Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,020,628 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
I believe that every adult CITIZEN should have the rights to vote. I do feel that perhaps the voting age could be raised to 21 but otherwise, no limitations.
Forgive the callousness, but I concede your moral point, but my concern is more to security, and dead Russians/Eastern Europe are little concern to US security.
Neither are dead European Jews, Russians or Britons. But since in your first sally, you alluded both moral and strategic reasons for entering the war, I thought it proper to give both some consideration.
Quote:
I’d really like a graph here to ref, but for want of one….The point is that if we look at a game with America choosing war, or not to war, then there are two options, interject in Europe, with Britain as a handy air base, and the Soviets soaking up German resources, when the American economy is stronger than the German one. Or wait, to a period in the future whereas is it possible that Germany will have taken the USSR and the UK, its economy will be bigger, and America can no long interject or ensure its own security. Given this risk there is a good argument to join.
Hypothetical extrapolations into the future are at least as full of bs as hypothetical counterhistories of the past.
Quote:
I argue from a perspective of America security, to which intervention went extremely well. It launched the US as a super power, and gave it semi-colonial dominance over much of Europe. Pretty successful really.
I'm interested in American security as much as the next person. Security and being a superpower are not the same thing. The war didn't bring much security to the 400,000 Americans who died in it. Being a superpower didn't bring much security to the 110,000 Americans who died in Korea and Vietnam.
There is an optimal amount of everything, including security, after which one's efforts are in vain or counterproductive.
I also find the argument odd that although Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, and many other nations considerably weaker than the U.S. managed to maintain neutrality, we for some reason couldn't without an intolerable risk to our "security".
"[quote=djacques;16300558]Neither are dead European Jews, Russians or Britons. But since in your first sally, you alluded both moral and strategic reasons for entering the war, I thought it proper to give both some consideration."
Indeed, it wasn't a critique of your argument, but a clarification of the line I was taking. Morality may be considered a reason to go to war, and if one wanted to add a moral argument to WW2, then there was a 'moral' reason to go, but as you point out it was hardly clear which was the moral side, and as it happens I don't think that morality does, or should, impact upon decisions to go to war.
"Hypothetical extrapolations into the future are at least as full of bs as hypothetical counterhistories of the past."
The point being that a given state's security decision must be based on the extension of trends towards probable futures. Thus whilst looking at the current security situation, one might consider China as a threat, based on an extrapolation of its current economic and military trends. Its quite possible that it won't come to pass as a serious threat, but security policy must be based on an estimation of future.
My suggestion is that a dominant nazi Germany offered an unacceptable threat to the USA, so that it was reasonable for the USA to ensure that it did not occur. There was a highly risky way of doing that, by leaving it to the UK and USSR, or a risk averse way, by joining in. This also allowed America to gain semi-colonial power in Europe, and thus also limit the power of the USSR. Its classic realpolitik balance of power really.
"I'm interested in American security as much as the next person. Security and being a superpower are not the same thing. The war didn't bring much security to the 400,000 Americans who died in it. Being a superpower didn't bring much security to the 110,000 Americans who died in Korea and Vietnam. "
Well, the fact that America choose, rather foolishly, to enter two ridiculous wars, its a ridiculous fashion can hardly be directly linked to entering WW2.
"I also find the argument odd that although Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, and many other nations considerably weaker than the U.S. managed to maintain neutrality, we for some reason couldn't without an intolerable risk to our "security""
Well, if, for example, you want to maintain control of your state, then the Swedish model of neutrality isn't a great one. I'd say it was more pleading subservience than neutrality. But the reality is that, if you can't ensure security, then you must be subject to another state's interests. Which is find, if your Switzerland and there's no reason to invade because your state is strategically worthless, but a bugger if your Denmark, or Norway(other neutral states) who just happened to be useful to invade.
Only people who know the difference between loose and lose and your and you're can vote.
Maybe you also think people who are dylisic are beneith you and are lacking in education and intellgence. Any referance to someones grammar or spelling is deplorable..I thought libs were the ones with compassion and understanding, I guess you just proved that wrong...
I think it should be restricted. Do we really need people voting that don't understand basic economics?
Do we need people voting for things just because they sound good.
Here is an example: "If you elect me everyone will get blah blah blah"
An ignorant person says YEAH YEAH YEAH lets vote this person in.
A smart person says "How is this going to be paid for"
Picture the dumbest person you know, then picture that person voting on your child's future.
Heck, if you think I'm dumb, picture me voting for your child's future.
It should be restricted to those who are informed on the issues. Why should voting be easier than getting a drivers license. The worst an incompetent driver can do is kill a couple of people. Uninformed voters can wreck the whole system. We saw the results of this in 2008 when a large block of voters voted for a man just because they thought it would be cool to have a black president, despire his radical positions on the issues.
If you can't answer those basic questions that Jay Leno asks of peopel on the street then you shouldn't be able to vote. If you can't pass the basic test to become a US citizen then you shouldn't be able to vote.
I have long thought that Universal Suffrage was the stupidest thing possible for a democracy.
Voting should be restricted to educated property owners. And If I had my way, only people over thirty, with college degrees, would vote.
As it is, people vote for whoever they see as the "Daddy" or the "Hottie", or the "Good Christian". John Kerry lost to Barbara's Brat, as I remember it, because Kerry let the 'stylists' give him a Frankenstein-style up-do hairdo, in the last months of the race. The Smirking Chimp, on the other hand, had 'good hair' (American-looking hair, you know, not Greazer-hair), and so won the election. The grease mop on top of Al Gore's head was what stopped him dead in his tracks: not the verifiable constellation of awful things about him (OK, and he looked awfully dorky & porky when he'd show up in bluejeans...trying to look like a "regular guy"). (forgive me if I get mixed up on who ran against whom...I'm really not interested in which criminal Junta is in power... they all answer to the same 'interests')
Kennedy won, because he had an elegant wife and fabulous hair. This current thing won because it wore Kennedy-style suits, had a deep voice, and was the right color. Clinton won because he had great hair, a killer jawline, and a cute little Bunnyrabbit Nose (& was obviously packin').
What's saddest is that with all these criminal buffoons, people didn't even have the critical facilities to analyze their motivations. They thought they were voting on "the Issues".
Ross Perot would have saved America. But he didn't stand a chance, because he was little and ugly.
Barry Goldwater would have saved America. But he was named 'Goldwater', and somebody said he was "one of those Ho-mo-sexuals".
So we lost what would have been our two greatest presidents, because people allowed themselves to be swayed by the most superficial of superficialities. In both cases, the ostensible issue/'reason' for rejecting the candidates was that they were 'Hawks'. The real reasons were things people were less willing to acknowledge...even to themselves.
So yeah. It's time we started restricting, not extending, suffrage.
Not gonna happen, though...
You are advocating for the United States to be a plutocracy. Don't worry based on the actions of elected officials in Washington D.C. and across the country this country is well on its way to achieving the objective you desire.
We are no longer a country "By the people, for the people" We are now a country "By the corporation, for the corporation"
Jeez, Jet. We've read the same rant from you about how the gov. has usurp our rights for quite a while now. We get it! But in your detailed rants, I've never once heard any solution that would reverse the problem. Or provide any solutions to the problem of fiat money, "them" taking over the system or what we would do to reverse the process. What's up with that?
He doesn't even understand how the Federal Reserve really works. How can he offer you a solution?
minimum of age 18, no goverment job or assistance, and own property in order to vote.
that way people are not voting for themselves an increase of another welfare check and the property owners are more than likely not vote for someone that wants to increase their taxes to give to some welfare queen.
If property owners can vote for what is in their best interest (i.e. candidates that support lower property taxes)? Why can't people who don't own property vote for what is in their interest (i.e. candidates that support more funding for schools or police)? If you think that paying property taxes somehow "entitles" you to vote but not others then maybe you would be in favor of getting rid of property taxes for higher sales taxes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
