President Trump

I'd like to mention Section 2 of that amendment.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

As we can see by this, the 15th and then the 19th amendment voting was never introduced as a natural right in the same category of freedom of speech/press/religion/etc. It was an issue that began at one point and then changed as we progressed. Even today voting can be taken away from individuals which is something that cannot happen when we're talking about inherent natural rights.

The example you are using of prisons isn't the same because it's precedent that calls to action are not the same as free speech. There is a massive difference in a prison saying they're not going to eat and then calling others to the same action.

I completely agree voting should be a natural right but at this time it's not and if that is the way it'll continue then we should also use that to our advantage. Voters should be able to pass a basic civics test - If they cannot, they should not get the ability to vote.

 

A system like this is ripe for abuse, just look at the literacy tests the south had.

 

I agree, I absolutely understand the downfalls although the objectives of both those examples are clearly different.

But

We have an issue of extremely uneducated and extremely gullible people eating up heaps of false information and then using that information to make decisions that literally alter how our country is going forward.

I think it's just good sense to figure out a way to make sure have at least the faintest idea of how their government works and is formed.

We simply should not have people who actually think a shock jock would be a qualified Homeland Security director being able dictate anything on how this country worked. It's just as insane as someone saying Howard Stern would be a good pick.

 

Sorry, but I honestly cannot see where you're going with this; can you please explain?

Section 2 of the 14th amendment (which, by the way, both of us quoted and thus seem to interpret differently) seems to indicate that voting is a right, yes?

But you are no more American than they are. As citizens, we all have equal rights and equal representation--that's how this country works.

I absolutely agree that dumb people voting for dumb policies hurts the country in both the short and long term, but this country, at its fundamental core, is based on the idea that everyone has the same rights to determine their future.

Sure, that results in some really stupid ideas. But the real problem here is not that dumb people vote for dumb ideas, it's that these ideas are starting to become mainstream. And that's an education issue, not a voting issue.

 

It was a right for white males over 21, yes.

But we can both agree the "right" to vote is not the fundamental same as the right to free speech, religion, among others. Those rights are granted to U.S citizen at the time of birth until they are dead. Voting isn't. You have have your right to vote revoked but you cannot have the rights to anything else revoked.

Voting is not and has never been an inalienable right. It's a legal protection and right which has been subsequently granted to most Americans over a long period of time.

My argument is based on the premise is that voting is not the same type of right as others nor should be viewed as such. Our political system is fundamentally broken, I think all sides can agree to this, and we should begin looking at solutions to address the issues. We must find a way to make it understood that stupid thoughts and ideas and stupid people should not be considered equally to informed positions made in good faith.

Trump inherently is not frightening, what is frightening is that it highlights we have an entire group of people, not all Trump voters for sure, that do not care about the well-being of governance nor want to make decisions on good faith. They care about winning and purposely try to distract and explain away issues that should be genuinely looked at by all Americans and be considered in good faith.

This opinion must be taken care of by Social Darwinism and we simply do not have the tools available currently to do this. There are many things that can be done such as making civics courses mandatory in public schools, removing the ability of the legislature to draw districts and a number of other things.

 

The solution is this: competent presidential nominees show how their more correct. That's the point of the presidential debates news stations set up. Someone smart and capable can prove how they are to just about anyone they need to.

 

But that is one of the fundamental principles this country was founded on. I understand that it's frustrating to have stupid people in government, but as you said, the freedom of speech is an inalienable right. In order to have a free society, stupid people must have the right to express stupid thoughts as stupid ideas, something that's guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I agree that's frightening, yes. But the nature of politics in the 21st century, all around the world, is like this. What, are we supposed to force those people into a prison and make them examine issues fully? If they want to explain away important issues, that's their right. And furthermore, who determines the "issues" that must be examined? The government?

I hope you're misunderstanding the definition of social darwinism. I'll repeat it here for clarity's sake:

A 19th century theory, inspired by Darwinism, in which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.

Essentially, if I'm rich and you're poor, that's because I am INHERENTLY better at being rich than you are, and you're INHERENTLY better at being poor than I am. You are inferior to me, because I was born with the ability to be a better human being than you.

This idea spawned the eugenics movement of the late 19-early 20th centuries.

I hope that's not what you mean, is it?

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 30, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 30, 2017 ---

It didn't work in 2016 because voters are dumb, unfortunately :I

 

Do you mean Social Contract Theory?

 

I'm all for them being able to say whatever they want but the fact is voting isn't protected by Free Speech and it affects the world that I and my children live in.

I'm not talking prison or anything that extreme but we have to marginalize their voices so lessen the affect they have on us, reasonable and sane people.

Not neccessarily, I'm not advocating for the original and literal principle. Perhaps a poor choice of term but I think society has to not consider ideologies based in bad faith and ignorance something that should be taken seriously.

 

2016's election had the issue of no competitors who could accurately argue why they were a good candidate. At least, we hope it's not because the US wants what Trump has proposed.

 

Can you clarify? The majority of American citizens are not approving of Donald Trump nor did the majority of American citizens vote for him.

The 2016 election had the issue of no decent and competitive candidates. The 2016 election suffered from only have 2 viable parties.

 

Sure, VOTING isn't protected by FREE SPEECH, but it's protected inandof itself. By the 14th Amendment, section 2 that you yourself just cited above, voting is protected unless you commit rebellion or some other sort of crime. What sort of crime is having and expressing stupid ideas?

Thought-crime??

A thought exercise: how do you define a "reasonable and sane person?" And how do you do that objectively? Marginalization of one group by another group leads to conflict and war. I'm sure "reasonable and sane" people don't want a civil war.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 31, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 30, 2017 ---

If you ask me, the idea of government and society marginalizing people with stupid ideas is a lot more frightening than the stupid ideas themselves.

 

RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA! COLLUSION COLLUSION COLLUSION! DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM! CNN AND WAPO ARE 90% OF MY SOURCES! HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE!

 

This type of response is beneath the Wubb8t that I know.

Are you asserting Russia had nothing to do with any interference attempt?

Are you asserting Clinton did not win the popular vote?

Are you asserting that members from Trump Campaign did not meet with anyone linked with the Russian government about receiving damaging information about Clinton?

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 31, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 31, 2017 ---

That's the thing, you realistically couldn't implement the change that I said I would like to see and even if you could it would be rife with corruption and used for things more evil than good.

I get that.

It just grinds my gears we have a section of population that consider the well-being of our country as second to pissing off liberals. I'm not talking about Trump voters or even supporters as a whole, hell, most of my best friends are super-Trump supporters and I don't dislike them or hate them. I disagree with them and openly question their critical thinking skills but they are good people.

But you have a solid core of people who are actively subverting our country at this point it seems and what I want (not necessarily what is best) is that we implement some sort of fix with some punitive edge for people who want to engage in politics not in good faith and reason.

There is a massive example between you, a Republican that I don't necessarily agree with on the solution to issues (that we do agree on) and a Trump supporter who is purposely ignoring all information that runs counter to a narrative they've constructed.

People like you care about our nation and try to use reason and logic to dictate a solution - I can respect this and it makes my worldview grow and evolve.

The other group? They are more or less worthless - What do they add?

----

A realistic first step to solving the issue I'm talking about is continuing the fight to fix gerrymandering. No party should be drawing lines which makes the next election more advantageous to themselves. It should be done by a non-political third party, the census bureau or the CBO or similar agency that works with the data only.

A great second step is changing education curriculum to include somewhat comprehensive civics material so that public education studies graduate high school with at some sort of grasp of how our nation runs.

Edit: -- I mentioned Trump supporters primarily but I failed to mention the other side -

The left absolutely has their share of people that absolutely should also be excluded. People who demand safe spaces in order to shut down any opposing thoughts or speech are just as much of a threat to our country as anyone else.

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but Scaramucci has already been removed.
Trump Removes Anthony Scaramucci From Communications Director Role

 

If you bought milk on the day he was hired, it's still good

Lol

 

I 100%, completely agree with all of this.

While it might be true that they might hinder the progress toward a greater American society as a whole (both fringe right and left people), they're still Americans and thus their opinions and ideas can't be legislated against.

Their ideas and thoughts, for the most part, don't cause direct harm to other Americans, so they cannot be illegal. It's the same reason the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are still around--does anyone actually like them? No, 99.9 percent of Americans are opposed to the KKK and the WBC. But they, like everyone else, have and must have the right to think and speak freely.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 31, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 31, 2017 ---

It's funny, because the White House originally scheduled his official start date for August 15. So he's fired before he even officially started his job.

 

This is a really great point. You changed my mind with this well reasoned response.

 

Trump attacking Sessions probably wasn't his best move. His support is shrinking.

My Party Is in Denial About Donald Trump

 

Hey at least he's going after affirmative action.