Jump to content

Voting Rights


Thurmal34

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

Every American has the right to vote.

 

Every American (save minors and convicted felons) has the "right" to vote, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, or have no stake in the size and scope of government should be encouraged to inflict their stupidity/ignorance/apathy on the rest of us.

 

You didn't answer my question:  what's the merit of those types of individuals voting? 

 

 

Quote

Are you seriously saying there should be a qualification test?

 

 

It's important to draw distinctions between what is, and what I believe would be a better system.

 

The above (all Americans enjoying the franchise) is what currently exists, and I support the prosecution of anyone violating the law by disenfranchising others who have enjoy the privilege of voting under our laws.

 

I believe a better system would be an absolute meritocracy in which there was no birthright citizenship for anyone, and the franchise was a privilege which one has to earn. 

 

Citizenship would guarantee the right to vote, and no person would be denied the right to become a citizen

 

Citizenship would require military service (accommodations made for the physically disabled), or those whom have owned property or a business for more than 10 years and are net federal tax payers; both would then be required to pass a test on US civics.

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Explain the merits of votes being cast by individuals whom are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, and in some cases who have no stake in the size or scope of government?

 

They vote Democrat.  Duh.

15 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

Read Thucydides.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Every American (save minors and convicted felons) has the "right" to vote, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, or have no stake in the size and scope of government should be encouraged to inflict their stupidity/ignorance/apathy on the rest of us.

 

You didn't answer my question:  what's the merit of those types of individuals voting? 

 

 

 

 

It's important to draw distinctions between what is, and what I believe would be a better system.

 

The above (all Americans enjoying the franchise) is what currently exists, and I support the prosecution of anyone violating the law by disenfranchising others who have enjoy the privilege of voting under our laws.

 

I believe a better system would be an absolute meritocracy in which there was no birthright citizenship for anyone, and the franchise was a privilege which one has to earn. 

 

Citizenship would guarantee the right to vote, and no person would be denied the right to become a citizen

 

Citizenship would require military service (accommodations made for the physically disabled), or those whom have owned property or a business for more than 10 years and are net federal tax payers; both would then be required to pass a test on US civics.

 

 

I can dig most of that, but no dice on the owning property part. That means only those with means can vote. Sorry, that’s not America. 

 

Maybe if you don’t like it, leave? (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

 

Hey, there is always the mail order steak racket!

43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

And you are absolutely wrong.

 

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I respect that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

I can dig most of that, but no dice on the owning property part. That means only those with means can vote. Sorry, that’s not America. 

 

No, it doesn't mean that only those with means can vote.  Military service is open to all, and even if you have property or a business you're still required to pass a civics test, be required to be a resident for 10 years, and still required to be a net federal tax payer.  No other requirements would be necessary (I'm open to arguments about age restrictions and criminals). 

 

Only those with a direct stake in the size, scope, and role of government should have a say in how it's run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Can a person that "owns" property vote if they owe the bank the money for the property? How would that work? 

Don't worry about that, you'd never pass the civics test. You're assured of missing all of the Federal Reserve questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

So there's a minimum acceptable amount of tampering allowed before "the sanctity of the vote" is violated?

 

How much tampering is the limit?  Does that include Republican gerrymandering?

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't worry about that, you'd never pass the civics test. You're assured of missing all of the Federal Reserve questions.

 

As long as he answers that the Fed  is a Rothchild pawn of the Deep State, he’s sure to pass. 

Edited by BeginnersMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

 

 

Yes...BUT, Democrats have invested so much into "the sanctity of the vote," that what do they consider that limit?  

 

Because it seems very fungible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Can a person that "owns" property vote if they owe the bank the money for the property? How would that work? 

Yes.  You register to vote and then vote at your local polling place come election day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Yes. There are limits to what is tolerable. Just like there are limits to how much we are ok being inconvenienced in airport security. How safe medication is. How much pollution is acceptable. 

 

Vote tampering is a red meat red herring issue.

 

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

 

Oversimplification but there are acceptable limits of bad outcomes vs limits to what we do to prevent them. True in most contexts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Oversimplification but there are acceptable limits of bad outcomes vs limits to what we do to prevent them. True in most contexts. 

I guess I have to agree with you. It's pretty much like when a spook with a reporters cover got himself killed in a Saudi embassy in Turkey. In the big picture, as far as the Middle East goes with our allies and Iran, it doesn't mean jackshit. So, a few illegal votes vs 10's of millions don't mean all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2018 at 2:22 PM, Doc Brown said:

Yes.  You register to vote and then vote at your local polling place come election day.

But the bank really owns the property. 

 

And how about renting vs owning? If its smarter to rent, why should someone lose their right to vote? 

 

I'm just happy voting rights are expanding and Democrats are making voting access a priority of the party going forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...