POLITICS 2018 Midterms

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by CardinalVol, Oct 5, 2018.

  1. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    So double checking ahead of time to prove a person is

    a) of age
    b) legally able to (not a felon), and
    c) live where they say they do

    is too restrictive of a process?
     
  2. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    [uck fay] Build a Bear
     
  3. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    You argued tyranny of the majority, not me. You're not making any sense. I'm completely clear in my explanation. You are conflating people voting for their political representatives with people voting on the rights of others. It's not the same, even if you keep trying to tie the two.
     
  4. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Where did you get this from my argument? I said it should be as least restrictive as possible for people to reasonable and effectively express this right. What do you deem "least restrictive" to be? I certainly don't think advocating civics tests falls under this criteria.
     
  5. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Again, 81.9% of the citizens of the state of Tennessee voted on an issue. 10 years later it was declared null and void.

    It does not bother you that something so overwhelmingly yay was declared null and void?
     
  6. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    I've never said it should be least restrictive as possible. I, frankly, said the exact opposite in that people that vote should have a 8 year old who watched Schoolhouse Rock's understanding of civics. I actually think it's an important civic duty that we should work just a tad for, even if they actual voting process should be made as simple as possible (more polls, booths, etc.).
     
  7. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Why is this not sinking in to you? Ok, I'll explain my position in a different way.

    81% of Tennesseans vote for a Republican governor and, 10 years later, his election ruled null and void. Does it bother me? Absolutely.

    81% of Tennesseans vote on depriving the right of gay people their rights and, 10 years later, the court says you can't do this. Does it bother me? No. You can't vote on the rights of other people.

    There's a clear difference.
     
  8. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    So it only bothers you circumstantially?

    And you most certainly can vote on rights of people unless you are going to tell me the 14th and 19th amendments are trash. Also interesting that it was determined it was better to codify these rights instead of interpreting them. Kinda makes you wonder about those rights and that whole 81.9% again if you think deep, don't it?
     
  9. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Look's who's wanting a Utopia now.
     
  10. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    When did I say otherwise?

    Your also the one who keeps making assumptions I've never even hinted at other than to show your cherry-picking argument.
     
  11. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    No, it doesn't make me wonder about those 81%. The same number would've voted against the rights of black people voting in Mississippi in 1955 and their "rights" wouldn't have made me wonder, either, since it isn't about their rights, at all, anyway.

    You're making no [uck fay]ing sense. How do people vote on the rights of others in terms of the 14th or 19th amendments, other than, obviously, the vote to pass those amendments in the first place. Otherwise, is there some way, as you state, I can stop women from voting, as is permitted through the 19th amendment?
     
  12. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Did they not vote to pass those amendments to grant those rights? If so, then they certainly voted on someone's right. I know that concept is likely over your head, but it did happen.
     
  13. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    Has Card argued this hard and long about anything lately?
     
  14. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    You're mocking my intelligence and using this stupid ass argument? Your argument was based on an example of a referendum on gay marriage in Tennessee, which enforced a gay marriage ban. Can Tennesseans have a referendum to enforce bans on any of the following rights?:

    - Speech
    - Assembly
    - Religion
    - Due process
    - Women's right to vote
    - Allowing slavery
    - Et., etc.,...….

    The answer, of course, is no.

    Your argument is really that we had to pass these amendments in the first place? That's just ridiculous and not at all in line with anything being argued. Might as well say we had to vote on the Constitution itself and, therefore, anything goes.
     
  15. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    You try to be so [uck fay]ing intelligent that you are a [uck fay]ing moron.

    Yes or no - did we vote to give rights to people with the 14th and 19th amendment?

    If that answer is yes, then rights can most certainly be voted on.

    If that is no, then that verifies even more that you are a [uck fay]ing moron.
     
  16. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"


    Your argument sucks, which is why you have the meandering, wandering focus to where it's now some abstract argument about voting on amendments, far from what you originally argued.

    By the way, citizens don't vote for amendments, legislatures do.
     
  17. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Guess I'll need a refresher for my Civics test. But again, you've proved, again, that you are a [uck fay]ing moron. Rights can, indeed, be voted on, and given and taken away.
     
  18. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    You, as a citizen, cannot vote on any right of another citizen in any way. I'm not sure what you think you've proven, but, literally, nothing you've said has disproven anything I've said nor proven I'm anything.

    You're so far away from your original argument and now are stuck with this "yeah, well you're a moron" statement as a last resort.

    I'm still perfectly fine with my original statement(s).
     
  19. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    My original premise started that while some, as always, want to make the GOP out to be monsters that it works both ways and that it is part of the political game, which included a reply to Norris with some numbers showing that House seats and percentages were basically in line as a reply to his comment on gerrymandering. At which point you jumped in to tell of the horrors of the Senate (it's gerrymandering!) and how it needs to be outlawed and that you think we've outgrown it, hence "one man, one vote". Of course, in the midst you brought it upon yourself to bring up a right for which we had to register, I pointed out 2A, and when it came circle describing what registration does you seem appalled (imagine that) that I would dare suggest you do such a thing. It eventually turned into a debate on if rights could be voted upon, to which I said they most certainly could, albeit incorrectly. You still cannot admit that in one way or the other, rights are voted on by someone and there is a voting/approval process in place that has indeed in history given people rights in the US of A. Rights are voted on, directly or indirectly, by the American people.

    Calling you a [uck fay]ing moron as a result of the above paragraph isn't a last resort, but is calling a spade a spade.

    To further an argument that got lost in the middle of it and to go full circle with my argument, no one gave two shits about Georgia voting law until it became politically expedient for Democrats to do so because of their ability to win. If that race wasn't close, no one would have cared this law existed, thus proving it's the political game played by both sides for the same prize - power. They just each have a different gameplan to get there.
     
  20. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    The NC election fraud game plan was kinda bad, though. Probably cost the GOP incumbent first, he just didn't realize how far they had gone at the time.
     

Share This Page