2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Telconi]

It's not even ID. To be equivalent to Booker's plan, you could require a person take a civics class and get a license to vote, and if they don't maintain the terms of that license it's revoked.

You could also pull the right to vote from people who have been convicted of no crime but are on some kind of watchlist.

Yeah lets not. We had literacy tests and they were made to be nearly impossible to pass.

But let's make tests that are nearly impossible to pass for other rights because fuck this one particular rural county in California that I hate?

[Telconi]

I do live in California and can't vote in the Democratic primary for California.

Well, you could if you could manage to register as a Democrat without bursting into flames or vomiting.

But I have a conscience, so I can't.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not even ID. To be equivalent to Booker's plan, you could require a person take a civics class and get a license to vote, and if they don't maintain the terms of that license it's revoked.

You could also pull the right to vote from people who have been convicted of no crime but are on some kind of watchlist.

Yeah lets not. We had literacy tests and they were made to be nearly impossible to pass.

But why not? That's word for word what some Dems are pushing for on the 2A, why is it okay to do it to part of the bill of rights but not voting?

[San Lumen]

yeah but you'd be willing to have rigged elections to ensure that. You dont have right to any and all firearms. Not even conservative justices have said you have a right to a bazooka or AK-47.

Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice a lesser value to defend a greater, that's normal, rational, cost benefit analysis. I disagree. So? Justices spent decades defending white people's right to own black people, abolitionists still weren't wrong.

yeah who cares if the next generation inherits a ruined environment and only knows rhinos, zebra , giraffes, birds, fish and countless other creatures from books and is settled with crippling debt, housing only the rich can afford, massive food shortages and no healthcare. As long as you have your guns who cares?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Sure, but if it's okay to put a license requirement on a constitutionally protected right what's really the problem with a voter ID?

Not saying you support the former, tis just a thought experiment really.

It's not even ID. To be equivalent to Booker's plan, you could require a person take a civics class and get a license to vote, and if they don't maintain the terms of that license it's revoked.

You could also pull the right to vote from people who have been convicted of no crime but are on some kind of watchlist.

For the former, as long as the tests are 100% objective (no "adequately explain the meaning of amendment X" questions, it's just A, B, C, or D) and the exact same test is used for everyone*, I don't have a problem with voter tests - much like ID systems, I have a problem when those systems are used to disenfranchise political opponents.
For example, when Jim Crow was still a thing, different tests were given to white and black citizens, with the "black" tests being much more difficult and much more open to interpretation specifically because they wanted to bar black people from the voting booth. That kind of system does more harm than good, but I don't have a problem with tests as a whole just because they're abusable.

For the second, serve me a nopety nope with extra nopesauce. If the government can arbitrarily decide who can and can't vote, then there's no point in having a democracy.

[San Lumen]

Yeah lets not. We had literacy tests and they were made to be nearly impossible to pass.

But why not? That's word for word what some Dems are pushing for on the 2A, why is it okay to do it to part of the bill of rights but not voting?

voting is a right. You do not have a right to any and all firearms

[Telconi]

Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice a lesser value to defend a greater, that's normal, rational, cost benefit analysis. I disagree. So? Justices spent decades defending white people's right to own black people, abolitionists still weren't wrong.

yeah who cares if the next generation inherits a ruined environment and only knows rhinos, zebra giraffes, birds, fish and countless other creatures from books and is settled with crippling debt, housing only the rich can afford, massive food shortages and no healthcare. As long as you have your guns who cares?

Well. I'd prefer if we have both.

[Galloism]

But why not? That's word for word what some Dems are pushing for on the 2A, why is it okay to do it to part of the bill of rights but not voting?

voting is a right. You do not have a right to any and all firearms

You don't have a right to vote in any and all elections.

Every time I try to go vote in Telconi's state, they keep asking me why I'm there and tell me to go back to Arkansas.

I'm a citizen dammit. I have a right to vote.

[San Lumen]

if your 18 and a citizen and not incarnated you do have that right

You do not. If you do not live in California, you cannot vote in California elections.

Also, many states disenfranchise felons even after release. This is constitutional.

I am aware. You know what I meant and it felony disenfranchisement should be outlawed unless your a sex criminal or murderer.

[Grinning Dragon]

But why not? That's word for word what some Dems are pushing for on the 2A, why is it okay to do it to part of the bill of rights but not voting?

voting is a right. You do not have a right to any and all firearms

Sure we do, if we applied strict scrutiny as it is indicated by the last phrase of the 2nd Amendment "Shall not be infringed" instead of what some judges do by applying intermediate scrutiny.

[Valrifell]

But why not? That's word for word what some Dems are pushing for on the 2A, why is it okay to do it to part of the bill of rights but not voting?

voting is a right. You do not have a right to any and all firearms

There are, of course, reasonable bounds in the Constitution. No reasonable person would include thermonuclear weapons as "arms" and most would be happy to limit that definition to swords and guns.

But the Constitution is fairly explicit in that he does have a right to that, and there's a significant amount of SCOTUS cases that back that up and incorporate it to apply to the states.

[San Lumen]

yeah who cares if the next generation inherits a ruined environment and only knows rhinos, zebra giraffes, birds, fish and countless other creatures from books and is settled with crippling debt, housing only the rich can afford, massive food shortages and no healthcare. As long as you have your guns who cares?

Well. I'd prefer if we have both.

keep voting Republican and you won't

[Galloism]

You do not. If you do not live in California, you cannot vote in California elections.

Also, many states disenfranchise felons even after release. This is constitutional.

I am aware.

Then you know the right to vote is not unlimited, just like the right to firearms.

That doesn't mean we should make it unreasonable. Such as, by, oh just for example, requiring you to get a federal license to vote and pass a civics class, like Cory Booker is proposing for the second amendment.

You know what I meant and it felony disenfranchisement should be outlawed unless your a sex criminal or murderer.

I don't see why those two categories should get special treatment.

[San Lumen]

voting is a right. You do not have a right to any and all firearms

You don't have a right to vote in any and all elections.

Every time I try to go vote in Telconi's state, they keep asking me why I'm there and tell me to go back to Arkansas.

I'm a citizen dammit. I have a right to vote.

In your state you have a right to vote in the election.

[Valrifell]

Well. I'd prefer if we have both.

keep voting Republican and you won't

Hey, not sure if you've noticed but trying to guilt political opponents doesn't really work all that well.

[Galloism]

You don't have a right to vote in any and all elections.

Every time I try to go vote in Telconi's state, they keep asking me why I'm there and tell me to go back to Arkansas.

I'm a citizen dammit. I have a right to vote.

In your state you have a right to vote in the election.

So I don't have the right to vote in any and all elections?

[Telconi]

Well. I'd prefer if we have both.

keep voting Republican and you won't

And if I vote Democrat I'll still not have both, I'll take Republican dystopia over the hellish future you want thank you very much.

[Valrifell]

keep voting Republican and you won't

And if I vote Democrat I'll still not have both, I'll take Republican dystopia over the hellish future you want thank you very much.

It just occurs to me that Lumen and Telconi are practically the same person, rhetorically speaking.

[Telconi]

And if I vote Democrat I'll still not have both, I'll take Republican dystopia over the hellish future you want thank you very much.

It just occurs to me that Lumen and Telconi are practically the same person, rhetorically speaking.

Flaming is against the rules my dude.

[San Lumen]

In your state you have a right to vote in the election.

So I don't have the right to vote in any and all elections?

I never said you did. You know what I meant

[Galloism]

So I don't have the right to vote in any and all elections?

I never said you did. You know what I meant

So since I don't have the right to vote in any and all elections, what's the difference in a voting test and a license (AKA, the cory booker plan but for voting)? I already don't have the right to vote in any and all elections.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It just occurs to me that Lumen and Telconi are practically the same person, rhetorically speaking.

Flaming is against the rules my dude.

Nice backhanded insult there my dude, but I must say that Valrifell isn't exactly wrong.

[Gormwood]

Im tired of the attitude that only one sides views matter.

I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is something to just be thrown out whenever it's inconvenient.

And both sides do that. I hate it.

Of course if the Democrats compromised and dropped it the Republicans would see that as capitulation and keep pushing for complete victory.

[Galloism]

I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is something to just be thrown out whenever it's inconvenient.

And both sides do that. I hate it.

Of course if the Democrats compromised and dropped it the Republicans would see that as capitulation and keep pushing for complete victory.

Um, shouldn't you have complete victory on defending a constitutional right? Isn't that basically the ideal state? For the constitutional rights to be... well... rights?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm tired of people thinking the constitution is something to just be thrown out whenever it's inconvenient.

And both sides do that. I hate it.

Of course if the Democrats compromised and dropped it the Republicans would see that as capitulation and keep pushing for complete victory.

>implying complete victory protecting a constitutional right is a bad thing