# Anyone For Making Voting a Federal Right?



## Grumblenuts

You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


> *Washington, D.C.* — Today Georgia U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff introduced the Right to Vote Act, legislation to create a first-ever affirmative Federal voting rights guarantee for all U.S. citizens.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?




14th Amendment, Nazi.

God but you mothefuckers are stupid.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Uncensored2008 said:


> 14th Amendment, Nazi.
> 
> God but you mothefuckers are stupid.


^Speaking of _those people^_


----------



## JoeMoma

People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.


----------



## ClaireH

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


I never thought about that voting wasn't a "right' per se since legal status is primarily what is thought about, when as a minor about focused on becoming legal age, a felon who served the time can be reinstated to vote, but yes..no actual stated "right to vote" for anyone. I'm concerned some might contemplate a potential mandatory voting for the future for multiple countries, but I've been personally a bit more grumbly lately so maybe I'm not looking enough at the potential positive outcomes...so there's that


----------



## Meister

Ummmm, you idiots keep changing the facts to fit your mantra.  The part about, "_some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote", just shows how full of shit you really are. The part of, Federal voting rights guarantee for all U.S. citizens, that IS the key to what we want, and it's already there for us. You twits on the other hand, want anyone who'll vote for a democrat to be able to vote.  Hence....all the fucking giveaways for the illegals. Deal with it dumbshit.


Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


----------



## ClaireH

Common sense: anyone who supports fair voting process supports having a clean (hint: no internet connection with machines.... what fools...during) national election. I worked at a polling station years ago and saw on a small scale several "grey areas", and I wasn't at all focused on looking for any thing out of the ordinary. That was back in the day when, at least an illusion of a fair and untainted election was the vibe, so I had little concern!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Meister said:


> The part about, "_some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote", just shows how full of shit you really are.


That part is what I wrote and is just a fact as plain as the nose on your face.. and you know it.


> The part of, Federal voting rights guarantee for all U.S. citizens, that IS the key to what we want, and it's already there for us.


So then you literally support


> the Right to Vote Act, legislation to create a first-ever affirmative Federal voting rights guarantee *for all U.S. citizens*.


But with forked tongue. No, it's obviously not "there for us" yet. Do you seriously think Senator Ossoff would write up and introduce such a proposal if it were? Nothing better to do, hmmmmm?


----------



## Grumblenuts

ClaireH said:


> Common sense: anyone who supports fair voting process supports having a clean (hint: no internet connection with machines.... what fools...during) national election. I worked at a polling station years ago and saw on a small scale several "grey areas", and I wasn't at all focused on looking for any thing out of the ordinary. That was back in the day when, at least an illusion of a fair and untainted election was the vibe, so I had little concern!


Indeed, however one must differentiate between "voter fraud", which has proven insignificant time and again, and vote tampering carried out by election workers and associated officials. Internet connections make such tampering easy, though perhaps not so easy to cover up. Tampering can include allowing partisan hacks to stand around entrances to polling places intimidating voters, gerrymandering, deliberately restricting the number of voting machines available in certain areas, and demanding ID where voter names, addresses, and phone numbers are already well established and affirmed with a compared signature. Mail in ballots have largely begun to eliminate such nonsense, thank goodness.


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

I want everyone to be able to vote - even if it's for people/things I don't like.

*BUT*

Nowadays because folk can't be trusted, if it were up to me then they'd need ID to vote.

Don't like it? tough shit. What do you have to hide? if you can't afford a few dollars or pounds (in the UK) to get your ID then the state will provide you with an ID for this purpose after you verify your identity with them.

I'd also go one step further and have certain folk take a cognitive test (again at the expense of the state) before they are allowed to vote. So many folk have no idea what they are actually voting for.

Perfect example in Scotland. I have relatives and friends who vote for the SNP. Their reason is "because they are Scottish" and then they come out with some cringeworthy nationalists claptrap about how proud they are to be Scottish etc.

But these same folk are also strongly against immigration, multiculturalism, wokeness, cancel culture, promotion of LGBTQ nonsense, anti-BLM etc etc which flies hard in the face of what the SNP, as a political party actually stand for as a hard-left "progressive" political party.

It's actually insane and I can't get my head around it. This faux, cringeworthy display of Scottish nationalism just overrides everything else and that's where they want their vote to go.

I've no problem with leftists voting for parties on the left with progressive policies should they choose. That's what makes sense to me and the way it should work, but not conservative/right leaning folk doing it for reasons that they don't even understand themselves.


----------



## Colin norris

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?



Who in America of voting age does not have a right to vote? 
Where do you get your info from?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Grumblenuts said:


> ^Speaking of _those people^_


You made an utterly false and utterly stupid claim. Voter integrity laws endanger your Reich, as you depend on election fraud to maintain power.

There is a federal right to vote, the 14th Amendment. What you Nazis want to do is federalize voting itself so that you can institutionalize election fraud and ensure perpetual power for your Reich.


----------



## ClaireH

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeed, however one must differentiate between "voter fraud", which has proven insignificant time and again, and vote tampering carried out by election workers and associated officials. Internet connections make such tampering easy, though perhaps not so easy to cover up. Tampering can include allowing partisan hacks to stand around entrances to polling places intimidating voters, gerrymandering, deliberately restricting the number of voting machines available in certain areas, and demanding ID where voter names, addresses, and phone numbers are already well established and affirmed with a compared signature. Mail in ballots have largely begun to eliminate such nonsense, thank goodness.


I’m going to throw a bone in part of your argument GN about voters being intimidated by people standing too close to them, aka the “partisan poll watchers”. I can only use my imagination to think of people truly feeling intimidated by poll watchers. I don’t claim to know all watchers, so maybe there are a few big burly guys in the mix and you’re referencing people who are physically frail and mentally challenged. I am a small framed female and even then would not feel physically intimidated by large males, even if they were standing within inches of me. Nowadays, all that’s required is a hard faked coughing spell- that’ll clear the area either that or… well I’ll save that thought because some reader might not know I’m joking lol 

If partisan poll watchers are physically or verbally assaulting voters while they’re standing in line to vote that is a crime. How many of these aggressive Republican poll watchers were arrested this past election throughout the states? If voters were physically and verbally assaulted while standing in line, there would have been numbers of arrests aired by national news outlets. The national media outlets did air their grievances about Republican poll watchers, but that was primarily due to full promotion of the other (left) side. It will be interesting to see if these LSM outlets air the same grievances for Democrat poll watchers when the table turns again.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I used the term "partisan hacks" trying to eliminate such confusion. Yes, they are most often referred to as "poll watchers" now, however even a partisan poll watcher could theoretically be serving a legitimate purpose like monitoring vote counts or perhaps collecting exit poll information to be reported on after the fact. Poll "workers" are, of course, fine. But people making an overt show of local partisan unity (in addition to the sign wars) is what I've experienced in the past and meant by "intimidation."  I don't care what party it is. When several local bigshots, say the school board chair, township head, and the police chief all gather around where you're standing in line minding your own business, and they greet you, introduce themselves, try to hand you their partisan ballot literature,.. it's fucking annoying as shit and the message is quite clear. No physical "intimidation" required whatsoever.


----------



## ClaireH

Grumblenuts said:


> I used the term "partisan hacks" trying to eliminate such confusion. Yes, they are most often referred to as "poll watchers" now, however even a partisan poll watcher could theoretically be serving a legitimate purpose like monitoring vote counts or perhaps collecting exit poll information to be reported on after the fact. Poll "workers" are, of course, fine. But people making an overt show of local partisan unity (in addition to the sign wars) is what I've experienced in the past and meant by "intimidation."  I don't care what party it is. When several local bigshots, say the school board chair, township head, and the police chief all gather around where you're standing in line minding your own business, and they greet you, introduce themselves, try to hand you their partisan ballot literature,.. it's fucking annoying as shit and the message is quite clear. No physical "intimidation" required whatsoever.


Yes, I’ve experienced a similar thing in local elections. The city had to create a  law about 10 years or so ago, to keep what I think of as “solicitors” to be so many feet away from the doors of each polling station. Both sides have clusters of promoters hanging out who are eager to hand you their campaign materials before you go into the voting precinct. I’ve never liked that, but now they don’t bother you if you don’t give them any eye contact, forget about being friendly, and I tend to walk fast anyway lol


----------



## Grumblenuts

Colin norris said:


> Who in America of voting age does not have a right to vote?
> Where do you get your info from?


No one possesses a federal right to vote. Look it up. *Quote any law you can find stating the contrary.*
And I don't care that you actually watch Tucker Carlson and take what he says so damned seriously.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is a federal right to vote, the 14th Amendment.


You're an illiterate, reactionary waste of my time.


----------



## Colin norris

Grumblenuts said:


> No one possesses a federal right to vote. Look it up. *Quote any law you can find stating the contrary.*
> And I don't care that you actually watch Tucker Carlson and take what he says so damned seriously.



Does this sound like I have a right? 
I consult the constitution if your in doubt. 

Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the "most numerous branch" of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives


----------



## JustAGuy1

Colin norris said:


> Who in America of voting age does not have a right to vote?
> Where do you get your info from?



But wait....we're oppressing you because we think you need a picture ID to vote


----------



## Colin norris

JustAGuy1 said:


> But wait....we're oppressing you because we think you need a picture ID to vote



Let's stick to the topic ay comrade.  Its not hard.


----------



## theHawk

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Can you name any citizen who doesn’t have the right to vote?


----------



## theHawk

Grumblenuts said:


> No one possesses a federal right to vote. Look it up. *Quote any law you can find stating the contrary.*
> And I don't care that you actually watch Tucker Carlson and take what he says so damned seriously.


Rights aren’t granted by federal law.  The Constitution simply forbids the federal government from infringing on it.


----------



## Colin norris

ClaireH said:


> I’m going to throw a bone in part of your argument GN about voters being intimidated by people standing too close to them, aka the “partisan poll watchers”. I can only use my imagination to think of people truly feeling intimidated by poll watchers. I don’t claim to know all watchers, so maybe there are a few big burly guys in the mix and you’re referencing people who are physically frail and mentally challenged. I am a small framed female and even then would not feel physically intimidated by large males, even if they were standing within inches of me. Nowadays, all that’s required is a hard faked coughing spell- that’ll clear the area either that or… well I’ll save that thought because some reader might not know I’m joking lol
> 
> If partisan poll watchers are physically or verbally assaulting voters while they’re standing in line to vote that is a crime. How many of these aggressive Republican poll watchers were arrested this past election throughout the states? If voters were physically and verbally assaulted while standing in line, there would have been numbers of arrests aired by national news outlets. The national media outlets did air their grievances about Republican poll watchers, but that was primarily due to full promotion of the other (left) side. It will be interesting to see if these LSM outlets air the same grievances for Democrat poll watchers when the table turns again.



I can't Imagine how someone watching me vote could possibly intimidate me nor would it change my vote.


----------



## Grumblenuts

theHawk said:


> Rights aren’t granted by federal law. The Constitution simply forbids the federal government from infringing on it.


It's complicated.


> The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to a fair trial, as well as protecting the role of the states in American government.


These "essential" or "inalienable" rights are what we supposedly secured by fighting off the British. Negative rights or limits to government powers over the people and States are granted in the Bill of Rights. However, the 14th equally limited State powers so, having already made the federal government paramount, State powers simply became more limited. Also, history teaches that being called "essential" or "inalienable" hasn't attached the permanence one might expect from such rights. I requested a federal law quote because we remain a nation based upon law -- not upon stuff just pulled and flung from one's behind, like _Because _t_he 14th Amendment says so, you moron!_


> The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”


Equal protection and equally limited State power to deny "rights" being the idea behind what follows:


> In its later sections, the 14th Amendment authorized the federal government to punish states that violated or abridged their citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing the states’ representation in Congress, and mandated that anyone who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States could not hold civil, military or elected office (without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate).


An equal protection condition being applied to some presumed, associated "right" that's still never actually been spelled out or formally granted federally. Screwing with "their citizens’ right to vote"? Who's they? Must mean a State. Context is instructive, my fellow idiots.


----------



## theHawk

Grumblenuts said:


> It's complicated.
> 
> These "essential" or "inalienable" rights are what we supposedly secured by fighting off the British. Negative rights or limits to government powers over the people and States are granted in the Bill of Rights. However, the 14th equally limited State powers so, having already made the federal government paramount, State powers simply became more limited. Also, history teaches that being called "essential" or "inalienable" hasn't attached the permanence one might expect from such rights. I requested a federal law quote because we remain a nation based upon law -- not upon stuff just pulled and flung from one's behind, like _Because _t_he 14th Amendment says so, you moron!_
> 
> Equal protection and equally limited State power to deny "rights" being the idea behind what follows:
> 
> An equal protection condition being applied to some presumed, associated "right" that's still never actually been spelled out or formally granted federally. Screwing with "their citizens’ right to vote"? Who's they? Must mean one spelled out and granted by a State. Context is instructive, my fellow idiots.


Thanks for demonstrating you still can’t prove anyone has been denied the right to vote because of the lack of a federal law you are pining for.


----------



## Grumblenuts

theHawk said:


> Thanks for demonstrating you still can’t prove anyone has been denied the right to vote because of the lack of a federal law you are pining for.


You're most welcome, my dear. Have you even bothered to search yet for anyone claiming to have been "denied the right to vote because of the lack of a federal law"? I'm sure someone must have. I've also made plain that no such federal right exists.. which you appear to agree with me about. Perhaps, in the future, when you want topics to be _about_ _all the things you want them to be_.. well, you know what you can always do!


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> You made an utterly false and utterly stupid claim. Voter integrity laws endanger your Reich, as you depend on election fraud to maintain power.
> 
> There is a federal right to vote, the 14th Amendment. What you Nazis want to do is federalize voting itself so that you can institutionalize election fraud and ensure perpetual power for your Reich.


Your local republic party has reviewed the previous post and found it to be low in NAZIs. Please review the post and increase your level of NAZI's.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


All elections are state elections; the federal government does not hold any elections.
That said, your rright o vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.
So...  what's your point?


----------



## otto105

M14 Shooter said:


> All elections are state elections; the federal government does not hold any elections.
> That said, your rright o vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.
> So...  what's your point?


Are the federal elected offices for each state?

Yes, so federal laws dictate elections.


----------



## M14 Shooter

otto105 said:


> Are the federal elected offices for each state?


Each state has an allocation of federal representatives, all of whom are elected in state elections.


otto105 said:


> Yes, so federal laws dictate elections.


As I said:
That said, your right  to vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.

So...  what's your point?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Actually, we do have a right to vote – but the Supreme Court has decided to not safeguard that right through the judicial process.

That leaves the political process, where such legislation is very much needed to defend that right from Republican state lawmakers.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> your rright o vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.
> So... what's your point?


If "your right to vote in your state elections" was "protected by the US constitution" it follows that you could easily quote the pertaining amendment or federal statute. Do it!


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, we do have a right to vote


A federal right to vote? Pretend I'm from Missouri and Show Me!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> If "your right to vote in your state elections" was "protected by the US constitution" it follows that you could easily quote the pertaining amendment or federal statute. Do it!


14th Amendment. 15th amendment.  19th Amendment.
52 USC $ 10101.

So...  what's your point?


----------



## Grumblenuts

One only need glance at our long history of slow progress and just imagine the trouble that could have been saved by simply granting a federal right to vote to all U.S. adult citizens to begin with. There are still many U.S. adult citizens who are not permitted to vote for Presidential candidates.


M14 Shooter said:


> 14th Amendment. 15th amendment.  19th Amendment.
> 52 USC $ 10101.
> 
> So...  what's your point?


*Again, quote* where they say we have a federal right to vote (in general), snookums.
Anyone For Making Voting a Federal Right? Still Waiting..​


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> One only need glance at our long history of slow progress and just imagine the trouble that could have been saved by simply granting a federal right to vote to all U.S. adult citizens to begin with. There are still many U.S. adult citizens who are not permitted to vote for Presidential candidates.
> 
> *Again, quote* where they say we have a federal right to vote (in general), snookums.


Read for comprehension, Karen  -- I didn;t say it was.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> Read for comprehension, Karen  -- I didn;t say it was.


Sure enough, dopey. Now pull the other one. This side's falling asleep.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> Sure enough, dopey. Now pull the other one. This side's falling asleep.


Probably due to your ADHD and cranial-rectal inversion.


----------



## Grumblenuts

If ad hominem is all you have left then kindly piss off. You're welcome.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Shouldn't U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories be legally entitled to vote for their President?


----------



## Grumblenuts

__





						FairVote - Four Reasons to Support Right to Vote
					





					archive.fairvote.org
				




1. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
2. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE PERMANENTLY BARRED FROM VOTING
3. STATE AUTHORITY OVER VOTING CREATES UNNECESSARY VOTING DIFFICULTIES
4. CONGRESS IS POWERLESS TO TAKE ACTION


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

theHawk said:


> Can you name any citizen who doesn’t have the right to vote?





Colin norris said:


> Who in America of voting age does not have a right to vote?


Felons in several states


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Uncensored2008 said:


> 14th Amendment, Nazi.
> 
> God but you mothefuckers are stupid.



If you think the Fourteenth Amendment gives you the right to vote you would be the stupid one.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Who CAN’T Vote?​
> Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents
> Some people with felony convictions. Rules vary by state. Check with your state elections office about the laws in your state.
> Some people who are mentally incapacitated. Rules vary by state.
> For president in the general election: U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories
> Check with your state or local election office for any questions about who can and cannot vote.


State and local election offices can make voting extremely  difficult and degrading depending on who and where you are. As mentioned U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories can't even vote for President and have no voting federal representation.


----------



## JoeMoma

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Felons in several states


As it should be.  Some rights are lost when in prison.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?



I'd be for voting in federal elections to be FAIR AND EQUAL. That everyone has a right to an equal vote. One person, one vote, rather than the current nonsense which gives different people different strength of votes depending on where they live.


----------



## justoffal

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Nope....it's a Union of States....not the other way around.  Has to stay that way.


----------



## justoffal

theHawk said:


> Thanks for demonstrating you still can’t prove anyone has been denied the right to vote because of the lack of a federal law you are pining for.


Such a law would do a more to disenfranchise voting than anything Jim crow ever dreamed of. Once enacted if would proliferate into a massive bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring the status quo and more or less insulating corrupt elected officials from voter retaliation.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, we do have a right to vote – but the Supreme Court has decided to not safeguard that right through the judicial process.
> 
> That leaves the political process, where such legislation is very much needed to defend that right from Republican state lawmakers.


You're full of shit...you always are.
"WE"....in your context includes millions of people who should not be voting.
Not gonna happen.


----------



## Grumblenuts

JoeMoma said:


> As it should be.  Some rights are lost when in prison.


No reason they shouldn't be able to vote again after paying their debt to society.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> If you think the Fourteenth Amendment gives you the right to vote you would be the stupid one.



Just because you've never read it Del, doesn't mean that the equal protection clause doesn't exist..

{
Fourteenth Amendment​Fourteenth Amendment Annotated


Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*}

It very much does protect the right to vote.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Grumblenuts said:


> State and local election offices can make voting extremely  difficult and degrading depending on who and where you are. As mentioned U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories can't even vote for President and have no voting federal representation.



Let's see it Herr democrat?

It's the favorite lie of you Nazis, so let's see proof of people being denied the right to vote?

Come on, your Reich spews it, so let's see some proof?


----------



## justinacolmena

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Good grief. We have several affirmative action voting rights Constitutional Amendments on the books already, guaranteeing the right to vote by age, sex, race, color.

Those Amendments do authorize "appropriate legislation" on the part of Congress but unfortunately as long as Democrats are in control of the legal system, the Constitution as such is not law, and dumbass federal laws are always enacted and enforced as fiat without regard to the Constitution.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Uncensored2008 said:


> Just because you've never read it Del, doesn't mean that the equal protection clause doesn't exist..
> 
> {
> Fourteenth Amendment​Fourteenth Amendment Annotated
> 
> 
> Section 1​
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*}
> 
> It very much does protect the right to vote.



Of course, I've read it.  Go ahead and keep talking and dig your hole deeper.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Uncensored2008 said:


> Let's see it Herr democrat?
> 
> It's the favorite lie of you Nazis, so let's see proof of people being denied the right to vote?
> 
> Come on, your Reich spews it, so let's see some proof?


Sorry, not a Democrat. I'm independent due to being far more liberal than either half of our duopoly. Also, if you're really not illiterate and actually wish to see proof of people being denied voting rights, just follow the up arrows back to what you're pretending here to respond to and, right away you should find a list with the source linked.

Also, from Wikipedia:


> The District of Columbia and five major territories of the United States have one non-voting member each (in the United States House of Representatives) and no representation in the United States Senate. People in the U.S. territories cannot vote for president of the United States.[7] People in the District of Columbia can vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment.


----------



## Grumblenuts

justinacolmena said:


> Good grief. We have several affirmative action voting rights Constitutional Amendments on the books already, guaranteeing the right to vote by age, sex, race, color.
> 
> Those Amendments do authorize "appropriate legislation" on the part of Congress but unfortunately as long as Democrats are in control of the legal system, the Constitution as such is not law, and dumbass federal laws are always enacted and enforced as fiat without regard to the Constitution.


As many have repeated already, the Constitution provides many protections against states treating people unequally with regard to elections. That obviously does not amount to granting or "guaranteeing" anyone a federal right to vote. No idea what "affirmative action" has to do with this. Far as the Constitution being law or not:


> The *law of the United States* comprises many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties.


----------



## Grumblenuts

justoffal said:


> Nope....it's a Union of States....not the other way around.  Has to stay that way.


Really? Someone said it was a States of Union?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> Shouldn't U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories be legally entitled to vote for their President?


You'll have to amend the constitution for this.
Good luck.


----------



## Papageorgio

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Who is the "other" people? Who was it that "killed" "those people"?


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> 14th Amendment, Nazi.
> 
> God but you mothefuckers are stupid.


Talk about stupid....you are too stupid to know it's the 15th, the 19th, the 24th, and the 26th Amendments.   Maybe dementia has hit you hard.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> You'll have to amend the constitution for this.
> Good luck.


Thanks. Being taxed by the Feds with no explicit right to federal representation? You can help.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> You made an utterly false and utterly stupid claim. Voter integrity laws endanger your Reich, as you depend on election fraud to maintain power.
> 
> There is a federal right to vote, the 14th Amendment. What you Nazis want to do is federalize voting itself so that you can institutionalize election fraud and ensure perpetual power for your Reich.


Where in the 14th Amendment are women allowed to vote?   Or are you against that?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Time for a 'Right to Vote' Constitutional Amendment
					

How many dysfunctional election cycles are we going to endure before we accept the necessity of this reform?




					www.thenation.com


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> Time for a 'Right to Vote' Constitutional Amendment
> 
> 
> How many dysfunctional election cycles are we going to endure before we accept the necessity of this reform?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com


"The current US electoral process is not what democracy looks like."
Sure it is.
You vote, and the perosn with the majority of votes wins.
Just like everywhere else

"“Democracies around the world—old democracies, new democracies—have in their constitutions an affirmative right to vote. It’s remarkable to me that the United States does not have that guarantee in our Constitution. I think a lot of our problems come back to this issue.”
The reason for this difference is simple and obvious:
In the US there are no national elections; all elections are state elections.
As such your right to vote is a state-level right.
This right is protected by several amendments to the US constitution, and federal law.

"administration of elections has been left to states with radically different standards. This makes no sense, considering the history of voting rights struggles."
When you realize all elections are state elections it makes perfect sense, as each of the 50 states have the power to decide for itself how its elections are run, within the limits of federal law and the US constitution.

"Even when the system melted down in 2000—when the Supreme Court intervened to halt the ballot recount in Florida, which could have determined a different winner in that year’s presidential race"
This isn't a systemic melt-down, this is the system working as intended.
Indeed. it is an example of how the federal government protects voting in state-level elections.

"That tension was highlighted by Justice Antonin Scalia during the _Bush v. Gore_ arguments in December 2000, when he went out of his way to observe that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president."
Of course not - your state grants you the privilege.  It need not do so.
As intended.


----------



## bodecea

JustAGuy1 said:


> But wait....we're oppressing you because we think you need a picture ID to vote


As long as those are provided easily and for free, it's not against the 24th Amendment.


----------



## bodecea

theHawk said:


> Can you name any citizen who doesn’t have the right to vote?


Those without permanent street addresses like in some NA reservations.


----------



## bodecea

JoeMoma said:


> As it should be.  Some rights are lost when in prison.


After prison is what he is referring to.....AFTER they've paid their debt to society.


----------



## bodecea

Uncensored2008 said:


> Just because you've never read it Del, doesn't mean that the equal protection clause doesn't exist..
> 
> {
> Fourteenth Amendment​Fourteenth Amendment Annotated
> 
> 
> Section 1​
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*}
> 
> It very much does protect the right to vote.


What about women?


----------



## JoeMoma

Grumblenuts said:


> No reason they shouldn't be able to vote again after paying their debt to society.


After paying their debt to society, they are no longer in prison 


bodecea said:


> After prison is what he is referring to.....AFTER they've paid their debt to society.


Then he should of said that to begin with.  Bernie Sanders for example wanted felons in prison to be able to vote.


----------



## AMart

I think the DNC has voter registration apps for Afghans as soon as they got off of those planes.


----------



## otto105

M14 Shooter said:


> Each state has an allocation of federal representatives, all of whom are elected in state elections.
> 
> As I said:
> That said, your right  to vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.
> 
> So...  what's your point?


In offices for federal positions states must follow federal election laws.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> The reason for this difference is simple and obvious:
> In the US there are no national elections; all elections are state elections.
> As such your right to vote is a state-level right.


As is yours. It's a given. Unless you're under 18, or a U.S. citizen who happens to reside in no state, or a prisoner, or you're immobile and prevented by your state from voting by mail, or your vote is rendered meaningless by corruption and gerrymandering, or your supposed choice is just between the two corrupt jerks selected by our corporate duopoly as usual, and no doubt lots of other issues I'm currently unaware of.

It's a pretty simple thread. One must first accept that we have no federal right to vote, then decide whether we should have such a thing. All of your responses _clearly_ indicate "No, I'm opposed." Message received the first time. Thanks. You may move along now..


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> As is yours. It's a given. Unless you're under 18,


Minors have never had the right to vote.  Age of majority.


Grumblenuts said:


> or a U.S. citizen who happens to reside in no state,


You still have the right to vote in your local elections.


Grumblenuts said:


> or a prisoner,


Due process, 5th Amendment.


Grumblenuts said:


> or you're immobile and prevented by your state from voting by mail'


No such state exists,


Grumblenuts said:


> or your vote is rendered meaningless by corruption and gerrymandering,


You still have the right to vote.,


Grumblenuts said:


> or your supposed choice is just between the two corrupt jerks selected by our corporate duopoly as usual


You still have the right to vote.


Grumblenuts said:


> It's a pretty simple thread. One must first accept that we have no federal right to vote, then decide whether we should have such a thing. '


Given your responses, above, you cannot demonstrate the necessity for such a right, and you cannot demonstrate how said federal right to vote will change anything.


----------



## M14 Shooter

otto105 said:


> In offices for federal positions states must follow federal election laws.


I said that.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> Minors have never had the right to vote.  Age of majority.
> 
> You still have the right to vote in your local elections.
> 
> Due process, 5th Amendment.
> 
> No such state exists,
> 
> You still have the right to vote.,
> 
> You still have the right to vote.
> 
> Given your responses, above, you cannot demonstrate the necessity for such a right, and you cannot demonstrate how said federal right to vote will change anything.


I see you like to argue.. pointlessly.. 
You may still piss off anytime..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Grumblenuts said:


> Anyone For Making Voting a Federal Right?


Unsurprisingly, it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ from the kids on the right.


----------



## justinacolmena

Grumblenuts said:


> proof of people being denied voting rights


Oh you're not Democrats or even Socialists then, you're Communists, took over the polls by force, tell lies on the mainstream media, prosecute political dissidents for thoughtcrime and mental illness.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> I see you like to argue.. pointlessly..
> You may still piss off anytime..


Translation:
You know you have no cogent response.
Given your responses, you cannot demonstrate the necessity for such a right, and you cannot demonstrate how said federal right to vote will change anything.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unsurprisingly, it’s an overwhelming ‘no’ from the kids on the right.


Because -we- understand there's no demonstrable necessity for what he wants,.
Why don't you?


----------



## justinacolmena

M14 Shooter said:


> Translation:
> You know you have no cogent response.
> Given your responses, you cannot demonstrate the necessity for such a right, and you cannot demonstrate how said federal right to vote will change anything.


So the Dems stole not only the whole 2020 general election, but our right to vote in all future elections.


----------



## M14 Shooter

justinacolmena said:


> So the Dems stole not only the whole 2020 general election, but our right to vote in all future elections.


Winning is all that matters to them - the means to achive that win is irrelevant.


----------



## otto105

M14 Shooter said:


> Winning is all that matters to them - the means to achive that win is irrelevant.


The QOP doesn’t like to win?

Then they should undo all the state gerrymandering and voter restrictions then.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> Translation:
> You know you have no cogent response.


Okay then, you know you have no cogent response, so why not just piss off.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> Okay then, you know you have no cogent response, so why not just piss off.


Why are you so upset that you cannot defend your position from reasoned criticism?
Why don't you use this is a learning moment and pull back a little bit on that shroud of ignorance you're wearing?


----------



## M14 Shooter

otto105 said:


> The QOP doesn’t like to win?


Inherent to your red herring is the admission that my statement is correct.


----------



## otto105

M14 Shooter said:


> Inherent to your red herring is the admission that my statement is correct.


When one runs a race they want to win. When a political party runs a candidate they just don't pick anyone they pick someone who can win. 

Your assumption that the right doesn't want to win is just simple ignorance.


----------



## M14 Shooter

otto105 said:


> Your assumption that the right doesn't want to win is just simple ignorance.


Inherent to your red herring is the admission that my statement is correct.


----------



## Grumblenuts

M14 Shooter said:


> Why are you so upset that you cannot defend your position from reasoned criticism?


You certainly do flatter yourself. You've now graduated to ignore. No idea what took me so long.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Grumblenuts said:


> You certainly do flatter yourself. You've now graduated to ignore. No idea what took me so long.


I accept your surrender..


----------



## donttread

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Not without the responsibilities that go along with it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

donttread said:


> Not without the responsibilities that go along with it.


What responsibilities and how would you go about enforcing such requirements?


----------



## Gabe Lackmann

Grumblenuts said:


> Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote.


Who is it that cannot vote that you would like given the right?


----------



## Persuader

JoeMoma said:


> People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.


Lest we forger Stanlinist Russia required people to vote, however they only had one person to vote for.


----------



## GLASNOST

JoeMoma said:


> People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.


I agree 100% otherwise it's like *being forced* to call the flip of the coin in "No Country For Old Men".


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> ..... _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote.


That's right.


----------



## Stann

theHawk said:


> Can you name any citizen who doesn’t have the right to vote?


Many largely Republican initiatives are jeopardizing the voting Rights of minorities. This bill is designed to protect everyone.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Many largely Republican initiatives are jeopardizing the voting Rights of minorities. This bill is designed to protect everyone.


People should always be given the benefit of the doubt, Republicans seem to have forgotten that entirely. I'd rather error on the right side of Justice. So many republican-led states have frivolously altered the voting rights laws. That is why we need Federal protection of the right to vote for everyone.


----------



## justoffal

Uncensored2008 said:


> You made an utterly false and utterly stupid claim. Voter integrity laws endanger your Reich, as you depend on election fraud to maintain power.
> 
> There is a federal right to vote, the 14th Amendment. What you Nazis want to do is federalize voting itself so that you can institutionalize election fraud and ensure perpetual power for your Reich.


Yes .. spot on ... The moment they feel that they are slipping into the minority they will do a complete turnabout and stump fair states rights.


----------



## justoffal

Stann said:


> Many largely Republican initiatives are jeopardizing the voting Rights of minorities. This bill is designed to protect everyone.


Liar...
Be specific....what jeopardy? You mean that a fraudulent voter is being inconvenienced?  Yeah.... actually that is what you mean.
Jo


----------



## Grumblenuts

justoffal said:


> Liar...
> Be specific....what jeopardy? You mean that a fraudulent voter is being inconvenienced?  Yeah.... actually that is what you mean.
> Jo


Be specific....what do you mean by "a fraudulent voter"? Provide data verifying that this type of "fraud" amounts to a significant election issue. 





						A History of Voter Suppression
					

VOTER SUPPRESSION IS AN UNFORTUNATE BUT CONSISTENT FEATURE OF THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE WERE CODIFIED IN THE JUNE 2013 CASE OF SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER, IN WHICH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT GUTTED THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THIS DECISION NO LONGER REQUIRED STATES AND...




					nlihc.org


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Grumblenuts said:


> ^Speaking of _those people^_



He's right that you are stupid.  What's the problem?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

M14 Shooter said:


> Each state has an allocation of federal representatives, all of whom are elected in state elections.
> 
> As I said:
> That said, your right  to vote in your state elections is protected by the US constitution.
> 
> So...  what's your point?



Hey WB!!!!


----------



## justoffal

Grumblenuts said:


> Be specific....what do you mean by "a fraudulent voter"? Provide data verifying that this type of "fraud" amounts to a significant election issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A History of Voter Suppression
> 
> 
> VOTER SUPPRESSION IS AN UNFORTUNATE BUT CONSISTENT FEATURE OF THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE WERE CODIFIED IN THE JUNE 2013 CASE OF SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER, IN WHICH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT GUTTED THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THIS DECISION NO LONGER REQUIRED STATES AND...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nlihc.org


HUH?  Um....no way are you going to get away with that....

Show me a recent case of a voter that was unable to vote because they were disadvantaged by ID laws.....
and telling me that poor people can't afford ID's doesn't cut it because anyone can get one for free.

JO


----------



## Stann

justoffal said:


> Liar...
> Be specific....what jeopardy? You mean that a fraudulent voter is being inconvenienced?  Yeah.... actually that is what you mean.
> Jo


I don't have to be specific the Republicans targeted things the Democrats were doing to help assist voters to vote so just passing out water to people in lines where did you vote buses black people getting the out the vote on Sundays. It was totally obvious what they were doing, even a blind person would know what's going on. Especially after having the safest best election free of fraud election ever. The fools believe the lies that Trump said about the election. It was a foolish knee gut reaction.


----------



## justoffal

Stann said:


> I don't have to be specific the Republicans targeted things the Democrats were doing to help assist voters to vote so just passing out water to people in lines where did you vote buses black people getting the out the vote on Sundays. It was totally obvious what they were doing, even a blind person would know what's going on. Especially after having the safest best election free of fraud election ever. The fools believe the lies that Trump said about the election. It was a foolish knee gut reaction.


That's what you got?  " THNGS"?  in other words you're just parroting a hack partisan talking point and don't even have one damned example of a person who complained in real life that they were unable to vote because they were unable to get an id.  This is why I usually don't even begin these conversations because I already know where they will end up.

JO


----------



## Stann

justoffal said:


> That's what you got?  " THNGS"?  in other words you're just parroting a hack partisan talking point and don't even have one damned example of a person who complained in real life that they were unable to vote because they were unable to get an id.  This is why I usually don't even begin these conversations because I already know where they will end up.
> 
> JO


No one can be that dense, the Republicans targeted specific activities minorities were doing to get the boat out. I didn't know Republican men you were racist.


----------



## otto105

justoffal said:


> Liar...
> Be specific....what jeopardy? You mean that a fraudulent voter is being inconvenienced?  Yeah.... actually that is what you mean.
> Jo


Can you point to a fraudulent voter?


----------



## Stann

otto105 said:


> Can you point to a fraudulent voter?


I remember in the recount of the Arizona votes, they did find one case of fraud, a man tried to vote for Trump twice.


----------



## Independentthinker

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


I don't want the stupid to vote.


----------



## Grumblenuts

justoffal said:


> HUH?  Um....no way are you going to get away with that....
> 
> Show me a recent case of a voter that was unable to vote because they were disadvantaged by ID laws.....
> and telling me that poor people can't afford ID's doesn't cut it because anyone can get one for free.
> 
> JO


I gather you have no answer. As for your question?.. Already covered upthread. You are now excused if you've coherently responded to the topic question. Mind the door.. it can get ugly!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Independentthinker said:


> I don't want the stupid to vote.


That's how it's done.


----------



## Stann

Independentthinker said:


> I don't want the stupid to vote.


That would mean you don't want most Republicans to vote.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


----------



## Stann

CrusaderFrank said:


>


With republican-led States launching such brazen attacks on the right of everyone to vote it is not only a good time to do so,  it is necessary to address these egregious wrongs.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Uncensored2008 said:


> 14th Amendment, Nazi.
> 
> God but you mothefuckers are stupid.



He's public school "educated"


----------



## Natural Citizen

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


Rights don't come from the federal government.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Stann said:


> With republican-led States launching such brazen attacks on the right of everyone to vote it is not only a good time to do so,  it is necessary to address these egregious wrongs.



Sorry, what "attacks" are you talking about?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If the non-living are not free to vote democrat, are any of us truly free?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Stann said:


> That would mean you don't want most Republicans to vote.


There's no cure for stupid.


----------



## Stann

Natural Citizen said:


> Rights don't come from the federal government.


The come from the Constitution, and the Federal Constitution can overrule the state constitutions in cases of abject criminal activity.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Natural Citizen said:


> Rights don't come from the federal government.


Yet you'll insist they be "protected" by our federal government.


----------



## Independentthinker

Stann said:


> That would mean you don't want most Republicans to vote.


Hah hah. I knew one of you lefties would claim that. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Would you be in favor of not letting all stupid people vote? I would. I didn't think so because you know darn well Democrats pander to the stupid. But, all you have to do is say, "Yes, I agree. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote".


----------



## San Souci

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


I don't want filthy ILLEGALS to vote.


----------



## otto105

Independentthinker said:


> I don't want the stupid to vote.


Then stop


----------



## my2¢

If we don't already have the right to vote then I see some of our Constitutional amendments as rather useless.  Take the 26th for example.

Section 1​*The right of citizens of the United States*, who are eighteen years of age or older, *to vote* shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correct. What you bolded:
*The right of citizens of the United States *_{...}_ *to vote*
 clearly refers to a right that exists nowhere within the Constitution nor within federal law otherwise.
Then just consider the disclaimer in this case:
_shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State *on account of age*._
The fact that the Constitution allows the States to deny or abridge this alleged sacred right by default, let alone at all, is exactly what's wrong. Applying lipstick to a pig still leaves you stuck with a pig. There's an unfunded mandate parallel. If the federal government expects the States to enforce its supposed laws, then it must bribe the States in effect with incentives somehow. Just codify it into an explicit federal right already.


----------



## donttread

Grumblenuts said:


> What responsibilities and how would you go about enforcing such requirements?


Voting is a right as it is you cannot define the responsibilities so best not to let the feds designate it a right because they'd spend a trillion dollars on some unvettable plan to allow you to vote from home in your PJ's


Grumblenuts said:


> Be specific....what do you mean by "a fraudulent voter"? Provide data verifying that this type of "fraud" amounts to a significant election issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A History of Voter Suppression
> 
> 
> VOTER SUPPRESSION IS AN UNFORTUNATE BUT CONSISTENT FEATURE OF THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE WERE CODIFIED IN THE JUNE 2013 CASE OF SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER, IN WHICH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT GUTTED THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT. THIS DECISION NO LONGER REQUIRED STATES AND...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nlihc.org


----------



## Grumblenuts

donttread said:


> Voting is a right as it is you cannot define the responsibilities so best not to let the feds designate it a right because they'd spend a trillion dollars on some unvettable plan to allow you to vote from home in your PJ's


No, it's clearly not an explicit right, but "unvettable" sure is an interesting (wrong) word choice while changing the subject instead of straightforwardly responding to the question. Many have been voting in their PJs for at least a decade now without incident. Places where people can't do so seem the smart ones to worry about. People from those places are commonly seen fighting like hell just to cast their ballot and getting the runaround.    

Voting by mail has saved states and local districts lots of money, especially while the coronavirus made doing everything in public more difficult.  Federalizing the process would logically save lots more by standardizing the rules, but that hasn't even been proposed. The 1st Amendment grants us explicit federal rights to speech and assembly. Do we pay too high a cost for those?


----------



## Leo123

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


I don't think that asking for I.D. is suppressing the vote.   I think that anything the ACLU endorses is bad for the country.   Jon Ossoff is a Democrat so, you can't trust what he says in the first place.   EVERY citizen in the U.S. already has access to ballots.  Shit, in the last election they MAILED ballots to everyone and you didn't even have ASK for an absentee ballot or show up to the polls!!! 

No, this legislation is bullshit from stem to stern.


----------



## Leo123

Grumblenuts said:


> No, it's clearly not an explicit right, but "unvettable" sure is an interesting (wrong) word choice while changing the subject instead of straightforwardly responding to the question. Many have been voting in their PJs for at least a decade now without incident. Places where people can't do so seem the smart ones to worry about. People from those places are commonly seen fighting like hell just to cast their ballot and getting the runaround.
> 
> Voting by mail has saved states and local districts lots of money, especially while the coronavirus made doing everything in public more difficult.  Federalizing the process would logically save lots more by standardizing the rules, but that hasn't even been proposed. The 1st Amendment grants us explicit federal rights to speech and assembly. Do we pay too high a cost for those?


The supposed coronavirus pandemic was a farce in the first place and the Democrat party USED it to commit election fraud.


----------



## skews13

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeed, however one must differentiate between "voter fraud", which has proven insignificant time and again, and vote tampering carried out by election workers and associated officials. Internet connections make such tampering easy, though perhaps not so easy to cover up. Tampering can include allowing partisan hacks to stand around entrances to polling places intimidating voters, gerrymandering, deliberately restricting the number of voting machines available in certain areas, and demanding ID where voter names, addresses, and phone numbers are already well established and affirmed with a compared signature. Mail in ballots have largely begun to eliminate such nonsense, thank goodness.



not only proven insignificant, but Republicans are the only ones guilty of it.


----------



## GoBucks007

Independentthinker said:


> I didn't think so because you know darn well Democrats pander to the stupid.


Wow this seems to be veiled racism.  Good thing the country is getting more and more diverse every day.

Idiotic comments like this will one day be history held by a minority.  Thank goodness!


----------



## San Souci

Grumblenuts said:


> One only need glance at our long history of slow progress and just imagine the trouble that could have been saved by simply granting a federal right to vote to all U.S. adult citizens to begin with. There are still many U.S. adult citizens who are not permitted to vote for Presidential candidates.
> 
> *Again, quote* where they say we have a federal right to vote (in general), snookums.
> Anyone For Making Voting a Federal Right? Still Waiting..​


You are a LIAR. Name any Citizen who is not allowed to vote. And this does NOT include Felons in Prison or on Parole.


----------



## otto105

San Souci said:


> You are a LIAR. Name any Citizen who is not allowed to vote. And this does NOT include Felons in Prison or on Parole.


A person who transposes a zip code number on a mail in vote.

A person who does do an exact match when signing a ballot.

A person who fails to vote in one election and is dropped from a voter roll.


----------



## San Souci

otto105 said:


> A person who transposes a zip code number on a mail in vote.
> 
> A person who does do an exact match when signing a ballot.
> 
> A person who fails to vote in one election and is dropped from a voter roll.


There should not BE any mail out votes. That was for COVID. Signatures should be NOTARIZED. And going to the Polls should be easy. Register a month early then get your  lazy punk ass to the POLLS.


----------



## otto105

San Souci said:


> There should not BE any mail out votes. That was for COVID. Signatures should be NOTARIZED. And going to the Polls should be easy. Register a month early then get your  lazy punk ass to the POLLS.


So, you want to deny millions of people the right to vote.


----------



## Grumblenuts

San Souci said:


> There should not BE any mail out votes. That was for COVID.


You say that like it's gone or something..
U.S. new cases reported yesterday: 280,403
Deaths: 1,725
and rising..


----------



## San Souci

otto105 said:


> So, you want to deny millions of people the right to vote.


As long as they get their lazy asses to the polls and are NOT dirty Felons ,everyone should vote. CITIZENS ,that is. No filthy illegals.


----------



## San Souci

Grumblenuts said:


> You say that like it's gone or something..
> U.S. new cases reported yesterday: 280,403
> Deaths: 1,725
> and rising..


Clue--There is a Vaccine. And treatments,. Besides ,only those with pre-existing sickness DIE from this. The FLU kills far more young and healthy.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


All U.S. citizens are allowed to vote, with the exception of incarcerated convicts.  As the Democrats are now pro-criminal, they are advocating for incarcerated convicts to be able to vote.  Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, otherwise you might as well just send out voter ballots to every adult on the planet.


----------



## otto105

LuckyDuck said:


> All U.S. citizens are allowed to vote, with the exception of incarcerated convicts.  As the Democrats are now pro-criminal, they are advocating for incarcerated convicts to be able to vote.  Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, otherwise you might as well just send out voter ballots to every adult on the planet.


Are you stupid?


----------



## LonePatriot

Personally I think we need to raise the voting age to 25 and require a test on current events/candidates so people actually know what they’re voting for. Saying we have the right to vote doesn’t go far enough. We have the right to be involved and educated on those who govern us and the current political landscape. If you’re too lazy or incompetent to actually educate yourself on the pressing issues facing this country then you shouldnt vote.


----------



## GoBucks007

LonePatriot said:


> Personally I think we need to raise the voting age to 25 and require a test on current events/candidates so people actually know what they’re voting for. Saying we have the right to vote doesn’t go far enough. We have the right to be involved and educated on those who govern us and the current political landscape. If you’re too lazy or incompetent to actually educate yourself on the pressing issues facing this country then you shouldnt vote.


Well education helps but... and this is a big but... if you got someone tuned into propaganda... then education and good judgment goes out the window.

That's why companies like Google, Facebook etc... need to rework their search algorithms... so when people pull up fake news (such as vaccines are unsafe) there will be other links that will show in the search results to counter act that misinformation 

Currently, it's very easy to start a search on some sort of conspiracy theory  or other misinformation that leads you down a rabbit hole where you no longer see the truth because all the search results pop up to support the same garbage premise.


----------



## LonePatriot

I understand my idea would only work if we had a virtuous news system that would present information accurately but sadly real journalists are few and far between and finding the truth requires more diligence then ever before. Fake news comes from both the Left and the Right. Personally I see more falsehoods coming more from the left where the right is slightly distorted with its information.


----------



## GoBucks007

LonePatriot said:


> Personally I see more falsehoods coming more from the left where the right is slightly distorted with its information.


Faux News is "slightly distorted" ???

LOL!


----------



## task0778

Subject to state and federal law, I know of no one who has been denied the right to vote.  Give me a name please, of any such person, or STFU.


----------



## Stann

justoffal said:


> That's what you got?  " THNGS"?  in other words you're just parroting a hack partisan talking point and don't even have one damned example of a person who complained in real life that they were unable to vote because they were unable to get an id.  This is why I usually don't even begin these conversations because I already know where they will end up.
> 
> JO


I live in Nebraska, it is largely a Republican state. During the last election, Omaha, the largest city in the state, essentially its own voting district, voted overwhelmingly for Biden. Now the Republicans in the state are trying to redistrict Omaha by dividing it in two and aligning those areas with outlying Republican areas ( gerrymandering ) to disenfranchise their vote. Nebraska is one of the few states where each district can cast a vote for whoever wins the district. Votes for president are split. Obviously this shook the Republicans very badly in order to do something this blatant and drastic. I would simply call it criminal.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I call voting in a church unconstitutional, then again, walking there beats driving to the school like we used to. Anything that frivolously impedes people's ability to vote should be treated as a poll tax, voter ID and gerrymandering among them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

CrusaderFrank said:


>


Zappa was a drug addled loon!

Civics is a social study, just like history, economics, psychology, and sociology.  Social studies is the broad category.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Grumblenuts said:


> ^Speaking of _those people^_


Yeah. You. You are so annoying with your posts but cowardice to truly debate.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Grumblenuts said:


> I call voting in a church unconstitutional, then again, walking there beats driving to the school like we used to. Anything that frivolously impedes people's ability to vote should be treated as a poll tax, voter ID and gerrymandering among them.


Bullshit. Voter ID doesn’t impede anything except for crime. You’re a partisan leftist


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

LonePatriot said:


> *Personally I think we need to raise the voting age to 25 and require a test on current events/candidates so people actually know what they’re voting for.* Saying we have the right to vote doesn’t go far enough. We have the right to be involved and educated on those who govern us and the current political landscape. If you’re too lazy or incompetent to actually educate yourself on the pressing issues facing this country then you shouldnt vote.


With all due respect, you are an idiot.  That would be unconstitutional and against the law in so many ways and for so many good reasons that you would be throwing away.


----------



## Grumblenuts

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Yeah. You. You are so annoying with your posts but cowardice to truly debate.


I love you too, Dear.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Grumblenuts said:


> I love you too, Dear.


One way love really hurts.


----------



## badbob85037

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?


I would much rather change the requirement to vote from age to IQ Get back to having intelligent men ruling us. No where near the drooling mindless flaming idiots we have now proving that genocide is a good thing.


----------



## San Souci

Independentthinker said:


> Hah hah. I knew one of you lefties would claim that. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Would you be in favor of not letting all stupid people vote? I would. I didn't think so because you know darn well Democrats pander to the stupid. But, all you have to do is say, "Yes, I agree. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote".


That would Dis-Allow all Democrats.


----------



## Colin norris

Grumblenuts said:


> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? Because, believe it or not, _some people_ here don't want other people being able to vote. Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by _those people_. Good a time as any to try again, no?



Do you mean a right to vote or compulsory voting? 
You already have a right to vote.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeMoma said:


> People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.



No, they routinely prevent people from voting who have been busted for pot, bouncing checks over $100, etc.
But they still tax them even though denied representation.


----------



## Rigby5

Colin norris said:


> Do you mean a right to vote or compulsory voting?
> You already have a right to vote.



No you do not, and lots of people are denied the right to vote.  
You have to have proof of residence and a place to receive mail, like the voter registration card.


----------



## JoeMoma

Rigby5 said:


> No, they routinely prevent people from voting who have been busted for pot, bouncing checks over $100, etc.
> But they still tax them even though denied representation.


You saying No to my quote implies that you believe that people should be forced to vote,  If you don't believe so, then you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Grumblenuts

task0778 said:


> Subject to state and federal law, I know of no one who has been denied the right to vote.  Give me a name please, of any such person, or STFU.


I have federal rights to speak freely and to assemble (with reasonable exceptions). I have no such federal right to vote and neither do you. Wake up.


Colin norris said:


> Do you mean a right to vote or compulsory voting?


Read the thread. All has been revealed, though compulsory voting is a very different but interesting subject.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeMoma said:


> You saying No to my quote implies that you believe that people should be forced to vote,  If you don't believe so, then you are barking up the wrong tree.


No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.
But that is wrong because not everyone is allowed to vote.
Convicted felons are routinely denied their right to vote, and yet are still taxed.
That is illegal taxation without representation.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.
> But that is wrong because not everyone is allowed to vote.
> Convicted felons are routinely denied their right to vote, and yet are still taxed.
> That is illegal taxation without representation.



But then again they made a choice. All rights have limits.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> But then again they made a choice. All rights have limits.



Bouncing a check for over $100 is technically a felony, so it is not always a choice, and in fact about 10% of those convicted are actually innocent.
Rights have limits when they impact the rights of someone else.
There is no need to prevent ex-felons from voting.
If you expect them to pay taxes, you legally have to let them vote.
Voting is a right, and there is no legal way to remove a right.
That would violate the 14th amendment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Bouncing a check for over $100 is technically a felony, so it is not always a choice, and in fact about 10% of those convicted are actually innocent.
> Rights have limits when they impact the rights of someone else.
> There is no need to prevent ex-felons from voting.
> If you expect them to pay taxes, you legally have to let them vote.
> Voting is a right, and there is no legal way to remove a right.
> That would violate the 14th amendment.



Well, that's a problem with the US system. That it's very easy to become a criminal. 

However taking voting rights away from those who have been convicted isn't a bad thing, the bad things are something else. 

Rights can be infringed upon. No right is absolute. So you can't say limiting criminals from voting goes against the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, that's a problem with the US system. That it's very easy to become a criminal.
> 
> However taking voting rights away from those who have been convicted isn't a bad thing, the bad things are something else.
> 
> Rights can be infringed upon. No right is absolute. So you can't say limiting criminals from voting goes against the Constitution.



Wrong.
Governments can NEVER infringe upon rights on their own, ever.
The ONLY justification for infringement of rights is when it is necessary in order to defend the rights of some other person.
And that is NOT the case with voting rights.
Denying an ex-felon the vote serves no one, but instead puts everyone at risk because then a corrupt government just has to blanket label the opposition as felons.

I am saying that taxation without representation is a vastly more heinous crime than anything any individual could commit.
The constitution is NOT the source of rights.
They have to pre-exist.
Obviously taxation without representation is an abuse of rights that precede the constitution.
It was considered a valid reason for armed rebellion.
That is still true and will always be true.
A government that taxes without representation is totally invalid.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Governments can NEVER infringe upon rights on their own, ever.
> The ONLY justification for infringement of rights is when it is necessary in order to defend the rights of some other person.
> And that is NOT the case with voting rights.
> Denying an ex-felon the vote serves no one, but instead puts everyone at risk because then a corrupt government just has to blanket label the opposition as felons.
> 
> I am saying that taxation without representation is a vastly more heinous crime than anything any individual could commit.
> The constitution is NOT the source of rights.
> They have to pre-exist.
> Obviously taxation without representation is an abuse of rights that precede the constitution.
> It was considered a valid reason for armed rebellion.
> That is still true and will always be true.
> A government that taxes without representation is totally invalid.



Total nonsense.

First Amendment: Treason laws go against Congress making laws prohibiting the free exercise of freedom of speech.
They can stop people peacefully assembling all over the place. You CANNOT peacefully protest inside the White House, you cannot do it on military bases and the like. 

Second Amendment: They can prevent you from having arms. In fact they prevent children under the age of 18 from owning or having a handgun or ammo. They prevent people from having nukes ALL THE TIME. You're literally not allowed one. 

For example.


----------



## Colin norris

Grumblenuts said:


> I have federal rights to speak freely and to assemble (with reasonable exceptions). I have no such federal right to vote and neither do you. Wake up.
> 
> Read the thread. All has been revealed, though compulsory voting is a very different but interesting subject.



I'll ask again.  It is not clear. 

You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not? 
Every one has a right to vote if they chose. Where's  your evidence they don't? 

Because, believe it or not, some people here don't want other people being able to vote. 
It doesn't matter who doesn't want it, it not their entitlement to stop you.  

Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by those people. Good a time as any to try again, no?


That makes no sense. It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you  get this nonsense from? 
Who are these people you are talking  about? Name them or shut up.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Total nonsense.
> 
> First Amendment: Treason laws go against Congress making laws prohibiting the free exercise of freedom of speech.
> They can stop people peacefully assembling all over the place. You CANNOT peacefully protest inside the White House, you cannot do it on military bases and the like.
> 
> Second Amendment: They can prevent you from having arms. In fact they prevent children under the age of 18 from owning or having a handgun or ammo. They prevent people from having nukes ALL THE TIME. You're literally not allowed one.
> 
> For example.



Treason laws are to protect the rights of the population, not congress.   
Not sure they actually can legally stop peaceful assembly anywhere, but if they can, it is so that the majority do not get their essential government functionality taken from them by a vocal minority,
The federal government has no authority to do anything with arms.
States can regulate firearm age, but not the feds.
No government can prevent private nukes.
All government can do is heavily regulate to ensure the safety of others.
As a matter of fact, private fusion experiments are being done right now with privately owned and ignited nukes.


----------



## Rigby5

Colin norris said:


> I'll ask again.  It is not clear.
> 
> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not?
> Every one has a right to vote if they chose. Where's  your evidence they don't?
> 
> Because, believe it or not, some people here don't want other people being able to vote.
> It doesn't matter who doesn't want it, it not their entitlement to stop you.
> 
> Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by those people. Good a time as any to try again, no?
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you  get this nonsense from?
> Who are these people you are talking  about? Name them or shut up.



Rights have to precede laws.
Laws do not and can not create rights.
If not so, then government would be creating rights arbitrarily, and then there would be no way for the SCOTUS to strike down any law,
But the way it has to work is a right has to be recognized first, that then that inherent right authorizes the law that then enshrines and protect the pre-existing right.
Then the SCOTUS can evaluate the law based on the inherent right that authorized it.
Like the way the right of privacy authorized abortion rights.
Privacy legislation does not exist.
It is an obvious and well recognized,. pre-existing basic and inherent individual right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Treason laws are to protect the rights of the population, not congress.
> Not sure they actually can legally stop peaceful assembly anywhere, but if they can, it is so that the majority do not get their essential government functionality taken from them by a vocal minority,
> The federal government has no authority to do anything with arms.
> States can regulate firearm age, but not the feds.
> No government can prevent private nukes.
> All government can do is heavily regulate to ensure the safety of others.
> As a matter of fact, private fusion experiments are being done right now with privately owned and ignited nukes.



Treason laws are made by who? Oh, by Congress. The First Amendment says they can't make laws that go against free speech, but they did. Why? Because free speech is limited. Everyone who knows anything about rights knows they're limited.

They can legally stop protesting in many places. They do, all the time. 

The feds stop under 18 year olds from having handguns. It's a federal law. 

No government can prevent private nukes, and yet ALL governments do. Hmmm.....

So, basically, you're wrong. Rights are limited. Simples.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Colin norris said:


> I'll ask again.  It is not clear.
> 
> You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not?
> Every one has a right to vote if they chose. Where's  your evidence they don't?
> 
> Because, believe it or not, some people here don't want other people being able to vote.
> It doesn't matter who doesn't want it, it not their entitlement to stop you.
> 
> Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by those people. Good a time as any to try again, no?
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you  get this nonsense from?
> Who are these people you are talking  about? Name them or shut up.


You make this mixed-up quote mess then demand stuff and what? This is why I still ignore you. We may well agree far more than not, but you don't communicate well enough to even have that discussion. You need to slow down, STFU, and really try to comprehend stuff before jumping in all cocky. There's style in writing. I'm not apologizing for trying to introduce subjects in somewhat abstract, humorous ways. Read on.. all is made plain..

Here's a huge clue. Stop demanding shit from others. That's how determined assholes reveal their desire to be ignored. Do your own homework. If you can't find the answers you seek on your own, what are you going to do.. take my word for it? GTFOOH!


----------



## JoeMoma

Rigby5 said:


> No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.
> But that is wrong because not everyone is allowed to vote.
> Convicted felons are routinely denied their right to vote, and yet are still taxed.
> That is illegal taxation without representation.


Then you should of quoted me saying that (if I did).


----------



## Grumblenuts

Rigby5 said:


> Rights have to precede laws.
> Laws do not and can not create rights.
> If not so, then government would be creating rights arbitrarily, and then there would be no way for the SCOTUS to strike down any law,
> But the way it has to work is a right has to be recognized first, that then that inherent right authorizes the law that then enshrines and protect the pre-existing right.
> Then the SCOTUS can evaluate the law based on the inherent right that authorized it.
> Like the way the right of privacy authorized abortion rights.
> Privacy legislation does not exist.
> It is an obvious and well recognized,. pre-existing basic and inherent individual right.


Obvious is that any presumed federal "right of privacy" will be subject to interpretation and therefore require a broad legal definition.. much like any federal "right to vote" would..


----------



## Colin norris

Rigby5 said:


> No you do not, and lots of people are denied the right to vote.
> You have to have proof of residence and a place to receive mail, like the voter registration card.



Exactly.  If you  meet the requirements , you have a right.





Grumblenuts said:


> You make this mixed-up quote mess then demand stuff and what? This is why I still ignore you. We may well agree far more than not, but you don't communicate well enough to even have that discussion. You need to slow down, STFU, and really try to comprehend stuff before jumping in all cocky. There's style in writing. I'm not apologizing for trying to introduce subjects in somewhat abstract, humorous ways. Read on.. all is made plain..
> 
> Here's a huge clue. Stop demanding shit from others. That's how determined assholes reveal their desire to be ignored. Do your own homework. If you can't find the answers you seek on your own, what are you going to do.. take my word for it? GTFOOH!



Here's a clue for you.   Don't come here belching lies you know are untrue. 
I will not be silenced by you nor will I leave. You do not own this site. 
I'm not intimidated by big headed arseholes like you. I'll give better than you can take which is proven. You Have nothing but a big mouth. A typical you Republican. 

You don't ignore me because you continue to reply,  with ever expanded lies. 
DO THE RESEARCH. If your so much smarter than me as you suggest, it should be easy.


----------



## Colin norris

Rigby5 said:


> Rights have to precede laws.
> Laws do not and can not create rights.
> If not so, then government would be creating rights arbitrarily, and then there would be no way for the SCOTUS to strike down any law,
> But the way it has to work is a right has to be recognized first, that then that inherent right authorizes the law that then enshrines and protect the pre-existing right.
> Then the SCOTUS can evaluate the law based on the inherent right that authorized it.
> Like the way the right of privacy authorized abortion rights.
> Privacy legislation does not exist.
> It is an obvious and well recognized,. pre-existing basic and inherent individual right.



Tell that to a kid mate.  It might mean something.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Treason laws are made by who? Oh, by Congress. The First Amendment says they can't make laws that go against free speech, but they did. Why? Because free speech is limited. Everyone who knows anything about rights knows they're limited.
> 
> They can legally stop protesting in many places. They do, all the time.
> 
> The feds stop under 18 year olds from having handguns. It's a federal law.
> 
> No government can prevent private nukes, and yet ALL governments do. Hmmm.....
> 
> So, basically, you're wrong. Rights are limited. Simples.



All laws are authorized by the inherent right of the people, not congress.
Congress violates the first amendment because they are corrupt and full of criminals.
The fact speech is limited is true, but nothing to do with congress, but the conflict with the rights of others.

All federal firearm laws are clearly illegal.
Again, congress and the executive are just full of criminals.

All nukes are owned and created by private companies at one time.
So obviously government can not and does not prevent private nukes.
All they can do is apply safeguards for the rights of others.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Colin norris said:


> Here's a clue for you. Don't come here belching lies you know are untrue.


Oh, you mean like:


Colin norris said:


> It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you get this nonsense from?
> Who are these people you are talking about? Name them or shut up.


This is my topic, poopy pants. So here's the word you keep lying about via omission: 
"federal" as in 
"Anyone For Making Voting a Federal Right?"
Grow up or piss off.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> All laws are authorized by the inherent right of the people, not congress.
> Congress violates the first amendment because they are corrupt and full of criminals.
> The fact speech is limited is true, but nothing to do with congress, but the conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> All federal firearm laws are clearly illegal.
> Again, congress and the executive are just full of criminals.
> 
> All nukes are owned and created by private companies at one time.
> So obviously government can not and does not prevent private nukes.
> All they can do is apply safeguards for the rights of others.



My word, another wordy, pointless response to deflect from the FACT that rights are limited. 

Can you not have a normal conversation?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

JoeMoma said:


> People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.


Please tell us who does not have “ the right to vote”


----------



## JoeMoma

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Please tell us who does not have “ the right to vote”


Why are you asking me and not the opening poster?


----------



## Grumblenuts

JoeMoma said:


> Why are you asking me and not the opening poster?


Indeed, why ask at all? This is the internet, no? Look it up! But this is where we are. Bark, bark, bark, blaa, blaa, blaa,.. _Facts, smacts. that feels wrong to me so you are wrong! And crazy! And a big, fat liar! _


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

JoeMoma said:


> Why are you asking me and not the opening poster?


Sorry, I apologize


----------



## JoeMoma

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Sorry, I apologize


no problem


----------



## rightnow909

I'm not sure I want federal

anything


----------



## Grumblenuts

^See folks?

That's how it's done!


----------

