Reasonable limitations on voting

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by BeNotDeceived »



There is part 2 showing shortest split-line method. More here --> http://rangevoting.org/

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:46 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:25 am
Robin Hood wrote: October 13th, 2017, 5:53 am How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?
Define "adult."
Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?
No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.
So the childless couple, already deeply saddened that they are unable to have a child, have it rubbed in their faces everytime an election comes around?

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by gardener4life »

skmo wrote: October 14th, 2017, 12:55 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:35 pm I'd rather the military not fight and die at all. There would be a lot less of that going on if they stayed home and only defended our borders. I don't think a militia would be considered government employees.
I'm all for downsizing the military, but a militia won't work today, even I'm enough of a realist to see that. However, I agree we need to stop fighting around the world and come home. We honor agreements and allies we've had in the past because we need the world to know we'll stand together with them as strongly as we'll stand against others who attack us, but when we think about what we spend in the way of military, it's shameful.
This is a very reasonable comment! Thank you.

One of the concerns I have about this ally business is seeing that especially the European Union countries and others don't have the loyalty to protect and help us anymore. Its very easy to see they were even trying to force us to change to be like them instead of leave us alone and/or help us. So I don't see that they will seriously help us when it's needed. And look how much we're wasting on foreign aid to 'supposed allies'. :(

Britain finally said in a recent news article that they'd assist and stand with us on the antinuclear proliferation but it took them months to do that. Japan did too very early on in fact. But its crazy how this isn't a two way street with most of our supposed allies.

And this concerns me most not because I think our country is better than others but because I believe the stability of our country is what makes it so our missionary force able to go out peacefully. Missionaries need stability and peace to be able to go out. The U.S. being a powerful country does help missionaries to be safe, and I think thats part of why we have blessings of prosperity. But the number of missionaries has been going down. It went as high as 89,000 when they did the age change in/around 2012. Then in the last year or so it dropped from around 74,000 to close to 70,900. If the number of missionaries is going down even while the numbers of church is getting higher then also that raises concerns on people's commitment to their faith.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

gardener4life wrote: October 14th, 2017, 2:22 am
skmo wrote: October 14th, 2017, 12:55 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:35 pm I'd rather the military not fight and die at all. There would be a lot less of that going on if they stayed home and only defended our borders. I don't think a militia would be considered government employees.
I'm all for downsizing the military, but a militia won't work today, even I'm enough of a realist to see that. However, I agree we need to stop fighting around the world and come home. We honor agreements and allies we've had in the past because we need the world to know we'll stand together with them as strongly as we'll stand against others who attack us, but when we think about what we spend in the way of military, it's shameful.
This is a very reasonable comment! Thank you.

One of the concerns I have about this ally business is seeing that especially the European Union countries and others don't have the loyalty to protect and help us anymore. Its very easy to see they were even trying to force us to change to be like them instead of leave us alone and/or help us. So I don't see that they will seriously help us when it's needed. And look how much we're wasting on foreign aid to 'supposed allies'. :(

Britain finally said in a recent news article that they'd assist and stand with us on the antinuclear proliferation but it took them months to do that. Japan did too very early on in fact. But its crazy how this isn't a two way street with most of our supposed allies.

And this concerns me most not because I think our country is better than others but because I believe the stability of our country is what makes it so our missionary force able to go out peacefully. Missionaries need stability and peace to be able to go out. The U.S. being a powerful country does help missionaries to be safe, and I think thats part of why we have blessings of prosperity. But the number of missionaries has been going down. It went as high as 89,000 when they did the age change in/around 2012. Then in the last year or so it dropped from around 74,000 to close to 70,900. If the number of missionaries is going down even while the numbers of church is getting higher then also that raises concerns on people's commitment to their faith.
With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Rose Garden »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 1:47 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:46 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:25 am

Define "adult."
Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?
No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.
So the childless couple, already deeply saddened that they are unable to have a child, have it rubbed in their faces everytime an election comes around?
That's a lot less heartbreaking than the troubles irresponsible voting bring upon us. Since the limitation is caring for a child, not conceiving one, adoptive parents are just as eligible as natural parents. The couples who end up being barred from voting because they can't conceive a child and can't adopt a child will be relatively few.

There is no perfect system to determine who has the right to vote so I would ask, is that point serious enough to dismiss the whole idea? No matter what, some people are going to be excluded from voting, if just because they are too young. Will we allow anyone of any age the right to vote so we can spare their feelings? Probably not.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

Meili wrote: October 14th, 2017, 8:08 am
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 1:47 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:46 am

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?
No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.
So the childless couple, already deeply saddened that they are unable to have a child, have it rubbed in their faces everytime an election comes around?
That's a lot less heartbreaking than the troubles irresponsible voting bring upon us. Since the limitation is caring for a child, not conceiving one, adoptive parents are just as eligible as natural parents. The couples who end up being barred from voting because they can't conceive a child and can't adopt a child will be relatively few.

There is no perfect system to determine who has the right to vote so I would ask, is that point serious enough to dismiss the whole idea? No matter what, some people are going to be excluded from voting, if just because they are too young. Will we allow anyone of any age the right to vote so we can spare their feelings? Probably not.
This whole debate rests on perceived problems with the current system.
I am unconvinced there are problems with the current system, beyond some people being uneasy about the electoral strength of their "opponents", and therefore trying to rigg the electoral process to prevent said opponents from ever having political influence.
Sounds like a recipe for civil war to me.

I would suggest a political position is weak if the rules have to be changed in order to prevent the other side from winning.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Original_Intent »

The best option is make the government unable to harm anyone, and then have universal suffrage.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Ezra »

skmo wrote: October 13th, 2017, 9:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:41 am No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.
You want the military to fight and die for a country they can't vote in? You want the CIA to risk their lives for a country who won't listen to their voice?

I'm fine with that for the DEA, BATFE (anyone else think they won't be happy until they have all 26 letters and at least 8 numerals in their acronym?) Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Much of HHS, most of the IRS, and several other Gov't Letter groups (especially the DHS, which still sounds like it should have been named Der Ministry of der Vaterland) simply because they'd all get pink slips, their buildings would be sold to become Coffee Houses or manufacturing or gambling casinos, whatever.

For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by djinwa »

Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)
Amazing how quickly we dismiss having knowledge as a requirement for voting. I assume your brother somehow made it through government school, yet he can't learn the basics of why we should limit government? Did he never read before taking a driver test? I'm not talking about being a constitutional scholar. Wasn't Obama one of those? What he lacked was perspective.


My mom told me to vote for Mitt Romney. I asked what he stood for. She said she didn't know, but I could find out! Upon what did she base her recommendation? Voting without knowledge is dangerous.

I agree with Joseph Smith - teach correct principles and let them govern themselves. Most people haven't learned any principles. The idea of limited government is completely foreign to them. A 2 page handout is enough to cover the basics. I would also make this article required reading.

I ran across this article a few decades ago which is a good history lesson.

https://www.hoover.org/research/unconst ... l-congress
No matter how long one searches through the Constitution, it is impossible to find any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.

There is no granting of authority for the federal government to pay money to farmers, run the health-care industry, impose wage and price controls, give welfare to the poor and unemployed, provide job training, subsidize electricity and telephone service, lend money to businesses or foreign governments, or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founders did not create a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, or a Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight: they simply never imagined that government would take an active role in such activities.

Recognizing the propensity of governments to expand, and, as Jefferson put it, for "liberty to yield," the Framers added the Bill of Rights as an extra layer of protection of the rights of individuals against the state. The Bill of Rights was inserted to ensure that government would never grow so large that it could trample on the individual and economic liberties of American citizens. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states the Founders `intentions quite clearly and unambiguously: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Such plain language would not seem to be easy to misinterpret. Put simply, if the Constitution doesn't specifically permit the federal government to do something, then it doesn't have the right to do it.

-------
In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce was pilloried for vetoing an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill. The act was championed by the renowned 19th-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of heavy criticism, Pierce countered: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, Cleveland, and the countless other lawmakers during that age merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as the federalists often charged? Did they not have within them sympathy for fire victims? Or the mentally ill? Or widows? Or impoverished refugees?

The answer is of course they were not uncharitable scrooges. They simply felt honorbound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived--we now know correctly--that once the genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in. Any unwarranted government interference, no matter how righteous or well-intended, would be, as Madison put it, "but the first link of a long chain of repetitions." Of course, we now know just how remarkably prescient Madison and his colleagues were.

With notable exceptions, through the first 100 years of the Republic, Congress, the President, and the Courts remained mostly faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution with regard to government spending. As economic historian Robert Higgs noted in his famous book Crisis and Leviathan, until the 20th century, "government did little of much consequence or expense" other than running the military. The total expenditures for the federal budget confirm this assessment. Even as late as 1925, the federal government was still spending just 4 percent of national output.

Several major turning points in American history mark the reversal of this ethic of extremely judicious use of the government's powers to spend and tax. The first was the passage in 1913 of the 16th Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy.

Prior to enactment of the income tax, Congress's power to spend was held in check by its limited power to tax. Throughout the 19th century, most federal revenues came from tariffs and land sales. Neither source yielded huge sums. The income tax, however, soon became a cash cow for a Congress needing only the feeblest of excuses to spend money.

The second major event that weakened constitutional protections against big government was the ascendancy of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda to the White House during the Great Depression. During this era, one after another constitutional safeguards against excessive government were either wholly ignored or spectacularly misinterpreted by the Congress and the courts. Most notable and tragic has been the perversion of the "general welfare" clause of the constitution.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Ezra »

Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:31 pm
Ezra wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:41 am Only law abiding constitutional adults (have to pass a test) who have a job can vote.

No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.

We want the hard working


And while we are at it. President, cabinet, house and senate have there assets seized if the budge is not balanced to pay for the unbalances.

That would hold them accountable.
I wouldn't go that far. I would just say no more income if the budget isn't balanced. That would be motivation enough. Unfortunately, the guys who decide how much congress is paid are.... congress. Dang. Who let that loophole slide. Oh, right. It was the original congress..... :roll:

You would still have the loophole of lobbyists as well. They could offer enough to encourage no pay. I doubt they could offer enough to have their assets sized to the point of paying for the unbalance.

If it was that personal it would simply make them responsible. There would be no chance in them not having a balanced budget. They simply wouldn't go there with that much riding on it.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by djinwa »

I whipped this out a couple years ago. If voters could just know these basics I would be satisfied. If you can't handle books, have someone read it to you. If that doesn't work, teach them by stealing from them, then tell the it is for a good cause. Then tell them that is how government works. Anyway, here is what I wrote:


-We are told through the media and government schools that government must keep us safe and provide our every need, or we cannot survive. Enemies and terrorists everywhere! It’s all a scam!

-By scaring us, we’re more willing to give up our money and freedoms.

-Take our money, give most of it to big money interests, then give us a few crumbs for which we are to be grateful. It was our money!

-All this creates more poor people and more dependence on government. Money taken from the economy and people makes for fewer jobs that pay less. Fortunately we are productive enough that we can have half our money stolen and we still have enough to eat.

-We are told the money we get is free and the poor don’t have to pay. Not true.

-If there isn’t enough money from taxes and borrowing, the central bank (Federal Reserve) just creates more money out of thin air and gives it to the government.

-More dollars in circulation makes each one worth less, so it takes more dollars to buy stuff. This is why prices and the cost of living are always going up for everyone.

-This is called the inflation tax. If a loaf of bread went from $2 to $3, the increase went for government spending, bailing out banks and other big money interests.

-Certain people (banks, investors) get more of the new money than others – more benefit.

-We are told we cannot get education or healthcare without government help.

-However, all the money government throws that direction allows prices to be jacked up, making it even less affordable. So then government gives more aid – a vicious cycle.

-Industries and government workers like the easy government money so they don’t have to compete and offer lower prices and higher quality service as the free market would require.

-We are told that terrorists want to kill us because we are rich and free, but for some reason they don’t attack other rich and free countries like Brazil who mind their own business.

-We create enemies by meddling in the affairs of other countries. Good for the oil business, and for defense contractors, etc.

-We overthrew Iran’s elected leader in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator and trained his secret police to torture. Then we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Then we turned against Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, bombing Iraq and imposing sanctions resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of children. We built bases and occupied the Middle East.

-If China did this to us, we would retaliate, as the terrorists did on 9/11. The CIA calls it blowback. We don't follow the Golden Rule.

-By removing Saddam and other leaders, we created a vacuum for radicals like ISIS to gain strength. The radicals also benefit from all the weapons we've spread around. But we just can't leave the Middle East alone - we have a severe obsession, despite the mess we've made.

-We are told that Republicans and Democrats are different. But they are like pro wrestlers that appear to fight, but are working for the same big money.

-Republicans are supposed to be against social programs, but Bush doubled the education department, and expanded government healthcare and housing programs.

-Democrats are supposedly against war and for civil liberties, but Obama expanded the wars, increased drone strikes, and continues the failed war on drugs.

-We are told the media is unbiased, but a candidate promoting limited government will be ignored, and called a nutcase and unelectable. The media promotes who they want.

-The poor can abuse certain benefit programs, but they are nothing compared to what the big money interests collect from government. Big money needs the poor.

-Without poor troops joining the military, military contractors would get much less.

-Without poor students and patients and homeowners, the education, healthcare and housing industry would get much less.

-Foodstamps benefit the food industries and big agriculture.

-Locking up drug users is good for the prison, legal, and law enforcement industries.

-Government workers and bureaucrats also do quite well while providing help to the poor. They get good salaries, benefits, and retirement pensions.

-Many companies make legitimate profits by convincing us to voluntarily buy good products and services at a lower price. Other companies get money that was taken by force from us by government, or they write regulations for congress to pass that will make it harder for small businesses to compete with them.

-We don’t have free market capitalism – we have corporatism.

-In the end, this system will collapse as people try to get more and more ‘free’ money.

-We need to become aware of the scam, become more independent, and not let them scare us. This is supposed to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Why do we like to give away so much money and work so hard to make ends meet?

-Promote candidates who will take seriously their oath of office to defend the Constitution. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit government. It is no longer followed. Spending is unlimited. Budgets don't matter.

-We are supposed to be a Republic, not a simple democracy. In a democracy, the majority can vote to steal from the minority – mob rule. A Republic is restrained by a Constitution to protect each individual from the majority.

Quotes:
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire

The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. -H. L. Mencken

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Author unknown: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY. -Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Silver »

Meili wrote: October 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm I was discussing appropriate limitations on voting with a friend today and that got me thinking about what would be the best limitations to set on who gets to vote. From what I understand, when the nation was formed, it was mainly landowners who were allowed to vote. The reasoning was that they were the ones who had a vested interest in the nation. This was probably fairly reasonable since it seems like land was pretty easy to get your hands on at the time.

I believe that we've been focusing on the wrong criteria when it comes to who we allow to vote. By focusing on gender, age, and race, we are failing to address the question of whether a person can be trusted to make a reasonable decision in deciding who to vote for. I believe that it would be ideal to set criteria that addresses that level of responsibility of a person rather than characteristics that a person is born with.

My friend suggested that a person should be required to serve in the military before they are allowed to vote. I disagree both because I don't believe that honors gender differences and because I believe in a militia over a standing army. But it certainly got the mental juices flowing. What do you guys think? What criteria do you believe would be reasonable to set on voters?
Meili, this has turned out to be an awesome thread! We are discussing principles which the ability and willingness we exhibit to follow will define who we are as an individual and as a citizenry. I hope the readers here will realize that these things require vigorous internalization and practical application to take effect.

We cannot be a free people when we the people don't control the currency or the money supply or the national debt.
We cannot be a free people when the federal government can entice away our youth to fight in unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral foreign wars.
We cannot be a free people when the press and media is tightly concentrated in a few hands.
We cannot be a free people when there is little difference in the two major political parties and those two control the media exposure of other parties.

Yet all the injustices detailed above came by the citizens voting. The uninformed and ignorant masses have voted for their own slavery. Change is necessary.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Rose Garden »

djinwa wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:56 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)
Amazing how quickly we dismiss having knowledge as a requirement for voting. I assume your brother somehow made it through government school, yet he can't learn the basics of why we should limit government? Did he never read before taking a driver test? I'm not talking about being a constitutional scholar. Wasn't Obama one of those? What he lacked was perspective.


My mom told me to vote for Mitt Romney. I asked what he stood for. She said she didn't know, but I could find out! Upon what did she base her recommendation? Voting without knowledge is dangerous.

I agree with Joseph Smith - teach correct principles and let them govern themselves. Most people haven't learned any principles. The idea of limited government is completely foreign to them. A 2 page handout is enough to cover the basics. I would also make this article required reading.

I ran across this article a few decades ago which is a good history lesson.

https://www.hoover.org/research/unconst ... l-congress
No matter how long one searches through the Constitution, it is impossible to find any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.

There is no granting of authority for the federal government to pay money to farmers, run the health-care industry, impose wage and price controls, give welfare to the poor and unemployed, provide job training, subsidize electricity and telephone service, lend money to businesses or foreign governments, or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founders did not create a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, or a Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight: they simply never imagined that government would take an active role in such activities.

Recognizing the propensity of governments to expand, and, as Jefferson put it, for "liberty to yield," the Framers added the Bill of Rights as an extra layer of protection of the rights of individuals against the state. The Bill of Rights was inserted to ensure that government would never grow so large that it could trample on the individual and economic liberties of American citizens. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states the Founders `intentions quite clearly and unambiguously: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Such plain language would not seem to be easy to misinterpret. Put simply, if the Constitution doesn't specifically permit the federal government to do something, then it doesn't have the right to do it.

-------
In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce was pilloried for vetoing an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill. The act was championed by the renowned 19th-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of heavy criticism, Pierce countered: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, Cleveland, and the countless other lawmakers during that age merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as the federalists often charged? Did they not have within them sympathy for fire victims? Or the mentally ill? Or widows? Or impoverished refugees?

The answer is of course they were not uncharitable scrooges. They simply felt honorbound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived--we now know correctly--that once the genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in. Any unwarranted government interference, no matter how righteous or well-intended, would be, as Madison put it, "but the first link of a long chain of repetitions." Of course, we now know just how remarkably prescient Madison and his colleagues were.

With notable exceptions, through the first 100 years of the Republic, Congress, the President, and the Courts remained mostly faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution with regard to government spending. As economic historian Robert Higgs noted in his famous book Crisis and Leviathan, until the 20th century, "government did little of much consequence or expense" other than running the military. The total expenditures for the federal budget confirm this assessment. Even as late as 1925, the federal government was still spending just 4 percent of national output.

Several major turning points in American history mark the reversal of this ethic of extremely judicious use of the government's powers to spend and tax. The first was the passage in 1913 of the 16th Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy.

Prior to enactment of the income tax, Congress's power to spend was held in check by its limited power to tax. Throughout the 19th century, most federal revenues came from tariffs and land sales. Neither source yielded huge sums. The income tax, however, soon became a cash cow for a Congress needing only the feeblest of excuses to spend money.

The second major event that weakened constitutional protections against big government was the ascendancy of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda to the White House during the Great Depression. During this era, one after another constitutional safeguards against excessive government were either wholly ignored or spectacularly misinterpreted by the Congress and the courts. Most notable and tragic has been the perversion of the "general welfare" clause of the constitution.
I'm not questioning the need for knowledge. I'm questioning the means of gauging knowledge. My brother dropped out of school. I graduated college with honors. He just never did very well taking tests. But he's my go-to man for many problems when I'm stuck and can't find the answers.

As for driving tests, you don't get a license only by passing a written test. You actually have to get behind the wheel and prove you know how to make a vehicle move without wreaking destruction. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't believe a written test would work. You'd have to have some means of actually testing a person's character in action. That would be a very difficult thing to do in any sort of testing environment.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Rose Garden »

Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 11:01 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:31 pm
Ezra wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:41 am Only law abiding constitutional adults (have to pass a test) who have a job can vote.

No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.

We want the hard working


And while we are at it. President, cabinet, house and senate have there assets seized if the budge is not balanced to pay for the unbalances.

That would hold them accountable.
I wouldn't go that far. I would just say no more income if the budget isn't balanced. That would be motivation enough. Unfortunately, the guys who decide how much congress is paid are.... congress. Dang. Who let that loophole slide. Oh, right. It was the original congress..... :roll:

You would still have the loophole of lobbyists as well. They could offer enough to encourage no pay. I doubt they could offer enough to have their assets sized to the point of paying for the unbalance.

If it was that personal it would simply make them responsible. There would be no chance in them not having a balanced budget. They simply wouldn't go there with that much riding on it.
Good point. I'm reluctant to go as far as taking someone's property but I'm not sure there would be any other way of making government leaders accountable for their actions. Really, if we actually asked our leaders to put something on the line, I think we would see a whole different caliber of people running. Not a bad idea after all.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Rose Garden »

Silver wrote: October 14th, 2017, 12:10 pm
Meili wrote: October 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm I was discussing appropriate limitations on voting with a friend today and that got me thinking about what would be the best limitations to set on who gets to vote. From what I understand, when the nation was formed, it was mainly landowners who were allowed to vote. The reasoning was that they were the ones who had a vested interest in the nation. This was probably fairly reasonable since it seems like land was pretty easy to get your hands on at the time.

I believe that we've been focusing on the wrong criteria when it comes to who we allow to vote. By focusing on gender, age, and race, we are failing to address the question of whether a person can be trusted to make a reasonable decision in deciding who to vote for. I believe that it would be ideal to set criteria that addresses that level of responsibility of a person rather than characteristics that a person is born with.

My friend suggested that a person should be required to serve in the military before they are allowed to vote. I disagree both because I don't believe that honors gender differences and because I believe in a militia over a standing army. But it certainly got the mental juices flowing. What do you guys think? What criteria do you believe would be reasonable to set on voters?
Meili, this has turned out to be an awesome thread! We are discussing principles which the ability and willingness we exhibit to follow will define who we are as an individual and as a citizenry. I hope the readers here will realize that these things require vigorous internalization and practical application to take effect.

We cannot be a free people when we the people don't control the currency or the money supply or the national debt.
We cannot be a free people when the federal government can entice away our youth to fight in unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral foreign wars.
We cannot be a free people when the press and media is tightly concentrated in a few hands.
We cannot be a free people when there is little difference in the two major political parties and those two control the media exposure of other parties.

Yet all the injustices detailed above came by the citizens voting. The uninformed and ignorant masses have voted for their own slavery. Change is necessary.
Thanks! I agree this has been a great thread. I've learned so much.

One thing I'm noticing is that it seems like a major problem comes from seeing the government as an entity different from ourselves. That's not true. We are the government. When we vote ourselves favors from the public coffers we are making the mistake of thinking those funds don't come from us. They do. Each one of us pays the price, even if for a time we are the one receiving the benefits. It's one of the reasons why it's so difficult to get it of poverty.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:54 am
skmo wrote: October 13th, 2017, 9:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:41 am No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.
You want the military to fight and die for a country they can't vote in? You want the CIA to risk their lives for a country who won't listen to their voice?

I'm fine with that for the DEA, BATFE (anyone else think they won't be happy until they have all 26 letters and at least 8 numerals in their acronym?) Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Much of HHS, most of the IRS, and several other Gov't Letter groups (especially the DHS, which still sounds like it should have been named Der Ministry of der Vaterland) simply because they'd all get pink slips, their buildings would be sold to become Coffee Houses or manufacturing or gambling casinos, whatever.

For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.
Unworkable.
For example, what about those who work for private companies which get government contracts? In effect, their salaries are paid by the taxpayer.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by brianj »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 5:34 am With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.
With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

brianj wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:43 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 5:34 am With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.
With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

I can't think of one.
We fought in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. Which war are you thinking of?
Last edited by Robin Hood on October 14th, 2017, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Ezra »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:54 am
skmo wrote: October 13th, 2017, 9:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 13th, 2017, 10:41 am No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.
You want the military to fight and die for a country they can't vote in? You want the CIA to risk their lives for a country who won't listen to their voice?

I'm fine with that for the DEA, BATFE (anyone else think they won't be happy until they have all 26 letters and at least 8 numerals in their acronym?) Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Much of HHS, most of the IRS, and several other Gov't Letter groups (especially the DHS, which still sounds like it should have been named Der Ministry of der Vaterland) simply because they'd all get pink slips, their buildings would be sold to become Coffee Houses or manufacturing or gambling casinos, whatever.

For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.
Unworkable.
For example, what about those who work for private companies which get government contracts? In effect, their salaries are paid by the taxpayer.
You can draw a line somewhere. But can you remind me where in the constitution it allows the government to hire companies to work?

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:50 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:54 am
skmo wrote: October 13th, 2017, 9:21 pm

You want the military to fight and die for a country they can't vote in? You want the CIA to risk their lives for a country who won't listen to their voice?

I'm fine with that for the DEA, BATFE (anyone else think they won't be happy until they have all 26 letters and at least 8 numerals in their acronym?) Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Much of HHS, most of the IRS, and several other Gov't Letter groups (especially the DHS, which still sounds like it should have been named Der Ministry of der Vaterland) simply because they'd all get pink slips, their buildings would be sold to become Coffee Houses or manufacturing or gambling casinos, whatever.

For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.
Unworkable.
For example, what about those who work for private companies which get government contracts? In effect, their salaries are paid by the taxpayer.
You can draw a line somewhere. But can you remind me where in the constitution it allows the government to hire companies to work?
I'm not familar with the US constitution. But I expect it doesn't say they can't.
Who would build the roads?

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by brianj »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:47 pm
brianj wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:43 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 5:34 am With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.
With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

I can't think of one.
We fought in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. Which war are you thinking of?
The one that was fought from 1775 to 1783.

And now I'm thinking of another war, fought 1812-1815.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Robin Hood »

brianj wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:54 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:47 pm
brianj wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:43 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 5:34 am With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.
With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

I can't think of one.
We fought in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. Which war are you thinking of?
The one that was fought from 1775 to 1783.

And now I'm thinking of another war, fought 1812-1815.
The 1812 war was between the US and Canada/Great Britain. Doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Neither does the Treason War, especially as the US didn't exist at the time.

Equally I could ask where was the US when we were fighting terror? You know, before it became fashionable for you guys. ;)
I'm thinking Palestine, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by Ezra »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:53 pm
Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:50 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 3:21 pm
Ezra wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:54 am


For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.
Unworkable.
For example, what about those who work for private companies which get government contracts? In effect, their salaries are paid by the taxpayer.
You can draw a line somewhere. But can you remind me where in the constitution it allows the government to hire companies to work?
I'm not familar with the US constitution. But I expect it doesn't say they can't.
Who would build the roads?
It does not grant that power. It grants it to the state or the people.

So it does say they cannot in the 10th amendment. They have ignored it.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by gardener4life »

Meili wrote: October 14th, 2017, 8:08 am
Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 1:47 am
Meili wrote: October 13th, 2017, 7:39 pm
Robin Hood wrote: October 13th, 2017, 6:46 am

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?
No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.
So the childless couple, already deeply saddened that they are unable to have a child, have it rubbed in their faces every time an election comes around?
That's a lot less heartbreaking than the troubles irresponsible voting bring upon us. Since the limitation is caring for a child, not conceiving one, adoptive parents are just as eligible as natural parents. The couples who end up being barred from voting because they can't conceive a child and can't adopt a child will be relatively few.

There is no perfect system to determine who has the right to vote so I would ask, is that point serious enough to dismiss the whole idea? No matter what, some people are going to be excluded from voting, if just because they are too young. Will we allow anyone of any age the right to vote so we can spare their feelings? Probably not.
Nice comments. Let me add to that.

Why do we vote? We don't vote for people's feelings and to make them feel special. You helped identify that. Voting is a right to determine the future of the country. It's very simple. When you go to vote you are determining if your country has a future or not. And there are a lot of people who want evil things to be accepted. There are people who want kingships. There are people that want the country turned upside down rather than conform. There are people who haven't learned how to cooperate with others or how to avoid going out of boundaries to hurt others. There are also many that aren't responsible enough to see through the lies and corruption and understand who is doing good and who is doing bad. Heck, it's even hard to tell that once you are old too if you aren't reading the scriptures.

So you have to have some way of curbing those who don't have the values of promoting a healthy upcoming generation. If you let people that shouldn't vote, be voters. Your children and their children can have their future taken away. I'm dead serious on this. (It doesn't mean you should start a war over it, but you need clear perception on what's happening so you can make decisions that promote good.) So let's promote good in peaceful ways.

I do apologize but you won't be able to make everyone happy. Our responsibility is to make the righteous happy and the repentant. And to bring up a righteous next generation. To do that also we can't have good people and wicked people on equal standing. People won't choose good if they see wicked people get the same as good people. And wicked people will always end up with more when they are on 'supposed' equal footing with the good because they will always be cheating the system and trying to get things under the table while the others are unaware.

So I hope that helps you to think about things more simply. Instead of social caste system rules, we need more to think of what's a good fruit, and what's a bad fruit.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Reasonable limitations on voting

Post by brianj »

Robin Hood wrote: October 14th, 2017, 4:02 pm The 1812 war was between the US and Canada/Great Britain. Doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Neither does the Treason War, especially as the US didn't exist at the time.

Equally I could ask where was the US when we were fighting terror? You know, before it became fashionable for you guys. ;)
I'm thinking Palestine, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland.
So... With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has fought with the US in every war for the last 200 years.

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

Let me remind you of the 241 US servicemen killed in Beirut on October 23, 1983. Northern Ireland and Cyprus were internal affairs, and we didn't send military forces to Israel but we did provide aid to the Israelis.

Come to think of it, we did participate in a few other responses to terrorism before 2001.

Post Reply