0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:18:59 PMmaybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide? maybe you've got to get below 1% before the reasoned voters can outnumber the low-infos.
maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide?
And I mean, I do kind of admire the fact that he comes right out and says he wants to disenfranchise a significant amount of people because of their intelligence rather than hiding behind voter fraud concerns. It's an interesting honesty.
Quote from: sys on February 24, 2016, 03:15:15 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:01:59 PMUh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.i'm saying that we just had an election where 2.5% of the population participated and they overwhelmingly chose a candidate you consider to be stupid. the data (datum, so by all means show me more) simply doesn't support your hypothesis.maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide?
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:01:59 PMUh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.i'm saying that we just had an election where 2.5% of the population participated and they overwhelmingly chose a candidate you consider to be stupid. the data (datum, so by all means show me more) simply doesn't support your hypothesis.
Uh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
Honestly I think last night really got to Chant, he sees the future of the conservative movement, and his really shook. He is taking his anger out on the American people. Sad!
The "data" of who chose to vote in a Nevada primary doesn't seem terribly applicable to the issue of whether making it even easier to vote will result in a dumber electorate.
Both parties want as few ppl voting as possible.
Seems like an illegal who goes through the hassle and effort of figuring out and placing a fraudulent vote is probably pretty industrious, engaged, and intelligent. Just the kind of voter we want.
Quote from: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:20:31 PMAnd I mean, I do kind of admire the fact that he comes right out and says he wants to disenfranchise a significant amount of people because of their intelligence rather than hiding behind voter fraud concerns. It's an interesting honesty.Interesting comment. Two questions:1. Are we "disenfranchising" 16 year olds?2. Isn't every lawful voter disenfranchised by voter fraud?
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:04:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:00:14 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?
Quote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:00:14 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
Quote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
Quote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Quote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:07:05 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:04:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:00:14 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?Not sure. We should probably raise the voting age back to at least 21 unless you're serving in the military (which is why we lowered it to 18 in the first place). We could probably stand go a bit higher than that on age. Payment of at least some income tax might also work. Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.No rule will be fair to everyone. Our current rules aren't fair to everyone. There are plenty of 17yos who are perfectly capable of making an intelligent decision.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:57:48 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:07:05 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:04:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:00:14 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PMQuote from: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PMIf we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?Not sure. We should probably raise the voting age back to at least 21 unless you're serving in the military (which is why we lowered it to 18 in the first place). We could probably stand go a bit higher than that on age. Payment of at least some income tax might also work. Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.No rule will be fair to everyone. Our current rules aren't fair to everyone. There are plenty of 17yos who are perfectly capable of making an intelligent decision.I would guess the majority of people that voted for Trump pay income tax and have a job to support themselves.
Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:57:48 PMBasically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.taking the vote from non-working elderly probably would be a good start.
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting
"the obstructionist republicans in congress wouldn't even consider an highly qualified appointee, who also happens to be a republican governor" is a pretty good talking point for clinton.