Alabama is proof that universal suffrage is a failed idea

Can you Imagine want would happen is a Black Man Accused of Child Moletation and Sexual Misconduct trying to run for a Statewide Office in Alabama?

 

That's what I kept thinking, If a black man had been chasing 14 yo white girls he would have been promptly lynched.

If a white man does it, he almost gets elected as Senator.

 

I normally hate it when that word gets thrown around in relation to modern American politics . . . but when they are literally suggesting this kind of blatant authoritarianism, I guess there really isn't another word.

 

Who knew cruising for underage high school girls when you were in your 30's bite you in the ass.

 

So in order to be the GOP candidate, you have to get your party's nomination. That meant that a lot of people continued to back a pervert and anti-constitutionalist. So while I agree that thankfully the voters of Alabama have higher ethics than Roy Moore and Donald Trump, I still think the point that a lot of people voted for him and supported him is valid and one that should concern the GOP. It threatens to undercut their message of values and family which at this point is one of the few messages they have left to themselves.

 

Don't doubt for a second that this is what we are up against.

We saw crowds cheering for extreme torture, the mass murder of innocent people, and calls for violence. Trump supports a man who uses death squads for law enforcement.

This is evil no different from Nazi Germany and it has to be eliminated, Our biggest enemies are not the Russians or ISIS, rather Americans who support trump. This is a war waged on the country and the Constitution, from within.

 

It's okay.

But look at it another way. The reddest state in the Union and the best we can get out of women is 60%. How do you think women would hold up in a more moderate state with such an intense anti female propaganda campaign against the Republican candidate?

So under the worst conditions and the worst media coverage for our candidate in the reddest state of the union the best we can do with women is 60%.

I'll say this though. Welfare voters are a bigger problem than female voters and obviously many of those would overlap if we just ban people on welfare from voting.

I really don't see Democrats ever winning a presidential election or getting majorities in Congress if their welfare pets can't vote.

 

You’re right, clearly they should have voted for the guy who thinks getting rid of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments would “solve a lot of problems”.

 

Total garbage.

I have gotten very few if any conservatives on here to agree with my more Fringe positions.

 

.

 

I think it admirable that you are advocating for a policy that would deprive you of voting. Takes true guts to believe in taking away one's own rights. Er, that is brave isn't it?

 

I wonder if the OP realizes how many Republican voters receive government assistance?

A huge chunk of the Republican base are whites without college degrees. Around 16 million whites without college degrees would live in poverty without government assistance. Government programs like SNAP, SSI and welfare benefit these people more than any other demographic. These programs lift around 6 million above the poverty line. The rest receiving one or more of these benefits still remain below it.

Look at party affiliation based on income and who would not be eligible to receive these benefits:

$40-60K the middle 20%: 33% Dem, 28% Rep, 40% independent/other

$100K+ the top 20%: 30% Dem, 30% Rep, 40% independent/other.

If you look at Trump supporters income he has just about a 1/3 from the bottom, 1/3 from the middle and a 1/3 from the top.

You also will need to include a way to suppress votes based on age. Dems tend to win the vote of people ages 18-39 by 10%. These people are in the age group who are less likely to vote. So not much has to be done to suppress their vote. Around 65% of the people that vote are above the age of 40. Looking at the last election Trump won by just about 5% of the people aged 40-49, 10% for 50-64 and 8% for 65+. Trump lost by a 10 point margin the 18-39 year old demographic.

Republicans are going to face more and more challenging elections if they do not change. Their base they have comfortable margins with are dying off. The younger generations by just about 10% margin support Democrats.

So your suggestion would not guarantee Republican election victories. It would likely result in less Republicans being elected. Independents for the most part tend to lean liberal and around 5% more in the middle vote Democrat. The earners at the top, excluding the 1%, tend to be pretty much even in elections. Your suggestion could work if you can come up with a way to identify and turn away the independents from the polling place who are going to vote Democrat during that election.

 

I tested at 127

 

Yes, your ideology will fail if the majority of people have anything to say about it. Yes, if you want to win, you will have to engage in voter suppression. This is because you are wrong.

 

People who are not fluent in reading and writing the English language should not be allowed to vote. People who do not have at least a GED should not be allowed to vote. People who have not met a low, lifetime income taxpaying requirement should not be allowed to vote until they meet the threshold. Since the LW/Democrats are constantly going on about the "low education and intelligence" of their political opposition here, they should be all aboard with this, RIGHT DEMOCRATS? ROFLMFAO. As if.

People employed by government, those employed by companies who derive greater than X% of their revenue, government grantees, should not be allowed to vote in applicable elections. This one is key. Unless the voting franchise is rationally limited, such that people can't vote themselves other people's money and liberty, the U.S. will implode utterly sometime in the next 50-75 years.

 

Replacing slow-breeding Westerners with the 3rd world is a race to the bottom. Democracy won't yield very favorable results in the future.

 

Just to be clear your position is that no matter what the topic is if a majority of people agree with something then they are correct.

Yes?

 

They support democracy insofar as it aligns with their left-wing agenda. Time and time again issues like gay marriage and legalization of marijuana were shot down democratically by voters, even in liberal states like California. Did the left accept these democratic outcomes? Of course they didn't. They took one all the way to the Supreme Court and forced it upon people who didn't want it, and in the case of the other, they simply put the proposition back on the ballot over and over again in the hopes that it would eventually pass.

 

In Alambama, 14 yr old is the age many white men start thinking the girl is ripe for marriage. It shouldn't be a surprise.

 

Dog and Pony. The GOP is no better/different than the Dem party.
It's all about party and nothing else. Well, campaign donations also.

 

One is no better than the other, but you spend 100% of your time complaining about the GOP and 0% of the time complaining about Democrats (except that they aren't far-left enough for you). I think that's worth noting.

 

In this instance, the democratic party was better. Maybe next time they won't be, but this time they were. That's simply a fact.

 

Of course you can't back that up. So you just make that up. Par for you.

 

lol, your entire post history is left-wing, yet we are to believe you dislike Democrats equally as much as Republicans? You really want people to see you in this perspective?

 

my position is that you need some degree of charisma and an actual positive message to achieve victories that don't depend on your opponent failing more embarrassingly than yourself. your ideology can only approach charisma or a positive message by harnessing as much impotent rage as possible, but suffers some key strategic failings.

i'm rubbing your nose in something you're bad at, not drawing an ethical principle up. liberalism is wrong about everything but even the most ineffective liberal to hold office in recent memory, obama, was still charismatic enough and could mobilize a base enough to win a race where, in retrospect, the odds were massively in his favor.

it's really cool and bold how your new position is taking an ethical stance against people trying to change people's opinions on politics. it's actually really bad to keep talking about something even if most people don't agree with you yet because of democracy, and when they hear you and start agreeing with you that's actually tyranny.