If only landowners voted, would we have a welfare state?

[TNHarley]

You know................there is a part of the population that would not be allowed to vote if only people who owned land voted.

That portion of the population would be 90 percent of the active duty military.

Why? Because most people in the military know that they are going to be stationed at their command for only 3 to 4 years, and many of them opt to rent instead of buy, because they don't know where their next duty station is.

Yeah, there are those who do buy houses, but most of those are in the upper ranks and are already planning for retirement.

Why would you deny someone fighting for this country the right to vote, yet would give it to someone like Trump who holds lots of real estate?

Is someone like Trump more "worthy" or "smarter" than someone who is serving this country in the military?

Fair point.
Of course, military should be able to vote. Land owners or not. They contribute to this country.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know................there is a part of the population that would not be allowed to vote if only people who owned land voted.

That portion of the population would be 90 percent of the active duty military.

Why? Because most people in the military know that they are going to be stationed at their command for only 3 to 4 years, and many of them opt to rent instead of buy, because they don't know where their next duty station is.

Yeah, there are those who do buy houses, but most of those are in the upper ranks and are already planning for retirement.

Why would you deny someone fighting for this country the right to vote, yet would give it to someone like Trump who holds lots of real estate?

Is someone like Trump more "worthy" or "smarter" than someone who is serving this country in the military?

Fair point.
Of course, military should be able to vote. Land owners or not. They contribute to this country.

See..............this is the reason that having a broad brush policy won't work. There will always be exceptions to the rule that should be allowed. If you allow one, eventually all the others will demand to be allowed as well.

 

[G.T.]

I think some sort of aptitude should be required.

Yeah ... They tried that for a while ... And abused it.
Doesn't mean it would or wouldn't be a good idea ... Just proves the politicians have been willing to abuse it in the past.

.

If theyre going to abuse any system at all, I mean...their abuse couldnt be the deciding factor. Thats just a given, one that we can only mitigate.

Or.... have no countries - like i'd like

 

[G.T.]

You know................there is a part of the population that would not be allowed to vote if only people who owned land voted.

That portion of the population would be 90 percent of the active duty military.

Why? Because most people in the military know that they are going to be stationed at their command for only 3 to 4 years, and many of them opt to rent instead of buy, because they don't know where their next duty station is.

Yeah, there are those who do buy houses, but most of those are in the upper ranks and are already planning for retirement.

Why would you deny someone fighting for this country the right to vote, yet would give it to someone like Trump who holds lots of real estate?

Is someone like Trump more "worthy" or "smarter" than someone who is serving this country in the military?

Fair point.
Of course, military should be able to vote. Land owners or not. They contribute to this country.

"Contributing" is an alright benchmark.

Folks on welfare Voting is like.....

representation without taxation : 0

 

[OldLady]

Considering who we elected as President, maybe NONE of us should be allowed to vote. Stupid assholes.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

 

[BlackSand]

If theyre going to abuse any system at all, I mean...their abuse couldnt be the deciding factor. Thats just a given, one that we can only mitigate.

Or.... have no countries - like i'd like

No countries ... that would be kind of cool ... As long as they didn't try to make the world one big country.

The problem with the abuse was that it allowed the cheaters better representation than those who didn't cheat.
It was more about implementation and enforcement than about direct context ... Kind of what happens when government gets involved.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

 

[TNHarley]

You know................there is a part of the population that would not be allowed to vote if only people who owned land voted.

That portion of the population would be 90 percent of the active duty military.

Why? Because most people in the military know that they are going to be stationed at their command for only 3 to 4 years, and many of them opt to rent instead of buy, because they don't know where their next duty station is.

Yeah, there are those who do buy houses, but most of those are in the upper ranks and are already planning for retirement.

Why would you deny someone fighting for this country the right to vote, yet would give it to someone like Trump who holds lots of real estate?

Is someone like Trump more "worthy" or "smarter" than someone who is serving this country in the military?

Fair point.
Of course, military should be able to vote. Land owners or not. They contribute to this country.

See..............this is the reason that having a broad brush policy won't work. There will always be exceptions to the rule that should be allowed. If you allow one, eventually all the others will demand to be allowed as well.

Thats a fair point.
However, that was up to the states, at the time. I believe most states had exemptions for military. Hek, a lot of states even had exemptions if you just paid a tax every year.

 

[G.T.]

It sounds cruel but...

I want whichever form of government allows me to continue the maximization of my sexual endeavors.

If others have to suffer, then so be it. Life aint for everybody

 

[TNHarley]

Considering who we elected as President, maybe NONE of us should be allowed to vote. Stupid assholes.

Always makes me laugh when hillary voters say shit like that

Like...

 

[OldLady]

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

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

Got a link for the exemptions concerning military and people who don't own land, yet still pay tax? I'd like to see that.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

Good lord old lady!! Did you leave any straw for halloween?
Also, I clearly stated i didnt want to take that right from people. I wish they didnt have it in the first place

 

[BlackSand]

See..............this is the reason that having a broad brush policy won't work. There will always be exceptions to the rule that should be allowed. If you allow one, eventually all the others will demand to be allowed as well.

Fair point ... But a soldier already is subject to a cut-out.
They are responsible to Uniform Code of Military Justice first ... And civil liberties aren't necessarily protected the same way for them.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

Got a link for the exemptions concerning military and people who don't own land, yet still pay tax? I'd like to see that.

Not really man. I read a lot. Especially about history. Thats how i know.
I will try a google search since yours is broken.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

There's enough land in the US for everyone to own property.

Some people don't want to, as it requires work to maintain.

 

[ABikerSailor]

See..............this is the reason that having a broad brush policy won't work. There will always be exceptions to the rule that should be allowed. If you allow one, eventually all the others will demand to be allowed as well.

Fair point ... But a soldier already is subject to a cut-out.
They are responsible to Uniform Code of Military Justice first ... And civil liberties aren't necessarily protected the same way for them.

The UCMJ doesn't have anything to do with voting. It is actually a separate set of rules for the military, because they operate a lot different than civilians do. I know, I was in the Navy for over 20 years.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

What does this even mean?

States can't set standards for a national election.