Two Part Question...

Watermark said:
America and other nations have at times been unfree and free... I wouldn't dilute all of it with a single paragraph like that.
Click to expand...


The elites would prefer a population less aware of constiutional rights, and less insistent on preserving them. People desperate for subsistence will care more about immediate concerns and will perhaps not even be aware of legislation curtailing their future rights. The elites prefer ignorant masses. That's also why our public school system has been utterly destroyed by an ego-based curriculum, social promotion, and political correctness.
 
Watermark said:
1. Don't really care. The only nations with high turnout are those with proportional representation, especially with an individualized form of it like STV. I've never seen a nation that uses single member districts that has turnout above 60%. I don't see voter turnout going above 60% in America, no matter what. It never has before.

2. I don't think it'd change anything. Maybe it would push things a bit more populist and authoritarian, since usually it's the populists who don't vote. You probably wouldn't notice much of a change, though.
Click to expand...


but populists aren't authoritarian. Globalists are. National sovereignty is a threat to their total power, because national government is the last defense from their nation destroying "free trade" radicalism.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The elites would prefer a population less aware of constiutional rights, and less insistent on preserving them. People desperate for subsistence will care more about immediate concerns and will perhaps not even be aware of legislation curtailing their future rights. The elites prefer ignorant masses. That's also why our public school system has been utterly destroyed by an ego-based curriculum, social promotion, and political correctness.
Click to expand...

You're making ridiculously broad generalizations.
 
Watermark said:
You're making ridiculously broad generalizations.
Click to expand...

No. You're an ignorant braindead fuckstick who only started spewing globalist propaganda since you realized I filled the niche you wanted on the board, intellectual leader. Since you're fundamentally childish and spiteful, you became a neocon to a avoid agreeing with the clear intellectual master of the board. You're a punkass bitch, probably with a size 11 asshole.
 
Let's do some exercises in communication.

watermark said:
Maybe it would push things a bit more populist and authoritarian, since usually it's the populists who don't vote.
Click to expand...

What is the IMPLICATION of this sentence? (see section 13c "IMPLICATIONS: The Hidden Content" of your Textbook if you need to review)
 
AssHatZombie said:
Logic 101: Broad generalizations can still be accurate.
Click to expand...
His assertion, however, is that your inductive conclusions -- look it up -- are unsupportable and invalid. Some generalizations can be useful but not all of them are. Indeed, there are more bad generalizations than there are good ones.
 
"Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn’t want people to vote. That’s why the GOP is obsessed with voter fraud—only they want to disenfranchise voters because as Weyrich said back in the ’80’s…the more voters there are—the less of a chance the wingers have in any election.

Download (2653) * Play (2001) Download (1750) * Play (1338)

Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/07/paul-weyrich-goo-goo-syndrome/


the radical right knows that once the population see's what they're up to, its all over for them.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
His assertion, however, is that your inductive conclusions -- look it up -- are unsupportable and invalid. Some generalizations can be useful but not all of them are. Indeed, there are more bad generalizations than there are good ones.
Click to expand...

I would like him to be specific about which statement he feels inaccurate. You too, assmunch. Bring it on, fraud. I'll stomp your ignorant skull into a million even stupider fragments.
 
Cypress said:
Agree on number one.

I agree there would be less influence of rightys.
I would say that our nation our government would cater more to the public interest, and less to speicial interests, if they were more afraid of the voters. And 80% voter turnouts would make politicians sit up and take note.

If that's what you mean by "moderate", I agree.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean by more moderate. They would tend to be more scared of going with the special interest groups that tend to only benefit small portions of the population. Those on the far left and far right would be effectively neutered.

As for this....

"I'm not sure the extreme left is very influential at a national level now. "

you have got to be kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top