Should the 19th Amendment Be Repealed?

[Hammster]

Ah, so we're narrowing it down a little further. It's relatively rich men so far. And if we're taking our lead from the bible then how does that impact on gay couples? Are you happy with them voting even if the bible considers it a sin?

No, not relatively rich men. I own property. I don’t think you could consider me rich.

 

[Hammster]

When Harris said that the GOP was going to take the country backwards, I didn't realise it was back to the 19th century.

I’m hoping we go Medieval.

 

[Hammster]

ROFL! Sorry.

Are you saying because 140 years ago when the us population was 1/6 of now and a far more rural population, CAN AND SHOULD compare to our current circumstances in any function.

I think the only people who should vote should be people who live in apartments.

I’m saying that we did fine when families were more important than individuals.

 

[comana]

It wasn’t satirical when it was being promoted. A lot of women were actually against women suffrage.

No one is forcing them to vote.

 

[Zaha Torte]

So just women are excluded. Should they be asked to resign from the positions they have been given in the administration? Or is it that they can be given those positions by the president but just won't be allowed to vote for whoever holds that position?

The Word of God is clear on this. You are free to peruse it at your discretion. Women should not hold such positions.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Is it because their too dumb or that their menstrual cycle makes them unpredictable?

Also lol, why would you presume to "know the place" of 150,000,000ish million people?

God has instructed us. You can read the scriptures for yourself.

 

[JosephZ]

Why?

If you did that a lot of city dwellers wouldn't have a vote, especially those living in the northeast in cities like Boston and New York City. Why would you support this type of voter suppression?

 

[Bradskii]

No, not relatively rich men. I own property. I don’t think you could consider me rich.

That's handy. But I did say 'relatively rich.' I assume that you're using property as some sort of worth. Might there be a lower limit perhaps? Because there could be someone enormously rich (and hence worth having his vote count) but with no property but someone else might have no money, or indeed be deep in debt and own a small barely liveable decrepit trailer that's worth nothing.

It doesn't seem fair that the guy with the trailer gets to vote and the billionaire doesn't. Maybe financial worth should be the deciding factor. Because someone might try to buck the system and advertise a field to be sold in square metre lots for a dollar each. So anyone buying one would then own property.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m hoping we go Medieval.

So no voting at all.

 

[Bradskii]

The Word of God is clear on this. You are free to peruse it at your discretion. Women should not hold such positions.

And surely not gays either. I know my bible. So you've no problem with people it describes as abominable voting and holding office? This has already extended to men who own property. I want to see how further it might go.

Something of a Pandora's box here (alhough she woudn't be able to vote anyway).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The Word of God is clear on this. You are free to peruse it at your discretion. Women should not hold such positions.

This is a perfect example of why we need to talk more about our biblical hermeneutic. The Word of God perfectly clear on wearing wearing clothing made from a mixture of two different fabrics, such as wool and linen, in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11. and Leviticus 19:19: "You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed". Deuteronomy 22:9: "Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled".
d

 

[ThatRobGuy]

21? Nah, man.

You think it should be even older?

 

[Hammster]

No one is forcing them to vote.

I guess you missed the point.

 

[Hammster]

If you did that a lot of city dwellers wouldn't have a vote, especially those living in the northeast in cities like Boston and New York City. Why would you support this type of voter suppression?

It’s not.

 

[Hammster]

That's handy. But I did say 'relatively rich.' I assume that you're using property as some sort of worth. Might there be a lower limit perhaps? Because there could be someone enormously rich (and hence worth having his vote count) but with no property but someone else might have no money, or indeed be deep in debt and own a small barely liveable decrepit trailer that's worth nothing.

It doesn't seem fair that the guy with the trailer gets to vote and the billionaire doesn't. Maybe financial worth should be the deciding factor. Because someone might try to buck the system and advertise a field to be sold in square metre lots for a dollar each. So anyone buying one would then own property.

Any other fairy tales you want to concoct to make a point?

 

[Hammster]

So no voting at all.

I’m okay with that if there’s good leadership.

 

[Chesterton]

You think it should be even older?

Might be a good idea. As you noted, you have to be 25 to be a representative, 30 to be a senator. If the people who make decisions about policy have to be older, maybe the people who choose the policymakers should be at least as old.

 

[Bradskii]

Any other fairy tales you want to concoct to make a point?

That's not a fairy story. If the law was changed so that only property owners could vote then I would buy an acre of land somewhere cheap and sell a square metre to anyone who didn't own property. It's hard for me to think that anyone would take seriously the idea that it would be feasible to revert to 'property owners only' in the first instance. And not credible to think that people wouldn't realise that there'd be easy ways around it.

And you want to allow a guy in debt with a worthless trailer to vote and a billionaire who owns no property to be denied that vote.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m okay with that if there’s good leadership.

So only the leadership that you want. So you get to vote plus everyone who agrees with you. As long as they are male and own property. The electoral role is getting smaller with every post.

 

[comana]

I guess you missed the point.

I got the point but what this small minority wants is not going to go anywhere.