Tougher Political Questions

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

We have a superficial thread where people are being asked to throw buzzwords at a wall so a psuedo-philosophical jeroff mod can employ the socratic method against you. It's awful.

Here, we discuss political issues that areally truly challenging, and may even make the unintelligent uncomfrotable.

[CNS]

The balance of security and intrusion. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

[8manpick]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I tend to share Ron Paul's opinion on this one.

[CNS]

The laws need to catch up to further define intrusion with how it relates to tech rather than letting classified courts establish it through allowing 99% of warrant requests through with no public accountability. Too bad a bunch of congress is still baffled by email and their smart phone.

[CNS]

Campaign finance.  Currently removes the average citizen from having a reasonable voice. 

[gatoveintisiete]

What is the appropriate amount per student to spend on education

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What is the appropriate amount per student to spend on education

This one, imo, is more of a politically motivated soap box than a complex issue.

[puniraptor]

Guns

[puniraptor]

 Guns desu ka

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I think the recent mishaps with the Duke lacrosse team and the UVA fraternity raise some interesting questions concerning protection of victims v. the accused.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I don't think this is accurate, irl

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Guns desu ka

Take this to the "tough" questions thread. We're not here to kowtow to the feeble minded

[8manpick]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I don't think this is accurate, irl

Really?  Granted that big/small government IRL is more like biggest/bigger government, but even though Barry O is a war hawk, it seems that republicans in general are more for expanded NSA/CIA/Police intelligence capabilities than democrats.  If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me...

[slobber]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

[catastrophe]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

I think it would be a good idea to make people do this before voting, but the big problem is when you only factor in the issues it doesn't allow you to discount for overall competence as well as habitual liars and mentally unstable people. I don't really care how much I agree with Hillary or Trump on the issues because I know they don't really care about the issues themselves.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

I think it would be a good idea to make people do this before voting, but the big problem is when you only factor in the issues it doesn't allow you to discount for overall competence as well as habitual liars and mentally unstable people. I don't really care how much I agree with Hillary or Trump on the issues because I know they don't really care about the issues themselves.

Yeah. Vote for the person. The issues are less important.

[catastrophe]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

[slobber]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

I think it would be a good idea to make people do this before voting, but the big problem is when you only factor in the issues it doesn't allow you to discount for overall competence as well as habitual liars and mentally unstable people. I don't really care how much I agree with Hillary or Trump on the issues because I know they don't really care about the issues themselves.

Don't be a Negative Nancy. Be solutions oriented!
Make the candidates take lie detector tests when they state their positions!

[catastrophe]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

I think it would be a good idea to make people do this before voting, but the big problem is when you only factor in the issues it doesn't allow you to discount for overall competence as well as habitual liars and mentally unstable people. I don't really care how much I agree with Hillary or Trump on the issues because I know they don't really care about the issues themselves.

Don't be a Negative Nancy. Be solutions oriented!
Make the candidates take lie detector tests when they state their positions!

The solution is to drastically change campaign financing. Don't let corporations or huge money donors have as much power in the process so that all the candidates (and hence their views) have a fair chance to be heard.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Campaign finance.  Currently removes the average citizen from having a reasonable voice.

IMO, the fact that the average citizen (i.e., huge dumbfuck) gets one vote just like I do far outweighs any benefit garnered from some group of people throwing millions of dollars of their own money at a candidate. If we do get rid of it, it needs to be gone in all forms other than a per individual basis. It's absurd that certain associations were ever allowed to contribute while others were not.

[slobber]

Voting is political, and I have an interesting idea that gE can help me out with. It would seem that a great deal of voters have no idea what position the candidates have on multiple topics that the voter claims is important to them. My idea is that we stop voting for candidates, but we go vote for opinions about important political topics. Say, as a voter, you get four votes. You vote, in order, for the #1 stance that you agree with, then the #2, then the #3, then the #4. Each of those votes is weighted and goes towards the candidate that has that same position. The candidate who ends up with the highest score wins the election! In the end, we'd all be like, "Oh crap, Larry from KS is the next POTUS!"

Good idea?

I think it would be a good idea to make people do this before voting, but the big problem is when you only factor in the issues it doesn't allow you to discount for overall competence as well as habitual liars and mentally unstable people. I don't really care how much I agree with Hillary or Trump on the issues because I know they don't really care about the issues themselves.

Don't be a Negative Nancy. Be solutions oriented!
Make the candidates take lie detector tests when they state their positions!

The solution is to drastically change campaign financing. Don't let corporations or huge money donors have as much power in the process so that all the candidates (and hence their views) have a fair chance to be heard.

Lie detector tests would be much better.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That's a good one. AI monitoring all our conversations vs. state interest protect us and others. Definite balance to strike. Most people are probably okay with it  as long as it's limited to terror prevention and not other law enforcement

It is also a weird one because many of the "small-government" people seem to want more intrusion and security from their government agencies, while many "big-government" people want a reduction.  It (and defense in general) seem to break many traditional party views.

I don't think this is accurate, irl

Really?  Granted that big/small government IRL is more like biggest/bigger government, but even though Barry O is a war hawk, it seems that republicans in general are more for expanded NSA/CIA/Police intelligence capabilities than democrats.  If I'm incorrect, please enlighten me...

It's quite clearly been a bipartisan effort.  I'll not tolerate false pretenses in this thread.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The electoral college. Should every person's vote count equally or is there too much of a risk that candidates will only favor the top 20 metroplexes and not give a crap about the rest of the country or state's rights generally?

There are millions of people who vote who should not be permitted to vote. We have far too many people with no stake in this country, other than to drain the limited resources of those with a stake, who are permitted to participate in its governance. It's disgusting and perverse.

[CNS]

Campaign finance.  Currently removes the average citizen from having a reasonable voice.

IMO, the fact that the average citizen (i.e., huge dumbfuck) gets one vote just like I do far outweighs any benefit garnered from some group of people throwing millions of dollars of their own money at a candidate. If we do get rid of it, it needs to be gone in all forms other than a per individual basis. It's absurd that certain associations were ever allowed to contribute while others were not.

You are intelligent enough to understand marketing, let alone other tools large sums of money give you, and what it does to public opinion.  There is a reason that money is spent.  The ppl doing it aren't dumbfucks and they are making it more difficult to get reliable info and using emotion, fear, what have you to sway those "dumbfucks" into an uneducated vote en mass.   

I would be fine with completely getting rid of public funding for campaigns.  Especially in the age of such an abundance of free and instantly avail media.  Voting would probably drop even further than it is now, but I think that is fine.