Well nobody was saying the government would decide who gets to vote.

You're making a straw man, friend.

And franti, we already have certain restrictions on voting.

To say 'if you can't vote you aren't represented' misses the point of the representation. The vote doesn't represent you, politicians do.

At least, that's the hope.

So even if you can vote, that doesn't mean your personal interestes are represented. In fact no one's interests are represented 100% of the time.

To be clear Radeon, the US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Direct democracy is basically mob rule and it's a horrible way to do just about anything.

At least of a bureaucratic nature.

i'm against literally all voting restrictions for what its worth

so long as youre a citizen ofc

age limits?

well that too

naturally

what if someone is a terrorist? should there be systems in place to prevent them from voting?

are there enough terrorists to matter? who gets to decide what is terrorism and what isnt?

Terrorism is political violence

Assuming there aren't now, would you change your mind if there was a lot more terrorists in the future?

is war political violence?

Terrorism excludes state military force.

so was the boston tea party a terrorist act? how about the warsaw uprising?

what if one of the states involved is completely unrecognized?

Like the Islamic State?

like kosovo etc

but yes

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-facts

Sure, we can assume those occurences were terrorism by nature.

btp is a horrible example

ok, the entire revolutionary war

well I was gonna just brush over it for sake of argument but Dan piped up

my point is that the word terrorist in modern use simply means attacks from people we don't like

just dont like misrepresentation

my bad on derailing

no prob

there are dozens of events that are technically terrorism that we can easily morally justify

i don't like how terrorist is just a political buzzword

I'll grant you that terrorism is not a clearly defined term, and deciding whether or not to label particular groups or events as terrorist can be tricky.

it can be used interchangibly with "freedom fighter" from the other side

But for the sake of argument, can we not assume that a particular individual is very much a terrorist?

i think its better to actually examine suspented 'terrorists' on the merits of their methods and goals

This is really skirting around the point of my older question, so I'll ask a different one. Should someone with a warrant for murder be able to vote?