S
Stephen_C
Guest
Those second generation Americans - Would they be able to run for Office?
Last edited:
Black voter registration effort launched at ‘Black Panther’ screenings
- Status
A
Arkansan
Guest
They are likely (obviously I’m not speaking of every individual) to still identify to some degree with their old country, and therefore not to have the common good firmly at heart.Arkansan:
Why? ten characters
It was more or less universally accepted two centuries ago.
Are you saying that only rich whites could pass a political knowledge test?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Honestly I can’t really tell if the discussion is really being taken seriously or if nationally rejected and outlawed practices are being interjected for some other reason.
J
JulianN
Guest
No, I’m definitely not saying, Love it or leave it. However, he is unlikely to be happy with the constitutional republic in which we live. Property qualifications were indeed a norm, as were a variety of other bad ideas in this country. Thankfully, we’ve moved past them … for the most part.
J
JulianN
Guest
Yeah, I’m going for troll, and I’m out.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I just don’t understand why the poster doesn’t get right to the point. He doesn’t want to encourage minorities to vote, and he wants to prevent immigrants and even their children or grandchildren from voting, likely because he’s got certain points of origin in mind for immigrants that he doesn’t want on the voter roll.
He’s not interested in democracy, he’s interested in limiting it so that his ideal voter is the only one that has any say. If one of our fine posters has taken Heinlein’s Starship Troopers a little too seriously, it looks to me like another has taken Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale literally.
He’s not interested in democracy, he’s interested in limiting it so that his ideal voter is the only one that has any say. If one of our fine posters has taken Heinlein’s Starship Troopers a little too seriously, it looks to me like another has taken Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale literally.
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, I’m saying that the use of such tests (such as literacy tests) have historically been used as voter suppression techniques, and considering the context of the discussion and your already admitted disdain for democracy, I don’t think I’m going very far out on a limb in suggesting that’s exactly what you’re aiming for, a means to prevent certain groups you don’t want to have the vote from ever being able to.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Trump vs Clinton to the death by a waterfall. Well, it wouldn’t be any more bizarre than much of the 2016 election!
N
niceatheist
Guest
Maybe a troll, but I think there’s sincerity here, and if you read the rests of his posts on other threads, it gives a pretty good idea of where his sympathies lie.niceatheist:
Honestly I can’t really tell if the discussion is really being taken seriously or if nationally rejected and outlawed practices are being interjected for some other reason.
E
exnihilo
Guest
As you may know Hans Herman Hoppe wrote an excellent book rationally explaining why democracy is bad. It’s a great read.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Haha, wow, talk about arguing dishonestly!
That wasn’t your only criteria. Rich white men are the most likely to meet your entire criteria, which was more than a simple political knowledge test. They are the most likely to be the head of a household, most likely to own their own home, most likely not to have recent immigrants in their family and, yes, are more likely to be well-educated.
Honestly I think you might be very aware of this given your refusal to properly respond to what I said.
N
niceatheist
Guest
And what a surprise
A
Arkansan
Guest
People who live in countries with abortion are more likely to complain about abortion, people who live in countries with a school shooting every few months are more likely to complain about them, etc.
People are generally more likely to complain about problems they themselves have to deal with.
People are generally more likely to complain about problems they themselves have to deal with.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Hoppe, as with all libertarians, is total trash. Why anyone would pay any mind to a man who supports the creation of communities where homosexuals and dissidents would be “physically removed” is beyond me. Libertarianism only supports liberty for rich, white men who own capital, and explicitly damns anyone else. It’s property uber alles.
A
Arkansan
Guest
I’m just surprised to see a liberal straight-forwardly acknowledging these things.
In any case, the existence of this correlation doesn’t demonstrate why such restrictions would be bad.
In any case, the existence of this correlation doesn’t demonstrate why such restrictions would be bad.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Unless you’re being actively persecuted, leaving your country because it’s run badly is a dumb idea.
When I say that democracy is bad, I mean that America should not be a democracy. That’s not an expression of a personal desire to live in a non-democracy regardless of which country it was.
When I say that democracy is bad, I mean that America should not be a democracy. That’s not an expression of a personal desire to live in a non-democracy regardless of which country it was.
E
exnihilo
Guest
All communities physically remove some people. The only question is who gets removed.
It doesn’t seem like you have an argument against what he says. You just don’t like what he says.
It doesn’t seem like you have an argument against what he says. You just don’t like what he says.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Such restrictions have already been tried. Propertied men were the only people allowed to vote for MPs in Britain for centuries (I believe the original qualification was 100 pounds per year in income). In the US, early on, the same restrictions applied. In both countries the franchise was steadily enlarged; first reducing property requirements, then eliminating them, then in the US opening the franchise to freed slaves and other African-Americans previously denied the vote, then to some Native Americans, and later to women and all Native Americans, and finally, with the 26th Amendment to anyone 18 years or older.
As to your other limitations; the “tests” as it were, well, that’s one of the ways the Jim Crow voting laws worked, by applying tests like literacy tests, with the specific intent of limiting minority voters. And, of course, voter registration drives in some southern communities could be a positively dangerous thing.
So you see, the road you propose has already been trodden, and deemed not only unjust, but fundamentally immoral, a grave social evil.
A
Arkansan
Guest
And government has all the while become worse and worse.Arkansan:
Such restrictions have already been tried. Propertied men were the only people allowed to vote for MPs in Britain for centuries (I believe the original qualification was 100 pounds per year in income). In the US, early on, the same restrictions applied. In both countries the franchise was steadily enlarged
A
Arkansan
Guest
Why shouldn’t it be?
- Status