Scalia

[michigancat]

maybe 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.

yeah, perhaps that's it.

[star seed 7]

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.

Perceived intelligence based on if the person agrees with his particular favorite candidate

[chuckjames]

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!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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'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?

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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!

Don't be stupid. Like most normal people, I was already in bed long before the Nevada results were announced. And my confidence in American intelligence has been shaken for quite some time.

[sys]

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.

by all accounts, the nevada caucus is about as difficult, confusing and inconvenient an election as we have in the us.  and the turnout is ridiculously low.  seems like a correlation that is fairly easy to explain.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

Interesting comment. Two questions:
1. Are we "disenfranchising" 16 year olds?
2. Isn't every lawful voter disenfranchised by voter fraud?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Both parties want as few ppl voting as possible.

This is not true. At all.

[puniraptor]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

Yes, aside from having broken our laws in a number of ways to cast that vote. But otherwise, you're dead on.

[star seed 7]

 

[michigancat]

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.

Interesting comment. Two questions:
1. Are we "disenfranchising" 16 year olds?
2. Isn't every lawful voter disenfranchised by voter fraud?

1) Yes
2) Not completely

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.)

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.

[chuckjames]

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.)

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.

[michigancat]

18 years old is too young for the military IMO

[star seed 7]

People in the military (under 21) are generally pretty stupid tho. Crap, get rid of them.

I know plenty of stupid people with jobs (I mean, with 4.5 percent unemployment nearly everyone has a job) so that probably doesn't get rid of stupid people either 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.)

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.

Yup. As I've already said, no rule is perfect. But that doesn't mean we don't have rules on voting eligibility, or that new rules are somehow anathema.

[Rage Against the McKee]

We should just disenfranchise the evangelicals. That seems to be where the problems are coming from.

[sys]

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.

taking the vote from non-working elderly probably would be a good start.

[star seed 7]

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.

taking the vote from non-working elderly probably would be a good start.

I doubt any of them even know what year it is, just shoved on a bus and pin a note on their chest that says they want to vote for the republican

[Kat Kid]

Getting back to the original topic...

Obama is apparently vetting the Republican governor of Nevada which is maybe the most Obama thing ever in that it is a compromise position that everyone will hate and probably won't work either.

[sys]

"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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah. This guy is probably way more conservative than whoever Trump would pick.

[ednksu]

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-scalia-nominee-indian-american-idUSKCN0VO03V
Indian-American judge who could replace Scalia worked on controversial cases for business

[Kat Kid]

"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.

The entire situation will likely help Republicans until they realize what an amazing deal they are getting and then they capitulate.  It will likely have very little effect on the Presidential election other than providing a retroactive excuse for the millionth time about how the Senate was insufficiently obstructionist for the House freedom caucus' taste and how if only the American people could've seen that electing a true conservative like Ted Cruz this all could be avoided.