• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for the compromise?

How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?


  • Total voters
    49
How do you "restrict voting rights" of someone who does not have those same rights because they are not yet of age as an adult and the exercise of that right has been determined as a purely adult function?

you could say the same thing about gay marriage. how can we be "restricting their rights" when they don't have that right yet? circular logic, you are chasing your tail
 
How do you "restrict voting rights" of someone who does not have those same rights because they are not yet of age as an adult and the exercise of that right has been determined as a purely adult function?

Because rights are given to all citizens, and then are restricted from there
 
which is what?
 
Because rights are given to all citizens, and then are restricted from there

Try again. Voting rights were never given to children.
 
Try again. Voting rights were never given to children.

You are right. They are given to citizens of which children are sizable population and then are restricted.
 
Try again. Voting rights were never given to children.

they weren't originally given to women and blacks either. so, before the constitution was ammended...did blacks and women have the "right" to vote? if they did not...why was the contitution ammended to allow them to vote?
 
You are right. They are given to citizens of which children are sizable population and then are restricted.

Please cite in the US Constitution where voting rights were ever given to children and then restricted.

You are simply talking nonsense. Voting is now and always has been in this nation an adult right. Show me in the Constitution where it says otherwise.

tell you what, you two coordinate your line of reasoning here and come up with some better than what you have offered. I will be back in two hours time to see what you found.
 
Please cite in the US Constitution where voting rights were ever given to children and then restricted.

You are simply talking nonsense. Voting is now and always has been in this nation an adult right. Show me in the Constitution where it says otherwise.

tell you what, you two coordinate your line of reasoning here and come up with some better than what you have offered. I will be back in two hours time to see what you found.

We have no age limit on rights. It isn't the right to free speech after age 7. The second amendment doesn't have an age limit though we have placed restrictions on it. I might add that the amendment limiting the age of voting, the 26th, says
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.
It does not say the rights of adults. It says the rights of citizens of which children are a sizable population. You obviously need to go back and read your constitution.
 
You could not be more wrong. It is indeed a political exercise. Very very much so. This scheme has been floated for a few years now starting in very right wing conservative circles and is now being repeated and picking up some steam. This is very much setting the stage for such efforts in the near future. I have not one doubt about that at all.

:D oh yeah, i almost forgot. the black helicopters and secret plans to enact our own Final Solution :lol:


You'll never stop us, Mr Bond!!!!!!

see.... first, we're going to circle an idea in conservative circles that we should find a way to get rid of that pesky 14th Amendment so people like Colonel Alan West are disenfranchised. then, we're going to coordinate these like-minded groups via commands dispersed down the chain of 33rd Degree Masons, in league with the giant lizard aliens pretending to be the British Royal Family and the CIA (which, magically, for the purposes of this exercise, will become competent at this sort of thing). Then, we're going to set the capitol building on fire and blame it on non-net-income-tax-payers (or the NNITP; we're thinking about using "nitpees" as a derogatory term for the dehumanization process, but our acronyms we admit are still in the planning phase); which will allow us to politicize the IRS in order to keep track of these dangerous elements. After that, it's only a few short steps until we are able to round them into camps, after splitting them by ethnicity via the process of having them take the ACT (it's racist, you know), and have them reeducated.....

but FIRST, FIRST we're going to post the entire plan on a relatively obscure political debate forum, in order to give the hero and his sidekick the necessary one-in-a-million chance..... muahahahahaHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

AND NOW...

Begin The Unnecessarily Slow Moving Device!!!!!! :lamo
 
Last edited:
from cpwill

oh yeah, i almost forgot. the black helicopters and secret plans to enact our own Final Solution

Does mockery negate that we are seeing this idea actually proposed?
Does mockery negate that this is a blatant scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions?
Does mockery negate the desire to classify some citizens as less worth of the right to vote than others?
Does mockery negate the desire to categorize some citizens as having to earn the rights that have been simply a matter of course for most of our history?

If so sir, you win the prize.
 
We have no age limit on rights. It isn't the right to free speech after age 7. The second amendment doesn't have an age limit though we have placed restrictions on it. I might add that the amendment limiting the age of voting, the 26th, says It does not say the rights of adults. It says the rights of citizens of which children are a sizable population. You obviously need to go back and read your constitution.

I do not know what planet you live on or what country on that planet you live on. I have no idea where you get your information from. And I clearly have no idea where your belief system comes from because you have failed to cite any source with any actual language.

Citizens who are adults have the right to vote.
Citizens who are not adults have never had the right to vote in this country so they never have had those "rights" restricted.

You cite the 26 the Amendment. You do realize that the 26th Amendment LOWERED the voting age from 21 and did not RAISE the voting age from one of childhood don't you? The 26th Amendment expanded the franchise by lowering the accepted age of adulthood for this purpose. It works against you not for you.

I must say that i have never come up against someone in an otherwise intelligent discussion who clung to an ideological fiction born from their own mind in the face of all common sense and fact as you are doing here. Scratch that .... I did on another site dedicated to the works of an author and come to think of it that poster had much the same name you did except for a couple of letters in the last three. This is eerie.
 
You do realize that the 26th Amendment LOWERED the voting age from 21 and did not RAISE the voting age from one of childhood don't you? The 26th Amendment expanded the franchise by lowering the accepted age of adulthood for this purpose. It works against you not for you.

all this is showing is that voting is not an "innate right". it is granted to us by the govt. the govt has many times changed who is entitled to this "right". when we first started out you had to be a white male, property owner to vote.

why then can the laws not be changed once again to further restrict that "right"? the precedent has been set.
 
I do not know what planet you live on or what country on that planet you live on. I have no idea where you get your information from. And I clearly have no idea where your belief system comes from because you have failed to cite any source with any actual language.

Citizens who are adults have the right to vote.
Citizens who are not adults have never had the right to vote in this country so they never have had those "rights" restricted.

You cite the 26 the Amendment. You do realize that the 26th Amendment LOWERED the voting age from 21 and did not RAISE the voting age from one of childhood don't you? The 26th Amendment expanded the franchise by lowering the accepted age of adulthood for this purpose. It works against you not for you.

I must say that i have never come up against someone in an otherwise intelligent discussion who clung to an ideological fiction born from their own mind in the face of all common sense and fact as you are doing here. Scratch that .... I did on another site dedicated to the works of an author and come to think of it that poster had much the same name you did except for a couple of letters in the last three. This is eerie.


Cop out. I clearly showed that there is no such things a "rights of adults." The language clearly only states rights of citizens of which children are considered citizens. You simply do not understand what you are trying to talk about.
 
Cop out. I clearly showed that there is no such things a "rights of adults." The language clearly only states rights of citizens of which children are considered citizens. You simply do not understand what you are trying to talk about.

I will use only little words for you to make it easy.

Can you show in the Constitution (sorry its a bit one) where children can vote in elections?

This comes from Wikipedia - SUFFRAGE article

Typically citizens become eligible to vote after reaching the age of legal adulthood.

Notice that you have to become eligible to vote and that comes with adulthood. You do not have the right to do so before adulthood as you are not eligible. In all my years I never thought I would have to explain this to a thinking person. I think it demonstrates the absurd lengths the right will would go to justify disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans.
 
Last edited:
Does mockery negate that we are seeing this idea actually proposed?

outside of discussion and similar forums to this one; where do you see this being proposed (mind you, it would be nice to find that there is a sizeable number of Americans who agree that we need to tweak the franchise to realign its' incentive structure)? sponsors in Congress? heck, even the quixotic FairTax get's put back up every year.

Does mockery negate that this is a blatant scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions?

rather it is a scheme to see to it that if they do not want to share the cost then they don't get to share the power. remember, i'm calling for this to be voluntary. no free riders, but no one is forced by their position to be a free rider.

Does mockery negate the desire to classify some citizens as less worth of the right to vote than others?

no because that claim or desire simply isn't present. no one here is making moral judgements about entire classes of citizens (i somewhat doubt, for example, that anyone on the Right would declare that the low-paid PFC in Afghanistan is somehow an inferior citizen due to the size of his paycheck). we are simply pointing out that the extension of power without extending responsibility creates a destructive incentive structure, and that it would be a good idea to fix it.

Does mockery negate the desire to categorize some citizens as having to earn the rights that have been simply a matter of course for most of our history?

actually this declares that all citizens should be willing to shoulder their portion of the burden of governance if they are to direct it. frankly, i often wonder if we wouldn't do better with a 'civilian / citizen' dichotomy similar to what Heinlein described in Starship Troopers; where the franchise is the prize of those who have proven that they are willing to place the good of the community ahead of that of themselves. that doesn't mean i think it's a political plausibility, nor does it mean that I would propose it in the current US climate.


but i will tell you what mockery does do: it draws out your hysterics in this thread that you depend upon in order to mask your inability to match the logic of the proposal under discussion.




or, at least, that's what my Jewish/CIA/Mason masters told me to say. :D
 
I will use only little words for you to make it easy.

Can you show in the Constitution (sorry its a bit one) where children can vote in elections?

can you show me where all adults irrespective of tax status can?
 
I will use only little words for you to make it easy.

Can you show in the Constitution (sorry its a bit one) where children can vote in elections?

Can you show in the Constitution where children are not citizens?
 
if you wanna live in a Robert Heinlein sci-fi universe - this ain't it.
 
Can you show in the Constitution where children are not citizens?

Are you really this dense? I mean really? The Constitution clearly identifies the age of voting in this nation and it is 18 and that was a LOWERING OF THE AGE FROM 21.

There was never ever anything in the Constitution which allowed children to vote.

I really am having a difficult time accepting that I am typing this to a rational adult.
 
I will use only little words for you to make it easy.

Can you show in the Constitution (sorry its a bit one) where children can vote in elections?

Maybe you should use small words for yourself. I don't have to show that children have the right to vote. I have to show the children are citizens and that the Constitution restricts citizens voting rights. The 26th does this completely. Unless you don't believe the children are citizens which would be a silly position. You have no counter argument here since in order for one man-one vote to be valid there can be no restrictions on voting whatsoever. Under the one man-one vote, children have to be allowed to vote. Since there is age restrictions, one man-one vote doesn't exist without caveats no matter what SCOTUS writes about.
 
can you show me where all adults irrespective of tax status can?

Absolutely.

Amendment 24

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
if you wanna live in a Robert Heinlein sci-fi universe - this ain't it.

well, as i tried to point out to you, this is a theoretical exercise, not a political one.
 
Absolutely.

Amendment 24

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

exactly: no tax evaders. but (and this is important) the failure to apply for tax credits is hardly the same thing as failure to pay taxes.
 
Absolutely.

Amendment 24

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


This again is referencing the Amendment incorrectly with this conversation. The compromise does not place a tax onto voting. It simply states that you have to pay your regular taxes inorder to get a full vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom