Should there be a mandatory civics exam before you can vote?

[Billy000]

Why is it that Republicans always want less people to vote?

Fewer people.

Preferably those who are literate.

Well, there's literate people, and then there's pedant fuckholes.

I have no doubt you understood my meaning.

When republicans have no argument, they resort to grammar. He’s a dime a dozen.

 

[Billy000]

Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

I’m all for it. Republicans would lose every election.

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

 

[Care4all]

we actually need to get MORE people to vote, like the 44% of Americans, eligible to vote, who do not vote.... imo.

 

[asaratis]

Why is it that Republicans always want less people to vote?

Fewer people.

Preferably those who are literate.

Well, there's literate people, and then there's pedant fuckholes.

I have no doubt you understood my meaning.

Let's see...in Post #9, you make fun of someone's not knowing some obscure fact about a fucking statue, then here when someone points out your stupid fucking error, you bow up. Is that hypocrisy or what?

It's really quite simple. When referring to units of measure, it's fewer...when referring to what's being measured, it's less...as in fewer dollars means less money....fewer gallons means less water...fewer posts means less thread traffic...fewer views means less viewership.

 

[asaratis]

Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

I’m all for it. Republicans would lose every election.

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

 

[asaratis]

we actually need to get MORE people to vote, like the 44% of Americans, eligible to vote, who do not vote.... imo.

As long as they are registered voters, I'd like to see 100% turn out. Illegal voters, dead people votes, and multiple votes by one person should be thrown out. These things would be precluded by a sensible voter ID system. That's why the Democrats opposed voter ID.

Hillary would have lost the popular vote if the illegals hadn't been counted.

 

[Care4all]

we actually need to get MORE people to vote, like the 44% of Americans, eligible to vote, who do not vote.... imo.

As long as they are registered voters, I'd like to see 100% turn out. Illegal voters, dead people votes, and multiple votes by one person should be thrown out. These things would be precluded by a sensible voter ID system. That's why the Democrats opposed voter ID.

Hillary would have lost the popular vote if the illegals hadn't been counted.

i'm sorry, but that is simply right wing FANTASY... it truly is....

 

[asaratis]

we actually need to get MORE people to vote, like the 44% of Americans, eligible to vote, who do not vote.... imo.

As long as they are registered voters, I'd like to see 100% turn out. Illegal voters, dead people votes, and multiple votes by one person should be thrown out. These things would be precluded by a sensible voter ID system. That's why the Democrats opposed voter ID.

Hillary would have lost the popular vote if the illegals hadn't been counted.

i'm sorry, but that is simply right wing FANTASY... it truly is....

That's what all the liberals claim.

 

[Billy000]

Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

I’m all for it. Republicans would lose every election.

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

 

[asaratis]

I’m all for it. Republicans would lose every election.

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

 

[Billy000]

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

Let me see if I am following your logic here. You’re saying the founding fathers had predicted that New York and a state that didn’t even exist at the time (California) would become “liberal states”. What did “liberal” even mean to the founding fathers?

Of course, even if the founding fathers could have magically predicted the population distribution of the country, they would make sure states like Vermont or Rhode Island would only have one senator instead of two.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

You being an example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You guys just can't help being cliches, can you?

Why is it that Republicans always want less people to vote?

They think it helps them win elections.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

May be there should....

be a civics exam.

Another ignorant, authoritarian rightist chimes in.

 

[fncceo]

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

Let me see if I am following your logic here. You’re saying the founding fathers had predicted that New York and a state that didn’t even exist at the time (California) would become “liberal states”. What did “liberal” even mean to the founding fathers?

Of course, even if the founding fathers could have magically predicted the population distribution of the country, they would make sure states like Vermont or Rhode Island would only have one senator instead of two.

Even in 1780, there were disparities in population between colonies and newly sparsely populated territories were already poised to join the union.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You guys just can't help being cliches, can you?

Why is it that Republicans always want less people to vote?

That would be fewer people.

Why is it the Democrats want people without IDs to vote?

Because citizens are already registered to vote and confirmed as eligible, no further identification is warranted.

And voter ‘fraud’ by identity is so exceedingly rare that voter ID laws are neither justified nor Constitutional.

 

[Billy000]

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

Let me see if I am following your logic here. You’re saying the founding fathers had predicted that New York and a state that didn’t even exist at the time (California) would become “liberal states”. What did “liberal” even mean to the founding fathers?

Of course, even if the founding fathers could have magically predicted the population distribution of the country, they would make sure states like Vermont or Rhode Island would only have one senator instead of two.

Even in 1780, there were disparities in population between colonies and newly sparsely populated territories were already poised to join the union.

You’re just making shit up as you go along. Obviously there would be disparities, but not even close to big enough for the founding fathers to even care.

 

[fncceo]

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

Let me see if I am following your logic here. You’re saying the founding fathers had predicted that New York and a state that didn’t even exist at the time (California) would become “liberal states”. What did “liberal” even mean to the founding fathers?

Of course, even if the founding fathers could have magically predicted the population distribution of the country, they would make sure states like Vermont or Rhode Island would only have one senator instead of two.

Even in 1780, there were disparities in population between colonies and newly sparsely populated territories were already poised to join the union.

You’re just making shit up as you go along. Obviously there would be disparities, but not even close to big enough for the founding fathers to even care.

If you’re feeling uncomfortable with the way our Constitution is written you can always try to change it.

Until then, you gotta live with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I suggest this be the first question:

Who received the most votes in the presidential election of 2016?
A) Hillary Clinton
B) Donald Trump
C) Jill Stein
D) None of the above.

Get it wrong, and you don't get to vote. Brilliant idea.

I would suggest if you don’t know how The President is elected in this country, you should not be allowed to vote.

People already know that. You just pretend the popular vote isn’t important even though we all know it represents true democracy.

True democracy leads to mob rule. That's why the founding fathers wisely gave less populated states an equalizer.

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

The hypocrisy of conservatives is truly remarkable.

When the Supreme Court strikes down a state measure prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, or invalidates a state law that compels a woman to give birth against her will, conservatives throw the American Republic out the window and whine about the ‘will of the people’ and judges ‘legislating from the bench.’

But they’re all for the American Republic when it benefits them politically.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Billy000]

Mob rule? What does that even mean? Can you explain it?

It means the big liberal urban areas elect whoever they want and the rural areas never have a voice again. It means that two or three heavily populated states could rule the entire country with only 51% of the total votes in national elections. The Electoral College keeps that from happening.

The Senate has two representatives from each state regardless of the populations of those states. The House of Representatives has different numbers of members from each state depending on the population of each state.

The United States is not intended to be a true democracy. It is a democratic republic.

Practice the Pledge of Allegiance...to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands....

Let me see if I am following your logic here. You’re saying the founding fathers had predicted that New York and a state that didn’t even exist at the time (California) would become “liberal states”. What did “liberal” even mean to the founding fathers?

Of course, even if the founding fathers could have magically predicted the population distribution of the country, they would make sure states like Vermont or Rhode Island would only have one senator instead of two.

Even in 1780, there were disparities in population between colonies and newly sparsely populated territories were already poised to join the union.

You’re just making shit up as you go along. Obviously there would be disparities, but not even close to big enough for the founding fathers to even care.

If you’re feeling uncomfortable with the way our Constitution is written you can always try to change it.

Until then, you gotta live with it.

See, this is just a convenient narrative you pretend you care about. Had Hillary won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, you dumbasses wouldn’t shut up about it.

When Obama won his second term, he won the popular vote by 5 million votes. Fox News pretended this was “slim” even though it obviously wasn’t. His electoral college win was by a smaller margin (still bigger than Trump’s win against Hillary) and Fox News decided to question the validity of the electoral college. You people are hypocrites no matter how you slice it.