Dumb American Women

I've always claimed that voting should be weighted by your socialeconomic status and your intelligence. Both of which contribute to society. It only makes sense that well educated people that have a better understanding of the way the world goes round has a higher weighting in the vote for a government.

Stop the half-breds voting labour and destroying the UK
 
icey_haj said:
Do you have some beef with muslims? Second post i've seen from you today just bringing them into the thread for no reason.
Click to expand...

benneh said:
He's a muslim?. I suggest you give that story to the tabloids.
Click to expand...

His full name is Barack Hussein Obama, two names with connotations to either Muslims or ex-Iraqi dictators. America is doomed if he gets into power. ;) It is all just a play on that, Ben M is just taking the mickey I'd be fairly certain but what is worrying is that some people appear to believe it.

I can't fathom why you would want to protest vote against Obama on the basis that he beat Mrs Clinton, as far as I can tell the votes were offered and counted fairly. Your lady went into a fair contest and lost - deal with it, at least the man who beat her is from the same party and with vaguely similar politics. If you were a Gore supporter when Bush got in for the first time then you might have a right to feel aggrieved but here it isn't down to dodgy counts, a straightforward contest that was lost.
 
D.P. said:
I've always claimed that voting should be weighted by your socialeconomic status and your intelligence. Both of which contribute to society. It only makes sense that well educated people that have a better understanding of the way the world goes round has a higher weighting in the vote for a government.

Stop the half-breds voting labour and destroying the UK
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but I do think before you vote there should be a couple of simple multiple choice questions to show that you have at least a faint grasp of the politics involved.

Of course such a thing will never happen though and it would be a dangerous route to start restricting voters.
 
Quite a lot of Hillary's primary support came from people with little to no education. Quite a lot more came from rabid feminists. I suspect that this bunch combine the two.
 
I saw this yesterday, and I thought to myself - only in america!

They surprise me constantly with the amount of stupidity they come out with, each new one topping the last!

I bet Women's rights group across the world are tutting in despair!
 
I've always claimed that voting should be weighted by your socialeconomic status and your intelligence. Both of which contribute to society. It only makes sense that well educated people that have a better understanding of the way the world goes round has a higher weighting in the vote for a government.

Stop the half-breds voting labour and destroying the UK
Click to expand...

Are you serious? If you are and you don't see what a terrible suggestion of disenfranchising people is then I would class you as someone of low intelligence and would not get the vote in your ideal system.
 
D.P. said:
Write down 10 substantiated reasons why disenfranchisement is a universally negative idea for society
Click to expand...

Would you provide 10 substantiated reasons why disenfranchisement is universally positive first?

Put simply I don't think what you are asking for is realistic. Disenfranchising people suggests that not everyone should have a say in how their country is administered - if you want this to be nominally a democracy then they should have a vote because ill-informed or well-informed they have to live here as well.
 
In a nut shell

ill-informed or well-informed they have to live here as well.
Click to expand...

What you really wanted D.B. was that only those with similar views to you be allowed to have a say in the running of the country. I would be certainly classed as able to vote on any system you described of socioeconomic status/intelligence/income to decide on elligibility, but I would also be classed as one of the half-breds also. The fact that someone disagrees on policy with you doesn't make them a half-bred and not worthy of a vote.

Where would you stop with removing the vote by the way? What percentage of the population should be allowed to have a say in how everyone lives? Should we have all policies that ignore the needs of minorities who may not have a voice under your system? no point pandering to those people as a politician right? Not if they can't even vote you in. Perhaps we should limit it to those with a degree? nah, too many with degrees these days. Maybe the landed gentry? That used to work back in the day didn't it?
 
Excuse me just a second!

I don’t think McSame is going to win anything just because a Women’s Group decide to try and get people voting for him.

Most of the American media are eating him right now because every time he goes on TV he makes a bumbling fool of himself.

Then again isn’t that most of the American population anyway?


Meh…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom