If Clinton Does Win

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

lol it's just missing some communism in there too...Demobublicanommies

They're corporatists oligarchs - the ideological opposite of communism.

[ellapenella]

33 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

They're corporatists oligarchs - the ideological opposite of communism.

some of them are. some of them idolize  communist ideologies . they just can't get passed our Bill Of Rights.

[Paranormal Panther]

3 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I think it's fair to put intelligence and informed into the same basket when it comes to voting here in the states...

I've heard far to many idiots vote Dem/Repub because their dad did,and his dad before that did,and so on...

I think it's time to retire the words Democrat and Republican from politics altogether because to many just see those two words and automatically tie themselves to said candidates platforms be damned...

I agree with that. Many voters are party robots. I fully support an informed, involved electorate. I don't support things like IQ tests and poll taxes, though.

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I think it's fair to put intelligence and informed into the same basket when it comes to voting here in the states...

I've heard far to many idiots vote Dem/Repub because their dad did,and his dad before that did,and so on...

I think it's time to retire the words Democrat and Republican from politics altogether because to many just see those two words and automatically tie themselves to said candidates platforms be damned...

...i agree. From what i see voters are starting to move away from political correctness and blind political allegiance and Trump is cultivating and benefiting from this. 

[Paranormal Panther]

3 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Yeah. I think that from after that  he  was surrounded by the people who groomed him . I don't think he has a conscience,maybe he did at one time, only God knows I suppose.

I think that Blofeld has a better conscience. Soros damaged the British economy. He supported invasions of illegal immigrants and unvetted refugees. He pulled the strings of BLM.

[+DieChecker]

On 10/30/2016 at 2:16 PM, ninjadude said:

Let me ask you, do you make more than 250,000/year? If not, what proof are you using that your taxes will go up? They have certainly gone down under Obama.

Insurance premiums going up has been happening for many decades. Shirley not something you can "blame" on Clinton. Or Obamacare since that was not it's purpose.

I thought lowering the cost for the poor, and thus for everyone... As well as taking ER visits out of the equation... Were going to cut down on overhead costs and thus lower the cost for everyone. Didn't Obama say everyone would "Save" $2500 every year? Video.

On 10/31/2016 at 4:46 PM, ninjadude said:

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/images-reports/new-census-estimates-show-3-million-more-americans-had-health-insurance-coverage-2012/image003.gif

Interesting... So 15+% are still uninsured? How can that be considered a success? Utter failure is what it is....

And, I believe you said 80% and there is says 48%. Way to prove yourself wrong.

[+DieChecker]

From what I've read the early voting seems to be favoring Clinton. However, black voting seems to be down 5-10%. And Latino voting seems to be at 60% for Clinton. Which is about what any Republican could expect. Low voter turnout for Clinton could be critical in whether Trump wins or not.

[ellapenella]

43 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I think that Blofeld has a better conscience. Soros damaged the British economy. He supported invasions of illegal immigrants and unvetted refugees. He pulled the strings of BLM.

I know, he topples nations, he manipulates people against law, he's inherited  all sorts of evil ways . He has no love for humanity, and is a practitioner or believer in eugenics.

[ellapenella]

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

From what I've read the early voting seems to be favoring Clinton. However, black voting seems to be down 5-10%. And Latino voting seems to be at 60% for Clinton. Which is about what any Republican could expect. Low voter turnout for Clinton could be critical in whether Trump wins or not.

 

[RavenHawk]

I tend to agree that voting in the US needs to have some kind of litmus test.  Voting is a right but people forget that with rights come responsibilities.  I.e. voting for the right reasons.  If you can't act responsibly then you have no business voting.  There needs to be a test that one must pass before one votes.  Not an IQ test but a Constitutional knowledge test.  The hope would be to encourage an active body politic.  This is what the Founding Fathers hoped for.  They knew that if everyone was politically active, corruption and veering off the Constitutional Republic path would be more difficult.  Plus reinstitute the original concept that only the land owners could vote.  This would be people that have skin in the game.  This is only logical.  Today, property owners would join land owners, but also you would need a restriction about immigrants not being able to vote for a period of several years.

[ellapenella]

 

[Black Red Devil]

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I tend to agree that voting in the US needs to have some kind of litmus test.  Voting is a right but people forget that with rights come responsibilities.  I.e. voting for the right reasons.  If you can't act responsibly then you have no business voting.  There needs to be a test that one must pass before one votes.  Not an IQ test but a Constitutional knowledge test.  The hope would be to encourage an active body politic.  This is what the Founding Fathers hoped for.  They knew that if everyone was politically active, corruption and veering off the Constitutional Republic path would be more difficult.  Plus reinstitute the original concept that only the land owners could vote.  This would be people that have skin in the game.  This is only logical.  Today, property owners would join land owners, but also you would need a restriction about immigrants not being able to vote for a period of several years.

Huh!  What? 

[Black Red Devil]

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Black Red Devil
Double post

[Black Red Devil]

On 10/11/2016 at 10:59 AM, hellwyr said:

If Clinton will win, a zombee army of illegals (aka Mexicans) will come who will all be unemployed and who at the same time will steal our jobs. Furthermore, all Americans will become Muslims and everyday will be some Muslim attack. And everyone will become black. Yeah and men will have to cook and clean for their headscarf wearing feminazi wifes. Yeah, and Clinton as the new anti-christ will declare war upon the world. And because of the open border policy the Chinese will buy out everything and own the US.

That's probably not too far from the truth actually.

[SHaYap]

As long as the Japanese are willing to sell ...

~

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Plus reinstitute the original concept that only the land owners could vote.

Huh!  What?

Originally only those on the tax lists were able to vote.  Tax lists recorded who the land owners were (or who had skin in the game).  Back then there wasn’t the problems we have today with people on welfare wanting more and not willing to produce.  The same goes for the masses of immigrants and illegals.  Until one is fully assimilated, one’s vote is meaningless.  The right of voting does not mean “what kind of free stuff can I get”.

"Drink from the well, replenish the well." – King Ezekiel.

[ellapenella]

 

[rashore]

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I tend to agree that voting in the US needs to have some kind of litmus test.  Voting is a right but people forget that with rights come responsibilities.  I.e. voting for the right reasons.  If you can't act responsibly then you have no business voting.  There needs to be a test that one must pass before one votes.  Not an IQ test but a Constitutional knowledge test.  The hope would be to encourage an active body politic.  This is what the Founding Fathers hoped for.  They knew that if everyone was politically active, corruption and veering off the Constitutional Republic path would be more difficult.  Plus reinstitute the original concept that only the land owners could vote.  This would be people that have skin in the game.  This is only logical.  Today, property owners would join land owners, but also you would need a restriction about immigrants not being able to vote for a period of several years.

Do you also think that there should be a litmus test for first and second amendment rights? Perhaps a test on religions before being able to practice or decry religions? Or course in English and testing to participate in freedom of speech? Or only property owners could own guns? Or have to pass a firearm knowledge test to own a gun. Do you hold with the original concept that some states had that every able bodied male was required to own and maintain a gun at his own expense and be available to be called into defense service as militia at any time?

I know you support first and second amendments, or at least it sure seems like it from some of your commentary in other threads. But by your commentary above, you don't really support the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments. All of those would have to be repealed in order to do as you suggest.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that with rights come responsibilities, and that goes for all of the amendments- not just some of them. People should be knowledgeable about our Constitution and voting rights and information about voting. It  would be wonderful if the amount of people that zealously guard and use their first and second amendment rights responsibly put that kind of effort into their 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendment rights. But a bunch of people aren't responsible- just like there are a bunch of people that aren't responsible with first and second amendment rights.

 

[Black Red Devil]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

6 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Originally only those on the tax lists were able to vote.  Tax lists recorded who the land owners were (or who had skin in the game).  Back then there wasn’t the problems we have today with people on welfare wanting more and not willing to produce.  The same goes for the masses of immigrants and illegals.  Until one is fully assimilated, one’s vote is meaningless.  The right of voting does not mean “what kind of free stuff can I get”.

"Drink from the well, replenish the well." – King Ezekiel.

Oh I get it.  Initially the way I read it I got the impression you were suggesting only the privileged had a Right to vote.  Now that wouldn't be something you would ever suggest would it?

[RavenHawk]

51 minutes ago, rashore said:

Do you also think that there should be a litmus test for first and second amendment rights?

No, just voting.  I think there should be an annual Constitutional refresher course, anyway.  If you fail, it’s not like you are banned from exercising your rights, but you followup and bone-up on your knowledge until you do pass.  New citizens have to pass a naturalization test but being new, they may not fully be aware of what it all means.  As natural born, this should be second nature.  But too often the new citizen at least tries, whereas the natural born takes things for granted.  That should never be allowed as this is a danger to our society.  This should encourage all to stay active in the body politic.  It’s called citizenship.

 

Perhaps a test on religions before being able to practice or decry religions?

You’re taking it too far.  This isn’t about religion.  It’s about having knowledge of the Constitution, its history and meaning.  If more people were solid in the foundation, this country wouldn’t be having the problems it is.  We wouldn’t be assaulted with social engineering, which is counter to the precepts of our Founding Documents.

 

Or course in English and testing to participate in freedom of speech?

It should be in English.  But if you do not understand the Constitution (understanding your rights and responsibilities), how can you effectively participate in freedom of speech (or any other right)?  It is everyone’s duty as an American to know these things.  It goes back to having rights requires having responsibilities.  It’s not like the government gives us these rights and we can use them willy-nilly.  They are GOD given which means it’s up to each one of us to protect them from those things that threaten them.  And that includes from Ignorance and Apathy.

 

Or only property owners could own guns? Or have to pass a firearm knowledge test to own a gun.

That first part makes no sense but instead of having gun registration, there could be gun safety classes.

 

Do you hold with the original concept that some states had that every able bodied male was required to own and maintain a gun at his own expense and be available to be called into defense service as militia at any time?

Actually, I do hold with that.  I didn’t have to sign up but I did and I served in the Reserves.  My regret is that I didn’t stay in.  But I would expand it to include females too.  This is part of one’s responsibilities to be able to exercise one’s rights.  You can’t relish in the fruits unless you perform your duty.  And to some degree my expression here is part of my duty.

 

I know you support first and second amendments, or at least it sure seems like it from some of your commentary in other threads. But by your commentary above, you don't really support the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments. All of those would have to be repealed in order to do as you suggest.

Yes I do – for the most part.  I think the 16th needs to be repealed along with the Federal Reserve and the 14th needs to be tweaked to exclude the anchor-baby loophole.  I’ve also proposed a few of my own (28th Balanced Budget, 29th Bipartisan Legislation, 30th Modification or repeal of 16th, 31st Lockbox, 32nd Modification of Electoral College).  If you google Article V Constitutional Convention (Convention of States), you can find other proposals.

 

What I am discussing is performing one’s duty to protect these rights, which is based in knowledge, not race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, taxes, or age.  People with their hand out or are new to our culture have a conflict of interest with what their duty is when it comes to voting.  These people need to be given time before they can properly exercise this right.  For example, you usually don’t go grocery shopping on an empty stomach.  That is what voting is to these people.  Not letting them vote right away is to protect the Constitution and ultimately them.  Let them get back on their feet and/or assimilated to our culture before allowing them to take on the burden.

[Paranormal Panther]

18 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

I know, he topples nations, he manipulates people against law, he's inherited  all sorts of evil ways . He has no love for humanity, and is a practitioner or believer in eugenics.

He supports Clinton too. Her propagandists avoid and ignore that. Somebody played him in an SNL skit. Clinton's campaign people complained to the show after the skit was shown.

[Paranormal Panther]

18 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I tend to agree that voting in the US needs to have some kind of litmus test.  Voting is a right but people forget that with rights come responsibilities.  I.e. voting for the right reasons.  If you can't act responsibly then you have no business voting.  There needs to be a test that one must pass before one votes.  Not an IQ test but a Constitutional knowledge test.  The hope would be to encourage an active body politic.  This is what the Founding Fathers hoped for.  They knew that if everyone was politically active, corruption and veering off the Constitutional Republic path would be more difficult.  Plus reinstitute the original concept that only the land owners could vote.  This would be people that have skin in the game.  This is only logical.  Today, property owners would join land owners, but also you would need a restriction about immigrants not being able to vote for a period of several years.

I agree with many of your points, but I don't support litmus tests for voting. I just wish that the electorate were more informed and more involved. Other people put words in my mouth to make it seem like I yearn for the Jim Crow era. Evidently, you're a racist if you think that voters should make educated choices.

[RavenHawk]

13 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I agree with many of your points, but I don't support litmus tests for voting. I just wish that the electorate were more informed and more involved. Other people put words in my mouth to make it seem like I yearn for the Jim Crow era. Evidently, you're a racist if you think that voters should make educated choices.

 

Well, a test would be that device that informs and encourages involvement.  Everyone must take an annual refresher course.  This would help weed out the deceased from the rolls.  The test isn’t meant to permanently keep people from voting, people can take it as many times as they need to qualify, but it is their responsibility to do so.   If one feels intimidated in following this, then they have no business voting.  The more times you take it, the harder it gets.  More questions will be added and you’ll get different questions every time.    It’ll be CBT based and when you pass, you get a unique QR-Code (for voting purposes) and it gets registered in the proper county registrar.

 

I can see PSAs like “School House Rock” spots and institutes like Hillsdale College getting more popular.  People will not only learn of our Founding Documents but also our history and the character of the Founding Fathers and what they intended.  What they did and why.  After all, this is all meant to stay true to their original vision, to preserve our culture and prevent any other ideology from usurping our Constitutional Republic.  Don’t we have every right to do so?

 

And hopefully, this test will lead people to critical study of the current issues facing the Republic and a study of the candidates.  But also to get more involved themselves, perhaps running for a city council spot, etc.  Participating in citizenship.

[RavenHawk]

22 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Oh I get it.  Initially the way I read it I got the impression you were suggesting only the privileged had a Right to vote.  Now that wouldn't be something you would ever suggest would it?

Well, I consider all Americans and wards as privileged (or American Exceptionalism).  Now there are some here that are not American (either natural born or naturalized nor are wards).  Those are here illegally and don’t count.  As far as “privileged” goes, I expanded the definition to be more than just land owners.  It could be home or business owners too.  Male and female.  There is no reason why all Americans can’t own land, a home, or a business.  This would give them skin in the game.  Now there will be those that for some reason do not have one of these three.  Some are by choice and others are by circumstance.  If taxes were low and restrictions not as harsh, more of those would own these things.  It is the basis of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The individual did *build* that.  All Americans have the ability to be entrepreneurs.  It is an aberration of nature if they are not.  Now there will always be those few that never will, but it doesn’t make much sense to burden our society for their sakes.  The stronger our economy, the smaller this number will be.  So our goal should be to make our economy as strong as possible.  That’s just common sense.  State control of the means of production does not work.  If the state controls production then there really isn’t any purpose for the people to vote.

[Lilly]

The way things have been going over the last couple of days I think if Mrs Clinton does win we'll all be watching a great big messy court case unfold.