Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Such a cliche that has been used over and over in this thread. By the standards back in the day. I could vote. I am a middle class American with no higher education.It's funny people keep saying this against what we were founded in... some of you really are stupid.
It's great for those of you who want to be ruled by the elites.
Please, spare me
Its a good question and the whole situation needs to be looked at. You have just elected a piece of shit to be President, something needs to change.
OK, so how about a litmus test with IQ, 85 being minimum for voter eligibility. Same result? Do the math.Would we have to change the Constitution to "We the land owners?" The skin we have in the game is our nation.
Conservatives know that if you're white, you're more likely to own property. Do the math.
How about, We, the federal taxpayers?Omg you too?Would we have to change the Constitution to "We the land owners?" The skin we have in the game is our nation.
This is a policy from the 18th century to the 19th. How many taxes did they have then?You'd have to either not tax people who didn't own property, or abandon the principle of taxation without representation.
Here OldLadyThe Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.
At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.
Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.
The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]
That's a childs book meant to teach a lesson to children. It's not a blueprint for civilization.
Not everyone has enough money for a mortgage or the down payment, let alone the upkeep.
It doesn't mean they don't have a right to a say in their government. If it affects their lives, they have a right to vote about it, whether they are well off enough to own land or not.
Interesting tidbit: Most of the people on welfare don't vote. They know the system is set up to screw them and they don't trust any of 'em. This is true, I've worked with poor folks a long time. They don't vote.
The corruption today might not even be happening.
People started voting with emotion. The duopoly focused on fear. And the masses bought into it.
That's why all the people that vote for corruption and abuse of power are either rich or stupid.
That's why all the people that vote for corruption and abuse of power are either rich or stupid.
hey genius, non working section 8 dwellers arent paying payroll and property taxes..sales tax LOL okEveryone pays taxes. Every citizen has “skin in the game.”
Such a lame argument.
Not to mention, that sales tax is paid for with tax dollars
State taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/
Instead of trying to keep people from voting, have better policies that make them want to vote for you.
They ARE paying taxes. They DO have “skin in the game”. Every citizen has the right to vote. Get over it. Have better ideas.
We'd have a country made up of the elite and everyone else wouldn't have any rights or say in anything.
What is so wrong with helping the poor? Oh'yess, they don't matter and should be used as cannon folder in your wars.
Here OldLadyThe Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.
At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.
Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.
The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]
That's a childs book meant to teach a lesson to children. It's not a blueprint for civilization.
Of course, in your communist utopia mindset, civilization means that you have rights to other people labor.
Did you have some sort of nasty interaction with a woman at Walmart yesterday? What gives? Anyone who worked hard for what they have shouldn't be pushing for an elitist world.Just because we contribute to society, and its betterment, doesnt mean we are better than the irresponsible trailer trash whore that makes a living off having kids and then not paying attention to them. Asshole.I'm not on a high horse. You are.Good lord. What the hell is wrong with you? Thats, what, the third strawman you have concocted in this thread?You're far too young to be talking like this.That was a problem then too. Newly arrived citizens couldnt afford land, for the most part. So they WORKED for it.
People are still WORKING for it, ya jamoke. Not all can achieve it. So they don't deserve the same rights you have because you're RICHER than them?
Ewwww.....that smells really bad, Harley.
Get off your high horse. It makes you look dumb.
That poor man with a shack and a half acre of land has more right to vote for our interests than a trailer trash welfare queen that contributes NOTHING to society except babies.
It doesnt have anything to do with being rich.
I bought my first chunk of property at twenty years old. I spent 22K on it. Saved for like 6 months to afford the down payment.
I made like 20something thousand a year at that time. Yes, i was soooooooooooooooooo rich. My two part time jobs was da shiznit!
You are SOOOO much better than that trailer trash welfare queen you've concocted in your head. Talk about strawmen.
Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?
We'd have a country made up of the elite and everyone else wouldn't have any rights or say in anything.
What is so wrong with helping the poor? Oh'yess, they don't matter and should be used as cannon folder in your wars.
And that's different from what we have now in what way exactly?
YOU are really obtuse. You just described exactly the situation of things. If, on the other hand, the proposed way the OP were made, only middle class men that owned land would be able to vote, and the media would not be able to brain wash the low educated, state educated folks that the government FORCED into it's indoctrination camps known as public schools, to vote for exactly who they wanted in office.
The welfare benefits we have today didn't start until the 1960's. Pretty sure, anyway.Sounds like today.As a kid, I remember the days before welfare. How some people lived, how poor they were. And that was in white neighborhoods. I can't imagine what it was like in some places. I don't think you want that. People who were too stupid to earn enough to feed their pack of kids or Dad was a raving drunk or out of the picture and mom was selling herself at night and the family was living on oatmeal and hand me downs.indeed. Giving them free shit has worked out so well. Excellent catch.I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.I'm not on a high horse. You are.
You are SOOOO much better than that trailer trash welfare queen you've concocted in your head. Talk about strawmen.
Well.....which one of them pays the bills to make the country go 'round?
Having done a deep dive into local records doing genealogy, I discovered that lots of the little towns in frontier Maine before the Revolution were chipping in to pay room and board for an orphan or someone who was otherwise called "indigent," including doctor bills. If it was a town member, they weren't going to let them starve or freeze.
We were doing that as a society BEFORE your frickin Constitution, TNHarley . It is because we are civilized. I know our welfare system needs reform, but what we've created is going to take a lot more than kicking them out the door and telling them to get a job. That's stupid talk, right there.
Its also funny cause you are equating our constitution to local efforts
So
I wonder what the difference of population % is on welfare today compared to the 1950s or so.. I would bet it hasnt changed much. I will look into that.
Before the elites shackled the nation with compulsory public education. Before then, if you didn't send your kid to school, you didn't get into trouble, it was only offered, it was a choice. Now, it is the law.The 1890s were America's high point.
I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.
Having done a deep dive into local records doing genealogy, I discovered that lots of the little towns in frontier Maine before the Revolution were chipping in to pay room and board for an orphan or someone who was otherwise called "indigent," including doctor bills. If it was a town member, they weren't going to let them starve or freeze.
We were doing that as a society BEFORE your frickin Constitution, TNHarley . It is because we are civilized. I know our welfare system needs reform, but what we've created is going to take a lot more than kicking them out the door and telling them to get a job. That's stupid talk, right there.
100 acres were yours if you cleared 10 acres and lived on it for five years. Might have been a 5 pound paperwork fee to clear the title, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people didn't even pay that. Officially they were termed "squatters" but I know folks still living on land gotten that way.Back in the days when some states required land ownership to vote, everyone owned land. Even the poorest people owned land. Because it was freely available.I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way
Why is it so much better for the state we live in to have the power of the purse than the US government? The feds give a bunch of cash to each state to distribute as it sees fit. What is so much worse about that than sending it to our state capital?I've told this story before, so forgive me if you've heard it.
Having done a deep dive into local records doing genealogy, I discovered that lots of the little towns in frontier Maine before the Revolution were chipping in to pay room and board for an orphan or someone who was otherwise called "indigent," including doctor bills. If it was a town member, they weren't going to let them starve or freeze.
We were doing that as a society BEFORE your frickin Constitution, TNHarley . It is because we are civilized. I know our welfare system needs reform, but what we've created is going to take a lot more than kicking them out the door and telling them to get a job. That's stupid talk, right there.
So you are suggesting we can respect the 10th amendment to the Constitution and allow states to help their people instead of attempting to use the Constitution and the powers it grants the federal government to do what the local municipalities were already doing ...
.
