Before and after elections, Americans interviewed on national television repeatedly display their ignorance of politics and current events. So why is it a good idea to encourage MORE people to vote?
Man on the Street
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
11 Comments. Leave new
So, if I don’t appreciate BarryHO’s super-existential war-crimes, I’m a defacto racist? But I need to know, am I racist against the Cracker or the Negro element of his identity? Is he really America’s first “black” president … or is he really just our nations first half-Caucasian HNIC?
Is it less painful to the greater PoC (people-of-color) population because BarryHO functions as nothing more than a higher-tech Idi Amin? Or simply a less-Euro-centric A. Hitler … .
DanD
> So, if I don’t appreciate BarryHO’s super-existential war-crimes, I’m a defacto racist?
These aren’t mutually exclusive.
“”In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.”
(Robt. Heinlein.) (Again.)
And now, the media have brought well-meaning fools right into your living room. Think of it as a public service.
Ted, please explain Panel #3 for me. It has NEVER been legal for an illegal (non-citizen) to vote, has it?
Everyone, everywhere except Africa, is an immigrant.
In the case of the US, the Native Americans were the first immigrants, and all who came after them are recent immigrants (in comparison).
And all those ‘recent immigrants’ were not allowed under tribal law, especially after they decided they had to kill 99% of the Native Americans so they’d stop killing the settlers who forced them off their lands.
Back when Bush, jr was president, Mr Rall said the Constitution requires that every president be worse than his predecessor, so it would guarantee that George would always and forever be our best president, and that all his successors would eventually end up among the best (in comparison to those who came after).
Today on RT.com, they asked, ‘Is Obama the Worst President?’
Only one of the guests tried to rank Obama, and put him at the top of the bottom third (just ahead of Bush, jr).
Wikipedia’s last ranking was from 2011, when Obama was still thought of as the 14th best. I suspect a more recent poll of Presidential Historians might have lowered that a bit.
*Back when Bush, jr was president, Mr Rall said the Constitution requires that every president be worse than his predecessor, so it would guarantee that George would always and forever be our best president, and that all his successors would eventually end up among the best (in comparison to those who came after).*
——
What a convoluted statement this is!
If “every president be worse than his predecessor,” then “all … successors” could not in any fashion “end up among the best…”
Is there a point to your post? 🙁
Two suggestions Ted : 1) ban political television ads, and 2) a month before an election send all persons who will have reached the age of 18 years a voting card (i e, no «registration» required), which they can use to vote in their district at any time, e g, in public libraries, up to and including the date of the election concerned. This would, of course, require election authorities to know where people live, but if in doubt, they could just ask the friendly folks at the NSA…. 😉
Henri
Yeah, the Selective Service certainly knew damn-well where I was when I reached my 18th birthday and sent me a demand to register for the draft (1961). They could do the same thing for voter-age persons today. 🙂
A different article mentioned one southern lady who hated “Obamacare” but loved her state insurance exchange which allowed her to get decent insurance.
uhhh, that’s the same thing. But it does highlight just how effective those TV ads are. Several states have tried to enact ‘truth in political advertising’ laws, but I don’t think any have actually passed. I’d definitely ban dishonest and/or deceptive ads – but that would unfortunately put the government in charge of deciding what’s true.
Hey, I know! We need an independent, investigative press to hold the Snollygosters accountable! I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before.
My suggestion, CrazyH, is rather to ban all political ads, as they corrupt the political process – politics and political advertising on TV, while alas no imiscible, are a very bad mixture. No need in that case for «truth in political advertising» regulations, which, as you point out, are open to abuse and, in any event, impossible to enforce. The so-called «free speech» argument, which would certainly be advanced by those with sufficient funds to buy advertising time on television and their apologists, should be countered by an appeal to the ban on screaming «Fire» in a crowded theatre…. 😉
Henri