Who should be allowed to vote?

Fruttasecca said:
No u are the retard for thinking peasants from some bumfuck Iberian village even knew what Christianity is when they didnt speak latin and the fucking church didnt allow the bible to be translated because they wanted to keep an ideological hold over peoples minds.
Click to expand...
>Speak Romance language, which is basically Vulgar Latin
>Don't have printing press until 1500s and it takes months or years to even write a book
>Have priests that are able to read the Bible go to each of the villages and preach the Gospel
>Also, be part of the Roman Empire that converted to Catholicism in ~350 AD
Retard.
Fruttasecca said:
They fought because they were drafted or they signed up for loot and maybe their own farm in the conquered lands.
Click to expand...
Again, that's retarded. If they wanted loot, they would just join the Muslims since they had more military strength by far and could easily get a shitton of loot from neighboring Catholic villages. You are very stupid, I hope you understand this
Fruttasecca said:
Guess it doesnt take that much to convert a christcuck, or maybe it wasnt that important in peoples lives that they chose worldly comfort over it.
Click to expand...
Or maybe money is a finite resource and the only people that were able to get away with not paying the jizya were killed and the people that did were fucking loaded. Just a thought. Certainly more rational than any bullshit you are spewing.
Fruttasecca said:
The fuck are you talking about, one of the first doctrinal changes of Christianity was to dismiss circumcision, a god given law Jesus swore to uphold, because the apostles knew that the European people would never accept that shit.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly you sperg. It's like Christianity has been in Europe for almost 2000 years now and it's only recently that Americans have been kotowing to Israel on every front.

Oh my God you are stupid. Read a book, nigger.
 
Stan said:
Lol this is true. I work as a poll worker in Boston and I agree there are many voters (sometimes myself included) who really don't know who they're voting for in local races or are sometimes just checking a box with one candidate running unopposed. I won't pretend this is a well-reasoned or well-educated vote; but I also recognize sometimes unopposed candidates are unopposed because they're the only ones actually interested or qualified to do the job. (Church Vestry elections are often like that... you're not going to run for Property Committee out of stubbornness or spite, but because you want to do the church's property management for your 2-year term on a volunteer basis and feel you have the skill for it.)

In every state election law code I'm familiar with (NC, NY, MA) the voter doesn't even need to prove they know how to read. They just need to be able to tell me their name and address (MA), do the same and "make their mark" in the voter roll (NY) or tell me name, address, and provide ID (NC). That's a very low barrier to entry for the most part (I'm against voter ID requirements except in special circumstances that are too granular for you guys to understand or appreciate)

Knowing voters are dumb, uninformed, and potentially illiterate does not not change my view that every citizen is entitled to vote, though.

Voters who don't speak English can vote on a translated ballot and/or bring someone with them to assist them. They can also ask for 2 election officials from different parties to assist them. There's even a voting machine that will read the ballot to you and mark it for you if you're blind, so an illiterate voter could also use that to their advantage as well.

Some people will want to vote based on just a few races or ballot questions. Being a single-issue voter isn't cause for disenfranchisement. Being uninformed about races that don't affect you (e.g. school board when you're retired and kids all grown up) shouldn't prevent you from getting your full say. People care about what they want to; you can't make people educate themselves if they don't want to (as this forum amply proves time and time again.)
Click to expand...
I am completely unironic in saying that literally everyone shouldn't vote. Everyone. Even me. Even you. Even someone with 500 IQ who does nothing but read up on every political issue that exists. Even single-issue voters who extensively know the intricacies of that one issue inside and out. Even the person who is just voting for whoever will benefit them in the short term. Everyone.
 
Disenfranchising women and niggers would go a long towards undoing the damage those two demographics have caused this country.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Stan
Nobody, people clearly are not smart enough to actually procure a good enough candidate so we are possibly better at taking that opportunity away and settling back into a monarchy again.
 
Would said:
LOL
LMAO

Please, expand.
Click to expand...
> all Founding Fathers upper class from birth
> GW 67 years old when he became president
> JA elected president at 61
> TJ 58 years old when elected president
> James Madison 58 years old when elected president
> James Munroe, 59 years old when elected president
> JQA elected at 58
> avg life expectancy circa 1785 is 38 years for a man

"Rich old fart" would seem to be the order of the day when it comes to Founding Fathers and their presidencies
 
I'm actually surprised that Stan is still around after being doxxed and everything.

Also the average life expectancy in 1785 included stillborn infants and children that died of disease and sickness at a young age, which was quite often. if you survived childhood you often lived a very long time.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Would, Radola Gajda and 1 other person
Betonhaus said:
I'm actually surprised that Stan is still around after being doxxed and everything.

Also the average life expectancy in 1785 included stillborn infants and children that died of disease and sickness at a young age, which was quite often. if you survived childhood you often lived a very long time.
Click to expand...
lol its not a big deal. I would have preferred not to be, but it is what it is. What I hate the most is that people like you discount my ideas on the basis of my sex.

Anyway, I agree its a big "if" on surviving past infancy in the premodern era. But let's also be realistic; living to your late sixties in the late 1700's is indeed living to an old age; the Founding Fathers were old for their time when they served as legislators.

The Virginia planters were exactly the kind of oligarchy you think is ideal, Beto. Just a bunch of rich, old guys who all know each other very well trading power over the generations for nearly a century. I'm grateful these same guys also thoughtfully and very cleverly crafted a Constitution to create an electorate designed to represent the will of all the people, and not only 1% upper-class landowners like them. The Founding Fathers understood the pitfalls of permitting the government to tax and rule people who didn't get a say in how that government was run, which is why our system is oriented towards universal enfranchisement. Even prior to ratification, the founding fathers were aware that women's suffrage and slave-owning would become important crises in the identity of the nation.

As Abigail Adams wrote to John Adams in 1776:
"“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”"
Click to expand...
The only shame I see in this is that it took 144 years and a long, hard march for women's suffrage to have our demand for representation be met.

Thomas Jefferson was equally aware of the problem that slavery would represent in a nation that considered itself one of free people. He wrote in 1814:
“There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.”
Click to expand...
His personal writings pretty well predicted the Civil War 50 years before it actually occured. Despite owning slaves, Jefferson was very aware that the practice couldn't last in the new Republic he had helped to create.

So I do believe that the universal enfranchisement of citizens (barring the ridiculous stuff you were straw-manning earlier) was the intention of the Founding Fathers.
 
Simple test. So you want to vote for X. What is their position on this policy? Or this policy? Five questions, if you can't answer three correctly , you can GTFO, no vote for you.

Stops the retards who think voting is a civic duty, and they saw an ad on TV, and he seemed nice. Also stops the people bussed in for a free lunch to vote.
 
Town Drunk said:
Simple test. So you want to vote for X. What is their position on this policy? Or this policy? Five questions, if you can't answer three correctly , you can GTFO, no vote for you.

Stops the retards who think voting is a civic duty, and they saw an ad on TV, and he seemed nice. Also stops the people bussed in for a free lunch to vote.
Click to expand...
Until the Democrats start handing out cheat sheets at the line.
 
Betonhaus said:
Until the Democrats start handing out cheat sheets at the line.
Click to expand...
That's called "illegal electioneering" and it's prohibited by law to do it "at the line" (In MA + NY, within 75 feet of the entrance) outside of poll sites. There are keep cops onsite to enforce this law. Voters may bring in materials like this (it's not illegal to bring yourself a list to remind yourself who you intend to vote for), but poll site jannies like me sweep the voting booths every few minutes to make sure no electioneering materials have been left behind.

Where do you get these delusional ideas, Beto? Do you make them up for yourself to justify the way you feel about voting, or is there a source you read that's telling you things like "liberals want to give 12-year-olds the vote" and "Democrats are allowed to electioneer inside voting precincts"?

Are you really the kind of person who should opine about who should vote at all?
 
PipTheAlchemist said:
Or they could learn how to speak fucking English
Click to expand...
Why? The United States has no official language. The ballot language options are determined by census data. Currently the options in Boston are English and Spanish. Translators are also available at certain poll sites to assist voters who speak Vietnamese, Chinese, and Russian
Why does that rustle your jimmies so bad? They're citizens and they have every right to vote just like you do.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: PipTheAlchemist
Stan said:
Why? The United States has no official language. The ballot language options are determined by census data. Currently the options in Boston are English and Spanish. Translators are also available at certain poll sites to assist voters who speak Vietnamese, Chinese, and Russian
Why does that rustle your jimmies so bad? They're citizens and they have every right to vote just like you do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the founders of this country thought it was so fucking obvious what they meant nobody bothered to codify the official language as English. And judging by the fact that the only people that forward the argument that English isn't America's de-facto official language are serial contrarians like you, I think they were onto something. And as to the reason it rustles his jimmies, I suspect it's that he's being gaslighted about diversity being our supposed strength. Why the fuck are we obligated to actively coddle people that can't even be bothered to learn the lingua franca of the country? Why are we obligated to extend a hand to people that are so fucking contemptuous of our country they won't even speak our language? Hell, why are we obligated to help them vote? How the fuck does it help us to let them vote? Are you so fucking stupid you're going to let outsiders into your process because of some abstract moral principle that they have the right to.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: DumbDude43
Chuck McGill said:
Yeah, because the founders of this country thought it was so fucking obvious what they meant nobody bothered to codify the official language as English
Click to expand...
You are so worked up about the idea that you don't have to speak English to be a citizen. The Founding Fathers also spoke French and Latin, and use it pretty often in their letters to one another.
Chuck McGill said:
lingua franca of the country?
Click to expand...
Chuckle :lit:
 
Stan said:
You are so worked up about the idea that you don't have to speak English to be a citizen. The Founding Fathers also spoke French and Latin, and use it pretty often in their letters to one another.

Chuckle :lit:
Click to expand...
Uh huh. What language was the Constitution in again?
 
if you don't speak the local language then they only things you know about politics are what have been translated for you. You're not hearing what's on the street, you're rarely watching unbiased news. The only things you know are from people who have made an effort to translate it to you, and they are unlikely to tell you the whole story.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: George Geef and Chuck McGill
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back