re: Why not a healthy divorce rather than another civil war?

There is no logical or realistic way to separate into two nations. The talk of it is useless though entertaining in its stupidity.

quote:

---

Of course there is, felons, for example, can't vote. Are you really suggesting that a government that can remove a right for one reason can't do so for other reasons?

---

"There is absolutely zero precedent for taking voter rights away permanently, based on what you perceive is their aptitude. "

That is you not following the conversation very well. I said based on the perception of their aptitude. I do find it odd that a Conservative Republican and is arguing with me over imposing more government control over who and who doesn't have a voice. An authoritarian quality I find to be quite prevalent among supposedly conservative Republicans who don't want large government.

quote:

---

Let's use gun ownership a an example. That's an enumerated right, can't be argued, Americans have the right to own guns. Yet that right can be restricted for a variety of reasons....... How is this possible , I mean you just told us rights can't be taken away.............

---

So for posterity can I go ahead and get you on record and say that you are okay with Democrats trying to control restrictions on your Second Amendment right to own certain guns and create restrictions around their usage?

I'm just trying to get it straight here because it seems like you want large government and change the Constitution to your whim.

To the part that you keep missing about the Voting Rights is that once you changed the ability of people to vote on certain things then they won't be able to vote to ever fix that. There is no precedent for that. If you start shutting people's voices out by the Millions then only the privileged will be able to fix it. You are for going backwards.

Also, those felons that aren't voting anymore where at least convicted of serious crimes whereas you restricting the rights of certain people to vote is all based on aptitude buy an otherwise caring member of society.

quote:

---

Oh nothing extreme. How about picking 20 random questions from the current citizenship test and if you can't get 15 of them correct, you don't get to vote?

Surely we could expect our current citizens to know as much as prospective citizens if they want to vote?

And I'll bet 80% of voters couldn't pass such a test. The ones who cared about voting would study and the ones who studied would make better voters.

---

So you want to go back to post slavery Southern States and screening voters by asking them questions based on education level that they don't receive very well? Lol. That's rich.


I love how you think that caring enough to study questions to vote would mean good things for everyone. Sometimes people have terrible motivations and will study simply based on those. Your hypothetical is severely flawed and doesn't even warrant a real argument or discussion. I have humored you but there really isn't much more to say.