Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote

[Camp]

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

One of the Koch brothers is calling for an end to Corporate welfare. They are desperate and in panic mode with both Trump, Clinton and Sanders showing polls of destroying their selected candidates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

One of the Koch brothers is calling for an end to Corporate welfare. They are desperate and in panic mode with both Trump, Clinton and Sanders showing polls of destroying their selected candidates.

Try that again, please.

 

[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 ...

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

Indeed I have. That you cannot understand it is not my problem. If you have a disagreement with it, feel free to outline it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.

Show me the Constitutional right to vote.

 

[Camp]

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

One of the Koch brothers is calling for an end to Corporate welfare. They are desperate and in panic mode with both Trump, Clinton and Sanders showing polls of destroying their selected candidates.

Try that again, please.

bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-02/koch-calls-for-end-to-corporate-welfare-for-wall-street

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I am a constitutional genius

Looks like you would be on the outside looking in

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

I am a constitutional genius

Of course you are.

 

[Carla_Danger]

VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV

Great. It will be a shoo-in for Democrats.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Billy, very politely, RW is a genius in comparison to you as a hamster; there is no doubt. There is no reason why, despite your OP assertion, we need testing.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I am a constitutional genius

Of course you are.

I'm afraid you would fail my constitutional test

No vote for you

 

[JakeStarkey]

vote Nazi!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, very politely, RW is a genius in comparison to you as a hamster; there is no doubt. There is no reason why, despite your OP assertion, we need testing.

Your opinion is noted, and dispensed with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So good that you understand the worth of assertions, whether yours or mine, without support.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 shouldn't need to back up what you say? Really? I say the opposite. I say too many people pretend they don't need to back up their argument for the simple reason that they CAN'T back up their argument.

I could give plenty of examples. But in general I find those people who won't back themselves up are also the people who don't bother listening to what others say. They merely pump their own agenda for all it's worth and don't give a damn about anything else.

You say the explanation is "as easy as pie" or "common sense", if so then you shouldn't have any problems backing it up then, should you?

But here's the thing. You say it's as easy as pie and common sense, but people don't agree with you. Why is that if it's so easy and so common sense? Maybe you're wrong.

I don't disagree with what you've said about understanding your rights and your own interests. However I don't think that is the whole issue here.

Sometimes your rights aren't the most important thing in the world. I'm not saying this lightly. I'm saying this from the perspective of an ordinary person. Most people want their kids to have a decent education, for them and their kids to have decent work opportunities and for decent healthcare for them and their family. These are the BASICS of politics. Rights come second.
I don't want this to descend into an argument about whether this is the case or not. We don't need to go there. Just that you understand this is where I'm coming from, even if you disagree.
The example I'll use to back myself up is China. In the 1970s China was a mess, Mao had completely destroyed the country. Then Deng XiaoPing gained power (without supposedly being in charge at that) and moved things forwards. 1989 happened, the people have moved forwards. People are looking at doing better for themselves, they're interested in education, they're interested in jobs and healthcare. Those who don't have these aren't interested in rights, rights don't put food on the plate, they don't increase your prospects, they don't do much.
There are groups who are worried about rights in China more than the Han Chinese. We don't need to discuss these, we know they exist and we know why. Basically there are times when rights will come above what I have said. This isn't about black and white, we're dealing with shade of gray.

Moving back to the US, most white people are looking at the essentials of life, education, jobs, health. Black people may put rights ahead of other stuff, so too Hispanics. But still, many are still looking for the essentials to life.

Now, if they vote for someone who will give them education, jobs, health and hope, they'll vote for that person rather than the person saying they'll give them their freedom of speech, for example. Again, not black and white, not going to happen in every case.


But to move to your last point. You'd only let those who are educated vote. So, then who gets educated? If a politician could stop a certain class of people from being educated so they wouldn't vote for someone else, this would happen. This is EXTREMELY dangerous. It stops politicians thinking about all people and allows them to completely ignore people. Hence why democracy is one man one vote.

The problem that maybe you have, I'm not sure, is that you're looking only at the US.

Look at other countries's political systems and you'll see how things can work better. Still problems, still things to be fixed or whatever, but compared to the US it is so much better.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

Pray, tell us, which amongst these, do you find to be 'fascist' in nature?

-------------------

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

---------------

Given that a number of these are already built into the Constitution, and that one or more simply lend themselves to enforcing other criteria, DO tell us what is particularly 'fascist' about those you object to,

This thread is an open discussion pertaining to changing the criteria for voting, and I merely tossed in a couple of extras which had already been mentioned elsewhere, to sweeten the discussion pot.

Simply labeling them as 'fascist' and throwing rocks at the articulator, like some kind of petulant child, is not the mark of an all-'round high-order contributor.

Otherwise, you indulge me in one of MY rarely-but-immensely-enjoyed Fun Agenda items... namely, calling-out lightweights who don't have anything behind their opening salvo but rock-throwing and name-calling.

Now... in an increasingly complex world, where basic education and perception and decision-making skills can arguably be judged as mandatory, in order to vote, and in a world where there is a marked tendency for the masses to vote themselves long-term benefits that they do not have to pay for, and which, if left unchecked for another generation or two, will surely bankrupt us...

DO tell us, Oh Wise One, what is particularly 'fascist' about any of the points, above.

You are also welcome to address the resolution of those Education and Welfare-State issues in some other fashion, assuming that you (1) recognize them as problems and (2) have the capacity to conjure and articulate other possibilities.

This isn't about what's Currently Politically Correct, junior, this is about the long-term health and survival and well-being of the Republic, and its People, without going bankrupt, or serving-up Welfare Mob Rule to our grandchildren or their grandchildren, and ensuring that we have the right mix of criteria for voting, moving forward, is a key element of that long-term survival.

Simple citizenship is not enough. To this day, we continue to restrict voting privileges based upon age, mental capacity and (in some states) felony conviction status.

We have, in the past, removed (and rightfully so) restrictions regarding property, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

There is nothing that prevents us in future from fine-tuning the List of Voting Restrictions to include other categories not previously imagined or deemed necessary in earlier times, but which present as needful or wise, in our present or some future time.

If there is sufficient merit in a given Limitation or Collection of Limitations and if there is sufficient agreement amongst the People, then we will have a Constitutional Amendment to embed such within our system.

This thread speculates upon such Limitations, as one tiny portion of that national conversation.

So, if your 'agenda of fun' includes anything beyond Basic Rock-Throwing 101 and Name-Calling 102, then DO feel free to tell us more about your opinions, and why some of the above is a Bad Idea.

The floor is yours.

( this ought to be good )

 

[rightwinger]

...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.

Pray, tell us, which amongst these, do you find to be 'fascist' in nature?

-------------------

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

---------------

Given that a number of these are already built into the Constitution, and that one or more simply lend themselves to enforcing other criteria, DO tell us what is particularly 'fascist' about those you object to,

Why does someone have to be literate to vote?

There are other ways to get information

 

[Kondor3]

...Why does someone have to be literate to vote? There are other ways to get information

That's a very good question, and I'm not sure that I've got the answer.

It has been tried before, back in Jim Crow days, to suppress the vote of a recently-emancipated minority demographic, and that was just plain wrong.

But, now that the basic literacy problem has been largely solved amongst that long-ago-emancipated minority demographic, it could not be used that way again.

Consequently, that frees us (The People) to decide whether it is in the best interests of The Republic and its People, to allow uneducated folk to help steer the Nation.

We would not trust an uneducated person to modify our Constitution or to judge a criminal or civil case or to fashion or audit or understand our financials and related prospects, or to pass judgment on something as complex as war and peace, in a given scenario.

Therefore, it can be argued that an uneducated person should not be entrusted with making decisions related to those functions.

Freed of the old onus of Black Vote Suppression, the idea of a Literacy Test can be discussed far more dispassionately and efficiently.

It's not exactly an attractive recital given our present more open arrangement but Attractiveness is not the same as Reality nor the Needs of Good and Responsible Government.

For better or worse, that's about as far as my own thinking takes me on that one, at first glance.

 

[rightwinger]

...Why does someone have to be literate to vote? There are other ways to get information

That's a very good question, and I'm not sure that I've got the answer.

It has been tried before, back in Jim Crow days, to suppress the vote of a recently-emancipated minority demographic, and that was just plain wrong.

But, now that the basic literacy problem has been largely solved amongst that long-ago-emancipated minority demographic, it could not be used that way again.

Consequently, that frees us (The People) to decide whether it is in the best interests of The Republic and its People, to allow uneducated folk to help steer the Nation.

We would not trust an uneducated person to modify our Constitution or to judge a criminal or civil case or to fashion or audit or understand our financials and related prospects, or to pass judgment on something as complex as war and peace, in a given scenario.

Therefore, it can be argued that an uneducated person should not be entrusted with making decisions related to those functions.

Freed of the old onus of Black Vote Suppression, the idea of a Literacy Test can be discussed far more dispassionately and efficiently.

It's not exactly an attractive recital given our present more open arrangement but Attractiveness is not the same as Reality nor the Needs of Good and Responsible Government.

For better or worse, that's about as far as my own thinking takes me on that one, at first glance.

Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them

Should a proxy be designated to decide what is best for the poor and uneducated? Or should they decide for themselves?

 

[rightwinger]

Poor people are more likely to serve their country than the wealthy. Shouldn't they have the right to vote for those who may send them to war?