Thread Rating:

Poll

57 votes (47.89%)
33 votes (27.73%)
12 votes (10.08%)
10 votes (8.4%)
4 votes (3.36%)
3 votes (2.52%)

119 members have voted

SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8166
August 21st, 2016 at 4:35:49 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I have no problem with, for example, requiring that people pass a basic civics test before being allowed to vote. In my point of view, that you're breathing isn't sufficient qualification for you being allowed to determine (as in, f*** up) my future.



If you got your wish there would never be a Democrat elected to anything anywhere..... And you know it!
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1390
  • Posts: 23428
August 21st, 2016 at 5:13:04 PM permalink
In case anyone is interested, the Betfair odds suggest Trump has a 20.2% chance of winning.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
JimRockford
JimRockford
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 553
August 21st, 2016 at 5:23:32 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

In case anyone is interested, the Betfair odds suggest Trump has a 20.2% chance of winning.

What were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." - Isaac Newton
ams288
ams288
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 5463
August 21st, 2016 at 5:48:03 PM permalink
Quote: JimRockford

What were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?



Brexit didn't need 270 electoral votes.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
August 21st, 2016 at 5:51:14 PM permalink
Quote: JimRockford

What were the odds on Brexit the day before it passed?



About even money, depending on exactly when you asked. The polls just before the vote (unlike those recent ones re the US election) showed a statistical dead heat. Unlike the election of Trump, the passing of Brexit didn't require mass insanity--just mass stupidity.

I have a feeling you're trying to imply that odds mean nothing. That's true, so I certainly hope all true believing Trumpers will empty out their bank accounts and jump on those juicy 4-1 odds (or whatever is actually offered).
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
August 21st, 2016 at 5:58:09 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

If you got your wish there would never be a Democrat elected to anything anywhere..... And you know it!



I don't know that--and neither do you. The sun isn't yellow, it's hot pink--and you know it!!!! Siamese cats have nine legs and come from Jupiter--and you know it!!!

Actually, I've found that the vast majority of people all across the political and social spectrum wouldn't be able to pass such a test. That said, of the ones who COULD pass it, most of them would be Democrats. Two reasons: 1) Democrats tend to be better educated, especially since most college-educated folks are them stinkin' liberals; 2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad; Democratic doctrine says that it can be a force for good. It stands to reason that a person who cares about something will learn more about it than a person who rejects it completely.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8166
August 21st, 2016 at 6:18:44 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I don't know that--and neither do you.
2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad;



You do know that, you just don't want to admit it.
And Republican doctrine does not say all government is bad. It just is against the Robin Hood like, over reaching, intrusive, deficit building, 'PC' government that Democrat leaders give us.

I wish the Republicans had nominated a normal candidate like Rubio, Kasich, or Bush. It would be so easy to argue for any of them over "The Flawed One", as I will refer to Hillary from now on. Seems more polite than disparaging her due to skin color or looks like you do for Mr. Trump.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10340
August 21st, 2016 at 6:30:06 PM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

[Your short-list came down to Krusty the Clown and the Wicked Witch Of The West.



I don't think it's fair to compare a mediocre candidate at worse(Hillary), to possibly the worst presidential Republican candidate in its history.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
beerseason
beerseason
Joined: Aug 14, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 161
August 21st, 2016 at 8:35:05 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I don't know that--and neither do you. The sun isn't yellow, it's hot pink--and you know it!!!! Siamese cats have nine legs and come from Jupiter--and you know it!!!

Actually, I've found that the vast majority of people all across the political and social spectrum wouldn't be able to pass such a test. That said, of the ones who COULD pass it, most of them would be Democrats. Two reasons: 1) Democrats tend to be better educated, especially since most college-educated folks are them stinkin' liberals; 2) Republican doctrine says that all government is bad; Democratic doctrine says that it can be a force for good. It stands to reason that a person who cares about something will learn more about it than a person who rejects it completely.



So we would throw out a very good majority of voters. I actually like that idea. I would bet not too many people could name the SC Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, and Majority Leader of the Senate, let alone Senate Pro Tem, what maybe 10%? If they had to name the statewide office holders of their own state plus Speaker of General Assembly and President of Senate? It would maybe be 2 to 5%?

If you added a constitutional test to determine if you could vote we would be lucky to have 5% of the population voting.

But maybe we wouldnt be in the mess we are. I know me and JS aren't on the same political side but he's a smart person. This is actually a great idea, force people to be knowledgeable.
beerseason
beerseason
Joined: Aug 14, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 161
August 21st, 2016 at 9:06:29 PM permalink
We have literally as a country ran some of the worst Presidential prospects ever lately on both sides of the aisle.

Literally this last election was a collection of the worst possible candidates during the primary.

Walker, woof, what a divisive figure.
Fiorina, a rich candidate that ran a company into the ground.
Christie, see Walker, plus scandals.
Cruz, probably the worst candidate ever and totally unlikeable.
Carson, no experience, and terrible stump skills.
Jeb, boring as all get out and we don't need another bush.
Rubio, what happened to him, he was likeable
Huckabee, Santorum, et al, just also ran with nothing and plenty of baggage.
Kasich probably the most sane choice.
Trump, full of air and divisive rhetoric.

Sanders, a socialist but tells it like it is (I actually respect him for standing up for what he believes, but totally against my beliefs)
O'Malley, don't know much about him, but doesn't seem like he would be a terrible president. Not sure why he ran though.
Hillary, an ex senator from a state she never really wanted to be a part of until it benefited her. Plus everything else.

If someone told me I had to take a Democrat for president, I could think of a ton before I would take hillary. My first choice would be John Kerry. I respect Tim Kaine, and Tom Vilsack as I think they wouldn't be terrible. Out of the dems that ran the order would have been O'Malley, then Sanders. I just don't see why the dems want to go with Hillary,.

Everyone always says bernie would have crushed trump. No one ever mention's the fact Kasich would have destroyed hillary.

What has happened to statesmen in our country?

All of the ones that have been always been country first get shoved to the rear.

  • Jump to: