• 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
where did I say that? You asked a question as to why voting was the way it was and I explained it to you.

duh, no I did not. I didn't ask how voting worked, I asked if it was right.

you are avoiding the question. I don't give a **** about how the system works...is it fair/morally correct that a bum gets to vote and a 17 y/o kid who has volunteered to serve his country doesn't?
 
and what is the "opinion" you cling to? That children cannot partake in an adult function? That states have the right to bar convicted felons from voting? If that is your opinion that indeed is reality.

If it is further your "opinion" that those two things are somehow connected or can be used as justification in a blatant politically inspired scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions of people from voting, that is not reality, it is fantasy.

But by all means, go full throttle and pursue your "reality". Announce your intention to pass a Constitutional Amendment doing just what you fantasize about. Convince the legislatures of 3/4 of our states that you have a good idea because we already don't let babies vote so it must be all right. Come back from time to time with an update on your progress. That is some reality I would be interested in.

So either you have to believe that children and felons are not citizens or you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
aren't states actually given the right to determine voting qualifications?
 
duh, no I did not. I didn't ask how voting worked, I asked if it was right.

you are avoiding the question. I don't give a **** about how the system works...is it fair/morally correct that a bum gets to vote and a 17 y/o kid who has volunteered to serve his country doesn't?

Sure you did. Right here in post #317.

here's a question for you one man/one vote people

why does some dirtbag welfare bum deserve the "right" to vote but a 17 year old kid who is working a full time job to help support his/her family does not?

why does willy the wino get the right to vote but 17 y/o PFC Joe Snuffy fighting in Afghanistan doesn't?

I was happy to inform you of why that situation exists.

If you could define both the term "fair" and "morally correct" for me I will give it some thought.
 
aren't states actually given the right to determine voting qualifications?

Yes, except when limited by the Constitution. For example, the Women's Voting Amendment to the Constitution means that a state cannot pass a law that takes away women's right to vote.
 
So either you have to believe that children and felons are not citizens or you have no idea what you are talking about.

Are you operating under the delusion that if you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again that it gains in value or suddenly becomes worthwhile when it was not before?
 
Yes, except when limited by the Constitution. For example, the Women's Voting Amendment to the Constitution means that a state cannot pass a law that takes away women's right to vote.

Or if they violate any other part of the Constitution. Which this scheme clearly would.
 
Sure you did. Right here in post #317.



I was happy to inform you of why that situation exists.

If you could define both the term "fair" and "morally correct" for me I will give it some thought.


pointless, you'd just continue to duck and dive. you know what I meant, just don't have the intestinal fortitude to give an honest answer.
 
Or if they violate any other part of the Constitution. Which this scheme clearly would.

not if we ammended the constitution

we ammended the constitution to prevent people from owning slaves. we could ammend the constitution to prevent dirtbags and bums from voting
 
Last edited:
pointless, you'd just continue to duck and dive. you know what I meant, just don't have the intestinal fortitude to give an honest answer.

How can I "know what you meant" if you do not clearly ask it in the first place. I read what you write, conclude that you are a reasonably intelligent person, and give you the answer you asked for. And now that is my fault for doing so? Amazing.
 
not if we ammended the constitution

By all means please go forth and attempt that. Announce that the conservatives in America, the Republican Party, or whoever is behind this wants to go forth and disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, most of whom now vote Democratic, disproportionate numbers who are African American and Hispanic, announce your plan and go forth with it .
 
Or if they violate any other part of the Constitution. Which this scheme clearly would.

perhaps you could direct me to the particular article you are referring to? i cant seem to find it....
 
Are you operating under the delusion that if you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again that it gains in value or suddenly becomes worthwhile when it was not before?

I am going to pick my second option since this is a very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. Children are citizens. We restrict childrens right to vote. Therefore the one man one vote rule is not consistent with current voting rules as children are not allowed to vote and are citizens.
 
How can I "know what you meant" if you do not clearly ask it in the first place. I read what you write, conclude that you are a reasonably intelligent person, and give you the answer you asked for. And now that is my fault for doing so? Amazing.

still dodging the question. how about answering it instead.

what logical reason, (other than "because the system says so") is there for allowing a worthless bum to vote while not allowing a kid who is working a full time job to support his family to vote?

or

what makes the arbitrary age of 18 a better determiner of fitness to vote than a persons contribution to the system?
 
By all means please go forth and attempt that. Announce that the conservatives in America, the Republican Party, or whoever is behind this wants to go forth and disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, most of whom now vote Democratic, disproportionate numbers who are African American and Hispanic, announce your plan and go forth with it .

I couldn't care less about the racial makeup of the the voters who would choose not to vote. that being said, no, this is a theoretical exercise, not a political one. there is no public push (yet) to reform the decision making process. i look at this debate similar to how i look at the Fairtax; sure it would be great to switch the whole system out and replace it; but it's not politically plausible. better, then, to focus energies on achieving those reforms that are possible; such as lower and flatter income tax rates and lower spending.
 
I am going to pick my second option since this is a very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. Children are citizens. We restrict childrens right to vote. Therefore the one man one vote rule is not consistent with current voting rules as children are not allowed to vote and are citizens.

And let me explain this to you one more time. Voting is a right of adults. Not children because they are not adults.

And again, if the Supreme Court says that one man one vote is a guiding principle that they follow in determining the interpretation of the laws of the land and the Constitution, then that is what it is.

You can live in some alternate reality of your own making in which you reject the word of the Supreme Court. The rest of the nation lives with it.
 
I am going to pick my second option since this is a very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. Children are citizens. We restrict childrens right to vote. Therefore the one man one vote rule is not consistent with current voting rules as children are not allowed to vote and are citizens.

funny how children, who are citizens, are not allowed to vote, but in many places illegal aliens, who are not citizens, are.
 
I couldn't care less about the racial makeup of the the voters who would choose not to vote. that being said, no, this is a theoretical exercise, not a political one. there is no public push (yet) to reform the decision making process. i look at this debate similar to how i look at the Fairtax; sure it would be great to switch the whole system out and replace it; but it's not politically plausible. better, then, to focus energies on achieving those reforms that are possible; such as lower and flatter income tax rates and lower spending.

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.
 
And let me explain this to you one more time. Voting is a right of adults. Not children because they are not adults.

And again, if the Supreme Court says that one man one vote is a guiding principle that they follow in determining the interpretation of the laws of the land and the Constitution, then that is what it is.

You can live in some alternate reality of your own making in which you reject the word of the Supreme Court. The rest of the nation lives with it.

Adults or not, children are still citizens of this country. So you can think this is an excuse all you want. All that this is a restriction on voting rights.
 
funny how children, who are citizens, are not allowed to vote, but in many places illegal aliens, who are not citizens, are.

And your objective authoritative evidence for this allegation please?
 
And again, if the Supreme Court says that one man one vote is a guiding principle that they follow in determining the interpretation of the laws of the land and the Constitution, then that is what it is.

ah, it is because they say it is. never mind that one man one vote is a total lie since convicted felons are men and they are not allowed to vote.

The basic premise is still correct. We can and have restricted the right of citizens to vote in the past, why can't we do it now or in the future?
 
Adults or not, children are still citizens of this country. So you can think this is an excuse all you want. All that this is a restriction on voting rights.

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?
 
ladies and gentlemen...I give you the state of california

It seems you left out the actual evidence part.

from Oscar on the Supreme Courts one man one vote guiding principle.

Ah, it is because they say it is.

That is the way it works in this country. Get used to it... or not, its up to you. But that is the way it is,
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom