Why Are Republicans Allowed To Vote?

[Buck_Godot]

FYI here’s a link to the poll in questions

warning PDF

[BobLibDem]

@adaher

That’s my view. Although I won’t support people who lie about religious faith. Such a person will lie about anything.

But it’s okay to lie about Chrysler sending all its Jeep production to China?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Little_Nemo

I’m going to say this is factually wrong. My understanding of Islam is that nobody is a hereditary Muslim. The only way for a person to be a Muslim is to make the Shahada - the declaration of faith. If you haven’t done that, you’re not a Muslim regardless of what religion your ancestors were.

How good is your understanding of Islam?

As for me, I’m certainly not any sort of expert. But a lot of ostensibly knowledgable people have made this claim.

For example, according to the US State Department’s report on Iran:

The government automatically considers a child born to a Muslim father to be a Muslim and deems conversion from Islam to be apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Here’s an article from someone who is herself the daughter of a Muslim father and Christian mother, and was raised studying Islam, and who makes the same claim.

And here’s a story of a woman in that category who was sentenced to death in Sudan for refusing to renounce her Christian beliefs

Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6 years old, and Ibrahim was raised by her mother as a Christian.

However, because her father was Muslim, the courts considered her to be the same, which would mean her marriage to a non-Muslim man is void.

So I think it’s pretty solidly established that this is not factually wrong - at an absolute minimum there are quite a lot of Muslims (enough to be running at least two countries) who believe this. Which is enough for purposes of this discussion.

But out of curiosity, what was the basis for your assertion that “this is factually wrong”?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@The_Stainless_Steel_Rat

I believe it was the SF author Robert Heinlein that proposed making a potential voter solve a simple equation (i.e., 3x + 7 = 31, solve for x) before the voting machine would unlock, showing that the voter had at least some cognitive abilities.

the answer is 8

38+7 is 45 not 31 you ding-dong. You have disqualified yourself from voting, thank God.

[mlees]

@The_Stainless_Steel_Rat

the answer is 8

:eek: Spoilers!

[ElvisL1ves]

Drunky Smurf had a little trouble back in algebra class, I see.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Peremensoe

On the other hand, an unlimited franchise confers a kind of legitimacy and moral authority that your oligarchy can never have. In America, we call this “the consent of the governed.”

An oligarchy is rule by a very small cabal of powerful individuals or families. A restricted franchise is not an oligarchy. America in 1789 was not an oligarchy and neither was Britain. They were less liberal democracies than today, but they were not oligarchies.

In present terms, there would be millions of people who would be eligible to vote under the criteria I promulgated, it just doesn’t fit the classical concept of an oligarchy. An oligarchy is like how a criminal cartel or a junta is run, and oligarchies don’t usually have open elections and votes to choose who is in power–the ruling group is perennial in power until forced out by violence or some catastrophe. If the people are voting, in such degree and scope that it’s physically impossible for them all to fit in one room (i.e. when it’s millions of people) and they are voting to elect representatives who serve fixed terms and must stand for reelection, that’s a democracy and not an oligarchy.

[Construct]

It’s absolutely beautiful to see that so many people across the political spectrum are disgusted with democracy and would be totally fine disenfranchising (and implicitly, crushing) their political enemies. Fascism wins again.

[RobDog]

@Construct

It’s absolutely beautiful to see that so many people across the political spectrum are disgusted with democracy and would be totally fine disenfranchising (and implicitly, crushing) their political enemies. Fascism wins again.

Well, aside from the crushing, I’d also like to see them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Construct]

Same here. And people say liberals and conservatives can’t find common ground!

[D_Odds]

@RobDog

Well, aside from the crushing, I’d also like to see them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women.

Same here. It’s just not worth doing if you don’t get their lamentations.

[Muffin]

The answer is 42, not that you should trust a perv’s formula in the first place.

[D_Odds]

@ElvisL1ves

Drunky Smurf had a little trouble back in algebra class, I see.

This is one of those posts where I don’t realize if the poster was “whooshed” or is in on the joke.

[octopus]

@TonySinclair

My fault for not making myself clear. I understand that there are idiots who are not Republicans. And I understand that there is no constitutional requirement saying voters actually have to know anything.

I’m asking why that is. We give people tests before we allow them to drive a car, or operate a tattoo parlor. Why don’t we demand a constitutional amendment that requires people to pass a minimal test of knowledge before they select the leader of the free world?

I’d like to see the average democrat voter pass whatever test you think the average republican voter would fail. Unless it’s a test like.

I believe handouts to the able for a vote is moral.

A) True B) False

We can grow wealth by fiat

A) True B) False

Labels are a social construct to the point I can extract a benefit from that label

A) True B) False

In which case, yes, Dems would gain an electoral advantage. If answered honestly.

[octopus]

@bup

Alright, alright, we have to allow Republicans to vote, even if they believe up is down and ignorance is knowledge.

Why aren’t we allowed to just kill them outright?

You advocating mass murder? Which side of the political spectrum is more heavily armed?

[YogSothoth]

Stupid people, dullards, morons, lollygaggers, stumblewits, knuckdraggers, and mouthbreathers all have the same rights as us normies. No, the world is not fair. Each day those people aren’t ground up for food is another affront to the universe

[BobLibDem]

@octopus

I’d like to see the average democrat voter pass whatever test you think the average republican voter would fail. Unless it’s a test like.

I believe handouts to the able for a vote is moral.

A) True B) False

We can grow wealth by fiat

A) True B) False

Labels are a social construct to the point I can extract a benefit from that label

A) True B) False

In which case, yes, Dems would gain an electoral advantage. If answered honestly.

You might try adding coherence. “Handouts to the able for a vote”? Huh?
I have no idea what you’re getting at in the third. The second sounds like Ron Paul mishmush.

[Velocity]

@Drunky_Smurf

38+7 is 45 not 31 you ding-dong. You have disqualified yourself from voting, thank God.

Not sure if you’re being facetious, but what he means is 3 times 8 is 24. Add 7 to that and you have 31.

[adaher]

They did that during the New Deal. Harold Ickes had no hesitation about hiring people for busy work and then telling them to vote Democrat to keep their paychecks going.

[bup]

@octopus

You advocating mass murder? Which side of the political spectrum is more heavily armed?

Oh, the gun rights nuts keep *assuring *me that it’s just as easy to kill someone without a gun as with one. The same number of deaths happen either way. We can kill them with knives or bananas or something.