I don't know about you guys but looking around this forum at some of the posts and then asking my friends later on about politics I gotta say I'm very disappointed. So many people know so very little, but much worse is the abundance of people who know literally nothing but party lines and bullshit about other candidates or make false claims about their candidates. Seriously some of the shit I see is ridiculous, even worse seems to be the lack of interest to learn. No one takes the time to research claims, no one pays attention to what is actually happening, and the ones that pay the smallest bit of attention lie through their teeth to anyone who will listen to hopefully give their party an edge or make them vote their way. With how ill-informed most people are and how most people just choose their votes by party lines, it just makes me feel disgusted. We were given this great right, this amazing privilege that a lot of people in this world don't have and yet... I sit here watching it be squandered and wasted by the masses, to make matters worse the people that do vote seem to have no concept of what they are voting for... Something I've always joked about with my friends is there should be an IQ test to vote, however it seems it might be time to actually implement this.... anyone agree that an IQ test(or equivalent, or possibly oral test showing knowledge of election/issues) should be mandatory? I realize in part this would take away freedoms and no matter how much support this idea garnered it would never be implemented but still, tell me your thoughts. Do you agree with it? Why/why not. If you do agree how do you think it should be implemented, what standards should people be judged by, etc.
I disagree, because aside from IQ, class affects the ability of an individual or group of people to access information. It'd be just like the reading tests they implemented during slavery to keep blacks from voting. In time you'd probably see those with the power intentionally making information necessary to pass a political IQ test more difficult to reach, to keep the poor away from the polls. Either everyone (including dumb asses) gets to vote, or no one does.
I'd be more open to giving the candidates polygraph tests and IQ tests, than giving them to the voters. But I hear you on the slanted political spins, its nothing but propaganda, apparently its all some political parties have left to offer, and its bullshit. But America was built with bullshit. Or was that the severed scrotums of its natives? This country has always been based on lies. That's why the future is more important than ever, we could become a truly great social experiment, if we actually saw equality as a given human attribute.
I'm with you on some of that, after spending a few minutes here reading the political sub-forum I feel as if I'm about to have an anxiety attack. Some threads seriously leave me feeling nauseated. The worst part about it is throughout the big mess of blind party allegiance and sheer ignorance there usually stands out one or two voices of reason, and they go completely ignored by the scornfully arrogant. And for the IQ test required to vote... IQ has nothing to do with intelligence. You can improve your score by simply reading "How to pass IQ test" books. Common sense is more difficult to learn, and far more appropriate for measuring intelligence, but also nearly impossible to test for.
Politcal stance has nothing to do with IQ. Based on your thread maybe you need an IQ test. Its not as if political issues are difficult concepts to grasp, and since the US somewhat resembles a democracy eliminating a whole class of voters would turn this country into a bad, elitist place. Secondly, what do you expect to come from a forum full of stoners(no offense). If this were a political website it would be totaly different. I think the fact that these threads are extremly biased and downright unintelligent shows more about the people who smoke weed. Not trying to play into the whole stereotype thing, but this website has actually confirmed my veiw that in general the stupid stoner stereotype retains much truth.
I never said political stance had anything to do with IQ, however your grasp of political issues does have to do with your intelligence. However thank you for the attack on my intelligence, that was real cool of you... Also if political issues aren't hard to grasp please do me the favor of explaining to me how the economy works, in as much detail as possible. Yes the base ideas that are pushed out are easy to comprehend as are the things said in their speeches but that's the point. You get fluff from these people. Nothing is ever explained fully enough and to say things like health care, the economy, pro-life vs pro-choice, gun control, etc aren't complicated issues is fucking ludicrous. As to your last point, I expect intelligence where ever I go. I try not to think of it as a forum full of stoners but just a forum full of people. Most of the threads are biased to parties yes, which is kind of my point, there is just strict sticking to parties and voting on that basis. However I disagree with the stupid stoner stereotype, ever consider that maybe it's not stoners that are stupid, but perhaps the young and underage people that are here? You forget this website represents a VERY VERY VERY small percent of the stoner population. A little over 100,000 users, some with multiple accounts, many inactive, and a fair bit of them very immature people that are probably underage, and you make your decision as to the so called "stupid stoner stereotype" based on this? Who needs the IQ test again? Moving on I'd like to point out that I didn't mean that these people shouldn't get a vote, but more so should be forced to take a political class or at the very least some sort of test that would make sure they understand the issues at hand. I do agree with Medicine Al on just about everything he touched on especially the point about our politicians maybe being given the intelligence test. On a side note, to the people that have been saying an IQ test is not a good gauge of intelligence, I know this... which is why I put in parenthesis or some sort of equivalent. To the first person who replied to the thread; class does NOT affect a groups ability to access information. Sure they may not have it all at home at their finger tips but I'd just like to point to a local library and they would have all the information they need. Most libraries not only have a large amount of books on politics and politicians themselves but they also have internet that you may use for free(albeit a limited amount of time on occasion) and most also get newspapers delivered to them daily along with their magazine subscriptions. Fact is class, at least in my opinion, presents not real effect on your ability to access information. Sure you may have to take a 10 min walk or a 5 min drive but it is still there for you to get.
You've obviously never have lived in, or visited a ghetto. Or a rural area for that matter (and a very large chunk of the population does indeed live there). Many small towns don't have a library at all, meaning a walk to the library is impossible, and a drive may take many hours. Not everyone is privileged enough to live within walking distance of a library. This is exactly what I was talking about. Also consider that most libraries (at least the ones around me) close relatively early. In fact, Minneapolis' flagship library closes at 8 PM. It's a major hassle to go to a library and spend hours reading up on politics when it's closed by the time you're done with school and work. Your opinion needs some enlightenment.
How small a town are we talking? I currently live in a small town, in the town of Golden Gate we probably have about 30,000 people which isn't as big as it seems I wouldn't say I know all of them but a half decent majority. I'd probably say any place with 10,000 people or more has a library. I have no real stats to back that though... I did look, if you can find some it would be great ^_^ As far as a ghetto goes, libraries normally aren't out of walking distance unless your in rural areas. I've known people that live in the ghetto and while I haven't lived there myself I know this much about them. Ghettos are normally in crowded cities(not always) and with a city comes a library, a train ride, a bike ride, or a small walk would be all it took. Rural areas you would have a case, but rural people aren't poor normally poor. Infact I've found in my area it's the opposite, the farther you go out, the bigger and better the houses get. Not all, but a majority. Most of them buy large amounts of land and its the only reason they live so far out. That being said, people in rural areas can normally afford TV and internet, but should they not be able to then I acknowledge you on that... poor people in the country side are semi screwed in the matter. Also, please don't down talk my opinion. It makes you seem like a jackass, in my humble opinion that needs enlightening. Note; going to friends will reply to other messages later
30,000 is not a small town at all. Not even close. I drove through three sub 3,000 population towns on the way to my cabin today, including Shell Lake: 1309 Cumberland: 2280 Turtle Lake: 1065 Two sub 500 Barronett: 405 Comstock: Didn't even come up in Wiki And a couple others that I can't remember. There are literally thousands (probably tens of thousands) of towns with sub 10,000 populations in the United States. I've driven through towns out west that have fewer than 20. This reflects just how privileged you really are! And, no offense intended bro.