11 Massachusetts Democrats sponsored a bill to allow Non-Citizens to Vote

[Into the Night]

Immigrants, by being here, have rights.

Illegal aliens have no rights to stay in the United States.

They are allowed due process.

Illegal aliens are criminals and immediately subject to deportation. No trial or hearing required.

Well, they were until Trump came along. The process of becoming a citizen takes a long, long time. Our criminals are entitled to a legal defense.

Illegal aliens are ineligible to become citizens of the United States.

 

[Nordberg]

You're a sociopath, you don't feel anything for other people, for one. For two, we're not like you.

True, Trump has given you permission to hate in public, like he does. Attacks on Jews and gays are soaring. I don't hate anyone, even Trump.

 

[EdwinA]

True, Trump has given you permission to hate in public, like he does. Attacks on Jews and gays are soaring. I don't hate anyone, even Trump.

lol and you commies are failing at trying to shift the blame for your racist Party's violent street thugs on Trump, like the moron losers you are. Hate is your Party's only real platform.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The bill introduced in the Massachusetts House was referred to the Joint Committee on Election Laws on January 23 of this year.

I have no problem with non-citizens who are in the US legally obtaining a driver's license. I do have a problem with illegal, criminal, aliens doing so. And no, illegal, criminal, aliens in particular should have no voting rights at any level of government.

They're supposed be dumped in red districts, not rich liberal enclaves.

Right-wingers like to pretend they care about a fair vote.

THEY DO NOT.

They are totally willing to allow votes of individuals who live in sparsely populated states to many time more voting power in federal elections as one individual in highly populated states. But that is because voters in sparsely populated states tend to vote red.

Right -wing indignation about voting is bullshit.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right-wingers like to pretend they care about a fair vote.

THEY DO NOT.

They are totally willing to allow votes of individuals who live in sparsely populated states to many time more voting power in federal elections as one individual in highly populated states. But that is because voters in sparsely populated states tend to vote red.

Right -wing indignation about voting is bullshit.

That isn't a "Right-winger" thing, it's a founding principle of the nation. States have the lead role, while the federal government is supposed to be limited to things states themselves cannot do. The system was set up to try and keep large, high population, states from trampling the rights of smaller, low population, states.

You don't grasp that. Instead, you are arguing for mob rule. That is bullshit.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That isn't a "Right-winger" thing, it's a founding principle of the nation. States have the lead role, while the federal government is supposed to be limited to things states themselves cannot do. The system was set up to try and keep large, high population, states from trampling the rights of smaller, low population, states.

You don't grasp that. Instead, you are arguing for mob rule. That is bullshit.

If it were in your favor to have one vote count for just one vote rather than the way it is now...you would champion the idea with fervor.

Like I said, your side is only pretending to care about fairness in voting.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If it were in your favor to have one vote count for just one vote rather than the way it is now...you would champion the idea with fervor.

No, I wouldn't. I recognize that mob rule and a simple majority vote often ends with disaster. Quoting George Carlin:

Most people are stupid. A fair portion are really, really, stupid.

Like I said, your side is only pretending to care about fairness in voting.

My side (which doesn't equal Republican) cares that voting is both honest and informed. Your side doesn't give a shit about either, so long as you win.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, I wouldn't. I recognize that mob rule and a simple majority vote often ends with disaster. Quoting George Carlin:

So you want to pick the people who can vote and the ones who cannot?

How would you do that?

Why should the slightly over 4,000,000 people of the combined states of Wyoming, Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and Montana...be represented in the Senate with 10 Senators...while the 40,000,000 (ten times as many) people of California are represented there by only 2?

How is that "fair" in any way whatsoever?

And that 10 fold impact also happens in the Electoral College. How is that "fair?"

If it were happening in the other direction...with the conservative people being screwed as badly...you would be going ape shit in opposition to it.

I don't. I can see the large group of American conservatives as very powerful despite their stupidity.

Most people are stupid. A fair portion are really, really, stupid.

I can see American conservatism as clearly as you. I realize the stupidity, TA.

My side (which doesn't equal Republican) cares that voting is both honest and informed. Your side doesn't give a shit about either, so long as you win.

Horseshit!

How do you see the situation I mentioned above as fair in any way?

My side (which doesn't equal Democrat) is the one that cares that voting is both honest, informed, and FAIR. Your side cares only about winning...no matter how unfair it is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So you want to pick the people who can vote and the ones who cannot?

How would you do that?

We could start with some obvious requirements:

Completion of national service. This doesn't mean military but rather having been tested (say, gotten a score of something like 50 on a test like the ASVAB) and given national (or state) service for something like 2 years. If you can't manage to pass the test and do the service, you can't vote. The combination would be necessary to reduce cheating on the test alone.

Elimination of anyone receiving welfare or subsistence money. That is welfare, SNAP, section 8, Medicaid, etc. You can't vote because you have a vested interest. Social security, Medicare, disability payments, unemployment, and the like would not be disqualifiers as you paid in to receive those back. That is, if you aren't productive but could be, then you are nothing but a 'taker.' You can't vote yourself more benefits. You have to be an "owner" or a "producer" to have a say in things.

Why should the slightly over 4,000,000 people of the combined states of Wyoming, Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and Montana...be represented in the Senate with 10 Senators...while the 40,000,000 (ten times as many) people of California are represented there by only 2?

Because Wyoming, Alaska, et al., are more than just a collection of people. They consist property, resources, etc., too. Why shouldn't they have a considerable say in how those are used particularly when they have far more of them than people living in a high-rise apartment building in NYC?

How is that "fair" in any way whatsoever?

Define fair and show me how life in general is "fair."

And that 10 fold impact also happens in the Electoral College. How is that "fair?"

Because it isn't just about a body count. How is it fair that people living in a big city get to determine how people living in a rural area get to use their land?

If it were happening in the other direction...with the conservative people being screwed as badly...you would be going ape shit in opposition to it.

You are wrong.

I don't. I can see the large group of American conservatives as very powerful despite their stupidity.

You are the epitome of what Calin was talking about.

I can see American conservatism as clearly as you. I realize the stupidity, TA.


Horseshit!

How do you see the situation I mentioned above as fair in any way?

My side (which doesn't equal Democrat) is the one that cares that voting is both honest, informed, and FAIR. Your side cares only about winning...no matter how unfair it is.

No, you don't. You are the half he's talking about...

 

[Ross Dolan]

We could start with some obvious requirements:

Completion of national service. This doesn't mean military but rather having been tested (say, gotten a score of something like 50 on a test like the ASVAB) and given national (or state) service for something like 2 years. If you can't manage to pass the test and do the service, you can't vote. The combination would be necessary to reduce cheating on the test alone.

So you do want to set the standard. Being a citizen is not enough for you...the person has to meet requirements that you want set.

Hum! And you will continue that absurd pretense that you want government off our backs, right.

Elimination of anyone receiving welfare or subsistence money. That is welfare, SNAP, section 8, Medicaid, etc. You can't vote because you have a vested interest. Social security, Medicare, disability payments, unemployment, and the like would not be disqualifiers as you paid in to receive those back. That is, if you aren't productive but could be, then you are nothing but a 'taker.' You can't vote yourself more benefits. You have to be an "owner" or a "producer" to have a say in things.

EVERYBODY HAS A VESTED INTEREST, TA. EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. WAKE UP.

Because Wyoming, Alaska, et al., are more than just a collection of people. They consist property, resources, etc., too. Why shouldn't they have a considerable say in how those are used particularly when they have far more of them than people living in a high-rise apartment building in NYC?

PEOPLE elect their government...not patches of land or resources.

This bullshit is only fair (in some bizarre way) to you because it furthers the far right agenda of destroying the United States.

Define fair and show me how life in general is "fair."

Life is not fair. But government should be as fair as we can make it...and you know that. But...I doubt you have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that.

Because it isn't just about a body count. How is it fair that people living in a big city get to determine how people living in a rural area get to use their land?

It is fair to have each person have one vote...and to have those votes carry equal weight in decisions about governances. You would easily realize that except that the unfairness gives your disgusting agenda an advantage.

So live with it. I hope some day you wake up and see the injustice and rue your feelings of today .

You are wrong.

HORSESHIT! I am definitely not wrong on this.

You are the epitome of what Calin was talking about.

No, you don't. You are the half he's talking about...

If he were alive, I doubt you would get George Carlin to agree with you.

 

[Into the Night]

True, Trump has given you permission to hate in public, like he does. Attacks on Jews and gays are soaring. I don't hate anyone, even Trump.

Blatant lie, Sybil. You can't deny your membership in the Church of Hate.

 

[Into the Night]

Right-wingers like to pretend they care about a fair vote.

THEY DO NOT.

They are totally willing to allow votes of individuals who live in sparsely populated states to many time more voting power in federal elections as one individual in highly populated states. But that is because voters in sparsely populated states tend to vote red.

Right -wing indignation about voting is bullshit.

The President is not elected by popular vote, Rosin.

 

[Into the Night]

If it were in your favor to have one vote count for just one vote rather than the way it is now...you would champion the idea with fervor.

Like I said, your side is only pretending to care about fairness in voting.

One vote counts for only one vote, Rosin. The President is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I wouldn't. I recognize that mob rule and a simple majority vote often ends with disaster. Quoting George Carlin:

Most people are stupid. A fair portion are really, really, stupid.

My side (which doesn't equal Republican) cares that voting is both honest and informed. Your side doesn't give a shit about either, so long as you win.

He despises the Constitution of the United States.
He says he wants a democracy (instead of the republic we have now), but he really wants an oligarchy (he thinks he is part of The Elite).

 

[Into the Night]

So you want to pick the people who can vote and the ones who cannot?

How would you do that?

See the Constitution of the United States, particularly Article II.

Why should the slightly over 4,000,000 people of the combined states of Wyoming, Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and Montana...be represented in the Senate with 10 Senators...while the 40,000,000 (ten times as many) people of California are represented there by only 2?

Because the Senate was created to represent the State governments, not the people.

That changed with the 17th amendment. It should be repealed.

The HOUSE represents the people.

How is that "fair" in any way whatsoever?

Every State has representation.

And that 10 fold impact also happens in the Electoral College. How is that "fair?"

Every State has representation.

If it were happening in the other direction...with the conservative people being screwed as badly...you would be going ape shit in opposition to it.

I have never been in opposition to the Electoral College. I support it, and understand the reason for it's existence. Every State has representation.

I don't. I can see the large group of American conservatives as very powerful despite their stupidity.

The Constitution of the United States, which you despise, is not stupid.

I can see American conservatism as clearly as you. I realize the stupidity, TA.

The Constitution of the United States, which you despise, is not stupid.

Horseshit!

How do you see the situation I mentioned above as fair in any way?

Every State is represented.

My side (which doesn't equal Democrat) is the one that cares that voting is both honest, informed, and FAIR. Your side cares only about winning...no matter how unfair it is.

The United States was never a democracy. The oligarchy you want is not a democracy either, DEMOCRAT.