That crazy Vivek

[homersapien 12,262]

7 hours ago, LPTiger said:

 

Dems = the party that used misinformation to charge the other party with election interference via the use of misinformation.   To be clear, Vivek's proposal is not that people younger than 25 can't vote.   His proposal is that anyone under 25 must pass the same civic's test that immigrants are required to pass to obtain citizenship.   I've never seen the test so I have no opinion about his proposal. I also don't understand how he came to believe that 25 was the right number.  But, people like Frum have no intention of giving his followers the entire truth.   He just wants people to think like he does.  Thankfully he doesn't appear to have too many followers.    

Oh, I think I do.     See my post above.

Are you really that naive?

Edited August 21, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,262]

Well, that didn't take long:

Democratic advantage among Millennial voters grows

[homersapien 12,262]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

The devil (or in this case the angel) is in the details. Some states need their voting requirements tightened. Nobody wants blacks, women, etc banned from voting. That's hysterical hogwash.

You are just as naive as LP.

Republicans know that the higher turnout is - i.e: the more people that vote - the worse they will do. 

That's their whole point of adding restrictions of any type.  Prevention of fraud is simply their cover story.

As all the audits in recent elections have proven, we do not have anything like a serious problem with voter fraud.

Edited August 21, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,364]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

The devil (or in this case the angel) is in the details. Some states need their voting requirements tightened. Nobody wants blacks, women, etc banned from voting. That's hysterical hogwash.

Yeah, just the ones who don’t pass the test Republicans design.

[auburnatl1 6,207]

Obviously the 25 yr old threshold is brain dead and ridiculous. But in defense of Republicans (which isn’t easy), Democrats have repeatedly tried adding DC and Puerto Rico into the electoral college and in some cases tried to allow non citizens voting privileges.  No  one is lily white on this one.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obviously the 25 yr old threshold is brain dead and ridiculous. But in defense of Republicans (which isn’t easy), Democrats have repeatedly tried adding DC and Puerto Rico into the electoral college and in some cases tried to allow non citizens voting privileges.  No  one is lily white on this one.

That’s a helluva a “both sides” reach. Residents of DC & Puerto Rico are American citizens with no voice in choosing their president. You can disagree with that, but it’s hardly on par with disenfranchisement.

[homersapien 12,262]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obviously the 25 yr old threshold is brain dead and ridiculous. But in defense of Republicans (which isn’t easy), Democrats have repeatedly tried adding DC and Puerto Rico into the electoral college and in some cases tried to allow non citizens voting privileges.  No  one is lily white on this one.

I don't see the problem with that.

[auburnatl1 6,207]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s a helluva a “both sides” reach. Residents of DC & Puerto Rico are American citizens with no voice in choosing their president. You can disagree with that, but it’s hardly on par with disenfranchisement.

Im all about helluva but nonetheless  the dems timing about dc and pr (what about poor Guam) being a major issue was … convenient.

Edited August 21, 2023 by auburnatl1

[auburnatl1 6,207]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't see the problem with that.

No doubt 

[homersapien 12,262]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

No doubt 

 

Well, please explain why you have a problem with it.

[auburnatl1 6,207]

Just now, homersapien said:

Well, please explain why you have a problem with it.

Same reason 25 is ridiculous - the constitution. Territories and an independent (by design) capital.  If you want to change it, there’s a process for that. Otherwise, it’s just being whimsical. 

[arein0 1,106]

17 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obviously the 25 yr old threshold is brain dead and ridiculous. But in defense of Republicans (which isn’t easy), Democrats have repeatedly tried adding DC and Puerto Rico into the electoral college and in some cases tried to allow non citizens voting privileges.  No  one is lily white on this one.

If they are paying taxes, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

No taxation without representation.

[homersapien 12,262]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Same reason 25 is ridiculous - the constitution. Territories and an independent (by design) capital.  If you want to cthange it, there’s a process for that. Otherwise, it’s just being whimsical. 

So, I take it you oppose changing the constitution to expand the right to vote for all citizens - right?

Has that always been your position?

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by homersapien

[Didba 5,511]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:09 PM, autigeremt said:

The actions of the party resemble the communist playbook. Just because the outer package shows one thing doesn’t mean the interior is something else. It’s pretty sad that people continue to support either party considering what they have done to the country. 

What do you mean by “The actions of the party resemble the communist playbook”?

Could you explain that as well? Maybe some examples comparing the two would help me understand. 

[AU9377 6,057]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:31 AM, Mikey said:

Currently the biggest threat to Democracy is the Democrats weaponizing the DOJ and FBI in an effort to influence the 2024 election.

[autigeremt 7,240]

48 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, that didn't take long:

Democratic advantage among Millennial voters grows

I can agree with this information. The best way to give up is to hand over. No one has the guts to fight for anything and they want the government to step in and call the shots. They will get what they ask for and the United States experiment will be nothing but a footnote in history. It's coming like a train in the distance at a high rate of speed. 

[auburnatl1 6,207]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, I take it you oppose changing the constitution to expand the right to vote for all citizens - right?

Has that always been your position?

 

It’s not a me thing. The territories have to actually want to be states. They currently have more independence and their tax rules are different and sometimes more favorable.  It would also change election dynamics because candidates would have to travel there. It’s not a subtle  change.

 

[AU9377 6,057]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:19 AM, TexasTiger said:

He clearly has very little knowledge of American history.  Many states had everything from literacy requirements to poll taxes in the past.  They were all found to be unconstitutional.  It didn't take a close examination to see why the laws were enacted in the first place.  It wasn't to help make certain that all people had self determination.  I'll leave it at that.

[Didba 5,511]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:45 PM, Mikey said:

My post was about Democrats threatening democracy by weaponizing the DOJ and FBI in order to influence the 2024 election and you reply with this? I think you must be spending this Saturday with one of our well known dopers.

When come back, bring sober.

My question wasn’t a reply to your statement. It was an attempt to keep you on topic. 

Why don’t we keep the insults for kiddie hour, and you just answer the question so we can actually have an adult discussion. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Didba

[TexasTiger 14,364]

17 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Same reason 25 is ridiculous - the constitution. Territories and an independent (by design) capital.  If you want to change it, there’s a process for that. Otherwise, it’s just being whimsical. 

There’s a process for statehood that has been followed dozens of times. Most states were once territories. Dems advocating for statehood for PR is totally in line with precedent. DC probably takes an amendment. We’ve had a few of those, too. We’ve never taken the vote away. These positions are night and day.

[homersapien 12,262]

6 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I can agree with this information. The best way to give up is to hand over. No one has the guts to fight for anything and they want the government to step in and call the shots. They will get what they ask for and the United States experiment will be nothing but a footnote in history. It's comi Of course not.  They feel that way when they don't have it.   Like a train in the distance at a high rate of speed. 

No offense, but to me, that response is a non-sequitur.

[auburnatl1 6,207]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

There’s a process for statehood that has been followed dozens of times. Most states were once territories. Dems advocating for statehood for PR is totally in line with precedent. DC probably takes an amendment. We’ve had a few of those, too. We’ve never taken the vote away. These positions are night and day.

Which is fine. They just have to be states. 

[homersapien 12,262]

,

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s not a me thing. The territories have to actually want to be states. They currently have more independence and their tax rules are different and sometimes more favorable.  It would also chang e election dynamics because candidates would have to travel there. It’s not a subtle  change.

 

Well, I my post was directed to you personally.  You are clearly dodging it.

So allow me to try again. Let's assume these citizens would very much like to the right to vote.

Would you favor providing them that right, even if it took a constitutional amendment?

Edited August 21, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 6,207]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, I my post was directed to you personally.  You are clearly dodging it.

Dear lord, all is well. Do I care if PR, Virgin Islands, various atolls in the South Pacific, or wherever become states?  And they actually want to be? Don’t know - I’ve never thought enough about it. My only point was I get nervous when any party wants to change the rules because it’s suddenly advantageous. If you want to change the rules, there’s a process. My first belief is that we follow the rule of law. Which is why I have contempt for trump

[Didba 5,511]

@Homer stop using depo tactics so well!

exhaust, exhaust, exhaust then spring the miller mouse trap. Honestly, I’m impressed. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Didba