“everybody shouldn’t be voting…. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes"

brianlux

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

Hobbes

White supremacy. 

Hoods, not hood.

Meltdown99

Seems like that is how a banana republic would be run...no thanks.

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

anti-American

Isn't Gerrymandering defacto a fixture of your political system?

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

anti-American

Isn't Gerrymandering defacto a fixture of your political system?

No it isn't defacto because the courts have the power to declare gerrymandered districts in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It happens quite often and happened a few years ago in my state, creating a complete re-drawing of districts. 

hedonist

Hobbes said:

White supremacy. 

Hoods, not hood.

Ha!

I do appreciate an informed voter, though I understand that’s not what the particular statement posted is about. 

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

What about the idea that it would be good if voters were more well informed and better educated in the process of government? 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not supporting the Republican agenda.  No way.  Nor am I anti-democracy.  Good gawd, no!  But ignoring the source of that comment, I do like the idea of quality voting.  Of people being educated about for what and for whom they are voting.  I'd find that hard to argue against.

Halifax2TheMax

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

What about the idea that it would be good if voters were more well informed and better educated in the process of government? 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not supporting the Republican agenda.  No way.  Nor am I anti-democracy.  Good gawd, no!  But ignoring the source of that comment, I do like the idea of quality voting.  Of people being educated about for what and for whom they are voting.  I'd find that hard to argue against.

We’re all for freedumb in ‘Murica Mr. Lux. None of that forced socialist, communist, Marxist education to be able to vote. Parents should educate their kids, not schools.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

What about the idea that it would be good if voters were more well informed and better educated in the process of government? 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not supporting the Republican agenda.  No way.  Nor am I anti-democracy.  Good gawd, no!  But ignoring the source of that comment, I do like the idea of quality voting.  Of people being educated about for what and for whom they are voting.  I'd find that hard to argue against.

Well sure, more information is always better than less.  Who gets to decide a quality voter vs one that isn't?  This was the basis of Jim Crow laws post Reconstruction. 

Edit - and the opening of the sentence gives it away.  "Everyone shouldn't be voting".  That's patently un-American.  If the lead sentence was "We need to better educate voters on issues", then maybe the concept wouldn't be so offensive to our republic.  

cincybearcat

There are plenty of idiots voting, but it’s their right as well. 

brianlux

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

What about the idea that it would be good if voters were more well informed and better educated in the process of government? 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not supporting the Republican agenda.  No way.  Nor am I anti-democracy.  Good gawd, no!  But ignoring the source of that comment, I do like the idea of quality voting.  Of people being educated about for what and for whom they are voting.  I'd find that hard to argue against.

We’re all for freedumb in ‘Murica Mr. Lux. None of that forced socialist, communist, Marxist education to be able to vote. Parents should educate their kids, not schools.

Yes, America a dumb, my friend.  Free-smart is the way to be, but it's easier to have worker bees and keep people in line if the are kept stupid.

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Ignoring who it was the said that (or Google the statement if you want to know) discuss your thoughts about this statement. 

I saw that quote.  It's completely anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic to boot.  

What about the idea that it would be good if voters were more well informed and better educated in the process of government? 

Don't get me wrong- I'm not supporting the Republican agenda.  No way.  Nor am I anti-democracy.  Good gawd, no!  But ignoring the source of that comment, I do like the idea of quality voting.  Of people being educated about for what and for whom they are voting.  I'd find that hard to argue against.

Well sure, more information is always better than less.  Who gets to decide a quality voter vs one that isn't?  This was the basis of Jim Crow laws post Reconstruction. 

Edit - and the opening of the sentence gives it away.  "Everyone shouldn't be voting".  That's patently un-American.  If the lead sentence was "We need to better educate voters on issues", then maybe the concept wouldn't be so offensive to our republic.  

Yes, I agree the full statement is faulty.  I quoted the whole thing so as not to cut and spice that way so much of what we hear is today.  If I had done a cut and spice plagiarism and said to you, "Hey, M, I think quantity in voting is important, but we have to  look  at quality of votes as well," would have have written off my comment as anti-democratic, anti-American and idiotic?

cincybearcat said:

There are plenty of idiots voting, but it’s their right as well. 

It's more than a right to be an idiot in America.  It is a goal of much of what America is today to keep people stupid.  I really believe that is the way it is.

Hobbes

Merkin Baller

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

tempo_n_groove

This has to be about non citizen voting.  No other reason this would be said?

Hobbes

tempo_n_groove said:

This has to be about non citizen voting.  No other reason this would be said?

Because the author of the statement couldn't possibly be a racist POS?

Merkin Baller

tempo_n_groove said:

This has to be about non citizen voting.  No other reason this would be said?

No, this is not about non citizen voting. 

Halifax2TheMax

It’s about the “other” voting and is a dog whistle. The “other” doesn’t support white supremacy.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

This has to be about non citizen voting.  No other reason this would be said?

No,  it's not.  That wouldn't make any sense since they cannot vote legally.  It was made by an AZ state GOP rep.

brianlux

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Merkin Baller

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Honest question: are you unfamiliar with the source and context of the quote? Or are you just trying to have a discussion based on the quote itself in a vacuum? 

Hobbes

Quality as defined by race, ethnicity, gender, age, economic status, prestige, lineage, etc.

Same quality of "men" declared at the nation's inception, "...that all men are created equal..."

That's America.

brianlux

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Honest question: are you unfamiliar with the source and context of the quote? Or are you just trying to have a discussion based on the quote itself in a vacuum? 

Yes and yes to the first two questions.  I used the quote as a jumping off point to discuss the idea of quantity of votes vs. quality.  It's an issue I believe deserves consideration.  I don't find it useful to say "let's get as many people as possible to vote" before (or at least without) advocating voter education. 

I have often questioned why it is more important to have as many voters as possible with little or no concern for how well voters are educated on the process of government as well as the issues and candidates themselves.  We live in a world where ideas are formed and where votes are cast based on very sketchy notions formed by reading headlines rather than articles, or political cartoons, or memes or other forms of information that are unverified and showing little thought for value of information.  That, for example, is why I stated on the Cuomo thread that I believed reactions were being formed quickly on a sketchy source.  And unfortunately, some here took that to mean I am OK with sexual harassment- which, of course, is an extremely poorly formed assumption.

hedonist

*Extremely poor assumer here! Gotta be a tsk-tsk somewhere in there

The average person isn’t well-informed on every issue or candidate. That’s unrealistic to me. What are your priorities? Does a candidate or bill speak to that? Is the candidate or bill worthy (subjective)?

Conversely, I don’t vote on things about which I know nothing or dangerously little. 

I pity anyone who makes such important choices based on skewed or manufactured shit. 

By the way, the Cuomo thing and this are quite different. At least to my old eyes.

Merkin Baller

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Honest question: are you unfamiliar with the source and context of the quote? Or are you just trying to have a discussion based on the quote itself in a vacuum? 

Yes and yes to the first two questions.  I used the quote as a jumping off point to discuss the idea of quantity of votes vs. quality.  It's an issue I believe deserves consideration.  I don't find it useful to say "let's get as many people as possible to vote" before (or at least without) advocating voter education. 

I have often questioned why it is more important to have as many voters as possible with little or no concern for how well voters are educated on the process of government as well as the issues and candidates themselves.  We live in a world where ideas are formed and where votes are cast based on very sketchy notions formed by reading headlines rather than articles, or political cartoons, or memes or other forms of information that are unverified and showing little thought for value of information.  That, for example, is why I stated on the Cuomo thread that I believed reactions were being formed quickly on a sketchy source.  And unfortunately, some here took that to mean I am OK with sexual harassment- which, of course, is an extremely poorly formed assumption.

Gotcha. 

Yeah, I agree educating voters is important, my wife & I make a point of looking up the candidates and ballot questions in advance of voting. I would be lying if I said we discussed every candidate in every election, but we definitely discuss the ballot questions and their implications. I think everyone should. There absolutely should be as much emphasis on educating voters as there is in getting people to vote. With that being said, is this scenario that I boldfaced above actually happening? Are people being encouraged to vote, but to do so blindly / without reading up on the issues? If so, I haven’t seen that. There is opposition from the left to GOP voter restriction legislation, but its just that... I don’t see how opposing voting restrictions = what you’re saying.
If you look into the source of this quote however, you’ll see that it was made in support of voter restriction legislation in AZ - legislation that if it passes, will make it harder for people to vote. So while the quote on its own may be worthy of discussion, the source and context show it’s less concerned with having more educated voters than it is with making obstacles to voting. 

I’m on board when you say let’s encourage voter education as much as we encourage voter turnout.

I am however firmly against making it harder to vote. Never once did it cross my mind that America should make it harder for Trump voters to cast their ballots in the next election. 

brianlux

hedonist said:

*Extremely poor assumer here! Gotta be a tsk-tsk somewhere in there

The average person isn’t well-informed on every issue or candidate. That’s unrealistic to me. What are your priorities? Does a candidate or bill speak to that? Is the candidate or bill worthy (subjective)?

Conversely, I don’t vote on things about which I know nothing or dangerously little. 

I pity anyone who makes such important choices based on skewed or manufactured shit. 

By the way, the Cuomo thing and this are quite different. At least to my old eyes.

No, not a tsk tsk.  I don't have an axe to grind with anyone here.  I just find it a bit sad that sometimes people jump to conclusions.  I'm pretty sure I've done the same thing and when called out on it, hopeful have admitted the error (I'm pretty sure I've done that too, right?)  We're all imperfect.

I agree that the average person is not well-informed on every issue or candidate.  I would go further by suggesting that the average voter is poorly informed on most issues and candidates.  That's pretty much the basis of what I've been saying here, which is why I am suggesting that it would be better to focus on voter education rather than simply amassing large numbers of voters. But assuming America would actually want a well educated voting populous may simply be me making an ass out of myself (rather than "assume" being "making as ass out of u and me".)

F Me In The Brain

What the fucking fuck?

F Me In The Brain

Is this where we sign up to make sure the right people can vote and also be able to reproduce?
So that we get quality votes and quality people?

Complete a course or something and get certified to vote and bang?
</s>

Hobbes said:

Quality as defined by race, ethnicity, gender, age, economic status, prestige, lineage, etc.

Same quality of "men" declared at the nation's inception, "...that all men are created equal..."

That's America.

It sure is.

Hobbes

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Honest question: are you unfamiliar with the source and context of the quote? Or are you just trying to have a discussion based on the quote itself in a vacuum? 

Yes and yes to the first two questions.  I used the quote as a jumping off point to discuss the idea of quantity of votes vs. quality.  It's an issue I believe deserves consideration.  I don't find it useful to say "let's get as many people as possible to vote" before (or at least without) advocating voter education. 

I have often questioned why it is more important to have as many voters as possible with little or no concern for how well voters are educated on the process of government as well as the issues and candidates themselves.  We live in a world where ideas are formed and where votes are cast based on very sketchy notions formed by reading headlines rather than articles, or political cartoons, or memes or other forms of information that are unverified and showing little thought for value of information.  That, for example, is why I stated on the Cuomo thread that I believed reactions were being formed quickly on a sketchy source.  And unfortunately, some here took that to mean I am OK with sexual harassment- which, of course, is an extremely poorly formed assumption.

Gotcha. 

Yeah, I agree educating voters is important, my wife & I make a point of looking up the candidates and ballot questions in advance of voting. I would be lying if I said we discussed every candidate in every election, but we definitely discuss the ballot questions and their implications. I think everyone should. There absolutely should be as much emphasis on educating voters as there is in getting people to vote. With that being said, is this scenario that I boldfaced above actually happening? Are people being encouraged to vote, but to do so blindly / without reading up on the issues? If so, I haven’t seen that. There is opposition from the left to GOP voter restriction legislation, but its just that... I don’t see how opposing voting restrictions = what you’re saying.
If you look into the source of this quote however, you’ll see that it was made in support of voter restriction legislation in AZ - legislation that if it passes, will make it harder for people to vote. So while the quote on its own may be worthy of discussion, the source and context show it’s less concerned with having more educated voters than it is with making obstacles to voting. 

I’m on board when you say let’s encourage voter education as much as we encourage voter turnout.

I am however firmly against making it harder to vote. Never once did it cross my mind that America should make it harder for Trump voters to cast their ballots in the next election. 

Harder for people of color to vote.

Merkin Baller

Hobbes said:

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

brianlux said:

Merkin Baller said:

I’m in favor of a more well informed voting public, I think any rational person probably is, but that isn’t the issue at the heart of this IMO. 

No American has a right to judge the quality of another American’s vote though. 

Shouldn’t that be the bottom line, here? 

I totally agree that no American has the right to judge another person's right to vote as they choose.  Of course, that includes allowing the right for many millions of Americans to vote for someone who is crude, misogynistic, anti-environment, anti-democracy and totally unqualified for the job of POTUS- which, as we all know did happen.  That result may be a good reason to focus on quality of vote vs quantity.  I'm not sure what the author of the OP quote means by a "quality vote", but to me, it means giving voters the opportunity to be well informed and better educated and, in fact, strongly encouraging that to be the case.  Just seeking quantity of votes seems, to me, to be putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.

Honest question: are you unfamiliar with the source and context of the quote? Or are you just trying to have a discussion based on the quote itself in a vacuum? 

Yes and yes to the first two questions.  I used the quote as a jumping off point to discuss the idea of quantity of votes vs. quality.  It's an issue I believe deserves consideration.  I don't find it useful to say "let's get as many people as possible to vote" before (or at least without) advocating voter education. 

I have often questioned why it is more important to have as many voters as possible with little or no concern for how well voters are educated on the process of government as well as the issues and candidates themselves.  We live in a world where ideas are formed and where votes are cast based on very sketchy notions formed by reading headlines rather than articles, or political cartoons, or memes or other forms of information that are unverified and showing little thought for value of information.  That, for example, is why I stated on the Cuomo thread that I believed reactions were being formed quickly on a sketchy source.  And unfortunately, some here took that to mean I am OK with sexual harassment- which, of course, is an extremely poorly formed assumption.

Gotcha. 

Yeah, I agree educating voters is important, my wife & I make a point of looking up the candidates and ballot questions in advance of voting. I would be lying if I said we discussed every candidate in every election, but we definitely discuss the ballot questions and their implications. I think everyone should. There absolutely should be as much emphasis on educating voters as there is in getting people to vote. With that being said, is this scenario that I boldfaced above actually happening? Are people being encouraged to vote, but to do so blindly / without reading up on the issues? If so, I haven’t seen that. There is opposition from the left to GOP voter restriction legislation, but its just that... I don’t see how opposing voting restrictions = what you’re saying.
If you look into the source of this quote however, you’ll see that it was made in support of voter restriction legislation in AZ - legislation that if it passes, will make it harder for people to vote. So while the quote on its own may be worthy of discussion, the source and context show it’s less concerned with having more educated voters than it is with making obstacles to voting. 

I’m on board when you say let’s encourage voter education as much as we encourage voter turnout.

I am however firmly against making it harder to vote. Never once did it cross my mind that America should make it harder for Trump voters to cast their ballots in the next election. 

Harder for people of color to vote.

Also lower income, disabled, & more. The quote in and of itself is fucked up, the more I think about it. Who gets to decide what is & isn’t a quality vote? 

It’s even more fucked up to know it came from a legislator. 

Voter suppression is the real cancel culture.147 republicans voted to overturn the results of our free & fair election. They’re using momentum built by the Big Lie to push voter suppression & we’re discussing whether we should be qualifying American votes? 

Strange times for the USA.

Hobbes

Paying Ten Club dues is important, but the quality of one's Pearl Jam fandom should determine their posting privilege.