Will Trump Save The Nation By Stopping The Unwise From Voting ?

[Asclepias]

only Freeholders could vote, not the person with 1 acre

A freeholder was a person who owned an estate of land, without any debt owed on the vast land.

Wrong. Dead Wrong !!!

Saying an acre is a vast land proves this poster as a BS poster

Remember women could own property but could not vote. Which proves the property test for voting was not s property test but a wisdom test

An acre of land owned clear without debt proves more wisdom than an acre that is not truly owned because of debt

The above poster was caught being a BS poster when he said an acre is the same as a vast land.

Whether or not a woman could vote actually depended on where she lived, and when exactly it was. Prior to the 19th Amendment, this was decided by the states, and not all of them universally prohibited women from voting.

At first they did


And not only voting ...women could not be on juries Too emotional to make correct decisions ...Took a longer time for women be allowed to be on
Juries

The sat math test shows a difference between men and women with logic ability ... Especially at the highest levels. So a high logic test for voters would be nearly all men

All democracies commit suicide as our founders said .. If this does not change quickly nations suicide will come

Math is not the sum total of all logic, my friend.

Meanwhile, you have rushed right past the operative points in this: 1) any such voter test is Unconstitutional, 2) even if it wasn't, the President does not have the power to control or affect voting rights, and 3) it is arguably immoral to deprive functional, law-abiding adults of self-determination just because you don't agree with the use they choose to put it to.

Might makes right


Check who is on trumps side.

He has all the real power

The only people on Drumpf side are inbreds and dummies. The same people that are saying the south will rise again will be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I feel like we need more democracy, and not less of it.

I have no interest in more democracy, any more than the Founding Fathers did. And I have no theoretical objection to narrowing the voting franchise, although I don't think tests of intelligence or knowledge are really addressing what's important. It still remains a fact, however, that such things are illegal and Unconstitutional.

Illegal only to the unwise minds

Might makes right. All that soon will be legal and the opposite illegal

I think you've just proven to us all that if voting was limited to those with wisdom, you would never be allowed within a mile of a polling place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

only Freeholders could vote, not the person with 1 acre

A freeholder was a person who owned an estate of land, without any debt owed on the vast land.

Wrong. Dead Wrong !!!

Saying an acre is a vast land proves this poster as a BS poster

Remember women could own property but could not vote. Which proves the property test for voting was not s property test but a wisdom test

An acre of land owned clear without debt proves more wisdom than an acre that is not truly owned because of debt

The above poster was caught being a BS poster when he said an acre is the same as a vast land.

Whether or not a woman could vote actually depended on where she lived, and when exactly it was. Prior to the 19th Amendment, this was decided by the states, and not all of them universally prohibited women from voting.

At first they did


And not only voting ...women could not be on juries Too emotional to make correct decisions ...Took a longer time for women be allowed to be on
Juries

The sat math test shows a difference between men and women with logic ability ... Especially at the highest levels. So a high logic test for voters would be nearly all men

All democracies commit suicide as our founders said .. If this does not change quickly nations suicide will come

Math is not the sum total of all logic, my friend.

Meanwhile, you have rushed right past the operative points in this: 1) any such voter test is Unconstitutional, 2) even if it wasn't, the President does not have the power to control or affect voting rights, and 3) it is arguably immoral to deprive functional, law-abiding adults of self-determination just because you don't agree with the use they choose to put it to.

Might makes right


Check who is on trumps side.

He has all the real power

You are definitely in the wrong country, my friend. Try Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea, all shining examples of your philosophy.

I've never thought Trump was any sort of mental giant, but I do think he's smarter than some of the fools who worship him (and I am looking at you).

 

[candycorn]

I feel like we need more democracy, and not less of it.

I have no interest in more democracy, any more than the Founding Fathers did. And I have no theoretical objection to narrowing the voting franchise, although I don't think tests of intelligence or knowledge are really addressing what's important. It still remains a fact, however, that such things are illegal and Unconstitutional.

Illegal only to the unwise minds

Might makes right. All that soon will be legal and the opposite illegal

Don’t know who you are or anything but your commentary is the funniest shit I’ve ever read on this forum.

More please.

 

[flacaltenn]

Will Trump save America by making voters pass a high logic ability test ?

America's founders had this

China seems to have this now


Make the test similar to the sat math score at the highest level and then nearly all would be white or Asian men

I thought Trump "loves the poorly educated"...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. Dead Wrong !!!

Saying an acre is a vast land proves this poster as a BS poster

Remember women could own property but could not vote. Which proves the property test for voting was not s property test but a wisdom test

An acre of land owned clear without debt proves more wisdom than an acre that is not truly owned because of debt

The above poster was caught being a BS poster when he said an acre is the same as a vast land.

Whether or not a woman could vote actually depended on where she lived, and when exactly it was. Prior to the 19th Amendment, this was decided by the states, and not all of them universally prohibited women from voting.

At first they did


And not only voting ...women could not be on juries Too emotional to make correct decisions ...Took a longer time for women be allowed to be on
Juries

The sat math test shows a difference between men and women with logic ability ... Especially at the highest levels. So a high logic test for voters would be nearly all men

All democracies commit suicide as our founders said .. If this does not change quickly nations suicide will come

Math is not the sum total of all logic, my friend.

Meanwhile, you have rushed right past the operative points in this: 1) any such voter test is Unconstitutional, 2) even if it wasn't, the President does not have the power to control or affect voting rights, and 3) it is arguably immoral to deprive functional, law-abiding adults of self-determination just because you don't agree with the use they choose to put it to.

Might makes right


Check who is on trumps side.

He has all the real power

The only people on Drumpf side are inbreds and dummies. The same people that are saying the south will rise again will be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

So what people are saying the South will rise again? I think the last time I heard that line was in a 1970's movie.

All this talk about who votes for Trump and Republicans, but you fail to understand who people vote for in the inner-city; you know, those people that are not intelligent enough to make money to get out? In most places, it's over 98% Democrat. So much for the Democrat intellectual vote.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why are conservatives always advocating voter suppression techniques?

Why are Democrats always for allowing the system to be cheated?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel like we need more democracy, and not less of it.

Outside of Presidential elections, what's not democracy in our system? Majority votes in Congressional leaders, the majority votes in Senators, the majority votes in Governorships and various other smaller offices.

The only place democracy lags is in lifelong appointed judges and bureaucracies. I would love to see that changed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The most important issues that people voted for in the 2016 Presidential election were economy and healthcare. Knowing the name of the current Vice President or what the three branches of government are and what they do doesn't give anyone a bit of knowledge or guidance about either one of those issues, or any others except the people who voted for Trump in order to get conservative Supreme Court picks. So knowing about the Supreme Court would have helped there.

P.S. Nevertheless, I teach my students all those things.

Trump was elected for his border stance. All other candidates talked about healthcare and economy. Only one talked about actually securing our border.

The problem in this country are ignorant voters. We have way too many of them.



Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters 2012 | RealClearPolitics

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Although illegal, I often wish voters would have to take and pass a reasonable 'IQ test'.
- What are the 3 Branches of Government?
- Which Branch Controls The Budget / Spending?
- Who is the current President?
- Who is the current Vice President?
- The powers of the US govt / each Branch and our judicial system / our freedoms are based on what document?

All too often we see the infamous 'man on the street' segments on TV and are amazed at how stupid the average American walking around truly is about their government.

Jonathon Gruber repeatedly declared over and over how the Democrats not only consider their average voting base to be stupid but also declared they COUNT ON how stupid they are to get away with what they get away with.

Former FBI Director James Comey, however, revealed that it is NOT JUST the average citizen who is stupid but also just how stupid Democrat Leaders / Politicians are WHEN HE PUBLICLY DECLARED HILLARY HAD BROKEN LAWS BUT WAS TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS DOING IT.

Then you have other examples like Barak Obama who declared he had visited all 57 STATES, like D-Hank Johnson who warned if the US put any more troops on Guam THE ISLAND WOULD TIP OVER, and newly elected D-A.O-Cortez who attacked Hillary over continuing to build settlements in PALESTINE...before admitting she was no rocket surgeon and has no geopolitical knowledge / experience.

So, if we actually had a 'reasonable' IQ test requiring passage to vote we might be able to weed out stupid would-be politicians as well as would-be stupid voters...which would NOT be a bad thing.

Agree and disagree. I don't care for an IQ test, but political knowledge would be a better one. Besides who is POTUS and VP, questions like what party is in leadership of the House.....the Senate? Who is the Speaker of the House? Are we running a surplus or deficit? How much?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The President has no control over who votes or what their "qualifications" are.

Philosophically, it makes great sense to pre-qualify voters in any number of ways. Are they intelligent enough to understand the issues, the positions they are voting for, the positions of the candidates on the major issues of the day? Surely, these are relevant questions. Do they pay any taxes? What organization allows decisions to be made by people who don't pay their dues?

Are they biased? In this most recent election, millions and millions of women voted for candidates merely because they were women. Blacks usually support black candidates by at least 95%, unless it's a Republican. Jews vote for jews. Muslims vote for Muslims. Catholics used to vote for Catholics. Are these rational, valuable votes? Hardly.

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers left basically NOTHING to the popular vote. The state legislatures elected senators. The Electoral College elected the President. The only thing the People could vote for was their representative in the HR, and THAT REPRESENTATIVE cast all the meaningful votes on government actions.

Starting with the elimination of "literacy tests" in the South because they often prevented "Negros" from voting, the ACLU and its subversive fellow travelers have eliminated just about every voter qualification imaginable, so that idiots, fools, dullards, slackers, know-nothings, and human lemmings carry the same power as voters as the most educated or accomplished person in the country. Motor-voter, same day registration, and other such initiatives promote the same mindless objectives - getting ignorant, gullible people to the poles.

A local radio station here in Pittsburgh used to conduct "man in the street" interviews regularly before every election, with results that were tragic-comical - every time. The people interviewed at random were almost always uninformed, stupid, and inarticulate, and yet most of them were determined to vote. Their perception of the issues was usually factually incorrect, their perception of the positions of the candidates was often 180 degrees out of touch with reality, and their knowledge of exactly what powers the elected officials had was always incorrect. And I'm not talking about political opinions; I'm talking about knowledge of, for example, what a President's powers or a legislator's powers were.

It is a travesty.

In my opinion, the worst campaigns in the world are "get out the vote" campaigns. These efforts induce people at the margins who otherwise wouldn't bother, to vote. Again, it is getting the most gullible people to the polls. It is a disgrace, and it ALWAYS favors Democrats.

No matter how ill informed, the laws in this country affect them as much as you or me. That is the whole purpose of how our government was established. No action without representation. Their voices need to be heard, too.
If you are concerned they don't know enough, maybe you should actively try to get the word out to them. Support the Junior League or work on a campaign.

You can't teach somebody about something they don't care about. The problem with our "ill-informed" is they get to vote for representatives that promise to take money from other people to give to them. That's the problem with our voting system.

It would be like if everybody here got to vote to take your money away. Where is the equity in that? I want free college, I want free trade school, I want free healthcare, and I won't pay a dime into any of these things because I don't have the money. I'm voting for somebody else to pay for these things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Take away the unwise, and Democrats would run unopposed.

Right, like Democrats would have a chance without all those inner-city votes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the nation was formed only people with a financial stake in the nation could vote...and only men and whites could vote...all of that was wrong and I'm happy those rules were changed...but a civics test and ID to vote I would support....

However back in the time, the only people who did have a financial stake were men and whites.

 

[Dana7360]

Will Trump save America by making voters pass a high logic ability test ?

America's founders had this

China seems to have this now


Make the test similar to the sat math score at the highest level and then nearly all would be white or Asian men

No he won't.

That's illegal and unconstitutional.

Everyone should vote if they're a legal citizen. The more legal voters who vote, the better.

I guess you don't like our democratic republic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Will Trump save America by making voters pass a high logic ability test ?

America's founders had this

China seems to have this now


Make the test similar to the sat math score at the highest level and then nearly all would be white or Asian men

No he won't.

That's illegal and unconstitutional.

Everyone should vote if they're a legal citizen. The more legal voters who vote, the better.

I guess you don't like our democratic republic.

Let's make a comparison:

Let's say the MLB allowed citizens to vote for the players of their team. In my city, they only allowed those with sports knowledge to vote on players. In your city, they allowed anybody to vote.

In my city, those allowed to vote would be voting on past accomplishments, performance in the minor leagues, statistics and perhaps age. In your city, women would be voting for the cutest guy, the men would be voting for the players with a name that reflects their own race, ethnic background or perhaps religion.

The question is, if MLB allowed people to vote on the players for their baseball team, who do you suppose would have the better team, you or me?

 

[Lesh]

Isn't it amazing how similar these Trumpers are to the Russian troll that began this thread?

Kinda tells ya why Putin targeted these creeps in the first place

 

[Rambunctious]

Isn't it amazing how similar these Trumpers are to the Russian troll that began this thread?

Kinda tell ya why Putin targeted these creeps in the first place

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't it amazing how similar these Trumpers are to the Russian troll that began this thread?

Kinda tell ya why Putin targeted these creeps in the first place

 

[GreenAndBlue]

The President has no control over who votes or what their "qualifications" are.

Philosophically, it makes great sense to pre-qualify voters in any number of ways. Are they intelligent enough to understand the issues, the positions they are voting for, the positions of the candidates on the major issues of the day? Surely, these are relevant questions. Do they pay any taxes? What organization allows decisions to be made by people who don't pay their dues?

Are they biased? In this most recent election, millions and millions of women voted for candidates merely because they were women. Blacks usually support black candidates by at least 95%, unless it's a Republican. Jews vote for jews. Muslims vote for Muslims. Catholics used to vote for Catholics. Are these rational, valuable votes? Hardly.

There is a reason why the Founding Fathers left basically NOTHING to the popular vote. The state legislatures elected senators. The Electoral College elected the President. The only thing the People could vote for was their representative in the HR, and THAT REPRESENTATIVE cast all the meaningful votes on government actions.

Starting with the elimination of "literacy tests" in the South because they often prevented "Negros" from voting, the ACLU and its subversive fellow travelers have eliminated just about every voter qualification imaginable, so that idiots, fools, dullards, slackers, know-nothings, and human lemmings carry the same power as voters as the most educated or accomplished person in the country. Motor-voter, same day registration, and other such initiatives promote the same mindless objectives - getting ignorant, gullible people to the poles.

A local radio station here in Pittsburgh used to conduct "man in the street" interviews regularly before every election, with results that were tragic-comical - every time. The people interviewed at random were almost always uninformed, stupid, and inarticulate, and yet most of them were determined to vote. Their perception of the issues was usually factually incorrect, their perception of the positions of the candidates was often 180 degrees out of touch with reality, and their knowledge of exactly what powers the elected officials had was always incorrect. And I'm not talking about political opinions; I'm talking about knowledge of, for example, what a President's powers or a legislator's powers were.

It is a travesty.

In my opinion, the worst campaigns in the world are "get out the vote" campaigns. These efforts induce people at the margins who otherwise wouldn't bother, to vote. Again, it is getting the most gullible people to the polls. It is a disgrace, and it ALWAYS favors Democrats.

No matter how ill informed, the laws in this country affect them as much as you or me. That is the whole purpose of how our government was established. No action without representation. Their voices need to be heard, too.
If you are concerned they don't know enough, maybe you should actively try to get the word out to them. Support the Junior League or work on a campaign.

O

Wrong. The founders would not let 3 yt old kids vote. That was to stop them electing crooks

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Let's stop the nonsense of education proves one is wise

Einstein understood the hypocrisy in that view point

We got total fraud done today by education leaders

Harvard president fired for speaking of science findings showing differences in men and women. Larry Summers !!

Schools giving females equal grades in math and when they take the sat math test they show less than males and much less at the highest levels

Remembering like a parrot is not true wisdom. But being low logic one cannot know that Just blind fools being brainwashed by crooks and stopping learning which stops progress which makes a nation fall

Education may not make one wise, but LACK of education definitely doesn't.

When education systems males for vfromomsll