Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

"bu-but Canada and free speech!"

You mean in Canada where they don't even vote for their own senators? Where their senators get appointed by the Prime Minister? Oh yeah, Canada reaaaally has us beat kek.

Or in Europe where people in nations in the EU have to live under laws passed by people they didn't even vote for? Oh yeaaah Kbro, America is the shittiest place in the west kek.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You mean in Canada where they don't even vote for their own senators?
Damn. Unfortunate that democratic participation is less direct, but at least they understand that democratic participation is a right.



What a bullish!t comparison. Obviously, in a union of separate countries, a single country's voters don't get to decide everything. The countries in the EU decided they'd work closer together than say America does and hence they can't only act in their self-interest. If the country's people wanted to, they could elect leaders who would decide to leave.

However in America, the will of the people prevailing isn't assured. Because now states are allowed to enact policy based on who they want voting, not to mention that certain states have a disproportionate level of voting power that allows the minority to get they want over the majority.

But per 538, at least gerrymandering might be put in the trash compactor. So we are a bit closer to being the ideal of a republic politicians will tell you we are.

Rocky, is there a country you would rather live in? I am just curious.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rocky, is there a country you would rather live in? I am just curious.
Not really, I've spent much too much time here to willingly break of all the things about America I'm attached to. Hence why I want my country to be the best place it can be as should any person who calls themselves American.

Now do you have an issue with legislators being allowed to decide who is worthy of the privilege of voting or not?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not really, I've spent much too much time here to willingly break of all the things about America I'm attached to. Hence why I want my country to be the best place it can be as should any person who calls themselves American.

Now do you have an issue with legislators being allowed to decide who is worthy of the privilege of voting or not?

Okay, I expect an answer like that from most and it makes sense. I guess I should rephrase the question. Is there another country you think your life would be better in? Let us say you would have family or friends or whatever attachments hold you here, in the other country.

As for your question about voting, I will say I have no issue with things like...criminals not being allowed to vote. Other than that I think let people vote if they are citizens and the correct age and have ID.

Oh I am sure He will change his opinion of the U.S once there is a Regime Change.

AKA he is a Hypocrite.

I admit we do have things in this country in dire need of change. Though I do wonder where people think they'd have it better than here.

All this "Murica Hate" is all really just a long term plan that the Left has had in motion for nearly 60 years now. They HATE Western Civilization and want to replace it with their own Fascist / Socialist "Utopian" Society. They just know they can't do it by Force. That is why they have been doing it like a Cancer.
For proof of that just look at the state of our educational system in the U.S.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, I expect an answer like that from most and it makes sense. I guess I should rephrase the question. Is there another country you think your life would be better in? Let us say you would have family or friends or whatever attachments hold you here, in the other country.

Not sure. Free college and health care would be nice, but due to my upper middle class sicio economic background, and the forune I've had to recieve a good high school education, not really neccesary. I''m not sure if the mental health facilities in other countries are better and that may be useful down the line due to my OCD.

The sticking point would be American culture which, due to my middle class baclground, I've been able to fully enjoy and is really important to me. The music, sports, movies, animation, and comics are all stuff I really enjoy. I also like the wide variety of food we have.

That said, soccer is a really important part of my life an I'd likely get to play it more in certain countries.

I'd probabally choose America but for someone less fortunate than me, the answer could very well be a different one. For those born in absolute poverty here for example, they'd likely be better off in other countries with better social mobility.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not sure. Free college and health care would be nice, but due to my upper middle class sicio economic background, and the forune I've had to recieve a good high school education, not really neccesary. I''m not sure if the mental health facilities in other countries are better and that may be useful down the line due to my OCD.

The sticking point would be American culture which, due to my middle class baclground, I've been able to fully enjoy and is really important to me. The music, sports, movies, animation, and comics are all stuff I really enjoy. I also like the wide variety of food we have.

That said, soccer is a really important part of my life an I'd likely get to play it more in certain countries.

I'd probabally choose America but for someone less fortunate than me, the answer could very well be a different one. For those born in absolute poverty here for example, they'd likely be better off in other countries with better social mobility.

I noticed you still didn't answer his question. And you answered it with a Amero-centric answer about food which is just ignorant. Get out more. Hell, go to France. Go to Mexico. Go to the anywhere in the UK. Somewhere but here and eat other foods.

Let me guess, you haven't been to another country.


Stop dodging the question: answer it. Which country and for what reasons? crylaugh

Originally posted by dadudemon
I noticed you still didn't answer his question. And you answered it with a Amero-centric answer about food which is just ignorant. Get out more. Hell, go to France. Go to Mexico. Go to the anywhere in the UK. Somewhere but here and eat other foods.
]
His question:

My answer:

Then after reflection:

Your reading skills:



You seem to have missed:

Again, your ability to read:




Guessed wrong, though I'm sure you'll presume to know more about my life than I do. Though you should really save the inferences for once you've learned to read what's explicitly said.

Maturity:

Are we done double d?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

"bu-but Canada and free speech!"


Can you sum that up? Are some assclowns really trying to dictate which US citizens can and can not vote?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
His question:

My answer:

Then after reflection:

Your reading skills:



You seem to have missed:

Again, your ability to read:




Guessed wrong, though I'm sure you'll presume to know more about my life than I do. Though you should really save the inferences for once you've learned to read what's explicitly said.

Maturity:

Are we done double d?

I was correct. You haven't been out the US. And you still didn't answer his question. Your claims of having been outside the US are clearly lies.

Nice Amero-Centric perspective. You hate the US and think other countries are doing better, just as the criticism levied against you states (pun intended). But, yet, you refuse to get out of the US.


Typical America hating libtard.

That is how the Unintelligent Leftist tends to react.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was correct. You haven't been out the US. And you still didn't answer his question. Your claims of having been outside the US are clearly lies.
If you say so

I neither said I hated or America and gave a detailed explanation for why I would stay. Your repeated inability to address what I actually tells me you don't actually have a counter present.

But keep deflecting


As usual, all you have here is ad hominem.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I love when people shower compliments on other countries healthcare/welfare systems etc. despite having no knowledge of them.
I love when people keep deflecting from focus of discussion by trying to attack someone personally on sh!t they have no clue of.

You see a post where double d baselessly asserts I'm lying and dodges my points via ad hominem, and your response is to encourage him.

While you may be more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than I am, your post here is something I'd expect from a grade schooler.

If you're done perpetuating this deflectionary tangent, maybe you can actually say something relevant to the op?

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you sum that up? Are some assclowns really trying to dictate which US citizens can and can not vote?
They aren't trying to, they already did. Voter ID laws were passed and when they were taken up to the courts, the courts, even acknowledging that said policy was a partisan attempt at disenfranchising those who vote for the other side, ruled that states were allowed to put restrictions on voting as "voting is a privilege, not a right".

This isn't a new development by the way, this happened several years ago. But no one in are country seems to care that politicians can now decide who can or can't vote. "For the people and by the people" has become "for the people by the people elected representatives want voting".

And off course Double D and Darth Skywalker's response is to deflect by focusing on my life which Double D presumes he can tell me about with certainty.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If you say so

I neither said I hated or America and gave a detailed explanation for why I would stay. Your repeated inability to address what I actually tells me you don't actually have a counter present.

But keep deflecting


As usual, all you have here is ad hominem.


Boy, you got me. You're right about everything!

Hard to take any article seriously from a site that also that has a headline like "Are private schools immoral"'. or even worse "The Last Jedi: Best Star Wars movie since 1980?"

Originally posted by cdtm
Hard to take any article seriously from a site that also that has a headline like "Are private schools immoral"'. or even worse "The Last Jedi: Best Star Wars movie since 1980?"
When we're told of something we don't like, let's just make excuses not to address it.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
When we're told of something we don't like, let's just make excuses not to address it.

Credibility, bias, and shit journalism are pretty good excuses.

I'd rather live in France than in the US for a myriad of reasons that range from better food, less sectarian religions (for the most part), better literature (your novels eat dick*), lesser travel times between big cities, the general distances that you need to travel inside a city are shorter, it's easier to make pick a healthier lifestyle (in the US sugar gets sold on everything), a bigger interest in outside cultures (media still mostly focus on national topics) and sexier people.

With that said, you can get a pretty decent lifestyle in the US with enough money and education, the availability of culture and products truly is outstanding. Climate is occasionally decent depending on where you live and it's also easier to get a job in the US as far as I know.

*- A couple of your outlier authors are ok.

Plus the fact we're not really told much of anything.

Article goes all over the place without ever making a point.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'd rather live in France than in the US for a myriad of reasons that range from better food, less sectarian religions (for the most part), better literature (your novels eat dick*), lesser travel times between big cities, the general distances that you need to travel inside a city are shorter, it's easier to make pick a healthier lifestyle (in the US sugar gets sold on everything), a bigger interest in outside cultures (media still mostly focus on national topics) and sexier people.

With that said, you can get a pretty decent lifestyle in the US with enough money and education, the availability of culture and products truly is outstanding. Climate is occasionally decent depending on where you live and it's also easier to get a job in the US as far as I know.

*- A couple of your outlier authors are ok.

Wonderful, someone who is honest enough and intelligent enough to outline the pros and cons and take a position that just so happens to be "not America."

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I love when people keep deflecting from focus of discussion by trying to attack someone personally on sh!t they have no clue of.

You see a post where double d baselessly asserts I'm lying and dodges my points via ad hominem, and your response is to encourage him.

While you may be more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than I am, your post here is something I'd expect from a grade schooler.

If you're done perpetuating this deflectionary tangent, maybe you can actually say something relevant to the op?

Sure, voting is not a right in America as minors cannot vote. Your repeated attempts to shower compliments on Canada should be based in a little bit of logic, right?

Well to be fair, Countries like Canada are doing their best to remove the BURDEN of having to vote from its Citizens.

Why is this so hard? Of course voting is not a right. Any imbecile can walk into a go no booth and punch a hole for a candidate. But ask youreselves, how many of them are intelligent enough to even properly understand their candidates policies?

Most of what The average person knows about their candidates, are what they see on tv.

Voting is a privilege reserved only for those who knows what their doing. No more, no less.

Originally posted by SquallX
Why is this so hard? Of course voting is not a right. Any imbecile can walk into a go no booth and punch a hole for a candidate. But ask youreselves, how many of them are intelligent enough to even properly understand their candidates policies?

Most of what The average person knows about their candidates, are what they see on tv.

Voting is a privilege reserved only for those who knows what their doing. No more, no less.

No, voting is indeed a Right.

Amendment XV (15) of the United States Constitution
Ratified 1870
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, voting is indeed a Right.

Amendment XV (15) of the United States Constitution
Ratified 1870
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Learn to better understand what you read.

Yes, voting is a right. But to actually go out and vote, is a privilege.

Once more read what I wrote. Most Americans, for that matter, the average person that vote have no idea on their candidates policies, but what they watches on the news.

Thomas Sowell, a highly educated Economist said it best. He would rather have a small percentage of people voting, that knows the policies of their candidates, then to have a majority of people voting that knows nothing. And they vote base on mearly party lines.

You said "Of course voting is not a right." That was wrong, 15th Amendment and all.

As the the general knowledge and capabilities of the average voter, I wasn't addressing that.

Voting is a right.

The article's reason for pointing that out, is not so apparent. Is someone being denied the right to vote based on skin color, or any other of the mentioned criteria?

Originally posted by cdtm
Voting is a right.

The article's reason for pointing that out, is not so apparent. Is someone being denied the right to vote based on skin color, or any other of the mentioned criteria?
State legislatures of passed restrictions on voting, conservative courts have admitted said policies were partisan attemps at vpter restriction but maintained that as voting is a privlige and not a right, legislatures can pu tpolicies restricing certain groups from voting.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Sure, voting is not a right in America as minors cannot vote.
Voting is a right for all people who aren't minors, or at least it was. Those in power shouldn't be able to decide who holds them accountable.

If politicians are allowed to choose who can or can't vote, then the power is no longer with the people.

You may take issue with Canada's policy on free speech( i do too), but as the people are the ones in power there, if they don't like it, they can always elect representatives to get rid of said policy.

In Canada, voting is a right, in America, its now a privilege.

And who are you to decide who qualifies as knowledgable enough and who doesn't?

If you give politicians the power to choose who they deem worthy of a vote, eventually, they'll decide that those who don't vote for them aren't worthy of a vote.

Elected officials don't simply represent those who fit your qualifications as worthy of a vote, they represent everyone. Hence, everyone should have equal access to representation. If the populace isn't knowledgable enough, then its up to the politicans to communicate with them or enact policy that educates the populace. Keeping a populace ignorant enough so you can justify curtailing which parts of the population receive representation is the practice of dictators, not those who claim to be part of a representative democracy,

Not that this policy is discriminating based on knowledge. Voter restrictions, making voter id's difficult for certain groups to receive, forcing people to pay for the right to vote, and removing voting places so that voting is harder in certain areas has nothing to do with knowledge.

It's politicians trying to curtail the turnout from specific demographics likely to vote against them.

Here, for those too lazy to actually read the article in question:

-> partisan basis
->not excessively burdensome to most, not all voters.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Here, for those too lazy to actually read the article in question:

-> partisan basis
->not excessively burdensome to most, not all voters.

Yeah, but without a license, you can't drive either. If you don't have access to public/alternative transportation, you can't vote.

Taking the definition of "right" to the extreme, in the sense nothing should abridge it at all, one can argue the government is obligated to bus everyone in who can't afford a car.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yeah, but without a license, you can't drive either. If you don't have access to public/alternative transportation, you can't vote.

driving is not a right. Driving is a money earned privilege.

That people might not be able to vote due to public transportation isn't something worth defending.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
driving is not a right. Driving is a money earned privilege.

That people might not be able to vote due to public transportation isn't something worth defending.

Why isn't it worth defending? After all, a "right" is simply another way of saying the government has an obligation. In this case, voting for all. Should someone have that right denied if they can't afford a car? What about the homeless? Don't they have a right to vote?

Why is an id that anyone can obtain (Even undocumented immigrants can get one) considered denying a right to vote, yet doing nothing for people who can't even get to the polls is?

Where do we draw the line on responsibility towards this right?

Originally posted by cdtm
Why isn't it worth defending? After all, a "right" is simply another way of saying the government has an obligation. In this case, voting for all. Should someone have that right denied if they can't afford a car? What about the homeless? Don't they have a right to vote?

Why is an id that anyone can obtain (Even undocumented immigrants can get one) considered denying a right to vote, yet doing nothing for people who can't even get to the polls is?

Where do we draw the line on responsibility towards this right?
Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once did I advocate that we shouldn't find ways to make voting booths accessible to everyone. That's just a deflection.

The idea of making sure every citizen is equally able to vote and has an equal say in our republic and making sure every one is able to get to the polls aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

And untill there's widespread proof of voter fraud, there's no justification for having tens of thousands of voters disinfranchised per state.

If you want to enforce voter ID's, then the goverment forcing citizens to pull up with voer ID's has an obligation to make sure they're easily accessible for everyone. Currently that isn't the case.

And the courts have admitted the issue here isn't voter fraud, the motivation here is to suppress the vote of demographics that might vote against you.