- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A list of the 54 Texas Democrats who shot down citizen-only voting rights
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:17 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:17 am to AggieHank86
You're scrambling for responses to defend your warped comment. A sure sign of desperation.
Just take the L again and leave.
Just take the L again and leave.
1
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:17 am to mauser
quote:Well, that would violate specific provisions of the US Constitution (“Equal Protection” and such) which DO SPECIFICALLY apply to the States, so probably not.
Can we vote local segregation?
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:27 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are clearly not a federalist. Nothing wrong with that. Just do not pretend to support the US Constitution, which is very much a federalist document … though the Left has been chipping away at federalism since (at least) Lincoln.
These ideas don't exist in a vacuum, unfortunately. Idea A is dependent on Idea B. You can't discard Idea B and still think Idea A is good.
If we had tight controls on immigration, secure borders and a functioning citizenship process, then perhaps we could have this discussion. We don't, so we can't.
So much has been chipped away, as you say, that some ideas that would normally be palatable, are no longer.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:22 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:19 am to hogcard1964
quote:My position is 100% correct. The stupidity and/or ignorance of others does not alter that fact.
You're scrambling for responses to defend your warped comment. … Just take the L again and leave.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:24 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:That is reasonable.
So much of has been chipped away, as you say, that some ideas that would normally be palatable, are no longer.
If your position is “no voting for legal residents bc there is too much chance illegals will vote,” that is not unreasonable from a policy perspective. If the position is just “We don’ want no legal furrunners votin’ fer Gonzalez city council cuz they is furrunners,” less so.
Candidly, the average LEGAL noncitizen resident is probably better-informed about electoral issues than is the average citizen.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:31 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:26 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Can we vote local segregation?
Well, that would violate specific provisions of the US Constitution (“Equal Protection” and such), so probably not.
You're gonna throw your back out twisting around like this.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:31 am to shinerfan
quote:The fact that you imagine “twisting” just demonstrates that you do not understand the issues under discussion. You are clearly out of your depth.
You're gonna throw your back out twisting around like this.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:32 am to AggieHank86
We are 4 pages into a typical Hank show. It's depressing actually
Here the premise is flawed. He creates a federal law assumption regarding permanent legal residence and then want it to apply to local elections on a state level. Yet he has argued that federal Miranda should not apply at a state level. Ironic is t it.
There is a further degradation of the premise because there is not time limit or location
Limit (like Switzerland mentioned above). No crime limit or any other factor.
In very short, legal residence is a federal issue and controlled by federal law. Federal law prohibits non citizens from voting.
Ironically, under hanks interpretation of the constitution, everyone who gave birth here who was not a citizen, there kids are all illegal too.
I'm good with that
Here the premise is flawed. He creates a federal law assumption regarding permanent legal residence and then want it to apply to local elections on a state level. Yet he has argued that federal Miranda should not apply at a state level. Ironic is t it.
There is a further degradation of the premise because there is not time limit or location
Limit (like Switzerland mentioned above). No crime limit or any other factor.
In very short, legal residence is a federal issue and controlled by federal law. Federal law prohibits non citizens from voting.
Ironically, under hanks interpretation of the constitution, everyone who gave birth here who was not a citizen, there kids are all illegal too.
I'm good with that
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:33 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:32 am to AggieHank86
quote:
That is reasonable.
If your position is “no voting for legal residents bc there is too much chance illegals will vote,” that is not unreasonable from a policy perspective. If the position is just “We don’ want no legal furrunners votin’ fer Gonzalez city council cuz they is furrunners,” less so.
Candidly, the average LEGAL noncitizen resident is probably better-informed than the average citizen.
No, my position is that I'm against non-citizens voting in any capacity. However I understand the argument and can respect it from a theoretical standpoint.
But in our current society, it's a complete non-starter.
quote:
Candidly, the average LEGAL noncitizen resident is probably better-informed than the average citizen.
This is a pretty low bar, and considering how broken our immigration system is, attaining legal non-citizen status is probably a good filter for intelligence and abilities.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Why should legal, permanent residents be banned from voting
Because they aren’t US citizens. Good Lord, Hank.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Explain the logic of requiring national citizenship to vote in local elections
Constitutionally? Even you should be able to figure that out.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:35 am to AggieHank86
These "illegal" immigrants come across our border with no ID, no birth certificate, no form of anything to say whom they are and then make up whatever name suits them. They all need to be vetted for this reason. This is nothing but a ploy by the jackass Democratic party to harvest votes by those whom can't even speak english......and of course, you think that's ok..........................it is not. They need to all be legal citizens period.
You can try to spin this any complicated way you want, the fact is they are not legal and should not vote.
You can try to spin this any complicated way you want, the fact is they are not legal and should not vote.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:36 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Do we? Why do you think that legal residents pay no property tax?
Property tax has absolutely nothing to do with voting rights. Holy shite, Hank. That requirement would be super racist.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Explain the logic of requiring national citizenship to vote in local elections.
1. Because there's no such thing as local citizenship, and
2. It's a slippery slope designed to normalize national voting on an incremental basis. it's how the Democrats accomplish everything they do. Long games and incrementalism.
If you dispute point number two, what do you think the universal Democrat vote is in response to?
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:38 am to AggieHank86
1,000 times no.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Legal local residents pay property and sales tax.
Illegals also pay sales tax, and they indirectly pay property taxes through their landlord.
quote:
They use the streets and their (often-citizen) kids attend the schools.
So do illegals.
quote:
Why should a local jurisdiction by state dictate be precluded from letting them vote on local matters?
For the same reasons illegals can't.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:39 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are clearly out of your depth.
Yeah, me and the Supreme Court.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Explain the logic of requiring national citizenship to vote in local elections
1. Non-citizens, even if here legally, have not undergone the extensive vetting that goes with the citizenship process. We don't even know who these people are for certain. They come here with questionable documentation.
2. They have not learned about our government system. Even our local laws have to follow the constitution.
3. Our election system is fragile and the worst thing for any election is distrust. There is already a lot of distrust, and allowing non-citizens to vote - even in local elections - would cause additional mistrust in the system.
4. If would enable widespread abuse in the election process. There is already abuse, but given even small access would allow even more.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:43 am to dafif
quote:Where the HELL do you get this. “Birthright Citizenship” is IMO bad policy, but it is damned explicit in the Amendment.
under hanks interpretation of the constitution, everyone who gave birth here who was not a citizen, there kids are all illegal too.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:44 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Because only legal citizens should be allowed to vote in ANY election in ANY country.
And only property owners should vote on things that raise property taxes. Why let those who have no skin in the game raise property owners tax burden.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News