Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by Dr. Rice, Mar 11, 2013.
What if a election ballot was like a multiple choice test on issues?
You should have to pass a test to get a voter registration card. The test will be hard as fuck.
What - so every election is essentially a referendum on every issue?
I think voting should be compulsory.
If everyone votes, it dilutes the impact of the special interest groups and the extreme Left & Right.
You know those multiple choice quizzes that align people with politicians based on issues that are important to them. Why not something like that as an option on a computer ballot?
Voter Registration Crossword Puzzle
No, I've never seen them.
lol good idea.
There could be time brackets. The faster you do it, the more weight your vote carries.
Because your country is a bitch to my country.
and my country is a 3rd world backwater cesspool full of left wing unionised fucktards and abos.
Wow. I am apparently a fuckwit:
I side with Mitt Romney on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Candidates you side with...
Mitt Romney Republican
on immigration, environmental, domestic policy, economic, and foreign policy issues
Gary Johnson Libertarian
on domestic policy, healthcare, social, and economic issues
Virgil Goode Constitution
on environmental and economic issues
Barack Obama Democrat
on social and science issues
on domestic policy, healthcare, social, and science issues.
Show all candidates
Parties you side with...
I voted for Gary Johnson, but I donated to Jon Huntsman.
I think we should let felons vote, some of those guys are smart as fuck.
I saw "Encyclopedia Dramatic Party" and got excited, then saw it was about politics and my boner deflated.
Help us learn how to keep it about politics while being boner inducing at the same time, then. It's important.
Yep. We've got a sex party. Come on downunder.
I see where this goes..
So I did this test and these were the scores.
Jill Stein Green
on foreign policy, domestic policy, social, and science issues
Barack Obama Democrat
on foreign policy, social, science, healthcare, and environmental issues
Gary Johnson Libertarian
on foreign policy issues
Rocky Anderson Justice
on foreign policy and social issues
Mitt Romney Republican
on immigration and environmental issues
Virgil Goode Constitution
no major issues
on foreign policy, domestic policy, economic, science, social, and environmental issues.
Oh man, Im 62% Justice.
That is the concept, but these questions will be phrased more eloquently and not everything will be on a ballot every year. Just select issues. In California, you have to get a certain number of signatures to get something even put onto the ballot so citizens can vote on it.
In California, most of the people are human waste.
Rap is for criminals.
You cannot vote if you:
-Don't pay taxes
-Owe money on taxes
-Don't own land (Possibly. If you don't own land you certainly shouldn't get a say on zoning laws and shit)
No Democrat would be elected again.
Don't pay taxes
I don't know how people could disagree with the above. If you don't pay taxes (especially federal), you don't put money in the pot. You don't get a say in how it's spent. No taxation without representation? No problem. You're not getting taxed. You don't get represented.
Owe money on taxes
Owe money on taxes? You're in debt to your own government because you thought you were smarter than them and could outfox them and get out of taxes. You are obviously an idiot. You thought you could use services and not pay for them. The only thing you have going for you is that you were productive enough to generate decent income unlike the above shitheads.
If you collect unemployment, you don't get to decide shit. You are the government's bitch. All you can do is hope they keep passing you drinks and putting up with your bullshit. If you can't fucking feed yourself, you don't get to decide what happens to other peoples' money.
Don't own land
The last one makes sense if the size of government continues to be as big as it is. If you don't own land, you shouldn't have a say in matters that concern land. It goes back to the above principles.
Let's say you're with friends and they decide to order pizza. You have no money. You tell them that. Some of them graciously oblige to pay for your slices. Demanding the right to vote as somebody who falls into the above categories is the equivalent of complaining about the free pizza you are receiving.
I also think it wouldn't be the worst decision in the world to repeal the 19th Amendment as nothing good has happened since it was passed.
I agree with all of the above apart from the land bit. What if you own land in one state but are living and renting/leasing in another? Where do you vote at the state elections? Or if you live in NYC or Chicago Loop etc when buying land may well be out of the question, but plenty of productive members of society (i.e. excluding uber) live and work?
Well, Mr Hairy, what's the fucking answer????
I agree, that's why I said "possibly." I don't think the state should be in the business of making rules about land and I don't like the idea that I have to ask my local government's permission before building a shed in my back yard. I hope that people avoid making decisions about land they don't own. However, if they can't refrain from that, people should at least not be able to make a decision when they don't have some skin in the game.
Voting is a form of suicide pact. For somebody to enter into one without a round in the chamber just isn't fair.
Oh. Well that was anticlimactic.
I also agree with this.
I am not used to agreeing with people, and the sensation is quite unpleasant.
So it happens that the Goverment has done a bad economic policy, and so I find myself dealing with the excessive high taxes. Also, due to the bad laboral legislation done by the Goverment, my boss fires me for absolutley no reason, and I am in the street, having to deal with a long trial for appealing against the dismissal. So, for a living, I have to collect unenmployment, since the bad laboral legislation has fucked the entire national employment and now businessmen only hires inmigrants that work for subhuman salaries. Also, the bank who I trusted deceived me with a financial product that was illegal, but still sold it to me and so the bank is going to impound my house. I try to go to jury again, but it is futile, since the bank owns a great portion of debt from the ruling Goverment, so that means the Goverment is rendered useless.
When the election time comes, I and a lot of angry citizens go to vote against the Goverment, but congressman Slavok approved a law that prohibits voting when you are in my situation. Finally, a violent revolution erupts and Slav is beheaded like the Monarchical European Fashion he dislikes so much.
No boss ever fires an employee for no reason. If you're adding value to the business, then you won't get fired. If you're not, then fuck you, you're out the door.
Maybe your Government removed bullshit laws that stopped lazy cunts from getting fired. Employers should be able to hire and fire at will. Earn your salary and you'll be fine.
These bullshit welfare safety nets create an atmosphere of entitlement. We need safety nets, because life is a whore and things happen. We don't need them for pieces of shit who want a free ride.
They can. In most parts of the US the employer can fire the employee for no justified reason. And in the case of Spain the employer can make an unfair dismissal. It needs to be compensated, but the point is that you can fire a worker almost at free will.
Employers should be able to fire workers that have been proven to be lazy cunts, and not to fire an employee because the employer wants his niece to work at his company, in the employee´s former job. While I think the employers need a more flexible dismissal laws, there are some limits that cant be trespassed. A total free dismissal only creates laboral insecurity in the workers. Dismissals need to be justified, but I think the justifications should be more relaxed.
Surprisingly, I think so too. Welfare needs a serious restructuring. As a example: In the good years a spaniard could work for some time, get fire, and live for 2 years from the welfare. And of course he could keep working and get black receivables, earning more money than at his workplace. And I am sure the abbos in Australia do cheats for earning the welfare. In conclusion, welfare needs to be restructured so it still protects the worker but prevents the worker to abuse the welfare.
I know they can.
My point is that they don't.
Even if he wants to fire your lazy arse and employ his niece with big tits, that's still a reason, and should be his right to do so.
If an employee is adding value to a company, no boss is going to fire them (unless she won't give him a BJ etc).
But what if his niece is an ugly fuck with saggy tits? THAT SHOULD BE REGULATED, AND YOU FUCKING HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME.
Since most election campaigns are basically future bribes (vote for me and lower taxes, better economy, more subsidies/welfare, etc.), why not just bribe a person to hand in his/her right to vote for a certain amount of money based on his/her income (or get an equivalent tax cut)? Then, when in the future the said person decides to repurchase his/her right privilege to vote, he would have to repay the amount he received five fold (inflation adjusted, of course) and take a comprehensive political/economical test in order to prove that he is capable of making informed voting decisions.