From 1789 Till 1917

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

lolol, so how many votes in Congress do you suppose there are for denying the poor the right to vote?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

lolol, so how many votes in Congress do you suppose there are for denying the poor the right to vote?

Who can say? The question has not been asked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

lolol, so how many votes in Congress do you suppose there are for denying the poor the right to vote?

Who can say? The question has not been asked.

Then other than from inside your comical pumpkin head, where is the movement to deny the vote to the poor?

specifically the movement that is something other than the idiotic musings of imbeciles...

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

So because we know that you can deny the right to own a gun to certain individuals for certain reasons,

that proves that there is no right to bear arms in the Constitution?

lol, good one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

And yet, your fascist fantasy will still never happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

I didn't give my kid a vote concerning his allowance either.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There's nothing more entertaining to me than the fever dreams of fascists like yourself.

I know you hate the fact that people you disagree with get all the same rights that you do - but tough shit, clown.

So post the relevant Constitutional text, since you are supporting NY's position.

Neither of you can, because it doesn't exist.

 

[ricechickie]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

You'd have to define "public dole." Seniors getting SS? The disabled getting SSDI? How many weeks of unemployment insurance payout will cancel a person's right to vote? Will you also deny those who work for the government? I'm almost certain you would yank away someone's right to vote for being on food stamps or getting public housing (call it a hunch), but what about college kids who get grants for some or all of their financial aid?

Please elaborate this "dole" that makes people unfit for the "privilege" of voting.......

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They need to get rid of the filibuster on regular legislation too,

since politics and demographics in the long term favor the country having Democratic president with a 50 something Democratic Senate majority.

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

You'd have to define "public dole."

Taxpayer funded charity. Switching money from the pocket of one into the pocket of another is not a Constitutionally mandated function of the federal government, and I doubt many states include redistribution of wealth in their constitutions.

Seniors getting SS?

No. They worked. They paid into the program, figuratively at gunpoint.

The disabled getting SSDI?

Depends.

How many weeks of unemployment insurance payout will cancel a person's right to vote?

Twenty-six.

Will you also deny those who work for the government?

Especially those who work for the government, excluding military.

I'm almost certain you would yank away someone's right to vote for being on food stamps or getting public housing (call it a hunch)

Your hunch is correct.

but what about college kids who get grants for some or all of their financial aid?

A grant is a grant. A loan is a loan. And in this time of idiot children whose basic pose is with their hands out in arrogant supplication and who by recent report don't consider themselves to be adult before age thirty, I would raise the voting age to thirty-five. Their stupidity is not their fault, but no matter.

Please elaborate this "dole" that makes people unfit for the "privilege" of voting.......

Voting is indeed a privilege. I encourage you to prove otherwise via Constitutional text.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't count your chickens. There is no constitutional right to vote, and voting privileges may change.

After all, what logic is there in permitting those on the public dole the privilege of voting to increase their benefits?

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

So because we know that you can deny the right to own a gun to certain individuals for certain reasons,

that proves that there is no right to bear arms in the Constitution?

lol, good one.

Ah, stunned silence.

Case closed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are multiple constitutional rights to vote.

List them.

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

So because we know that you can deny the right to own a gun to certain individuals for certain reasons,

that proves that there is no right to bear arms in the Constitution?

lol, good one.

Ah, stunned silence.

Your ignorance is quite stunning, yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

 

[ricechickie]

The right not to be denied the vote because of your race, because of your religion, because of your gender, for starters.

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

The Constitution does not specifically confer literally thousands upon thousands of rights. It doesn't say that I have the right to drink black coffee, either. So, we have laws. Perhaps, Constitutionally, the voting laws can be changed to only those who don't depend in any way upon the government (excluding the military, of course, you brainless hypocrite), but good luck getting that done.

And good luck getting a Supreme Court, even a conservative one, to uphold an asinine law such as that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Denied because of those enumerated reasons? No. But those reasons do not preclude restrictions for other reasons.

Babble on as you might, there is no general right to vote contained in the Constitution.

That you revel in your crazed notion that the right to vote might not exist is a very telling indicator of the true nature of modern American conservatism.

So post the relevant Constitutional text.

The 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the Voting RIGHTS act of 1965 for starters.

Guaranteeing equal protection for citizens and forbidding restrictions of race and sex does not confer a right.

Please post the precise texts wherein these documents confer a general right to vote, and preclude restrictions based upon factors that do not fall within their parameters.

You owe me an answer first. How is it that we can restrict gun ownership, and yet owning a gun is still a right?

I don't owe you nuffin'. Apples and screwdrivers.