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


Three illegal aliens in Illinois were indicted on felony charges for voting in the 2016 election.

The clerk’s office of Lake County, north of Chicago, discovered the alleged crimes, charging three illegal aliens with perjury for misrepresenting their citizenship. Two other local residents were charged with voting twice

Do you think those 5 votes tipped the election? Is it worth the millions of legal voters disenfranchised to stop 5 illegal votes?
 
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.
Your are not following logic at all. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that cities have the potential of growing quite large and that the countrysides are generally sparsely populated. It has been this way for centuries....long before the founding of this nation.
 
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... :rolleyes: it truly is....

Illegals charged for voting in presidential election

Illegals will be voting in the 2016 election | Flopping Aces

Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting | HuffPost

None of which supports the ridiculous assertion that 'Hillary would have lost the popular vote if the illegals hadn't been counted."


Illegals make up about 3% of population and even with (crazy) allowance for same voting participation 100% of them would have had voted for Hillary for her to lose popular vote without them. Total fucking nonsence.
 
Last edited:
Should there be a mandatory civics exam before you can vote?
Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

This is against the law, uninformed & dangerous are not a valid reasons to deny voting rights.

This is a thread, not a debate in congress. Legality, possibility, and reality have nothing to do with this thread. Just have fun with it.
 
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.
The fact that out founding fathers cared about small possibilities is one thing that makes our Constitution great.
 
Should there be a mandatory civics exam before you can vote?
Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

This is against the law, uninformed & dangerous are not a valid reasons to deny voting rights.

I guess grandpa missed his history lessons.

You realize his thread is sarcasm, right?

Do you even know what the word "sarcasm" means?

Grandpa did seriously propose a civics exam as qualification for voting, he WAS NOT being sarcastic.
 
Let's see...in Post #9, you make fun of someone's not knowing some obscure fact about a fucking statue

For fuck's sake, just stop. There are easier ways to embarrass yourself.
Such as using the likeness of a dishonest porn star as your avatar and her stage name as your username? I agree.

And for fuck's sake, if you're going to quote me, include all of what I say, fuckwit.
 
Why not let's worry about who buys our politicians? We now have a choice between only two candidates bought and paid for by the ownership class. hilary and trump. Which one stinks less and no third party allowed in any debates.
 
Such as using the likeness of a dishonest porn star as your avatar and her stage name as your username? I agree.

Dishonest porn star?

There has been no evidence of dishonesty on her part. Just like Karen McDougal and the other dozen women
 

Three illegal aliens in Illinois were indicted on felony charges for voting in the 2016 election.

The clerk’s office of Lake County, north of Chicago, discovered the alleged crimes, charging three illegal aliens with perjury for misrepresenting their citizenship. Two other local residents were charged with voting twice

Do you think those 5 votes tipped the election? Is it worth the millions of legal voters disenfranchised to stop 5 illegal votes?
You dimwit. This is only an example. The tally of illegal votes from California and New York will likely never be known. There are other instances elsewhere of more votes being recorded than there were registered voters living in the precincts.

Don't try to blow smoke up my dress by telling me only a few illegal votes are insignificant.
 
Why not let's worry about who buys our politicians? We now have a choice between only two candidates bought and paid for by the ownership class. hilary and trump. Which one stinks less and no third party allowed in any debates.
There were three natinalo parties in the election. Lead by Trump, Clinton and Stein.

Only one of them wasn't linked to an RT hosted event with Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
 
if you're going to quote me

I should go ahead and do it however I please? Ah, don't bother answering, I just don't care if you approve or not. I do think it's funny though that you are so worked up in this thread that wants to filter out stupid people from voting. You would definitely be filtered out.

So let's here it everyone. Should this assclown be filtered out from voting? Is that fair and just? Please support your response with evidence.
 
Do you think those 5 votes tipped the election? Is it worth the millions of legal voters disenfranchised to stop 5 illegal votes?
You dimwit. This is only an example. The tally of illegal votes from California and New York will likely never be known. .

You're right. New York and California might turn up a dozen illegal voters.

You realize Kris Korbach who made a point of finding all the illegal votes he could, went back a decade to find a total of 73 throughout the country.

The election commission investigating the 2000 florida election found thousands of illegally disenfranchised voters, and Korbach is countering that with dozens.
 
Should there be a mandatory civics exam before you can vote?
Might save us from uninformed & dangerous people.

This is against the law, uninformed & dangerous are not a valid reasons to deny voting rights.

I guess grandpa missed his history lessons.

You realize his thread is sarcasm, right?

Do you even know what the word "sarcasm" means?

Grandpa did seriously propose a civics exam as qualification for voting, he WAS NOT being sarcastic.

And it appears to have served its purpose.

He posted this in response to another thread asking why there shouldn’t be testing involved before buying a gun.

The left nut jobs could not actually come up with anything it solved, but demanded it anyway and accused the right of being idiots for defending their position.

You, my friend have been served.
 

Forum List

Back
Top