Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[DrDoomNGloom]

That spamming bitch is going on ignore .................

 

[Kondor3]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

 

[Kondor3]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting? Or only poor people?

If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.

How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?

Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...

Unemployment benefits? Social security disability?

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting? Or only poor people?

If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.

How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?

Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...

Unemployment benefits? Social security disability?

Nope.

They, too, put in their time, and contributed, until they lost their ability to work, and they, too, get a pass, and would still be allowed to vote.

There are permutations, to be sure, and the devil's in the details, but, generally speaking, if you're on food stamps and TANF and Medicaid, you don't vote.

Otherwise, you'll automatically vote for the Party or Candidate most likely to allow you to continue your Welfare Queen (or King) lifestyle, and that simply won't do.

Only people paying the freight, and those who can't pay through no fault of their own, should be allowed to vote...

Not those sucking on the State's welfare teat and likely to vote to keep the goodies coming their way...

That's a sure-fire road to eventual financial collapse and makes no sense.

 

[paddymurphy]

Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote! As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes. The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote. Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?

That would be the same prick you want to take what % of his money.

Fucking ni$$er hypocrites ...................

Just like I told the last fucking ignorant moron, anyone with $10 million is going to be paying taxes and contributing to society, if nothing else but the interest income on the fucking $10 million.

What makes tit sucking entitled little black piece of shit like you make you can take other's wealth??
-

Whiter than you moron. Pay more in taxes than Wal-mart pays you. I support you in your mobile home with your sister/wife and brood of inbreds.

 

[paddymurphy]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.

 

[Kondor3]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.

Those aren't fascist suggestions...

Merely suggestions...

Only those who want to perpetuate the Nanny State would see them as ridiculous...

Those who contribute should have a say in where their money goes...

Those who do not contribute should not have a say in where the money of others goes...

That's not fascist...

That's fair.

 

[paddymurphy]

Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting? Or only poor people?

If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.

How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?

Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...

Unemployment benefits? Social security disability?

Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting? Or only poor people?

If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.

How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?

Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...

Unemployment benefits? Social security disability?

Nope.

They, too, put in their time, and contributed, until they lost their ability to work, and they, too, get a pass, and would still be allowed to vote.

There are permutations, to be sure, and the devil's in the details, but, generally speaking, if you're on food stamps and TANF and Medicaid, you don't vote.

Otherwise, you'll automatically vote for the Party or Candidate most likely to allow you to continue your Welfare Queen (or King) lifestyle, and that simply won't do.

Only people paying the freight, and those who can't pay through no fault of their own, should be allowed to vote...

Not those sucking on the State's welfare teat and likely to vote to keep the goodies coming their way...

That's a sure-fire road to eventual financial collapse and makes no sense.

And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.

 

[paddymurphy]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.

Those aren't fascist suggestions...

Merely suggestions...

Only those who want to perpetuate the Nanny State would see them as ridiculous...

Those who contribute should have a say in where their money goes...

Those who do not contribute should not have a say in where the money of others goes...

That's not fascist...

That's fair.

It's fascist and you are clueless.

 

[Kondor3]

...And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.

Nahhhhh...

If you contribute, you get a vote...

If you do not contribute, you do not get a vote...

That is only fair.

 

[Kondor3]

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.

Those aren't fascist suggestions...

Merely suggestions...

Only those who want to perpetuate the Nanny State would see them as ridiculous...

Those who contribute should have a say in where their money goes...

Those who do not contribute should not have a say in where the money of others goes...

That's not fascist...

That's fair.

It's fascist and you are clueless.

No, it's not, and no, I'm not, although it is in your agenda-driven interest to portray it as otherwise.

 

[paddymurphy]

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.

Au contraire.

'American' is what Americans say it is.

Any attempt to suppress discussion on that or any other politically relevant subject is un-American.

Next contestant, please.

And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.

Those aren't fascist suggestions...

Merely suggestions...

Only those who want to perpetuate the Nanny State would see them as ridiculous...

Those who contribute should have a say in where their money goes...

Those who do not contribute should not have a say in where the money of others goes...

That's not fascist...

That's fair.

It's fascist and you are clueless.

No, it's not, and no, I'm not, although it is in your agenda-driven interest to portray it as otherwise.

My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold. No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

No, it's actually a rather intelligent question.

Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.

No. Not at all.

Knowing the 1st Amendment doesn't help you make the best choice of who will represent you the most effectively, quite clearly.

Imagine. Two people stand for election. One represents your needs, the other doesn't. Do I need knowledge of the 1st amendment to make that choice?

To make an intelligent, informed choice? Absolutely.

Do explain......America wants to know

 

[rightwinger]

...And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.

Nahhhhh...

If you contribute, you get a vote...

If you do not contribute, you do not get a vote...

That is only fair.

Everyone gets to vote
If someone represents you, you get to vote on who does it best

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights. You will be voting blind. Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things. I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society. Anything else is like letting children vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.

Your assertion is only proof of what you assert.

It is not proof you are right, only of what you believe.

OK, you believe in the OP, and you are wrong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.

Your assertion is only proof of what you assert.

It is not proof you are right, only of what you believe.

OK, you believe in the OP, and you are wrong.

I just did, and of course I believe in the OP. He's me.

Oy vey, the density of skulls here ...

 

[rightwinger]

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights. You will be voting blind. Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things. I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society. Anything else is like letting children vote.

Makes no sense

Knowing your rights affects other areas of citizenship. I can decide which candidate meets my needs without memorizing the constitution

It is you who lacks a knowledge of our constitution by trying to limit voting rights of We the People

You want to prevent a welfare recipient from voting for more free stuff but are willing to ignore the free stuff that a CEO is getting

 

[Camp]

The question is a good one.

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights. You will be voting blind. Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things. I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society. Anything else is like letting children vote.

You proposal is in no way common sense. Common sense is what a majority of folks believe makes sense. Obviously from the postings in this thread that is not the case.
As has been pointed out, but you choose to ignore, you are demanding people know your selected amendment when you yourself show you don't know the one that gives people the right to vote. Your suggestion for test has been ruled unconstitutional. You would have to change the constitution to strip Americans of their right to vote.
You should quit this nonsense argument while you are behind and looking like a dope. It can only get worse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.

Your assertion is only proof of what you assert.

It is not proof you are right, only of what you believe.

OK, you believe in the OP, and you are wrong.

I just did, and of course I believe in the OP. He's me.

Oy vey, the density of skulls here ...

No, you haven't, and, yes, you should.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It is the height of stupidity.

Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.

It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.

Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice.

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true.

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.

I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights. You will be voting blind. Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things. I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society. Anything else is like letting children vote.

Makes no sense

Knowing your rights affects other areas of citizenship. I can decide which candidate meets my needs without memorizing the constitution

It is you who lacks a knowledge of our constitution by trying to limit voting rights of We the People

Yo want to prevent a welfare recipient from voting for more free stuff but are willing to ignore the free stuff that a CEO is getting

I would definitely require YOU to test before being permitted to vote.