Opinion of Rfayette (read quote before answering)

[Maxwell]

I understand that.  I'm not exactly opposed to fewer people voting, especially when a lot of those folks who are unable to put in the time/energy to get an ID happen to be Democrats.  Plenty of liberals on here (and AAD) cheer when they know changing demographics (and immigration from other countries) mean more liberal voters, so I support laws that help conservatives at the polls.  Personally, I think re-instating some kind of poll tax would be just fine by me.

[Virginiá]

Despite my furious posts towards him, I still like him as a person. However, this is also predicated on the idea that he will come to his senses on this. Supporting voter suppression is undemocratic, indecent and an abomination to any society that prides itself on the idea of freedom.

Not voting for now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Poll tax is a great idea. Keeping all those people away from meddling with elections, as they are certainly not fit to handle this.

[Goldwater]

WTF, Rfayette?!

[This account no longer in use.]

nice guy

[bagelman]

I think he's just trolling.

[Virginiá]

I think he's just trolling.

His posts in the thread that quote is from never indicated that, and he never assured people he was trolling after the blowback began. At this point, if he said he was trolling, I personally would not believe it.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just a child who will, in all likelihood, see things through eventually.  Though I question if it would be more appropriate to blame the education system for that unfortunate post.

[Torie]

The chap will move on from this idea soon. Be patient. He's an ongoing work in progress, as he moves from one life stage to the next. In due course, he will become a beautiful butterfly. Be patient.

[Santander]

Romney would call those words "inelegant". I understand the point he was making.

[RFayette]

First, the context of the quote is in that many folks here (who happen to be Democrats) have gotten extremely giddy over favorable demographic trends for Democrats, such as the re-enfranchisement of felons, post-1965 immigration laws, etc.    It was also in response to absolute fawning over President Obama, which gets under my skin.  When people start treating the man like he's some kind of demigod, it definitely provokes me into saying things I otherwise would not. Many even suggested ideas like bringing all the Syrian refugees to swing states, "maintaining population balance" by deporting white males for every immigrant let in, etc. I was going the other way with it and see what the reaction would be.  No one believes in a truly universal franchise (no one thinks death row inmates or 5-year-olds should vote), I was just floating the idea that maybe some more restrictions on voting isn't such a bad idea.

That being said, a poll tax is unconstitutional and would obviously never happen, and I know this.  Was it trolling?  Partially.  The goal was definitely to get a rise out of people, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a more R-friendly electorate.  That would be an, err, extreme way to do it.  I suppose if someone thinks a voter ID equals a poll tax, then I suppose it would be a $25 poll tax or something.  I would never back a $1000 poll tax or something that would be too large of an expense though....that would be insane.

[RFayette]

Just a child who will, in all likelihood, see things through eventually.  Though I question if it would be more appropriate to blame the education system for that unfortunate post.

Funny you mention that.  One of my high school teachers happened to be a massive libertarian and had indeed floated the idea of how much better America would be if we went back to restricting the vote to property owners.  

[RFayette]

Despite my furious posts towards him, I still like him as a person. However, this is also predicated on the idea that he will come to his senses on this. Supporting voter suppression is undemocratic, indecent and an abomination to any society that prides itself on the idea of freedom.

Not voting for now.

No hard feelings at all.   I tend to say things that could be seen as pretty crazy had I voiced them in real life (which I would never do), so I don't take criticism personally when I push the edges of respectability a fair amount.

I'd imagine you and I have different opinions about what constitutes "voter suppression" though.  My personal opinion (though obviously this would never become law) is that unlawful discrimination would be voting restrictions against immutable characteristics - such as gender, race, etc.  Where we differ is with respect to changeable characteristics:  having a photo ID, having a felony conviction, etc.  I tend to err more on the restrictionist side for selfish reasons, though an out-and-out poll tax was me being a bit ridiculous about it, admittedly.

[Kingpoleon]

Romney would call those words "inelegant". I understand the point he was making.

You see, though, one quote by someone should always determine how you vote. Hence why most Democrats won't vote for Hillary because of one quote about being a Goldwater Girl and a libertarian. Or does it only apply to non-Democrats? I can never remember.

[TDAS04]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

[RFayette]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

I intentionally post things a bit provocatively (even if they do reflect viewpoints) in order to get a bit of a reaction.  You can "troll" while being semi-serious at the same time.

What I find amazing is that we have posters who literally say that people holding a particular ideology should be shamed and are "terrible human beings," and they never seem to get polls about them for the comments they make. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, if one consistently spouts hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric, it obviously reflects on them as a person. Opinions don't exist in a vacuum.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You good, boo!!! I totally get your style (but you don't get that I can post semi-seriously while speaking ironically too?? Ain't no SJW, tsk tsk)

[RFayette]

Yes, if one consistently spouts hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric, it obviously reflects on them as a person. Opinions don't exist in a vacuum.

Have you ever gone on Free Republic?  None of the opinions I express here would be controversial at all there.  You leftists are incredibly intolerant of people who hold opinions differing from yourself.  I never said I wanted you deported, but of course in your dishonesty you make that implication.

[TDAS04]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

I intentionally post things a bit provocatively (even if they do reflect viewpoints) in order to get a bit of a reaction.  You can "troll" while being semi-serious at the same time.

What I find amazing is that we have posters who literally say that people holding a particular ideology should be shamed and are "terrible human beings," and they never seem to get polls about them for the comments they make. 

Many of your actual viewpoints seem pretty troubling, but I don't think you're a terrible human being.

[RFayette]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

I intentionally post things a bit provocatively (even if they do reflect viewpoints) in order to get a bit of a reaction.  You can "troll" while being semi-serious at the same time.

What I find amazing is that we have posters who literally say that people holding a particular ideology should be shamed and are "terrible human beings," and they never seem to get polls about them for the comments they make. 

Many of your actual viewpoints seem pretty troubling, but I don't think you're a terrible human being.

Don't read Ann Coulter then. I think you'd be more than a little troubled.

[Хahar 🤔]

I've never gone on Free Republic just as I've never been on Stormfront. It would be nice if you would actually attempt to defend your repugnant statements instead of pleading that you have the right to make them, but I suppose that would require a level of concern for other people that you obviously lack.

I'll let this speak for itself and let you twist yourself into knots attempting to defend what it means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

I'd imagine you and I have different opinions about what constitutes "voter suppression" though.

Well, when it comes to voter suppression from the govt, I think this works: If they institute new regulations or purposefully sabotage/neglect the system with any belief that it will reduce voter participation from undesired voters. This can mean instituting photo id, or repealing same-day registration primarily for an advantage. Both actions have been seen quite a lot by Republicans in the past 4+ years.

There are legitimate reasons to believe in certain restrictions (felony disenfranchisement, for instance), but I would hope one has a good reason for it. If it is not necessary at all and makes voting more annoying or difficult, then it should be done better so it doesn't make things more difficult. Everyone should have a chance to participate as easily as reasonably possible.

I would certainly love it if America was run by a Democratic president and a liberal Democratic Congressional supermajority, but achieving that by using positions of power to manipulate elections / reduce voter participation is too corrupt and unfair

[Derpist]

I disagree, but FF.

[RFayette]

I've never gone on Free Republic just as I've never been on Stormfront. It would be nice if you would actually attempt to defend your repugnant statements instead of pleading that you have the right to make them, but I suppose that would require a level of concern for other people that you obviously lack.

I'll let this speak for itself and let you twist yourself into knots attempting to defend what it means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a fair statement - parts of Paris and Brussels are real trouble.  Islam has a lot of issues associated with it, and it's fair to limit the percent of people who are Muslim in the country, and it's the right of a nation to do so.  If my belief is so radical that it makes me "like an ISIS member" or "radically hateful," then why is it that at least 40% of Americans believe it?  It's not saying that Muslims currently in the country are deported, it just means that we as a nation shouldn't let more of them in.