530
Boebert finishes fifth in straw poll of new district
(thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
530 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24959 readers
2239 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Boebert is ‘exhibit A’ that members of Congress should be required to pass a minimum standardized test of basic civics knowledge prior to candidacy.
Such a test would have undoubtedly prevented Boebert, Greene, Tuberville, and other flotsam/ jetsam non-serious “legislators” from their embarrassing placement.
If those tests existed, the #fascist #GOP would have already turned them against the citizens of the USA.
Yeah it's tempting to be like "oh it could be a simple test, like name the three branches of government". But the right wing (and maybe a few assholes from other parts of the spectrum) would inevitably push it towards Jim crow era voting tests.
On the other hand, what if we set these up as a honey pot? Anyone who tries to sabotage the voting test gets disappeared? No, no, that would be ruined too.
What if it was the same test we give people who are applying for citizenship?
That might have the side effect of making citizenship easier to get, which is probably a net positive.
Exactly my thoughts.
Just remember that anytime you think of something to help people, the first thought conservatives have is "how can I use this to hurt my enemies"
in fairness, that's the first thought a conservative has upon seeing anything
Enemies being literally everyone else on the planet.
Fun fact: Senator Tommy Tuberville failed to name the 3 branches of the US Government he is part of.
Good times.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html
OP film yourself taking this test and post the results for us to grade. You have ten minutes, you need a perfect score to pass. This is a very real poll test given to people in Louisiana (at the discretion of poll workers, of course) to determine whether they were allowed to vote.
Sure— but your suggestion is red herringly tangential as it pertains to A CANDIDATE holding office in Congress.
I am not running for office.
Our representatives, however, should (at the bare minimum) understand how government works in my opinion— which was the basis of my post.
my issue isn't tangential. everyone has the right to vote, and to run for office, absent any criminal history. there's a reason it's unconstitutional to do this to voters. I agree with you that candidates should understand how government works, but a test like this absolutely not the way to determine who can and cannot run for office. You know that one politician? That one asshole that you just cannot stand, you dislike them personally, disagree with everything they stand for and think they're just morally bankrupt? Whatever law you put in place, them or someone even worse than they are will be in charge of enforcing one day.
You’re continuing to conflate two arguments. I am exclusively speaking about candidates.
what I'm saying is that people will do the same thing to pervert the intention of this whether you use it to limit voting rights or who can run for office. they'll make it an impossible test, they'll be in charge of who has to take it, and they'll use it to exclude candidates they dislike. the poll tests are an example of this happening already. it will absolutely also happen if you force candidates to pass a test.
That's like being mad that my doctor doesn't have to take a test to be a doctor and then someone saying I should take this test to be a doctor.
I don't wanna be a doctor but I hope my doctor has the creds to know what the fuck they're talking about.
Your point is dumb but I still see the problem with requiring politicians to take a test. Lots of potential corruption.
Just because something bad was done in the past doesn't mean something superficially similar can't ever be a good idea.
Line maybe a test that's made in bad faith explicitly to disenfranchise black people isn't representative of the merits of tests in general. Maybe the problem all don't want tests, but instead it was having a system completely controlled by the most vile racist people that could be found.
Of course first we'd have to get rid of the current crop of vile racists in charge of most states. It would be more of a protective measure to put in place if the good guys ever gain control.
one of the fundamental problems of legislation is that, whatever law you put into place, eventually the most horrible asshole you can imagine will be in charge of implementing and enforcing it. if you make it so that you need to pass a test in order to run for office, look forward to the opposition party doing their best to game those tests to selectively disqualify their opponents. it's inevitable in a competitive system like this because people who don't take every advantage tend to lose to people who do.
Just broadly speaking, I'm extremely skeptical of arguments that we can't do X because it could be or has been abused, because as you've pointed out, everything can be abused with sufficiently bad people running it. Having a system that's not open to abuse simply isn't an option. If we can't keep bad people out of power, we're just fucked, so there's no point in worrying about systems that will be abused by the bad guys, because if it gets to that point, you've already lost, and all your safeguards against abuse will be swept away anyway. At best, you can slow down the bad guys while they're consolidating their power and maybe give time for some kind of counterattack.
We don’t even have to make a new test. Just hold them to the same standard we hold new immigrants to.
But it shouldn't take a test to prevent such candidates. You would think that voters would not vote for someone like that.
It turns out too many voters are morons to reject even the most obviously unqualified, criminal, treasonous candidates.
While I think a civics test would be great for a publicly available information for voters to decide, it should not disqualify someone from running for office or voting for office.
Maybe we just need better citizen education.