Politicians and Government Cringe Thread

[Skallagrim]

However the fact this guy is even entertaining this sort of backdoor draft as a requirment to vote as something to desire shows he is poison of one of the most foul types.

Well... I certainly agree with him. I think people like you, frankly, could use this incentive.

(Not that I care what the USA does; that's your business. But I'd want this implemented in my country ASAP. Plus property ownership as a requirement, and a literal poll tax, too.)

 

[Bacle]

Well... I certainly agree with him. I think people like you, frankly, could use this incentive.

(Not that I care what the USA does; that's your business. But I'd want this implemented in my country ASAP. Plus property ownership as a requirement, and a literal poll tax, too.)

Not surpised the Euro is fine with limiting the franchise and putting roadblocks in the way of voting; the peasent mindset has never left Europa's citizenry.

 

[bintananth]

So this stupid motherfucker wants to effectively institute a backdoor draft and force government service in order to vote.

I pointed out that bit of nonsense in a different thread awhile ago. The proper response to his candidacy is to point and laugh uproariously.

You're right, he said his parents, not himself, were immigrants; I mis-stated before.

It's still sour grapes about immigrants needing to take tests to get the right to vote/citizenship while native borne Americans don't.

However the fact this guy is even entertaining this sort of backdoor draft as a requirment to vote as something to desire shows he is poison of one of the most foul types.

The proposal - or something similar - is going to sit well with asshats who don't want "those people"* voting.

* The exact make-up of "those people" varies with the asshat and is left as an exercise for the reader to divine.

 

[Skallagrim]

Not surpised the Euro is fine with limiting the franchise and putting roadblocks in the way of voting; the peasent mindset has never left Europa's citizenry.

You betray yourself, methinks-- you seem to intuit that you would be on the 'wrong' side of the line. I support the idea precisely because I know I'd be on the other side... and frankly, I don't know about your priorities, but I don't want a bunch of free-loaders to have a say in how my country is run.

I've seen what harm it does. My country was better off as a meritocratic and capitalist republic than as an egalitarian and left-leaning 'kingdom' (where the king just costs money and does nothing).

So really, we speak here of the merchant-prince ideal, rather than anything to do with peasants. A country where any fool may vote-- that is a land where a 'peasant mentality' will inevitably dominate. Never to the nation's advantage, I might add.

This Ramaswamy fellow has the right idea. Make sure that only the people who contribute get a say in how the country is governed. If you want a say... first do your bit.

 

[Bacle]

You betray yourself, methinks-- you seem to intuit that you would be on the 'wrong' side of the line.

No, I would be on the 'right side' of the line, because this sort of shit is very much disallowed by the US Constitution, and for good reason. Also, am old enough it would not apply to me, but would limit the vote of people younger than me.

This is sour grapes and spite by the son of immigrants about the difficulties his parents faced that native-borne American's do not.

I support the idea precisely because I know I'd be on the other side... and frankly, I don't want a bunch of free-loaders to have a say in how my country is run.

Yet again the peasant mindset of Euro's rears it's head; you can have neo-feudalism if you want, but fuck off supporting it outside your own nation.

I've seen what harm it does. My country was better off as a meritocratic and capitalist republic than as an egalitarian and left-leaning 'kingdom' (where the king just costs money and does nothing).

So really, we speak here of the merchant-prince ideal, rather than anything to do with peasants. A country where any fool may vote-- that is a land where a 'peasant mentality' will inevitably dominate. Never to the nation's advantage, I might add.

This Ramaswamy fellow has the right idea. Make sure that only the people who contribute get a say in how the country is governed. If you want a say... first do your bit.

And the US is very much not a 'merchant prince' society, so that ideal means jack and shit to the US Constitution or public.

Also, poll taxes and other impediments to voting for US citizens are very much illegal under the US Constitution, outside of the restrictions on felons voting.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Vivek Ramaswamy kind of reminds me of Andrew Yang in that he's apparently campaigning on being everything to everyone to some degree, like a super-populist only he's "right oriented" as opposed to "left oriented."

I took Andrew Yang as being more sincere when he rolled out though, with Vivek... I'm assuming the best in that he's sincere, but without having looked into his past, he just strikes me as more suspect or less genuine. Just my hot take.

 

[bintananth]

No, I would be on the 'right side' of the line, because this sort of shit is very much disallowed by the US Constitution, and for good reason. Also, am old enough it would not apply to me, but would limit the vote of people younger than me.

This is sour grapes and spite by the son of immigrants about the difficulties his parents faced that native-borne American's do not.

Yet again the peasant mindset of Euro's rears it's head; you can have neo-feudalism if you want, but fuck off supporting it outside your own nation.

And the US is very much not a 'merchant prince' society, so that ideal means jack and shit to the US Constitution or public.

Also, poll taxes and other impediments to voting for US citizens are very much illegal under the US Constitution, outside of the restrictions on felons voting.

The 5th Circuit just tossed Mississippi's lifetime disenfranchisement of convicted felons, so even those restrictions get scrutinized.

Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban for people convicted of certain crimes is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

www.mississippifreepress.org

 

[Blasterbot]

Vivek Ramaswamy kind of reminds me of Andrew Yang in that he's apparently campaigning on being everything to everyone to some degree, like a super-populist only he's "right oriented" as opposed to "left oriented."

I took Andrew Yang as being more sincere when he rolled out though, with Vivek... I'm assuming the best in that he's sincere, but without having looked into his past, he just strikes me as more suspect or less genuine. Just my hot take.

Nah you can talk alot of shit about Vivek. but he does at the very least seem to be sincere and open. he has been doing every show he can answering as many questions as he can and is unafraid to say "I don't know" when that is the genuine answer.

Vivek is admittedly the only R candidate other than Trump I like at this point. the rest have been just freaking awful. Between Pence saying that American cities aren't his concern and Desantis having failure after failure when it comes to campaigning. with the rest being quite forgettable. it's getting hilarious. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up ahead of Desantis consistently soon. He already has occasionally.

The main things he talks about are how to get people invested in America again. because a large number of people have just checked out. he is very focused on culture and what he can do as president. I doubt he would be perfect but in many ways I like him more than Trump.

 

[Terthna]

Nah you can talk alot of shit about Vivek. but he does at the very least seem to be sincere and open. he has been doing every show he can answering as many questions as he can and is unafraid to say "I don't know" when that is the genuine answer.

Vivek is admittedly the only R candidate other than Trump I like at this point. the rest have been just freaking awful. Between Pence saying that American cities aren't his concern and Desantis having failure after failure when it comes to campaigning. with the rest being quite forgettable. it's getting hilarious. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up ahead of Desantis consistently soon. He already has occasionally.

The main things he talks about are how to get people invested in America again. because a large number of people have just checked out. he is very focused on culture and what he can do as president. I doubt he would be perfect but in many ways I like him more than Trump.

Honestly, Desantis has proven to be something of a disappointment. There's little trace of the man who seemed like a less abrasive and more politically savvy Trump in his campaign.

 

[Agent23]

Well... I certainly agree with him. I think people like you, frankly, could use this incentive.

(Not that I care what the USA does; that's your business. But I'd want this implemented in my country ASAP. Plus property ownership as a requirement, and a literal poll tax, too.)

I mean, democracy is mostly a sham, and the only way it will become less of one if the franchise is restricted to only productive net tax contributing members of society.

The parasites and the bureaucracies who cater to them will only vote themselves more money and have zero skin in the game.


Furthermore, income is actually a very good proxy for intelligence most of the time.

And even with ancient city states, the franchise was limited, often to all warriors, since the city/tribe's major need was that of defense.

 

[Blasterbot]

Honestly, Desantis has proven to be something of a disappointment. There's little trace of the man who seemed like a less abrasive and more politically savvy Trump in his campaign.

I think everyone forgot how bad he was when he tried running for governor the first time and was pushed over the line by Trump. everyone thinks of him stepping up after he locked down Florida and how awesome it was forgetting that South Dakota never locked down at all. They forget that he was an entirely unremarkable congress critter. Unfortunately people are being reminded of these things.

 

[Bacle]

The 5th Circuit just tossed Mississippi's lifetime disenfranchisement of convicted felons, so even those restrictions get scrutinized.

Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban for people convicted of certain crimes is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

www.mississippifreepress.org

Which is good, as the 'felon's cannot vote even after they've served their time' restrictions seem like they are anti-thetical to both how the US Constitution works, and how the justice systems should operate.

If someone has served their time, they should be able to vote; if the crime they committed was so heinous as to strip them of their vote for the rest of their life, why weren't they given life-in-prison in the first place?

 

[Blasterbot]

Which is good, as the 'felon's cannot vote even after they've served their time' restrictions seem like they are anti-thetical to both how the US Constitution works, and how the justice systems should operate.

If someone has served their time, they should be able to vote; if the crime they committed was so heinous as to strip them of their vote for the rest of their life, why weren't they given life-in-prison in the first place?

that traces to a difference in what we call a felony now versus then. felonies used to be things that could be death penalty. used to be things that the founders would say only a dangerous lunatic would do that. now with how many no longer fall into that category we end up in a situation where not all the penalties that would have applied make sense.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

DeSantis is having the same problem a lot of good R candidates...they listen the 'professional campaign consultants'.

 

[Skallagrim]

No, I would be on the 'right side' of the line, because this sort of shit is very much disallowed by the US Constitution, and for good reason. Also, am old enough it would not apply to me, but would limit the vote of people younger than me.

Your first argument is "it isn't so because it isn't so", which is recursive, and as such invalid; I trust I needn't explain that to you. Your second argument assumes that because you're "old enough", duty wouldn't apply to you. In my view (as with Heinlein), we'd find something for you to do. You're free to refuse, but then.. you don't get a say, ever again. Only those who commit get to decide.

This proposal is predicated on responsibility, which is a brden, so it is anathema to the free-loaders of the world. But that is precisely why it is good, and why it should be implemented.

This is sour grapes and spite by the son of immigrants about the difficulties his parents faced that native-borne American's do not.

You keep coming back to this, and yet I want it for my country, and all my ancestors lived here many centuries before your country was even founded. Clearly I'm not some jealous immigrant, who wants this out of envy. So much for that interpretation of the motivating impulse...

Yet again the peasant mindset of Euro's rears it's head; you can have neo-feudalism if you want, but fuck off supporting it outside your own nation.

You keep saying this, but repetition doesn't make it so. I don't want free-loaders having a say in my country's governance; only contributing citizens. How is that "peasant"-like? It is meritocratic. Decision-making power is 'bought', as it were, by investment into the community. "Skin in the game", you might say. Status is earned: neither a 'freebie' nor a hereditary privilege, but a fair reward for one's commitment to one's country.

(Neither is this feudalism, but I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the finer points of that system.)

And the US is very much not a 'merchant prince' society, so that ideal means jack and shit to the US Constitution or public.

You have said dumb things about America so often that I'm confident that you know fuck-all about its true nature. (I am reminded of the adage that a mouse born in a stable is not, by virtue of his birth-place, an authority on thoroughbreds.) America is, hilariously, the most mercantile nation of Earth by all significant metrics. Only its princely nature, so to speak, is diminished by its misguided dedication to egalitarianism (which has bred most of its present ailments, in fact; including such madness as the 'woke' disease).

I am confident that your country will get over this temporary insanity, though. It only takes a bit of time. We'll all get over this together. You and I may even live to see it, although I do fear that's overly optimistic.

Also, poll taxes and other impediments to voting for US citizens are very much illegal under the US Constitution, outside of the restrictions on felons voting.

A legalist argument. Again, a repetition of "it isn't so because it isn't so".

Things are only thus until they are changed.

 

[Blasterbot]

It would likely take a constitutional amendment to implement so the argument about it not being constitutional kinda doesn't really matter. either it gets to that point or it won't. constitutional amendments are difficult to push through under good conditions.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

most of what Vivek talks about is much more concrete things he can actually implement using executive power. like who exactly he can fire. what agencies he can completely defang. ect. he just also is willing to engage hypotheticals and does think American culture needs a revival. I think that question first got asked to him on Tim Pool's friday morning interview series he does. I want to say a super chat asked him about it specifically referencing Heinlein. you can think that limited franchise is a bad idea. I think in some ways completely unlimited franchise has resulted in some very big issues. you can make some arguments about it being bad or needing some way to be addressed. at the very least you need to acknowledge that there are trade offs.

 

[LordsFire]

It is unConstitutional to begin with, and would require a Constitutional Amendment to enact, because it is little different than a poll tax, and does put unreasonable burdens on the right to vote for people under 25.

This is sour grapes from the son of immigrants who doesn't like that native borne Americans don't have to pass the same tests to vote/be a citizen that greencard holders do, and who mistakenly thinks forcing public service and barriers to voting will make people value the vote more, rather than hate the GOP and people who push this.

There is a very serious problem in America right now, and it's the key one most democratic governments face:

People can vote themselves other people's money.

Personally, rather than a mandatory draft, I favor making it so that if you aren't paying taxes, you don't get to vote for a Federal House of Representatives member. You still get senate, you still get one for the white house, but as spending bills must originate in the house, you cannot vote for such unless your money is going into that.

A draft might be a way to make it so people have at least some skin in the game though.


What is your proposed solution for the problem of vote-buyers (Democrats) promising people other people's money if they put them in office?

 

[Bacle]

There is a very serious problem in America right now, and it's the key one most democratic governments face:

People can vote themselves other people's money.

Personally, rather than a mandatory draft, I favor making it so that if you aren't paying taxes, you don't get to vote for a Federal House of Representatives member. You still get senate, you still get one for the white house, but as spending bills must originate in the house, you cannot vote for such unless your money is going into that.

A draft might be a way to make it so people have at least some skin in the game though.


What is your proposed solution for the problem of vote-buyers (Democrats) promising people other people's money if they put them in office?

My proposed solution is no 'solution' at all, because being able to 'vote for other people's money' as you call it is a feature, not a bug, of American democracy.

And tying voting rights to 'layers' of franchise based on taxes is also fucked up, because it disenfranchises people who get fucking pink slips by corpo's and give far, far to much leverage to employers vs employees. You really want to hand the same Wall Street fucks who have screwed over the American citizen right and left the power to remove someone's vote from the House by firing them.

This also means anyone who gets a 'tax refund', instead of paying taxes, usually those in the lower economic rung who don't make enough income to rise above the thershhold for most non-income taxes to kick in effectively. It would add yet another burden on the poorest in society, while limiting their voice, and giving employers too much power over people's votes.

People trying to limit the franchise of legal citizens via all sorts of new laws and rules, out of some desire for Starship Troopers type societal set up or 'net tax contributor' shit, are just doing the Dems work for them by showing how the GOP/Right hates '1 man, 1 vote' for anyone who doesn't vote/think the way they want.

 

[LordsFire]

My proposed solution is no 'solution' at all, because being able to 'vote for other people's money' as you call it is a feature, not a bug, of American democracy.

So, you'd rather ignore the obvious and very real problem, and appeal to ideals that have no actual contact with reality instead.

Perverse incentives are a very real problem, and you are ignoring them at your own risk.

For example, part of the reason we lose so much money and productivity to federal and state government nonsense in the first place, is because of vote-buying programs funded out of the federal treasury. This has a large bearing on how many people are poor in America.

 

[Bacle]

So, you'd rather ignore the obvious and very real problem, and appeal to ideals that have no actual contact with reality instead.

Perverse incentives are a very real problem, and you are ignoring them at your own risk.

For example, part of the reason we lose so much money and productivity to federal and state government nonsense in the first place, is because of vote-buying programs funded out of the federal treasury. This has a large bearing on how many people are poor in America.

'Vote-buying' has always happened with democracies, and always will; even the GOP does it with their promises of tax cuts and reshoring jobs.

Or do actions that put money in people's wallets only become bad if they come from the Dems?

People voting for programs and policies that put them in better economic positions, aka 'vote buying' as you want to call it, is part of the over all democratic process in most democracies as it is, and is a feature, not a bug.