'Murica! (216 Viewers)

[icemaη]

The only state that did it is California. NYC and Seattle did it citywide. Opponents of $15 federal minimum wage say since cost of living is very different from city to city and state to state this might be an undue burden on businesses in rural areas.

That is a good point though.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Quetzalcoatl]

Too bad Hilary didn't agree to release the transcripts. They should have put more pressure on her for that

 

[GordoDeCentral]

He too agrees, democracy is dead

 

[Hængebøffer]

 

[Seven]

Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk

 

[DAiDEViL]

i watched the vid, but i must have skipped the democracy is dead part.

he says if you have no clue/ aren't interested - stay at home. fair enough.

for the US i think a proper voting system could work wonders and would motivate people to go voting/ follow politics.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

i watched the vid, but i must have skipped the democracy is dead part.

he says if you have no clue/ aren't interested - stay at home. fair enough.

for the US i think a proper voting system could work wonders and would motivate people to go voting/ follow politics.

He's implicitly talking about restricting voting to an educated class or at the very least make good knowledge of issues a prerequisite to doing so

 

[Bjerknes]

He's implicitly talking about restricting voting to an educated class or at the very least make good knowledge of issues a prerequisite to doing so

You should be able to pass a test to vote, I'm sorry. Simple questions like name the three branches of government, point to Iraq on a map, et cetera, would be perfectly fine and not racist. Or hell, situational stuff like there's a fire on the stove -- what do you do?

 

[Hængebøffer]

You should be able to pass a test to vote, I'm sorry. Simple questions like name the three branches of government, point to Iraq on a map, et cetera, would be perfectly fine and not racist. Or hell, situational stuff like there's a fire on the stove -- what do you do?

Sure, Mussolini.

 

[king Ale]

He's implicitly talking about restricting voting to an educated class or at the very least make good knowledge of issues a prerequisite to doing so

Is that why you don't vote?

 

[Völler]

Is that why you don't vote?

 

[Hængebøffer]

He too agrees, democracy is dead

Is that Sowell? Can't watch the video, but if he's saying democracy is dead + what you wrote then he's talking out of his ass.

 

[swag]

Is that why you don't vote?

But you know, not to give lots of credence to the "wisdom of the crowds" fad from the last decade, but the presumption that restricting voting to those who educate themselves to a certifiable degree on the issues and candidates is kind of an academic's masturbatory exercise.

I mean, the US Federal Reserve Chairman of all people can come out and say, "I was wrong about the economy." What does that say about the guarantee of accuracy just because you read through enough documentation and feel you sufficiently understood the issues? This crap is complex, and just because you read up on a few magazines doesn't mean you're an expert on how to fix the economy and navigate international relations.

I've flip-flopped on this issue myself over the years. Yeah, it's all about money and it's a popularity contest among chimps. But I don't see a circle jerk of PhDs producing any better end product than the system we have now. The only difference is the circle jerkers believe they're better.

 

[ALC]

Is that why you don't vote?

- - - Updated - - -

But you know, not to give lots of credence to the "wisdom of the crowds" fad from the last decade, but the presumption that restricting voting to those who educate themselves to a certifiable degree on the issues and candidates is kind of an academic's masturbatory exercise.

I mean, the US Federal Reserve Chairman of all people can come out and say, "I was wrong about the economy." What does that say about the guarantee of accuracy just because you read through enough documentation and feel you sufficiently understood the issues? This crap is complex, and just because you read up on a few magazines doesn't mean you're an expert on how to fix the economy and navigate international relations.

I've flip-flopped on this issue myself over the years. Yeah, it's all about money and it's a popularity contest among chimps. But I don't see a circle jerk of PhDs producing any better end product than the system we have now. The only difference is the circle jerkers believe they're better.

I agree, everyone's voice should be equal regardless of their social standing and education level. It's everyone's job to make this country better and that doesn't start by taking away rights.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

You should be able to pass a test to vote, I'm sorry. Simple questions like name the three branches of government, point to Iraq on a map, et cetera, would be perfectly fine and not racist. Or hell, situational stuff like there's a fire on the stove -- what do you do?

I mean there's a naturalization test, why not a voting test

Is that why you don't vote?

Sure why not, at least I don't pretend to know whats good for 100s of millions of people

 

[ALC]

They're different things tho

- - - Updated - - -

A naturalization test won't come down to you making a decision that ultimately comes down to opinion.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

But you know, not to give lots of credence to the "wisdom of the crowds" fad from the last decade, but the presumption that restricting voting to those who educate themselves to a certifiable degree on the issues and candidates is kind of an academic's masturbatory exercise.

I mean, the US Federal Reserve Chairman of all people can come out and say, "I was wrong about the economy." What does that say about the guarantee of accuracy just because you read through enough documentation and feel you sufficiently understood the issues? This crap is complex, and just because you read up on a few magazines doesn't mean you're an expert on how to fix the economy and navigate international relations.

I've flip-flopped on this issue myself over the years. Yeah, it's all about money and it's a popularity contest among chimps. But I don't see a circle jerk of PhDs producing any better end product than the system we have now. The only difference is the circle jerkers believe they're better.

That's actually the opposite of what sowell is saying you won't find a more staunch supporter of personal freedoms from a meddling intelligentsia

- - - Updated - - -

They're different things tho

- - - Updated - - -

A naturalization test won't come down to you making a decision that ultimately comes down to opinion.

Huh

 

[king Ale]

You should be able to pass a test to vote, I'm sorry. Simple questions like name the three branches of government, point to Iraq on a map, et cetera, would be perfectly fine and not racist. Or hell, situational stuff like there's a fire on the stove -- what do you do?

I bet superdelegates are more likely to know the answers to those questions, and guess what, their vote counts for more. I thought you hated the DNC

But you know, not to give lots of credence to the "wisdom of the crowds" fad from the last decade, but the presumption that restricting voting to those who educate themselves to a certifiable degree on the issues and candidates is kind of an academic's masturbatory exercise.

I mean, the US Federal Reserve Chairman of all people can come out and say, "I was wrong about the economy." What does that say about the guarantee of accuracy just because you read through enough documentation and feel you sufficiently understood the issues? This crap is complex, and just because you read up on a few magazines doesn't mean you're an expert on how to fix the economy and navigate international relations.

I've flip-flopped on this issue myself over the years. Yeah, it's all about money and it's a popularity contest among chimps. But I don't see a circle jerk of PhDs producing any better end product than the system we have now. The only difference is the circle jerkers believe they're better.

I'm not a fan of the crowds' wisdom either but if i were concerned about the influence of the uneducated masses on my future, i'd do whatever i could do to have/build a more educated society, instead of removing the uneducated from voting. I would, among other things, willfully pay more taxes to enable people to have easier access to education. To me, that's a sustainable solution.

As for the bold part, of course that's true. All an uneducated individual is doing is voting. I don't think that an elitist minority would pick a better candidate among say Sanders, Clinton, Trump and Cruz than would the less educated majority either, because i firmly believe that the root of poor and destructive decisions at the highest level is greed, and your knowledge of where Iraq is on the map won't help you spot that in a candidate.

Sure why not, at least I don't pretend to know whats good for 100s of millions of people

I don't think anybody pretends to know that. Quite on the contrary, it's actually in the system you are talking about (and i don't honestly think Sowell implied what you said) that a group of people decide what's best for millions of people. In the current system, you pick the one candidate you think is a better option for yourself.

I was obviously joking but if you strongly feel that an uneducated bunch is having a powerful say in your and your country's future (with which i agree), how would refusing to vote help mitigate that influence?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I bet superdelegates are more likely to know the answers to those questions, and guess what, their vote counts for more. I thought you hated the DNC



I'm not a fan of the crowds' wisdom either but if i were concerned about the influence of the uneducated masses on my future, i'd do whatever i could do to have/build a more educated society, instead of removing the uneducated from voting. I would, among other things, willfully pay more taxes to enable people to have easier access to education. To me, that's a sustainable solution.

As for the bold part, of course that's true. All an uneducated individual is doing is voting. I, however, don't think that an elitist minority would pick a better candidate among say Sanders, Clinton, Trump and Cruz than would the less educated majority, because i firmly believe that the root of poor and destructive decisions at the highest level is greed, and your knowledge of where Iraq is on the map won't help you spot that in a candidate.



I don't think anybody pretends to know that. Quite on the contrary, it's actually in the system you are talking about (and i don't honestly think Sowell implied what you said) that a group of people decide what's best for millions of people. In the current system, you pick the one candidate you think is a better option for yourself.

I was obviously joking but if you strongly feel that an uneducated bunch is having a powerful say in your and your country's future (with which i agree), how would refusing to vote help mitigate that influence?

Sowell is not for the intellectual elite, but rather on restricting right to vote, ergo death of democracy. If you are willing to pay more taxes go for it just don't decide that for others and that's the difference between those who think they know whats good for 100s of millions and those who know they don't. Sowell puts it as constrained vs unconstrained visions. Having a few years of university over others doesn't give any social engineering powers, if anything the resulting hubris is possibly the most destructive power facing the developed world.

- - - Updated - - -

Also i think i have spotted the source of the confusion, when i wrote educated class i meant people educated on the issues to be voted on, not school educated.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Also i think i have spotted the source of the confusion, when i wrote educated class i meant people educated on the issues to be voted on, not school educated.

You can't separate the two.