• 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!

Court-ordered voting site set for Nevada tribe in US suit

Napoleon said:
Thanks for being a d***k instead of offering intelligent discourse.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. I can be a grade A number one dick when someone doesn't tell the truth, and unlike you, everything I posted is 100% true and backed up by reputable links.

Thanks for playing.
 
Napoleon said:
If you can't form a mature response then don't respond to my posts.
Click to expand...

LMAO
Translation: you cant support your claims and he supported his very well with links and facts so you attack him and deflect because you have no honest, civil or intellectual path to take to support your claims
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO
Translation: you cant support your claims and he supported his very well with links and facts so you attack him and deflect because you have no honest, civil or intellectual path to take to support your claims
Click to expand...

No, the translation is that I'm tired of people who post on a debate forum and lace responses to an opposing point of view with ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the issues.
 
Napoleon said:
No, the translation is that I'm tired of people who post on a debate forum and lace responses to an opposing point of view with ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the issues.
Click to expand...

Then stop doing it, he thoroughly supportedt his views with facts and links then YOU attacked him. Multiple posters have pointed this out.
 
AGENT J said:
Then stop doing it, he thoroughly supportedt his views with facts and links then YOU attacked him. Multiple posters have pointed this out.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He claimed that treaties invalidate my Equal Protection argument because they are law - even though the government cannot legislate its way out of the 14th Amendment, claimed that my argument regarding residency is invalidated by treaties that confer citizenship of a State - even though citizenship and residency are two different legal statuses, created a strawman with his anecdote about where "most Indians" work in response to my observation that citizens and residents of sovereign indian nations do not have tax liability and are not subject to the same application of laws and regulations as other American citizens (and btw, his anecdote appears less and less likely to be true or verifiable of the tribe in question the more I research since 44% of them are unemployed and there is no data I can find that distinguishes between on-reservation and off-reservation among those who are employed), and laced his responses with ad hominem attacks accusing me of lying and not knowing what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
No, he didn't. He claimed that treaties invalidate my Equal Protection argument because they are law - even though the government cannot legislate its way out of the 14th Amendment, claimed that my argument regarding residency is invalidated by treaties that confer citizenship of a State - even though citizenship and residency are two different legal statuses, created a strawman with his anecdote about where "most Indians" work in response to my observation that citizens and residents of sovereign indian nations do not have tax liability and are not subject to the same application of laws and regulations as other American citizens (and btw, his anecdote appears less and less likely to be true or verifiable of the tribe in question the more I research since 44% of them are unemployed and there is no data I can find that distinguishes between on-reservation and off-reservation among those who are employed), and laced his responses with ad hominem attacks accusing me of lying and not knowing what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes he clearly did and he made no claims of anything being "invalidated", the 14th is meaningless to what he posted which was YOUR strawman and then YOU started attacking. AGain as muitiple posters pointed out.
 
AGENT J said:
Yes he clearly did and he made no claims of anything being "invalidated"
Click to expand...

Ah yes, he referred to his incorrect arguments as "strikes."

AGENT J said:
the 14th is meaningless to what he posted which was YOUR strawman...
Click to expand...

How is the 14th Amendment a strawman when we're talking about a special class of citizenship wherein the application of U.S. law and regulation is radically different than all other citizens?

AGENT J said:
and then YOU started attacking. AGain as muitiple posters pointed out.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Ah yes, he referred to his incorrect arguments as "strikes."



How is the 14th Amendment a strawman when we're talking about a special class of citizenship wherein the application of U.S. law and regulation is radically different than all other citizens?



Incorrect.
Click to expand...

A whole raft of court decisions say you are wrong.

Indians have the same right to vote as other U.S. citizens. In 1948, the Arizona Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional disenfranchising interpretation of the State constitution. Thus Indians were permitted to vote as in most other States. A 1953 Utah State law stated that persons living on Indian reservations were not residents of the State and could not vote. That law was subsequently repealed. In 1954, Indians in Maine who were not then Federally recognized were given the right to vote, and in 1962, New Mexico extended the right to vote to Indians. Indians also vote in State and local elections and in their affiliated tribal elections. Each tribe, however, determines which of its members are eligible to vote in its elections. This qualification to do so is not related to the individual Indian's right to vote in national, State or local (non-Indian) elections.
 
Napoleon said:
Ah yes, he referred to his incorrect arguments as "strikes."



How is the 14th Amendment a strawman when we're talking about a special class of citizenship wherein the application of U.S. law and regulation is radically different than all other citizens?



Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Good grief LMAO as muitiple posters pointed out he won, you lost then you attacked get over it. the evidence is there for all to see. If you dont like it, take him on again HONESTLY with out strawmen.
 
danarhea said:
A whole raft of court decisions say you are wrong.

Indians have the same right to vote as other U.S. citizens. In 1948, the Arizona Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional disenfranchising interpretation of the State constitution. Thus Indians were permitted to vote as in most other States. A 1953 Utah State law stated that persons living on Indian reservations were not residents of the State and could not vote. That law was subsequently repealed. In 1954, Indians in Maine who were not then Federally recognized were given the right to vote, and in 1962, New Mexico extended the right to vote to Indians. Indians also vote in State and local elections and in their affiliated tribal elections. Each tribe, however, determines which of its members are eligible to vote in its elections. This qualification to do so is not related to the individual Indian's right to vote in national, State or local (non-Indian) elections.
Click to expand...

None of which means that I have to agree with rationale behind those decisions - namely because I do not believe there is sufficient critical evaluation of the unique legal status involved. Since you raised employment, I'll use it to explain why. 44% of the people we're talking about don't even work - which means they hang out around the reservation not subject to State law or regulation and pay no State taxes. I am not persuaded that these people should be permitted to cast ballots on State matters because - unlike other American citizens - they effectively exist in a different society with zero skin in the game. Some unidentified portion do work off the reservation but because they do not live off the reservation they do not share equal obligation or consequence under the law to an equal extent as other American citizens so I am not persuaded they should be permitted to cast ballots on State matters either. Both situations present Equal Protection issues because allowing them to vote grants equal rights for unequal application of law.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
None of which means that I have to agree with rationale behind those decisions - namely because I do not believe there is sufficient critical evaluation of the unique legal status involved. Since you raised employment, I'll use it to explain why. 44% of the people we're talking about don't even work - which means they hang out around the reservation not subject to State law or regulation and pay no State taxes. I am not persuaded that these people should be permitted to cast ballots on State matters because - unlike other American citizens - they effectively exist in a different society with zero skin in the game. Some unidentified portion do work off the reservation but because they do not live off the reservation they do not share equal obligation or consequence under the law so I am not persuaded they should be permitted to cast ballots on State matters either.
Click to expand...

How can you pay taxes if you make no money? Are you saying that all people who are below the poverty line should also be paying taxes, or be banned from voting? That just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
danarhea said:
How can you pay taxes if you make no money? Are you saying that all people who are below the poverty line should be also paying taxes? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

People below the poverty line who don't spend all their time on a reservation still pay some taxes. Taxes are a compounding issue in this case. If they spent their days and nights living with the consequences of ballot measures and State elections then I might feel differently - but they don't.
 
Napoleon said:
People below the poverty line who don't spend all their time on a reservation still pay some taxes.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd like to see the link on that one. LOL.
 
They must be bummed that Elizabeth 'Fake Indian' Warren isn't on the Dem ticket. Maybe Hillary can fabricate a love for Buffalo jerkey, to go with her claims of hot sauce addiction, and secure the Native American and black vote through food!
 
Napoleon said:
Sales taxes?
Click to expand...

BS. I personally know people from the Alabama-Coushatta tribe. They buy all their food at the Wal-Mart in Woodville, Texas or the HEB grocery in Livingston, Texas, and those stores charge sales taxes to EVERYBODY. There are not a whole lot of stores on many reservations, except for convenience stores and mom and pop type stores. There are craft stores and the like, but the items bought there are bought by tourists. There are also doctors and dentists, but those services are not subject to sales tax any place. And, of course, there are the casinos on some of the reservations. They get a break on tobacco too. I have bought cigarettes at the reservation.
 
danarhea said:
BS. I personally know people from the Alabama-Coushatta tribe. They buy all their food at the Wal-Mart in Woodville, Texas or the HEB grocery in Livingston, Texas, and those stores charge sales taxes to EVERYBODY. There are not a whole lot of stores on many reservations, except for convenience stores and mom and pop type stores. There are craft stores and the like, but the items bought there are bought by tourists. There are also doctors and dentists, but those services are not subject to sales tax any place. And, of course, there are the casinos on some of the reservations. They get a break on tobacco too. I have bought cigarettes at the reservation.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in Nevada. And I'm talking about the 44% of them who are unemployed (a rate that suggests a lot of them don't wander off the reservation too often) not random people in Texas who shop at Walmart. From what I've read, they do have a grocery store. In fact, the Tribe's Human Resources Department published an ad in July saying they're hiring a clerk for the grocery store. Hope they found someone.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
We're talking about the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in Nevada. And I'm talking about the 44% of them who are unemployed not random people in Texas who shop at Walmart. From what I've read, they do have a grocery store. In fact, the Tribe's Human Resources Department published an ad in July saying they're hiring a clerk for the grocery store. Hope they found someone.
Click to expand...

Here is their facebook site. Feel free to look all you want for a major grocery store or any reference to one.

https://www.facebook.com/Alabama-Coushatta-Tribe-of-Texas-96256437610/
 
danarhea said:
Here is their facebook site. Feel free to look all you want for a major grocery store or any reference to one.

https://www.facebook.com/Alabama-Coushatta-Tribe-of-Texas-96256437610/
Click to expand...

Why are you sending me to a Facebook page to a tribe in Texas? We're talking about the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in Nevada. Or did you misinterpret what I said? The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe in Nevada does have a grocery on the reservation - and their Human Resources department placed the ad.
 
danarhea said:
Again, by treaty, Indians are members of their tribe, as well as citizens of their state, and of the USA. According to the Constitution, treaties are the law of the land.

Let me give you yet another link. This one of from the Justice Department.

https://www.justice.gov/otj/about-native-americans

From the link:

"American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same right to vote as all United States citizens. American Indians and Alaska Natives vote in state and local elections, as well as in tribal elections. Just as state, federal, and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria; each Tribe has the right to decide its voter eligibility criteria for tribal elections."

Let me add something else here...... ^ White man speak with forked tongue. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

From your link:

What is the relationship between the United States and the Tribes?
The relationship between the Tribes and the United States is one of a government to a government. This principle has shaped the history of dealings between the federal government and the tribes.
Click to expand...

I can see Napoleons point of view here. We are taught that citizens of foreign governments are not allowed to vote in any type of US elections. And such is enforced via immigration laws. And I do know for a fact that Indians on tribal land do not have to follow state laws. (Federal laws they do, but not state) So why should States allow them to vote if they're not going to follow State Laws in tribal land?
 
Kal'Stang said:
From your link:



I can see Napoleons point of view here. We are taught that citizens of foreign governments are not allowed to vote in any type of US elections. And such is enforced via immigration laws. And I do know for a fact that Indians on tribal land do not have to follow state laws. (Federal laws they do, but not state) So why should States allow them to vote if they're not going to follow State Laws in tribal land?
Click to expand...

I see his point of view but I think it's wrong. Americans have dual sovereign citizenship in that they are both sovereign citizens of the state that they reside in ...and sovereign citizens of the country or nation. We are citizens of two separate governments..state and federal. Indians have dual citizenship too. Except, they are citizens of a semi sovereign tribal state but are also citizens of the entire nation. So while the States don't have jurisdiction over the tribes or reservations, or other states for that matter...but as citizens of the nation, the Federal government does. I don't know if Indians vote in state elections...if they live off the reservation they might...but they definitely have a right to vote in national elections.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
From your link:



I can see Napoleons point of view here. We are taught that citizens of foreign governments are not allowed to vote in any type of US elections. And such is enforced via immigration laws. And I do know for a fact that Indians on tribal land do not have to follow state laws. (Federal laws they do, but not state) So why should States allow them to vote if they're not going to follow State Laws in tribal land?
Click to expand...

Because they pay taxes. We fought a war over taxation without representation.
 
Moot said:
I see his point of view but I think it's wrong. Americans have dual sovereign citizenship in that they are both sovereign citizens of the state that they reside in ...and sovereign citizens of the country or nation. We are citizens of two separate governments..state and federal. Indians have dual citizenship too. Except, they are citizens of a semi sovereign tribal state but are also citizens of the entire nation. So while the States don't have jurisdiction over the tribes or reservations, or other states for that matter...but as citizens of the nation, the Federal government does. I don't know if Indians vote in state elections...if they live off the reservation they might...but they definitely have a right to vote in national elections.
Click to expand...

Indians do vote in state elections, but not for Congressmen, as they have no representatives in Congress, as far as I know. But senators do represent them.
 
danarhea said:
Because they pay taxes. We fought a war over taxation without representation.
Click to expand...

There are people that come to work in the US from foreign countries all the time. Mexico, Canada, Japan etc etc etc. they pay taxes and yet are not allowed to vote. So paying taxes alone is not the only criteria used for voting.

Now, Indians have to obey the laws of the Federal Government due to treaties, but they don't have to obey the laws of the State government. Why? Because they're treated as a sovereign nation and States have no control over other sovereign nations. So why should a sovereign nation be allowed to influence States laws and elections when those laws don't even apply to them?
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are people that come to work in the US from foreign countries all the time. Mexico, Canada, Japan etc etc etc. they pay taxes and yet are not allowed to vote. So paying taxes alone is not the only criteria used for voting.

Now, Indians have to obey the laws of the Federal Government due to treaties, but they don't have to obey the laws of the State government. Why? Because they're treated as a sovereign nation and States have no control over other sovereign nations. So why should a sovereign nation be allowed to influence States laws and elections when those laws don't even apply to them?
Click to expand...

But American Indians ARE citizens who pay taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom