Support NeoGAF

[Makai]

Cute.

It's literally what you're advocating. We can't trust the people to vote in their own interests so the state must guide them towards socialism.

 

[Manmademan]

Is George P the Latino Bush?

And boy does that family love to hold onto names. There are more than a few Georges, Prescotts, Herberts, and Walkers in there.

that's the one.

ten bucks says he takes a shot at governor in the near future.

 

[pigeon]

i don't think jeb would downsize his operations if he were going to drop out soon. he'd just simply drop out

i think the campaign has more mileage than the current narrative is letting on but it's looking increasingly likely he'll have to bow out to make things easier for rubio, at some point. unless things really turn around

Walker downsized a week before he dropped out.

At this point, especially with those SC comments, I think Jeb has already dropped out, he just hasn't announced it yet.

Basically, as I see it, there are three options.

One is that all the pundits are right and the establishment will wrest back control/people will get bored of Trump. In this case, Rubio is the nominee.

Two is that the world is different now and Trump is the nominee.

Three, most potentially entertainingly, is that the establishment has SOME power, but not enough to force their candidate, so they settle on a candidate that's an actual politician and has legal experience but still defines themselves as an outsider and attacks Washington at every turn...Ted Cruz.

 

[ivysaur12]

Primary day in Lousiana. Please please please John Bel Edwards v Vitter. Vitter is so beatable.

 

[theprodigy]

I agree with brainchild, we should have a test.

Rule #1: If you're a Sawano stan, you're automatically ineligible.

we could call it the "duckroll rule"

 

[NeoXChaos]

Primary day in Lousiana. Please please please John Bel Edwards v Vitter. Vitter is so beatable.

Don't worry. I voted already.

 

[Manmademan]

Walker downsized a week before he dropped out.

At this point, especially with those SC comments, I think Jeb has already dropped out, he just hasn't announced it yet.

Basically, as I see it, there are three options.

One is that all the pundits are right and the establishment will wrest back control/people will get bored of Trump. In this case, Rubio is the nominee.

Two is that the world is different now and Trump is the nominee.

Three, most potentially entertainingly, is that the establishment has SOME power, but not enough to force their candidate, so they settle on a candidate that's an actual politician and has legal experience but still defines themselves as an outsider and attacks Washington at every turn...Ted Cruz.

I told y'all about Ted Cruz

 

[brainchild]

I actually agree with brainchild here.

I think we should implement tests for whether you get to vote.

Now some may ask, who decides what questions are on the test? And I agree that is a valid question. So we should elect a representative to design the test.

But when the representative gets elected, he may bias the questions to make sure he gets reelected. Fair, so we have to screen the people who are voting on the representative.

Well let's make a second test, but who will design it? Well we could have the supreme court design it because they don't need to get reelected. But then what if the questions they decide on are biased? Well we better appoint better justices next time, I guess. Huh.

But weren't literacy and civic knowledge tests used to disenfranchise black voters for decades? Don't worry, we can make them impartial this time. Just let me think of a way...

As long as the test can be proven to be unbiased and have no political leanings, it completely avoids all this nonsense.

The test would basically focus on two major questions: What are the issues that the candidates claim to argue for or against, and which candidates claim to support or oppose said views. That's it.

Anyway, I don't think the test is as important as the class. As long as the class covers those things, it doesn't matter if they pass a test.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

I think I've done a pretty good job in distinguishing my ideas from a system by which it would be impossible for minorities to vote.

If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

"No, it's not me that's wrong. It's everyone in the thread that is."

You say you've done a great job explaining this.. Except you totally haven't. We post these education centers and crap because you are literally describing these things. Not one person in this country should have their vote supressed because they didn't pass your idiotic test.

You can find their reasons for voting for candidates idiotic. But it's their RIGHTS as CITIZENS.

 

[ivysaur12]

Make sure you sign Hillary's birthday card!

I don't know why Christie wouldn't drop out before Jeb, considering Christie is younger and is still ambitious. But I think it's too early for serious players to drop out. They'll just scale back and wait for a clusterfuck.

Walker had no support because he was an idiot.

I don't expect many more people to drop out before the primary, save maybe Pataki and Gilmore. There are just too many variables and everyone thinks that Trump and Carson will crash and they'll be the ones on the rise.

 

[Y2Kev]

Also why does NBC cancel the apprentice and then invite him to host SNL?

 

[Makai]

Walker downsized a week before he dropped out.

At this point, especially with those SC comments, I think Jeb has already dropped out, he just hasn't announced it yet.

Basically, as I see it, there are three options.

One is that all the pundits are right and the establishment will wrest back control/people will get bored of Trump. In this case, Rubio is the nominee.

Two is that the world is different now and Trump is the nominee.

Three, most potentially entertainingly, is that the establishment has SOME power, but not enough to force their candidate, so they settle on a candidate that's an actual politician and has legal experience but still defines themselves as an outsider and attacks Washington at every turn...Ted Cruz.

Agreed. What does a primary cost, anyway? It's probably about $100 million and Trump will happily match that. Good luck with Option 1, establishment.

 

[pigeon]

I'm going by this definition

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: A form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31.

I supposed you could argue that 'the best interest of the people' and the 'benefit of the whole nation' don't mean the same thing, but even if we went for the 'benefit of the whole nation' definition, my point is that I believe that voters should understand that their vote should serve as a means to achieve the goal of a representative democracy. Their vote may not do that if they don't know who the candidates are or what they stand for. If the voting system is structured in such a way that we can't have a true representative democracy, then I believe that measures should be taken to ensure that we can (as best as possible).

Neither definition says anything about the voters.

The people who are elected have the responsibility of serving their country. Nowhere does it say that the voters should elect people who are best at serving the country. The voters get to vote however they want. If they elect people who are bad at serving the country then the country gets served badly, because that's what they voted for.

Madison is specifically trying to avoid the oligarchic impulses you are demonstrating here when he creates American democracy. He assumes that people will mostly not act according to the best impulses of their nature, but instead mostly act according to their own interests, advocating for policies that benefit them and voting for politicians that support them. That is explicitly the reason for separation of powers and checks and balances -- to ensure that policy won't change unless a preponderance of the electorate chooses candidates, across several elections, that want that policy to change.

Again, it is quite possible that some voters are uninformed. Those voters represent an opportunity for politicians to inform them and so win their votes. If those politicians have failed to do so, that's a failing of the politicians, not the voters. Punishing the voters is misunderstanding democracy.

 

[dramatis]

I agree with brainchild, we should have a test.

Rule #1: If you're a Sawano stan, you're automatically ineligible.

we could call it the "duckroll rule"

I agree with this.

 

[brainchild]

It's literally what you're advocating. We can't trust the people to vote in their own interests so the state must guide them towards socialism.

No, I never even mentioned the word socialism. If the country doesn't support socialism, the classes would not necessarily guide them in that direction.

I agree with brainchild, we should have a test.

Rule #1: If you're a Sawano stan, you're automatically ineligible.

we could call it the "duckroll rule"

Lol

"No, it's not me that's wrong. It's everyone in the thread that is."

You say you've done a great job explaining this.. Except you totally haven't. We post these education centers and crap because you are literally describing these things. Not one person in this country should have their vote supressed because they didn't pass your idiotic test.

You can find their reasons for voting for candidates idiotic. But it's their RIGHTS as CITIZENS.

I think it's similar to Bernie's choice to label himself as a socialist. Doesn't matter how hard he tries to explain what it is, some people will automatically assume his intentions because of the negative stigma of the word.

In my case, despite being slightly nuanced, my views are too close to the idea of literacy tests, and so people immediately assume that's what I'm advocating for.

Also, I'm not really pushing for the tests as much as the classes. I'm fine with the classes being the only requirement.

 

[Plumbob]

As long as the test can be proven to be unbiased and have no political leanings, it completely avoids all this nonsense.

The test would basically focus on two major questions: What are the issues that the candidates claim to argue for or against, and which candidates claim to support or oppose said views. That's it.

Anyway, I don't think the test is as important as the class. As long as the class covers those things, it doesn't matter if they pass a test.

Alright let's design a test to prove the test is unbiased.

But who decides the criteria for whether the test is unbiased? Guess we have to hold another election.

We should probably hold an election to decide who designs the classes to educate people on the issues. Would love to see who Donald Trump appoints as Secretary of Re-education.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Guys like Huckabee, Christie, Jindal etc. aren't dropping out anytime soon because they have no reason to. They're running for president to build their brands off whatever attention they get from being presidential candidates. I don't think any of the people running for president who are polling around 1-2% have any illusion that they're going to be the nominee.

Of the candidates running I'd say only Bush, Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Paul really think they might have a shot. The rest are vanity runs or VP auditions. Guys like Christie and Huckabee would have been serious contenders once but they missed their opportunity by not running in 2012, they have too much baggage now.

 

[NeoXChaos]

David Plouffe for Hillary.

https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/why-i-m-endorsing-hillary-clinton-for-president-1d15ad738c65#.y4qnnucla

 

[Makai]

Guys like Huckabee, Christie, Jindal etc. aren't dropping out anytime soon because they have no reason to. They're running for president to build their brands off whatever attention they get from being presidential candidates. I don't think any of the people running for president who are polling around 1-2% have any illusion that they're going to be the nominee.

Of the candidates running I'd say only Bush, Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Paul really think they might have a shot. The rest are vanity runs or VP auditions. Guys like Christie and Huckabee would have been serious contenders once but they missed their opportunity by not running in 2012, they have too much baggage now.

Carson? We've established his campaign is sponsored by Barnes and Noble, but surely he's looked at the polls and thought, "Damn, maybe I can actually win this."

 

[BertramCooper]

Didn't realize i needed the consent of Clinton voters to vote for who i want, but thanks? I guess this type of condescending attitude is at least an improvement from accusing me of being an ignorant, diet racist, Ron Paul supporter who never votes and is going to ruin the election

You don't need my consent, and I have no interest in granting it to you.

I know quite a few people now who are voting for Sanders but ultimately want Clinton to win. And I think the arguments for doing so make sense. Bernie's stances don't make him a viable candidate in the general, but I think it's good that he's having an impact in the primary because it demonstrates that a candidate like him could be viable in the not-too-distant future.

But I lose my patience with Sanders supporters who are dead-set on him defeating Clinton and igniting an overnight political revolution.

 

[NeoXChaos]

You don't need my consent, and I have no interest in granting it to you.

I know quite a few people now who are voting for Sanders but ultimately want Clinton to win. And I think the arguments for doing so make sense. Bernie's stances don't make him a viable candidate in the general, but I think it's good that he's having an impact in the primary because it demonstrates that a candidate like him could be viable in the not-too-distant future.

But I lose my patience with Sanders supporters who are dead-set on him defeating Clinton and igniting an overnight political revolution.

who does not want $15 minimum wage, free college etc? Everyone should want that even the most die hard Republicans.

 

[Makai]

 

[Makai]

Also, I'm not really pushing for the tests as much as the classes. I'm fine with the classes being the only requirement.

Civics courses are part of the curriculum of probably every school.

 

[Abinash117]

who does not want $15 minimum wage, free college etc? Everyone should want that even the most die hard Republicans.

Maybe for themselves but not for everyone else.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think a lot of us are right. It just doesn't seem like he wants to be president. He expected a coronation and stiff armed Romney out of running. Since then he has been a disaster. My mom put it perfectly: no regular person hops out of bed thinking "I can't wait to help Jeb Bush become president." People are doing that every day for Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Carson, even Trump. But Jeb? The only people who give a fuck are millionaires and billionaires, as his campaign finance reports show.

 

[BertramCooper]

He looks so deeply uncomfortable doing anything.

Jeb!'s campaign is the most perfunctory political exercise I've ever seen. It's like he's running for president out of some weird sort of obligation than any actual passion for getting the job.

"Gee whiz, America is off track. I guess it's my responsibility as a Bush to save it."

 

[Y2Kev]

David Plouffe for Hillary.

https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/why-i-m-endorsing-hillary-clinton-for-president-1d15ad738c65#.y4qnnucla

:') my queen

Jeb bush is just susano-o from okami. you guys are going to wake him up

 

[Pryce]

who does not want $15 minimum wage, free college etc? Everyone should want that even the most die hard Republicans.

They want it for themselves because they work hard and earned it but don't want it for others because they didn't use their bootstraps and are being handed free stuff.

 

[brainchild]

Neither definition says anything about the voters.

The people who are elected have the responsibility of serving their country. Nowhere does it say that the voters should elect people who are best at serving the country. The voters get to vote however they want. If they elect people who are bad at serving the country then the country gets served badly, because that's what they voted for.

Madison is specifically trying to avoid the oligarchic impulses you are demonstrating here when he creates American democracy. He assumes that people will mostly not act according to the best impulses of their nature, but instead mostly act according to their own interests, advocating for policies that benefit them and voting for politicians that support them. That is explicitly the reason for separation of powers and checks and balances -- to ensure that policy won't change unless a preponderance of the electorate chooses candidates, across several elections, that want that policy to change.

Again, it is quite possible that some voters are uninformed. Those voters represent an opportunity for politicians to inform them and so win their votes. If those politicians have failed to do so, that's a failing of the politicians, not the voters. Punishing the voters is misunderstanding democracy.

If a representative democracy serves as a means to take the place of a direct democracy due to the size of the population, then the ultimate goal remains the same between the two: the people decide on policy and legislation. The only real difference is one of logistics.

So basically, just like voters in a direct democracy should understand the policies that they're voting for or against (as best as possible), voters in a representative democracy should understand the policies that their representatives are voting for or against (as best as possible).

The elected officials aren't just thinking for us in a representative democracy, they're working in our stead, simply because it's logistically impossible for the general populace to vote on policy otherwise.

Alright let's design a test to prove the test is unbiased.

But who decides the criteria for whether the test is unbiased? Guess we have to hold another election.

We should probably hold an election to decide who designs the classes to educate people on the issues. Would love to see who Donald Trump appoints as Secretary of Re-education.

As long was the test writers provide proof that the test is unbiased, you do not need to have an unbiased representative create the test, or vote for one to create the test. And again, I'm fine with doing away with the test of the classes are still mandatory.

 

[Hopfrog]

He looks so deeply uncomfortable doing anything.

Jeb!'s campaign is the most perfunctory political exercise I've ever seen. It's like he's running for president out of some weird sort of obligation than any actual passion for getting the job.

"Gee whiz, America is off track. I guess it's my responsibility as a Bush to save it."

He is a Bush. Running for president is on the bucket list.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I think a lot of us are right. It just doesn't seem like he wants to be president. He expected a coronation and stiff armed Romney out of running. Since then he has been a disaster. My mom put it perfectly: no regular person hops out of bed thinking "I can't wait to help Jeb Bush become president." People are doing that every day for Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Carson, even Trump. But Jeb? The only people who give a fuck are millionaires and billionaires, as his campaign finance reports show.

He really did. Makes this all the more delicious.

 

[BertramCooper]

Branchild's entire argument is one of the most ludicrous things I've seen in this thread in quite a while.

And we're talking about a thread that ErasureAcer posts in. (Or at least used to.)

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Trump is within 3 points of Jeb Bush in the prediction markets. Could overtake him for the first time soon.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think a lot of us are right. It just doesn't seem like he wants to be president. He expected a coronation and stiff armed Romney out of running. Since then he has been a disaster. My mom put it perfectly: no regular person hops out of bed thinking "I can't wait to help Jeb Bush become president." People are doing that every day for Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Carson, even Trump. But Jeb? The only people who give a fuck are millionaires and billionaires, as his campaign finance reports show.

It's funny now to think about all the people my age who are like "We've only had Bushes and Clintons my whole life!"

Like don't worry, I don't think you need to worry about one of those for a loooong time.

 

[brainchild]

Civics courses are part of the curriculum of probably every school.

Not the same thing at all. Most of them merely cover US/American history and politics, not an in-depth view on current issues and the stances of the current candidates.

I wouldn't be opposed to a revision of civics courses that would cover these issues prominently and aim to encourage political awareness.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think a lot of us are right. It just doesn't seem like he wants to be president. He expected a coronation and stiff armed Romney out of running. Since then he has been a disaster. My mom put it perfectly: no regular person hops out of bed thinking "I can't wait to help Jeb Bush become president." People are doing that every day for Hillary, Bernie, Cruz, Carson, even Trump. But Jeb? The only people who give a fuck are millionaires and billionaires, as his campaign finance reports show.

There's one person. Though I guess regular person doesn't qualify since she seems crazy.

 

[Aaron Strife]

There's one person.

I don't even know who this is

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't even know who this is

She's a Jeb Bush campaign employee who was planted into a Trump rally to make him look bad with her questions.

 

[Hopfrog]

There's one person. Though I guess regular person doesn't qualify since she seems crazy.

I know it is just the perspective of the photo doing it, but man Jeb's! head looks GIGANTIC there.

 

[kingkitty]

I think brainchild's plan is so good that I expect it to be introduced in the North Carolina general assembly in the near future.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Sorry for circling back to this, but I could not help it.

I'm going by this definition

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: A form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31.

I'm not sure why I was surprised that when I raised a definitional dispute about democracy and its purpose, you chose to appeal to an obscure legal dictionary written before the Civil War (although I am amused at the implicit historical context when it references a "body of men"). Modern society doesn't traditionally distinguish between democracy and representative democracy since the latter is the obvious norm as true democracy would be logistically impossible.

Miriam Webster: A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Oxford: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives // Of a legislative or deliberative assembly consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group.

Democracy does not have a overarching purpose outside of the principles that its mechanisms represent, and it certainly isn't goal orientated towards electing specific representatives who will best serve or benefit the country; it's just about electing representatives who act on behalf of their voters. If the ultimate purpose is about getting the most qualified or effective people, then we wouldn't want democracy in the first place.

I supposed you could argue that 'the best interest of the people' and the 'benefit of the whole nation' don't mean the same thing, but even if we went for the 'benefit of the whole nation' definition, my point is that I believe that voters should understand that their vote should serve as a means to achieve the goal of a representative democracy. Their vote may not do that if they don't know who the candidates are or what they stand for. If the voting system is structured in such a way that we can't have a true representative democracy, then I believe that measures should be taken to ensure that we can (as best as possible).

You have it completely backwards. Their vote is not a means to an end it is the end in of itself, the vote itself is democracy. Otherwise we could obtain the end by better means. The goal of representative democracy is simply to have a system by which people freely vote for their preferred representative, regardless of motive or intent, regardless of who that representative is or what they stand for. They can vote for an anarchist who doesn't believe in democracy or a nihilist who believes the human race should commit species suicide. Democracy is not about *what* we do, it's about *how* we do it.

 

[Manmademan]

There's one person. Though I guess regular person doesn't qualify since she seems crazy.

conservative and batshit crazy? I'm down

 

[Hopfrog]

She gets around.

 

[Makai]

She gets around.

 

[Plumbob]

As long was the test writers provide proof that the test is unbiased, you do not need to have an unbiased representative create the test, or vote for one to create the test. And again, I'm fine with doing away with the test of the classes are still mandatory.

What constitutes proof that a test is unbiased? We should probably elect a commission to decide what the criteria is for proving a test is unbiased.

 

[Makai]

Megan Kelly to Jeb - "What would it take for you to get out [of the race]?"

 

[Brawndo Addict]

If a representative democracy serves as a means to take the place of a direct democracy due to the size of the population, then the ultimate goal remains the same between the two: the people decide on policy and legislation. The only real difference is one of logistics.

So basically, just like voters in a direct democracy should understand the policies that they're voting for or against (as best as possible), voters in a representative democracy should understand the policies that their representatives are voting for or against (as best as possible).

Woah now hold on here, this does not follow whatsoever. The democratic freedom to decide/vote on policy, legislation, representatives, etc, is completely separated from value statements about what voters *should* do. I mean, just look at your bolded, that fundamental principle is utterly divorced from considerations of personal knowledge or maximal benefit. That the people decide is what's important, now whether they're making a good decision.

As long was the test writers provide proof that the test is unbiased, you do not need to have an unbiased representative create the test, or vote for one to create the test. And again, I'm fine with doing away with the test of the classes are still mandatory.

You're completely missing the obvious foundational issue: teaching people about civics/politics is itself inherently political. There is no neutral ground that we all universally agree is unbiased. So who gets to decide what constitutes 'unbiased' and what constitutes sufficient 'proof' of it (let alone the problem of deciding what information is necessary to present)?

Should this test/class educate people about what the second amendment means for example? How should it do it? Do we really think there's any way to do it that political groups wouldn't argue is biased against their stated positions?

Why is the creation and implementation of the test/class immune from the principle that, in your own words, "the people decide on policy and legislation". Would it not be more democratic to allow the people to decide whether this test/class should exist? If they don't want the test/class isn't that decision preferable to elites deciding what's best for the masses?

 

[Makai]

What would an unbiased political test even looks like? It can't exist.

 

[eBay Huckster]

unbiased political tests can't exist for the same reason that unbiased journalism does not exist: there is no human without bias in the history of time

 

[Makai]

unbiased political tests can't exist for the same reason that unbiased journalism does not exist: there is no human without bias in the history of time

Well, I don't even think we can create an unbiased robot.