To Be Fair Just Let Anyone Vote

No, of course not, I'm mocking the idiot left

The lamestream media told you:

Democrats object strongly to the need for Photo ID at the polls. The ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits to stop the evil controversial practice aimed at suppressing the vote by evil republicans.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Why is it unreasonable to expect people to provide government proof of who they are before voting in a government election?

Put another way, why would you want a person who can't get a job, or unemployment, open a bank account, rent an apartment, or a hotel room, buy a home, get a mortgage, buy a gun, go to college, get on an airplane, visit a doctor, get government aid, buy a cell phone or drive a car... to vote? Who are these people?

Followup question: Should our elections be limited to only citizens eligible to vote? Is it OK for people who are foreigners or otherwise ineligible to vote in our election, to vote?

Comments

[RICK]

Answers:
Q1: It is not unreasonable, in fact, it is preferable. The objection comes from them with nefarious intent to effect unethical, immoral, perhaps criminal want to skew the election. An aside, Imagine the vociferous raging from those same persons if it were the 'other side' wanting to do same.

Q2: ditto

Q3: These people are the unthinking, uncaring, ignorant and uniformed (willfully so in most accounts) who have traded their liberties for the govt cheese. (They didn't intend to have actually ceded their liberties for they don't think that deeply. Too, those people continue to rally in their cry for their 'rights', In actuality, they intended to trade their responsibilities, yet unknowingly had relinquished the attendant liberties. Summarized, they are the useful idiots.)

Q5: Yes, the elections within a sovereign state are limited solely to the lawful citizens of that state. I would go a step further and require proof of a lasting allegiance to that sovereignty and assimilation into the culture of the same.

Q6: No. It matters why they are otherwise ineligible. Of course, here is the possibility of one who has truthfully proclaimed (and demonstrated) the aforementioned allegiance yet may be deemed ineligible due to incarceration or something along that line. But a civil society should have and uphold a code of conduct for lacking that the binds of society should quickly unravel. In that case, to what would one declare their allegiance? Therefore, anyone who is deemed ineligible should be denied a vote. That is, whether one is ineligible or whatever the reason, or is not in allegiance to, or is foreign to, the sovereign state is unsuitable to cast a vote for office of that state.

An aside: unqualified is a synonym of unsuitable. Therefore, the argument could be should there be a qualifying of the constituency? My answer is yes. It has been tried before such as in the case of land ownership but that was rendered unlawful. I suppose I will leave this as a kind of overhead question. However, I can think of certain tests which would pass muster. To speak of that would require more words than allowed here.