? That's a service, I as a taxpayer, obligatorily pay into, which allegedly benefits everyone. Wanting to get a return on my extorted money isn't a conflict of interest. That's just wanting to get a return on what I paid for.

You didn't answer my question though. Why should the people getting handouts taken coercively from those that pay them also have a say in how much they should be paid?

You don't see how disgusting and immoral your argument is here, do you? Not only are you saying that people should have to pay someone else's way at the point of a gun, you're also demanding that government be the only one to organize the allocation. But then you're also saying the people that get the apportioned handouts should have just as much say as their benefactors for how much they get. What a generous and nice guy you are...

 

[Prefect]

That's Trump vs Clinton. Not really fair to compare a populist candidate like Trump to a conservative Democrat establishment figure like Hillary and act like it represents the left/right dichotomy.

It likely is an accurate. May was before Trump completely shit the bed and Hillary is not a that draws cross party voters. If you want to use 70k a year as a voting requirment, the southeast loses almost all of it electoral votes. 70k in Mississippi is a lot of money. 70k in Cali or the northeast, not so much. You are not at all understanding how much wealth and productivity is concentrated on the coast.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Facts are racist now? How can it be racism when it is an actual implication of the stated policy? It is literally true that blacks and Hispanics average well below 100 on IQ tests.

Sigh, are you suggesting that it is a "fact" that nobody in those groups could score above 100 on an IQ test, or you did just overlook the sweeping generalizations in the post I responded to? I will just assume the latter.

 

[CableandThanos]

Voter ID is not racist. Minorities in the Inner cities can sure line up and fill out papers to get food stamps, but they can't go get an ID card?

Funny how needing an ID to vote is racist, but needing an ID to get a gun is not? Isn't it the poor and minorities that need protection from living in bad areas. So basically libs don't care about black peoples protection. Because they are making them go through a racist process (having an ID) to protect themselves.

 

[Wayweary]

Sigh, are you suggesting that it is a "fact" that nobody in those groups could score above 100 on an IQ test, or you did just overlook the sweeping generalizations in the post I responded to? I will just assume the latter.

I didn't say it was a fact that NOBODY in those groups would reach 100, but their power as a voting bloc disappears since perhaps 85% would be eliminated. Maybe the implication of eliminating almost 9/10 voters in a demographic is lost on you, but most would call it disenfranchisement which is what the post you responded to was getting at. Add to that fact that these demographics are a minority to begin with and they are completely lost in the sauce.

 

[Goonerview]

The average IQ is between 90 and 100

https://www.reference.com/world-view/average-american-iq-ab54c97eb8a3080a

The problem is that Universities are filled with mentally ill sjw's who probably have high IQ's. But an IQ test doesn't measure common sense and mental health.

This.

SJW/Hillary supporters seem to lack common sense.

They just drink the MSM cool-aid and look down on people without a degree in cryptozoology.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

American liberals are too comfortable with the idea of their own superior intelligence, and that leaves them particularly prone to making exceptionally stupid decisions, and never taking the time to question them.
Basically they're supremacists, and that makes them pretty dangerous.

 

[Wayweary]

It likely is an accurate. May was before Trump completely shit the bed and Hillary is not a that draws cross party voters. If you want to use 70k a year as a voting requirment, the southeast loses almost all of it electoral votes. 70k in Mississippi is a lot of money. 70k in Cali or the northeast, not so much. You are not at all understanding how much wealth and productivity is concentrated on the coast.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Trump is known for having a disproportionate share of his support coming from blue color, working class people than previous candidates.

If you check Pew Research (as is graphically represented in this article: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ivides-democrats-republicans-and-independents), you will see that Republicans are better represented among the wealthy (top quartile with income >103k) than they are among the general populace (24% of general public but 31% of high income voters - democrats are ALSO 31% of high income voters but they make up a much higher 33% of the general public). So, restricting voters to the top quartile would actually eliminate the need for Republicans to have to win over independents in large numbers in a general presidential election which is the burden they currently bear, thereby hurting Dems in the politics a LOT. In midterm elections, Republicans are helped by the fact that Dems don't turn out to vote to nearly the same extent they do for presidential elections so if we had income restrictions, this effect would only be intensified there and Republicans would sweep the House and Senate by wide margins every four years.

 

[Wayweary]

No it doesn't. I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is? That's a service, I as a taxpayer, obligatorily pay into, which allegedly benefits everyone. Wanting to get a return on my extorted money isn't a conflict of interest. That's just wanting to get a return on what I paid for.

You didn't answer my question though. Why should the people getting handouts taken coercively from those that pay them also have a say in how much they should be paid?

You don't see how disgusting and immoral your argument is here, do you? Not only are you saying that people should have to pay someone else's way at the point of a gun, you're also demanding that government be the only one to organize the allocation. But then you're also saying the people that get the apportioned handouts should have just as much say as their benefactors for how much they get. What a generous and nice guy you are...

Actually, more say as a group since there are more of them. It's really an example of tyranny of the majority.

 

[Wayweary]

Dude, we all have a conflict of interest. You're framing it in the typical slimy way (the stuff I support is ok but the stuff I don't support is a conflict of interest). Defense of property would create the same conflict you describe. People that don't own a lot of property pay in for defense of that property, to uphold property laws, etc.. Why don't you take issue with that I wonder (I don't really wonder I know).

Defense of property is a foundational precept of a civil society. You think it's a special perk of the wealthy or something people give themselves at the expense of others? A conflict of interest? No, it is absolutely necessary for the formation and continuation of the advanced society we live in. Removing that is anarchy and would represent a return to a state of nature. And protections of property is something that everyone shares. Of course, you do have to accumulate property in order to benefit from it, but you accumulate property by contributing to society. So, you see, when you accumulate property legally, the implication is that that property was gotten by adding value to the society in some way, therefore you paid for your right to have it protected. The only way to accumulate property without benefiting society is... can you guess?... by violating property laws! Sorry, there is no possible way we can justify ignoring property rights; support of them does not represent a conflict of interest. Removing them does, however. Also, the people paying in that don't have a lot of property also aren't paying very much in so it isn't fair to say they are paying for others' property to be protected. In fact, the poorer two quartiles are already pulling more out of the system than they are putting in as it stands so you couldn't be much more wrong on that point.

 

[The Diplomat]

This is false.

The Simpsons is the best show ever, and its only rivals are some of the recent dramas (Breaking Bad, the Wire, etc.). If we're just looking at comedy, some shows have had similar peaks (AD Seasons 1 and 2, for example), and some have had similarly long runs of at least decency (like South Park), but nothing even comes close to the combo.

And even among animated shows, I don't think those are the tops. Spongebob, Phineas and Ferb, Futurama, King of the Hill, and Bob's Burgers at least are better than all of the ones you mentioned except maybe SP.

Spongebob SquarePants and Bob's Burgers better than Rick and Morty? No way man

Peace between worlds.

 

[sub_thug]

These sorts of threads are manifestations of insecurity and logical fallacy. Why do people need to feel like their beliefs are shared by other smart people, as though they aren't sure enough of themselves and their own reasoning? Why is consensus the golden standard of being correct? Can not the rule of mob be foolish or errant? Be a man, hold true to your convictions, respect the views of other people, and demand that they respect yours. Understand that two reasonable people can disagree on something as subjective as politics, and work together so that you can achieve the best future for yourselves.

Cliffs: Don't be an asshole