Why is Biden channeling Beavis?

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 45
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
You know that literally makes you in favor of Jim Crow laws, and against the Civil Rights act? I guess if you're okay with that, I respect you saying so so explicitly. 

Voting is fine..... but letting illiterate people do it? No bueno
What is the danger so inherent you'd like to abridge constitutional guaranteed civil rights? Why are these people worth less than the people who are literate?
#32
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ludofl3x
You know that literally makes you in favor of Jim Crow laws, and against the Civil Rights act? I guess if you're okay with that, I respect you saying so so explicitly. 

Ah yes, thinking illiterate people voting is a bad idea is me "literally" being in favor of Jim Crow.....

Next thing you know, being anti-rioting will also be Jim Crow. Maybe having any criminal laws will!

What is the danger so inherent you'd like to abridge constitutional guaranteed civil rights? Why are these people worth less than the people who are literate?

Voting is an act of force. It is voting to have people with guns enforce your policies. Tell me how letting people who don't understand anything about policies (not only that, but those who can't even read the policies of whoever they vote for) wielding that power is, at least in theory, a good idea.
#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@bmdrocks21
Tell me how letting people who don't understand anything about policies (not only that, but those who can't even read the policies of whoever they vote for) wielding that power is, at least in theory, a good idea.
It's better than the alternative because it ensures all people have a say in how they're governed, I'm not sure it's much more complicated than that. What level of "understanding of policies" would you need to demonstrate in order to be considered eligible to vote? Who would determine it? People already in power, by default. Who would then determine what "understanding" even means? Same people, who'd make sure you 'understood' policies the same way they did, otherwise, you just don't understand it enough, so sorry, you're not eligible to vote. Can't read the policies in any meaningful way because it's a 475 page bill full of legalese and you're a workaday plumber with little time to do so? Whoops, too bad, I guess you can't vote then. I guess your alternative is you can read this one sheet I put out purporting to explain the policy, at least according to how I understand it, so you can read that, agree that you understand it and vote accordingly...since you aren't going to read the whole bill for yourself, you have to take my word for it. 

Get it yet? Voter eligibility has to be controlled by SOMEONE, and that someone is ALWAYS someone that about half the country, sometimes more, didn't vote for and don't agree with. ETA making it as simple as "You are 18 and a US Citizen, therefore you can vote" is the fairest way to do it. 

#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
In a perfect world, all eligible voters would be required to present proof of being abused by the government before voting.
Topic's author
#35
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Us and them?

You are obviously too distanced in time and distance to have that lax of an assessment. The '92 Crime Bill has been maligned from all sides, and it is Biden's one example representing 47 years of Senate activity. One bill? Not a great track record for Senate, let alone justifying a presidency.

If Blacks don't for for him...  that's supposed to be racial animus? Strike two

The Black community is not diverse? Well, obviously, Biden is supporting his own previous statement regarding his perspective of their voting habits, which is an obvious lie. The voting record, alone, verifies the diversity of Blacks, but Joe is blind to it. Strike 3

If you think Biden has not been a follower/supporter of former Sen. Byrd, a KKK member, you don't know American Democrat politics. Not to mention a long history of Joe Biden's racially slurred commentary, such as 7-11 stores, a nationwide chain of convenience stores, always having Indian [as in India] accented people, and sexually insensitive actions like handling women and sniffing their hair, abusing kids claiming ;the like rubbing his hairy legs, and on, and on... Strike 4, 5, 6...? 

Us and them, huh? Nope. Pure, unadulterated facts. The man is useless as a public servant. Chamberlain was much better for Great Britain, and he was disastrous.
#36
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know a single person who approves, do you? I question the accuracy of that number. But then again look at the source, the media.
#37
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ludofl3x
"You are 18 and a US Citizen, therefore you can vote" is the fairest way to do it. 

The point isn't to what degree they can understand policies. It is that literacy is more or less an efficient vetting mechanism for that. If you can't even grasp the language, how the heck are you expected to make good choices if you can't even reach that low bar?

To clarify what I'm dealing with here, do you not believe in any limitations? Should murderers be able to vote (either during their sentence or after it)? Should we no longer require people to sign up for the draft? Should we automatically enroll everyone for voting when they turn 18?
#38
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

On December 17, 2019, President Donald J. Trump channeled the spirit of Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the Third Reich.
He did so in a vicious, self-pitying letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
So, on December 17, he sought to do in a letter what he had failed to do on Twitter. He sent a ranting and insulting six-page letter to Nancy Pelosi.
His letter has no precedent in American history. But there is such a precedent in German history—specifically, the infamous “Last Political Testament” of Adolf Hitler.
Hitler dictated this to a secretary at 4 a.m. on April 29, 1945, shortly after marrying his longtime mistress, Eva Braun.  The marriage occurred in his bunker in Berlin under the now-shattered Reich Chancellery.
Seventy-four years separate Adolf Hitler’s testament from Donald Trump’s letter to Nancy Pelosi. But the similarities between the two are uncanny. 
#39
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
To clarify what I'm dealing with here, do you not believe in any limitations? Should murderers be able to vote (either during their sentence or after it)? Should we no longer require people to sign up for the draft? Should we automatically enroll everyone for voting when they turn 18?

Are murderers American citizens over 18 once they're done serving their time? You should be automatically enrolled for the draft when you are automatically registered to vote when you turn 18 provided you are an American citizen. 
Topic's author
#40
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@FLRW
Trump channeled the spirit of Adolf Hitler, 
Obviously6, you have examples. Would you like to share, or do we take you at your word.

No, I don't.  Examples, please.
#41
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@949havoc
From Hitlers Last Political Testament;

"Before my death, I expel the former Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and the Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler from the party and from all his state offices. In his place I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Minister of the Interior.
Apart altogether from their disloyalty to me, Goring and Himmler have brought irreparable shame on the whole nation by secretly negotiating with my enemy without my knowledge and against my will, and also by attempting illegally to seize control of the State."

From Trump's letter to Pelosi

"By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build."

See the similarity?
Topic's author
#42
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@FLRW
Hitler: I am firing X and Y. They are disloyal to me. They have shamed the nation.

Trump: You violate your oath of office. You are not following the Constitution. You are declaring war on democracy. 

They are distinctly different commentaries:
1. Hitler is firing two members of his administration for disloyalty. His is the power of their continued service in office. Trump is not firing Pelosi, he is declaring her disloyalty to the Constitution.

2. If anyone's actions are similar to the two disloyal German officers, it is Pelosi. Before his inauguration, Democrats were already calling for Trump's impeachment. 
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-14/democrats-impeach-trump-beginning-of-presidency. They ignore that Constitutionally, federal officers, including the President, cannot be impeached and removed from office for any alleged high crimes and misdemeanors before the beginning of their term. This is because impeachment is not a legal, but a political act. However, contrary to what most people believe, a President can be indicted from crimes anytime, even while in office. The prohibition of that is merely DOJ policy, but not a statute. Read Article I, section 3, clause 7, with understanding of the meaning of the term 'nevertheless.'  Also, within an hour of Trump's inauguration, WaPo called for his impeachment, when the only thing he had don e to date was to walk down the street hand-in-hand with his wife. Sorry, that's neither a high crime nor misdemeanor.

3. Pelosi violated her House rules in the first and second impeachment because she just stood at a podium in both cases and announced the House was going to begin impeachment proceedings. By Rule of the House, Rule X & XI, the entire House membership is supposed to vote in chamber for/against the proceeding before it is launched. Then it is the Judiciary, not the Intel Committee, that is supposed to conduct the investigation to ultimately compose the Articles of Impeachment. None of that occurred. Pelosi just announced it was happening, and it was the Intel Committee that conducted the investigation.

Helps to read this stuff to know how yu r government is supposed to work.
#43
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ludofl3x
Are murderers American citizens over 18 once they're done serving their time? You should be automatically enrolled for the draft when you are automatically registered to vote when you turn 18 provided you are an American citizen. 

Ok, then I doubt we are going to find any agreement here on this topic lol.

You are ideologically married to a mass democracy position, and I don't think that "the more votes, the merrier" is even conceptually a good plan (good here meaning competent governance)
Topic's author
#44
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
@bmdrocks21
Both of you need to consider that, of all subjects, more constitutional amendments discuss various aspects of voting rights than any other subject. In fact, all variations of the word "vote" occur 37 times in the Constitution, but the first mention of citizen voting does not occur until the 15A in 1870. Until then, all "voting" discussion is limited to Congress. Until then, it was "assumed" citizens had the right to vote, however, by that simplistic "assumption," women were not citizens since they did not yet enjoy voting rights. It begs the question of how to interpret Article I, section 2, because that section discusses the Census as a count of "whole persons, and 3/5 of all other persons." Women and girls were, indeed, counted, but as to their "personhood," because they could not vote, the question stood, and was not resolved until the 19A, ratified in 1920, which is baffling since emancipate slaves were given the right to vote by the 15A 50 years before the 19A.
Six different amendments discuss voting rights, and we still do not have it settled.
#45
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
this has gotta be at least the 7th post you've made about biden.