You could crush a Daily Worker article to the extent its facts were wrong, not it's politically moral opinion about those facts. What you posted is a picture of a map. That this satisfies your idea of a debate argument isn't surprising, however.
Blue states are totalitarian dictatorships!
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
You could crush a Daily Worker article to the extent its facts were wrong, not it's politically moral opinion about those facts. What you posted is a picture of a map. That this satisfies your idea of a debate argument isn't surprising, however.
So you are claiming your initial post was fictional?
It's interesting that in deciding what place is a "dictatorship", over 8% of the deciding factors were guns and gambling and 0% was about voting. Under those standards a place that doesn't allow anyone to vote but allows gambling would be considered more free. I doubt anyone other then the CATO Institute would used those standards for freedom.
I would think one of the best ways to decide on dictatorships is to look at the freedoms when it comes to voting. Dictatorships tend to make voting more difficult and yet this study didn't even consider it.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Then you didn't bother to use the interactive features or look at the downloadable pdf. I'm not doing your homework for you.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, I'm claiming my thread title was intended as exaggeration or hyperbole.
Why should any state "...allow anyone to vote?" Would that "anyone" include the mentally unsound? Would it include illegal aliens? What about persons in prison? Dictatorships usually make voting exclusive such as only allowing party members to vote, or using things like food and water as bribes to get people to vote the right way, that is if they allow voting at all other than as a sham exercise for propaganda purposes.
I'd say when it comes to voting that systems that ensure only eligible voters cast a ballot, that the ballot is secret, and the system is as secure as possible be used. I'd go further to say it shouldn't have a voting season that is weeks or months long but occurs over one or two days. Mail-in balloting should be rejected, as virtually the entire world has done because of the inherent potential for fraud from it. The claim fraud doesn't happen, doesn't mean the potential for it isn't present. That should be reason enough to reject mail-in ballot elections. Voting should be included, and if it wasn't that's an issue. I'd say the following are things that increase repression with regards to voting because of the potential for mass fraud from them:
All mail-in balloting
Weeks long election voting periods
No voter ID
Automatic voter registration without vetting
Disallowing or restricting poll watchers
Any voting system that doesn't generate a 100% verifiable paper trail (eg., electronic voting)
Ballot harvesting
Other than in-person voter registration
Vote swapping arrangements
Restricting verification and purge of voter rolls
My view is that a dictatorial state or nation is one that imposes onerous rules, laws, regulations, and other legal means upon its citizens such that they find little personal choice and great expense attached to doing anything and everything. Another would be onerous levels of taxation. Wealth confiscation empowers government and a dictatorship while leaving the public with no real means to fight back against it.
Sorry, I'm not here to do "homework". Mere cut and paste isn't an argument.
Old Trapper
Verified User
F**king idiots like you who avoid the obvious are usually poor spellers.
Now try explaining why it is not the GOP that are the real "Dicks" in Dicktatorship.
Old Trapper
Verified User
This is just one example of the many lies in you post, but it is the most egregious one. Ignorance of this kind should disqualify you from voting, yet it doesn't. The vast majority of voter fraud is perpetrated by your kind of ass, and you cannot prove differently so you must repeat the lie just as your gawd trump does.
The problem is the Right has no sense of humor as evidenced by the comparative dearth of conservative political comics. Your own attempt (if that is what it was and not the lame excuse for humor you now say its) is all the more pathetic for your explanation. An exclamation point suggests emphasis, not hyperbole unless the context requires it and yours only suggests unfunny ludicrousness. On the other hand, if you're saying we should laugh at
you, well...if you insist.
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Totalitarian dictatorships are in the eyes of the beholder, perhaps.
Red states are fucktard stupid; that, in contrast, is irrefuatble fact.
Red states are fucktard stupid; that, in contrast, is irrefuatble fact.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You really don't do your homework do you?
https://www.gocomics.com/comics/political/right
Just because you don't enjoy them, and likely never look at them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
In what way(s) are those states "fucktard stupid?" Give us some examples.
Good for you in thinking you beat the hell out of your strawman.
Let me rephrase my sentence so you can't ignore the meaning. Under the standards that were used a place that where no one is allowed to vote but gambling is allowed would be considered more free.
It seems you think dictatorships are fine as long as they control the voting but allow gambling. A dictatorship by it's very definition is a state where one person or a small group of people are in complete control. There can be benevolent dictators. The key to a dictatorship is that the dictator can't be voted out by voters. So preventing or controlling voting is the most important part of any dictatorship. You then go on to list many of the things that dictators often claim in order to control the voting so the desired outcome occurs if they do allow voting.
I grew up in Minnesota. Funny, I never encountered this totalitarian government that Herr Gardner the Nazi speaks of. He must be projecting.
It seems like he's decided that states rights aren't so great when they are used to let black people vote. He likes it better the other way around. The final irony, of course is that he claims that totalitarianism limits choice, and then whines and cries like a little baby because these states give TOO MANY CHOICES for voting. Given that he's a nazi, it's a good thing he's so fucking stupid.
It seems like he's decided that states rights aren't so great when they are used to let black people vote. He likes it better the other way around. The final irony, of course is that he claims that totalitarianism limits choice, and then whines and cries like a little baby because these states give TOO MANY CHOICES for voting. Given that he's a nazi, it's a good thing he's so fucking stupid.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Stupid and infantile humor doesn't belong in General Politics forum.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
He is a perfect example of Poe's law.
Wrong again. the left has lots of comedians and humor programs. It is the right that cannot get a comedian on their side. Stomping on the people does not lend itself to humor.
A study done by the Koch owned Cato Institute and you are surprised by the findings? Anyone could have predict those
Let’s put it another way, if you regulated guns, you are low on the Cato’s “freedom” scale and thusly a dictatorship. If you make it easier for citizens to vote you are a dictatorship. If you don’t enforce others’ religious beliefs you are a dictatorship. If you do your best to prevent the spread of a dangerous virus, you are a dictatorship. Etc., etc., etc
And every time I see it I have to say, it is always comical the way those on the right throw around abstract concepts as “freedom” and “liberty” as if they were bumper sticker cliches
Texas has plans on turning the state into a police state over abortion. A pregnant girl will lose all her privacy and be a target of the police state and bounty hunters. The right claims to be for a smaller government but acts the opposite. What rights will a pregnant girl have? Whatever the religious right allows. That is not much.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You are making a combination of Definist fallacy and Begging the question. That is, you assume an outcome based on a narrowly picked example. Just because voting is not allowed doesn't necessarily result in a dictatorship. Certainly, putting some restrictions on voting is reasonable and that doesn't result in a dictatorship either.
It is also possible that a dictatorship allows wide voting but remains a dictatorship. An example of this might be N. Korea. They allow and have "democratic" voting elections. However, your voting choice is the party or gulag. Other places have mandatory voting to include potential fines and even jail for not voting. Take Australia for instance. Compulsory voting is the law there require every citizen 18 and over to register to vote and show up and vote in each election--or else. You can be fined and even jailed for failing to vote. That is every bit as much a dictatorship as very restrictive voting laws are.
So, claiming that putting some restrictions on voting ends in a dictatorship is a non-starter and logical fallacy.