Gallup Proves Those With Least Education Consistently Vote Democrat

Truth Detector said:
Let's address your weak, moronic talking points; every State that has instuted voter ID accommodates those too stupid and poor to pay for and get a valid ID...as if such people exist other than illegals.

As for the claim that there could be a human being in the modern world who has no need for an ID, that is the most incredibly stupid claim anyone could ever make. You can't cash a check or open a bank account without one. You cannot get a job without one. Therefore, unless you are getting cash under the table to earn a living, like illegals, you cannot survive.

That has to be the dumbest excuse to support the latent racism Liberls wallow in who think minorities are too stupid to accommodate the real world need for ID.

I'm quite certain that if ID cards we're handed out to everyone who needed it, you would still parrot the dimwitted leftist talking points you use as a substitute for independent thought.
Click to expand...

my father, who was an extremely successful Illinois attorney and former state legislator, lived to the ripe old age of 95. He surrendered his driver's license ten years before his death and relied on my mother to drive him where he needed to go. He was a lifelong resident of the city in which we lived. He had been registered to vote there since 1933. He had no valid identification whatsoever. If someone had told him he needed to buy an ID card simply to exercise his right to vote, he would have filed a lawsuit.... no doubt.
 
Truth Detector said:
Let's address your weak, moronic talking points; every State that has instuted voter ID accommodates those too stupid and poor to pay for and get a valid ID...as if such people exist other than illegals.
Click to expand...

I noticed you called others out for their grammar incompetence. Let's see, what are your favorite adjectives ... oh yes, dimwitted moron. Can you spot your dimwitted, moronic mistake?
 
maineman said:
If someone had told him he needed to buy an ID card simply to exercise his right to vote
Click to expand...

I would say voting is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. Both of which are privileges that can be revoked.

If you are convicted of a felony and spend 10 years in prison, you can re-enter society and freely practice your right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. You have all of your Constitutional rights.

But you can't vote.
 
Taft2016 said:
I would say voting is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. Both of which are privileges that can be revoked.

If you are convicted of a felony and spend 10 years in prison, you can re-enter society and freely practice your right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. You have all of your Constitutional rights.

But you can't vote.
Click to expand...

Just like a Pub; you speak with forked tongue.
 
Does a 16 year-old have the right to free speech? Yep. Check.
Does a 16 year-old have the right to assembly freely? Yep. Check.
Does a 16 year-old have the right to free religion? Yep. Check.
Does all of the rights described in the United States Constitution apply to a 16 year-old? Yep. Check.
Does a 16 year-old have a right to vote?

Ehhhh, no.
 
maineman said:
my father, who was an extremely successful Illinois attorney and former state legislator, lived to the ripe old age of 95. He surrendered his driver's license ten years before his death and relied on my mother to drive him where he needed to go. He was a lifelong resident of the city in which we lived. He had been registered to vote there since 1933. He had no valid identification whatsoever. If someone had told him he needed to buy an ID card simply to exercise his right to vote, he would have filed a lawsuit.... no doubt.
Click to expand...

shrugs....he could have kept his old license to serve as identification......wouldn't have cost him a thing unless he got caught trying to drive with it.....
 
kiki said:
Non sequitur as usual.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works.

I say something factual.

Then an adult who disagreed would respond with something factual. Which you did not. You responded with an ad hominem attack.

So me repsonding with a similar ad hominem was not a non-sequitur. It was entirely appropriate and on topic, a topic which you chose to pursue.

You may opt to continue this line of discussion, or you can explain to me how voting is a right.
 
poet said:
Originally Posted by Boris The Animal


That you can't seem to best. I tell you what.....let's compare dick sizes....10 to 1, you're under 4 inches, "hard".
Click to expand...
It is posts like this that make me want to not come here. This adds nothing to the debate and is just juvenile. I KNOW this is not the only one of its kind, but it is a good example.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, that's not how it works.

I say something factual.

Then an adult who disagreed would respond with something factual. Which you did not. You responded with an ad hominem attack.

So me repsonding with a similar ad hominem was not a non-sequitur. It was entirely appropriate and on topic, a topic which you chose to pursue.

You may opt to continue this line of discussion, or you can explain to me how voting is a right.
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried being less truculent? We were not discussing 'voting is a right.' Once again you are making a non sequitur interjection.
 
kiki said:
Have you ever tried being less truculent? We were not discussing 'voting is a right.' Once again you are making a non sequitur interjection.
Click to expand...

The discussion:

Maineman makes comment about voting as a right.
I counter with comment about voting not being a right.
Kiki responds with ad hominem attack.
I respond with ad hominem attack.
Kiki accuses me of a non-sequitur.

Is that about right?
 
Taft2016 said:
The discussion:

Maineman makes comment about voting as a right.
I counter with comment about voting not being a right.
Kiki responds with ad hominem attack.
I respond with ad hominem attack.
Kiki accuses me of a non-sequitur.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Only in your vacuous mind. Is Santa Claus white?
 
Taft2016 said:
I would say voting is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. Both of which are privileges that can be revoked.

If you are convicted of a felony and spend 10 years in prison, you can re-enter society and freely practice your right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc. You have all of your Constitutional rights.

But you can't vote.
Click to expand...

my father was not a criminal. He was just an old man, a long standing registered voter, and he no longer had any valid ID.

And... just so you know... your statement about felons being able to vote is not universally correct in the US.
 
maineman said:
my father was not a criminal. He was just an old man, a long standing registered voter, and he no longer had any valid ID.

And... just so you know... your statement about felons being able to vote is not universally correct in the US.
Click to expand...

I never said your father was a criminal. That's a strawman.

The point is: convicted criminals regain their Constitutional rights upon release from prison.

If voting was a Constitutional right it would also have to be returned to them.

See?
 
Taft2016 said:
I never said your father was a criminal. That's a strawman.

The point is: convicted criminals regain their Constitutional rights upon release from prison.

If voting was a Constitutional right it would also have to be returned to them.

See?
Click to expand...

and, as I said... that is not universally accurate. In Maine, for example, convicted felons can vote even while they're still in fucking prison.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. Citizens who meet the constitutional qualifications to vote have a fucking RIGHT to do so. And if you make them purchase an ID card for the purpose of voting, it's a fucking POLL TAX.

See?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top