Who Should NOT Be Allowed to Vote?

[Esmeralda]

The last six years has proven that universal voting rights do not work. Eventually the crooks promise enough to the stupid that the crooks run things and drive a nation into disaster.

We have the right to limit the vote if we so choose to protect our Republic, and we already do. No one as of yet anyway, is demanding that children be allowed to vote, but I would bet some leftwing jack ass is advocating just that sort of thing.

And the Oligarchs use judges to overturn freely approved laws anyway for any hair-brained idea that they have anyway; a vote of one over-riding the votes of millions.

So if we could change the Constitution, who should NOT be allowed to vote?

Why do certain factions stick like super glue to the Constitution when it is something they want but are ready to throw it away when it is something they don't like? What hypocrisy.

 

[Anathema]

How the hell do they get Wooster out of Worcester?

it's actually pronounced "Woostah" locally. A former and potential future great city destroyed by a population and government too stupid to see they're slitting their own throats.

So you live in a decimated failed city and you want to claim the world is going to pieces? Move Forest! Move!

Move to where? Anywhere I would want to live in the USA can't support my pay scale and the places I'd prefer overseas don't want Americans immigrating there.

 

[shart_attack]

Would that there were sharts on the poll.

We have been overlooked forever.

I guess the fact that we're not on the poll is actually a sign that things are looking up for us.

"I have a dream . ..."

 

[bripat9643]

There is no logical merit to disallowing welfare recipients to vote.

A Gov't that is too big could be the cause of the bad enough economy that PUT them there, and not allowing them to participate in said Gov't in order to try and get out of there is anti freedom, it's anti American.

Since the recession welfare has skyrocketed. Welfare recipients caused the recession? No.

Welfare recipients didn't cause the recession, but the people they voted for did. Dim politicians who voted to force banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't afford them caused the recession.

That's why people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. They aren't competent to run their own lives, so why should they have any say in how the government runs other people's lives?

 

[bripat9643]

Voter qualifications should be left up to the individual states and federal courts should not have appellate jurisdiction.


Personally, I think the country started going down the tubes when the 19th amendment passed.

that's pretty stupid hopefully you were being facetious

It started going down the tubes when the 16th Amendment was passed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those who have never served in the military.

You’ve got to be kidding.

No, Im not.

No, you’ve still got to be kidding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no logical merit to disallowing welfare recipients to vote.

A Gov't that is too big could be the cause of the bad enough economy that PUT them there, and not allowing them to participate in said Gov't in order to try and get out of there is anti freedom, it's anti American.

Since the recession welfare has skyrocketed. Welfare recipients caused the recession? No.

Welfare recipients didn't cause the recession, but the people they voted for did. Dim politicians who voted to force banks to grant mortgages to people who couldn't afford them caused the recession.

That's why people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. They aren't competent to run their own lives, so why should they have any say in how the government runs other people's lives?

You should be thankful ignorant rightwing partisan hacks aren’t disallowed to vote.

 

[Clement]

You’ve got to be kidding.

No, Im not.

No, you’ve still got to be kidding.

Not at all. It's the most democratic thing to do. People from all races, religions, and political philosophies have served this country by putting their lives and blood on the line. It's about time the freeloaders started serving, too, instead of just taking.

 

[Anathema]

Not at all. It's the most democratic thing to do. People from all races, religions, and political philosophies have served this country by putting their lives and blood on the line. It's about time the freeloaders started serving, too, instead of just taking.

I agree with your last sentence. On Service, I would only agree if everyone was allowed to serve. I tried three times to enlist. Each time I was denied any combat MOS due to physical issues. So I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

 

[Clement]

Not at all. It's the most democratic thing to do. People from all races, religions, and political philosophies have served this country by putting their lives and blood on the line. It's about time the freeloaders started serving, too, instead of just taking.

I agree with your last sentence. On Service, I would only agree if everyone was allowed to serve. I tried three times to enlist. Each time I was denied any combat MOS due to physical issues. So I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Could you drive an ambulance, serve in a hospital, or some other form of civil service?

Good question, though, how would we deal with the disabled? They would probably have to have a special exemption.

 

[Anathema]

Could you drive an ambulance, serve in a hospital, or some other form of civil service?

Good question, though, how would we deal with the disabled? They would probably have to have a special exemption.

I could. I even considered it at one time. Then I realized that it would require me to assist those who do not deserve such assistance.

I'm not disabled to a point of handicap, just sufficiently to remove me from any combat unit. Thanks to a girl, most unfortunately.

 

[Clement]

Could you drive an ambulance, serve in a hospital, or some other form of civil service?

Good question, though, how would we deal with the disabled? They would probably have to have a special exemption.

I could. I even considered it at one time. Then I realized that it would require me to assist those who do not deserve such assistance.

I'm not disabled to a point of handicap, just sufficiently to remove me from any combat unit. Thanks to a girl, most unfortunately.

I used to know someone from a European country who told me that everyone had to serve some term (I think it was two years) in military or civil service. Where they put you depended on where they needed you. One thing I learned in the military is that nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something. Even someone who needs a wheelchair can shuffle papers, do data processing, etc.

After the Vietnam war I used to go to the gym when I was in college and watch the wheelchair basketball games. It was amazing how athletic those guys were. Even more amazing was how courageous they were.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not at all. It's the most democratic thing to do. People from all races, religions, and political philosophies have served this country by putting their lives and blood on the line. It's about time the freeloaders started serving, too, instead of just taking.

I agree with your last sentence. On Service, I would only agree if everyone was allowed to serve. I tried three times to enlist. Each time I was denied any combat MOS due to physical issues. So I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Could you drive an ambulance, serve in a hospital, or some other form of civil service?

Good question, though, how would we deal with the disabled? They would probably have to have a special exemption.

I know several people who couldn't serve due to medical issues. I blew out both my knees in high school, my good friend is diabetic, a dude I went to HS with was rejected because he has asthma. My friend's father tried to enlist (and this in the Vietnam era!) and was rejected because he was deaf in one ear. It's not all that unusual.

 

[Peach]

If we do away with the RIGHT to vote, guess which comes next? THE SECOND AMENDMENT. A sick poll.

 

[Peach]

The last six years has proven that universal voting rights do not work. Eventually the crooks promise enough to the stupid that the crooks run things and drive a nation into disaster.

We have the right to limit the vote if we so choose to protect our Republic, and we already do. No one as of yet anyway, is demanding that children be allowed to vote, but I would bet some leftwing jack ass is advocating just that sort of thing.

And the Oligarchs use judges to overturn freely approved laws anyway for any hair-brained idea that they have anyway; a vote of one over-riding the votes of millions.

So if we could change the Constitution, who should NOT be allowed to vote?

Oh, I see you want an Amendment, that will open up the door for countless Amendments, wanna scrap the Constitution altogether? Do not answer too quickly, be honest.

 

[Asclepias]

People that ask dumb questions like who should not be allowed to vote.

 

[LockeJaw]

I believe in one family, one vote...or one household one vote, would make this a better country. You should be teaching your children morals & encourage them to be virtuos and brave as early as possible. The schools should stay the hell out of that aspect of learning, PERIOD.

Doesn't matter who goes to the poll & casts the ballot, other than it be one of the parents.

So I didn't have any option on your poll, man.

 

[Peach]

Dual citizens.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The last six years has proven that universal voting rights do not work. Eventually the crooks promise enough to the stupid that the crooks run things and drive a nation into disaster.

We have the right to limit the vote if we so choose to protect our Republic, and we already do. No one as of yet anyway, is demanding that children be allowed to vote, but I would bet some leftwing jack ass is advocating just that sort of thing.

And the Oligarchs use judges to overturn freely approved laws anyway for any hair-brained idea that they have anyway; a vote of one over-riding the votes of millions.

So if we could change the Constitution, who should NOT be allowed to vote?

Oh, I see you want an Amendment, that will open up the door for countless Amendments, wanna scrap the Constitution altogether? Do not answer too quickly, be honest.

IMO we need a BUNCH of amendments to force balancing the budget, term limits, drop anchor babies from citizenship, restore freedom of religious speech for government people and on government/public grounds, and a bunch of others.

Specifying who can and cannot vote categorically would be only one of those amendments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The last six years has proven that universal voting rights do not work. Eventually the crooks promise enough to the stupid that the crooks run things and drive a nation into disaster.

We have the right to limit the vote if we so choose to protect our Republic, and we already do. No one as of yet anyway, is demanding that children be allowed to vote, but I would bet some leftwing jack ass is advocating just that sort of thing.

And the Oligarchs use judges to overturn freely approved laws anyway for any hair-brained idea that they have anyway; a vote of one over-riding the votes of millions.

So if we could change the Constitution, who should NOT be allowed to vote?

Oh, I see you want an Amendment, that will open up the door for countless Amendments, wanna scrap the Constitution altogether? Do not answer too quickly, be honest.

IMO we need a BUNCH of amendments to force balancing the budget, term limits, drop anchor babies from citizenship, restore freedom of religious speech for government people and on government/public grounds, and a bunch of others.

Specifying who can and cannot vote categorically would be only one of those amendments.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however wrong, ignorant, and inane.

Fortunately what you advocate will never come to pass.

But your contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law are duly noted.