Go right ahead.

TRY to remove voting rights from white male Republicans
who do not have any so-called "skin", whatever nuanced
little thing that is, in the so-called ^{(air quotes)}game^{(/air quotes)}.

TRY IT!!

You might find that it's not a "game" any longer.

Headso: Baz744: I'm just saying to vote you should have some skin in the game

Everyone has "skin in the game".

No, people on food support, welfare, social security, etc. aren't allowed to spend their money in private businesses. They have to horde it forever, build homes out of it, cloth themselves with it and eat it for diner. They don't pay taxes or contribute to society at all.

Only business owners have skin in the game. Their employees are just leeching off of their money so really the employees shouldn't get a say either.

Baz744: I'm not looking for "bites." I'm looking for any reasoned position on why certain people should be allowed to vote at all.

How about "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? If you the government can tell you what to do, take away your life, liberty, or property at any time, then you have "skin in the game".

Philip Francis Queeg: You'd be screwed if the test was:

Does the US Constitution refer to voting as a right?


I'd have been screwed by a pedagogically unsound single question test instead of one designed to test a broad range of knowledge, that is correct. If that question appeared on a decent test, you might say I would have "missed the question."

Baz744: Philip Francis Queeg: You'd be screwed if the test was:

Does the US Constitution refer to voting as a right?


I'd have been screwed by a pedagogically unsound single question test instead of one designed to test a broad range of knowledge, that is correct. If that question appeared on a decent test, you might say I would have "missed the question."

It is a good thing no one listens to you.

Baz744: Honestly, I think we should reconsider whether people without skin in the game--people with no substantial property or earned income--should be allowed to vote.

Other than that, people who aren't smart enough to overcome the bureaucracy involved with getting a driver's license, for one. Also, people who can't pass certain basic citizenship tests.





Have fun amendin' the constitution!!


So anyway, yeah, it's fairly obvious you're just trolling here. But let's imagine that a sincere idiot came here spouting all that same nonsense, instead of a guy who plays an idiot on the politics tab -- at the present time the U.S. and State constitutions do *not* limit the franchise that way, and as far as I know nothing serious is even being proposed to change that.

So why should we let a perfectly good Politics Tab thread get hijacked to discuss what's only an unusually moronic pet peeve??

Baz744: Okay, so I misspoke. Voting is a "right" to "qualified citizens."

Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

Baz744: Honestly, I think we should reconsider whether people without skin in the game--people with no substantial property or earned income--should be allowed to vote.

Only rich people can vote? You think poor people have no "skin in the game?" On the contrary, I would argue rich people have no skin in the game and it is the poor people who have the most "skin in the game." Warren Buffet for instance has essentially zero skin in the game, I cannot think of a single law that would change Warren Buffet's lifestyle even a little bit.

Substantial property or earned income can't vote? Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game? They have no say who their commander in chief is? Just a bunch of rich people should get to vote in a rich dude for POTUS who orders around the poor people in the military who had no say? Man, you're a dick.

If voting is already a right, then what are these guys doing?

"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal."

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Did anyone else notice that whoever tagged this piece is a dumbass? It wasn't Alan Keyes who interviewed Sir Douchebag, it was Scott Keyes from Thinkprogress. FFS, people get so farking sloppy on Fridayday ending in s.

I failed Name the Day class but what day ends in 's'?

I need to drink heavily. Now.

Correct answer: y

Let us honor our fallen soldiers by getting wasted this weekend! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!

birdboy2000: Baz744

So if your company lays you off, you should lose the franchise too? That's adding insult to injury.

If your company lays you off, and you've no accumulated assets, and you don't find another job before the next voting registration period ends, yes.

Baz744: I'd have been screwed by a pedagogically unsound single question test

Yeah, and you chose the question yourself and got it wrong. It was you who brought it up in the first place dude.

Diogenes: I'm starting to think we made a big mistake and should ask England for her forgiveness.

No the mistake happened when we won the Civil War....

OK, that's it, "lose your job and you lose your right to vote"!?

Are you REALLY farking serious!!??

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If voting is already a right, then what are these guys doing?

"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal."

Trying to make an argument off of a SCOTUS case where the per curiam opinion stated in the opinion itself that it should never be cited by another case is pretty silly.

Baz744: birdboy2000: Baz744

So if your company lays you off, you should lose the franchise too? That's adding insult to injury.

If your company lays you off, and you've no accumulated assets, and you don't find another job before the next voting registration period ends, yes.

Should Ann Romney be allowed to vote?

lennavan: Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

A person of any age over 18, race, or sex who is smart enough to get a driver's license, has skin in the game, and can pass a basic citizenship test. And whatever other requirements states want to impose that aren't affirmatively prohibited.

Only rich people can vote?

No, I didn't say that. Try again.

Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game?

Soldiers have earned income, though there is an argument the income for enlisted personnel isn't "substantial." Certainly commissioned officers make enough to qualify.

You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a commission. Not that hard.

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Did anyone else notice that whoever tagged this piece is a dumbass? It wasn't Alan Keyes who interviewed Sir Douchebag, it was Scott Keyes from Thinkprogress. FFS, people get so farking sloppy on Fridayday ending in s.

I failed Name the Day class but what day ends in 's'?

I need to drink heavily. Now.

Correct answer: y

Let us honor our fallen soldiers by getting wasted this weekend! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Hey, I am also going to eat a lot of barbequed pork products - you know, cuz we fight mooslims or something.

that'll show them swarthy bastards

Baz744: lennavan: Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

A person of any age over 18, race, or sex who is smart enough to get a driver's license, has skin in the game, and can pass a basic citizenship test. And whatever other requirements states want to impose that aren't affirmatively prohibited.

Only rich people can vote?

No, I didn't say that. Try again.

Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game?

Soldiers have earned income, though there is an argument the income for enlisted personnel isn't "substantial." Certainly commissioned officers make enough to qualify.

You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a college education and then get a commission. Not that hard.

FTFY. And unless you know a way to get a free college education to people, congrats on violating the 24th Amendment.

skullkrusher: coeyagi: Did anyone else notice that whoever tagged this piece is a dumbass? It wasn't Alan Keyes who interviewed Sir Douchebag, it was Scott Keyes from Thinkprogress. FFS, people get so farking sloppy on Fridayday ending in s.

I failed Name the Day class but what day ends in 's'?


New Year's, Valentine's, Mother's, Father's, Columbus, Christmas

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: If voting is already a right, then what are these guys doing?

"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal."

Trying to make an argument off of a SCOTUS case where the per curiam opinion stated in the opinion itself that it should never be cited by another case is pretty silly.

You do know that Bush v Gore did not ESTABLISH that particular point of law, right? As the snippet states, that's just the first time that a lot of Americans became AWARE that they have no affirmative right to vote protected by the Constitution. It's been that way since...well...1791 or so.

Look, all he's saying is that you can't trust the poor with the power to vote because they'll vote for their own self-interest and it will lead to some politicians who push for policies that favor them over the rest of the country. If we let only job creators with a net worth beyond a certain breaking point vote (to keep out the "independent contractors" pretending to be a small business owners to get an equal say to real job creators even though they are still poor) we can take the possibility of the voters being selfish in their voting preferences. Rich peop- err, I mean job creators have enough security that they won't use potential personal benefit as a metric for choosing which policies they support, and instead will use pure utilitarian logic to determine that a social safety net creates too much of a moral hazard for people to be lazy and we have to make sure the system is designed to reward success and punish failure (unless it's a really big failure, in which case society needs to support the job creators so they can get back to succeeding.)

coeyagi: So, what about voting for someone who would help you get some skin in the game

I think this is exactly the problem solved by restricting voting to responsible people.


And why is intelligence less important to you than someone who may have gotten farked for a variety of reasons?

Liberals usually define "gotten farked" as "made bad choices." Most of those people should be excluded from voting.

WTF744: You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a commission.

fracto73: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Did anyone else notice that whoever tagged this piece is a dumbass? It wasn't Alan Keyes who interviewed Sir Douchebag, it was Scott Keyes from Thinkprogress. FFS, people get so farking sloppy on Fridayday ending in s.

I failed Name the Day class but what day ends in 's'?


New Year's, Valentine's, Mother's, Father's, Columbus, Christmas

well zingeroo on me :)

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: If voting is already a right, then what are these guys doing?

"The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal."

Trying to make an argument off of a SCOTUS case where the per curiam opinion stated in the opinion itself that it should never be cited by another case is pretty silly.

You do know that Bush v Gore did not ESTABLISH that particular point of law, right? As the snippet states, that's just the first time that a lot of Americans became AWARE that they have no affirmative right to vote protected by the Constitution. It's been that way since...well...1791 or so.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's the reason why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is undeniably constitutional. The states have the plenary power to choose whatever electors they see fit. If they want to give them to the guy that won the national vote even if the other guy won 80% of the popular vote in their state, they clearly have the power to do so.

lennavan: Diogenes: He's not entirely wrong, but is overly simplistic.

He is entirely wrong.

Baz744: Nowhere does the Constitution refer to voting as a "right."

Nem Wan: Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote

Here's another: 19th amendment.

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 sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here's another: 15th amendment.

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.

Here's another: 26 amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Again I say, he's entirely wrong.

Yeah but those are the lame-o amendments created by man (and the 14th was never even really ratified). The original according to the wise founding fathers who always totally agreed except on whether liberty was awesome or uber awesome is what counts .

Baz744: lennavan: Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

A person of any age over 18, race, or sex who is smart enough to get a driver's license, has skin in the game, and can pass a basic citizenship test. And whatever other requirements states want to impose that aren't affirmatively prohibited.

Only rich people can vote?

No, I didn't say that. Try again.

Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game?

Soldiers have earned income, though there is an argument the income for enlisted personnel isn't "substantial." Certainly commissioned officers make enough to qualify.

You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a commission. Not that hard.

You know, I have to take this point in the conversation as the time where I revert to my original argument:

lennavan: WELL DONE SIR. You are absolutely guaranteed bites on this one. You even prefaced it with a statement declaring yourself serious. The effort here will truly pay off and I congratulate you.

11/10.

Serious Black: Baz744: lennavan: Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

A person of any age over 18, race, or sex who is smart enough to get a driver's license, has skin in the game, and can pass a basic citizenship test. And whatever other requirements states want to impose that aren't affirmatively prohibited.

Only rich people can vote?

No, I didn't say that. Try again.

Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game?

Soldiers have earned income, though there is an argument the income for enlisted personnel isn't "substantial." Certainly commissioned officers make enough to qualify.

You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a college education and then get a commission. Not that hard.

FTFY. And unless you know a way to get a free college education to people, congrats on violating the 24th Amendment.

First off, the military pretty much will pay for a college education for its soldiers.

Second off, no one is forcing anyone to be a soldier. You can leave the military and get a job that pays better. Or you can just not join in the first place, and get a job that pays better.

This About That: FTFA: "I think that this early voting thing was something we provided and now some people see it as an entitlement, which is really not consistent with constitutional voting practices and procedures."

So: Given that this is the obvious truth, WTF is the problem with either showing up on election day or voting by mail? Should elections really take two weeks? No.

So: Subby, you need to read all the words, including "early".


Looking at the early voting "controversy" from the other side, I've never heard one single convincing argument against it, from anyone, ever.

It's either "What's wrong with the old way, huh? Huh???" like you just did, or "We just shouldn't. Why? Just because, that's why" like this fool West. And maybe once in a while a "Waaaaaah, early voting coooooosts too much", of course with no evidence presented that shows it's a budget buster.

Hard to find anything from Republicans these days that's neither gaming the system for their own & their benefactors' benefit, nor government by pet peeve.

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: coeyagi: Did anyone else notice that whoever tagged this piece is a dumbass? It wasn't Alan Keyes who interviewed Sir Douchebag, it was Scott Keyes from Thinkprogress. FFS, people get so farking sloppy on Fridayday ending in s.

I failed Name the Day class but what day ends in 's'?


New Year's, Valentine's, Mother's, Father's, Columbus, Christmas

well zingeroo on me :)


Oh, I forgot Patriot's day for those of us living in Maine or Mass.

And I would say many of these days might make people a little sloppy at work.

Grungehamster

Look, all he's saying is that you can't trust the poor with the power to vote because they'll vote for their own self-interest and it will lead to some politicians who push for policies that favor them over the rest of the country. If we let only job creators with a net worth beyond a certain breaking point vote (to keep out the "independent contractors" pretending to be a small business owners to get an equal say to real job creators even though they are still poor) we can take the possibility of the voters being selfish in their voting preferences. Rich peop- err, I mean job creators have enough security that they won't use potential personal benefit as a metric for choosing which policies they support, and instead will use pure utilitarian logic to determine that a social safety net creates too much of a moral hazard for people to be lazy and we have to make sure the system is designed to reward success and punish failure (unless it's a really big failure, in which case society needs to support the job creators so they can get back to succeeding.)


Makes sense to me.

lennavan: You know, I have to take this point in the conversation as the time where I revert to my original argument:

Yes, your original ad hom argument. Good for you.

Baz744: lennavan: Yes, you sure did. So who do you think is a "qualified citizen?"

A person of any age over 18, race, or sex who is smart enough to get a driver's license, has skin in the game, and can pass a basic citizenship test. And whatever other requirements states want to impose that aren't affirmatively prohibited.

Only rich people can vote?

No, I didn't say that. Try again.

Who the fark do you think fights our wars for us? So the people who are putting their lives on the line for our country have no skin in the game?

Soldiers have earned income, though there is an argument the income for enlisted personnel isn't "substantial." Certainly commissioned officers make enough to qualify.

You're a soldier who wants to vote? Get a commission. Not that hard.

WTFingF744:

Second off, no one is forcing anyone to be a soldier. You can leave the military and get a job that pays better. Or you can just not join in the first place, and get a job that pays better.

Well, where are these jobs?

Serious question.

Personally, as an attorney who got A's in Con Law in Law School, and got a 97% on the Con Law portions of the MPT portion of the 2001 Ohio Bar exam, I think the vote should be restricted only to those who can match those accomplishments. After all, only someone as well versed in Constitutional law as I should have a voice in the running of the government.

Good luck, Proles.

coeyagi: You made a bad choice because your insurance company doesn't cover an experimental cancer treatment

Most forms of cancer I've heard of are caused by bad choices. Smoking, overeating, overtanning, etc. And if you want your insurance company to cover experimental cancer treatment, bargain for that in advance of getting cancer.

Baz744: lennavan: You know, I have to take this point in the conversation as the time where I revert to my original argument:

Yes, your original ad hom argument. Good for you.

Ad hom? Quite the contrary, it is a compliment. I cannot possibly fathom someone being so stupid that they would honestly write the posts you did in the thread and actually believe them. I therefore dismiss the possibility that you are that stupid and must then conclude you're just trollin around. So don't be silly, be flattered.

Kittypie070: OK, that's it, "lose your job and you lose your right to vote"!?

Are you REALLY farking serious!!??

There's also a conservative school of thought that anyone who is an employee of the government should lose the right to vote (sometimes they exempt soldiers, police and fire), Ann Coulter has openly advocated for getting rid of women's right to vote (whether she's trolling or not, the idea itself gets support).

Eventually the voter caging efforts and the voter ID efforts and the vote suppression efforts will not be enough to keep the current incarnation of the GOP competitive . Then it will get even crazier.

coeyagi: Baz744: coeyagi: So, what about voting for someone who would help you get some skin in the game

I think this is exactly the problem solved by restricting voting to responsible people.


And why is intelligence less important to you than someone who may have gotten farked for a variety of reasons?

Liberals usually define "gotten farked" as "made bad choices." Most of those people should be excluded from voting.

You made a bad choice because your insurance company doesn't cover an experimental cancer treatment which wipes out your savings, right after getting laid off because some heartless millionaire(called Ritt Momney) decided he wasn't rich enough? Gosh, I guess you made the poor choice to live in America where pollution, you know, sometimes farks up our health.

//In summation, your argument is invalid


I would say anyone who has to follow the rules of this country has skin in the game. If the government can throw me in jail for the rest of my life I think that is more important than some money. 'Skin in the game' is a stupid metric by which to decide voting rights.

Well when you have sold out to your own race you can't really sink any lower...