Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote

[Truthmatters]

Why is it republicans always want fewer voters in the USA?

 

[ABikerSailor]

They want fewer voters so that they are the only ones voting.

 

[ihopehefails]

gotta love those 'pro-america parts of the country'.

I'm trying to figure out how this is a pro-america or anti-american statement?

 

[ihopehefails]

Years ago I would have thought anyone who proposed this was some kind of asshole but I am beginning to see the light after seeing why Obama got elected and people who actually thought Obama was going to drop money into their lap. Its really disgusting when you see people vote believing that the government will give them things.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Years ago I would have thought anyone who proposed this was some kind of asshole but I am beginning to see the light after seeing why Obama got elected and people who actually thought Obama was going to drop money into their lap. Its really disgusting when you see people vote believing that the government will give them things.

You're taking one person caught on tape WAY to seriously.

The number of people who voted for Obama because they thought he would "give them money" is such a tiny fraction that it's meaningless.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's a little rough, don't you think? The right to vote is one of our most important. Not all people on welfare are deadbeats ... I know, they're in the 5% group. Some of these people are grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren because the parents are doped up, in prison, dead or whatever. Some people are severely disabled and will never be able to contribute to society. Some are people who are genuinely poor, but still good citizens to the best of their ability - in other words, they do what they can to comfort or aid the people of their community. Good example: the WV miners who were recently killed - their families may have to temporarily take some welfare aid. Right now, there are God only knows how many people who are without jobs and have been thrust into a position they would never have dreamed they would be in.

Also, just because someone doesn't own property does not mean they should be denied the right to vote. It could be they live in a city where apartments are a necessity - or it could be they just don't want to own property because they either can't afford it or don't have the time to keep it up.

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth. We should begin discussing if we should allow those who recieve welfare the privelage to vote because they are beginning to vote away other people's money.

Those who don't own property are not a drain on the system. They are just poor and are not asking for public money so I don't see why they should be denied the right to vote.

 

[goldcatt]

That's a little rough, don't you think? The right to vote is one of our most important. Not all people on welfare are deadbeats ... I know, they're in the 5% group. Some of these people are grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren because the parents are doped up, in prison, dead or whatever. Some people are severely disabled and will never be able to contribute to society. Some are people who are genuinely poor, but still good citizens to the best of their ability - in other words, they do what they can to comfort or aid the people of their community. Good example: the WV miners who were recently killed - their families may have to temporarily take some welfare aid. Right now, there are God only knows how many people who are without jobs and have been thrust into a position they would never have dreamed they would be in.

Also, just because someone doesn't own property does not mean they should be denied the right to vote. It could be they live in a city where apartments are a necessity - or it could be they just don't want to own property because they either can't afford it or don't have the time to keep it up.

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth. We should begin discussing if we should allow those who recieve welfare the privelage to vote because they are beginning to vote away other people's money.

Those who don't own property are not a drain on the system. They are just poor and are not asking for public money so I don't see why they should be denied the right to vote.

You are kidding, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

By ihef's rationale, we should consider not allowing those to vote who will not support the American dream. We can begin by examining ihef's anti-American statements of the last year.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's a little rough, don't you think? The right to vote is one of our most important. Not all people on welfare are deadbeats ... I know, they're in the 5% group. Some of these people are grandparents who are now raising their grandchildren because the parents are doped up, in prison, dead or whatever. Some people are severely disabled and will never be able to contribute to society. Some are people who are genuinely poor, but still good citizens to the best of their ability - in other words, they do what they can to comfort or aid the people of their community. Good example: the WV miners who were recently killed - their families may have to temporarily take some welfare aid. Right now, there are God only knows how many people who are without jobs and have been thrust into a position they would never have dreamed they would be in.

Also, just because someone doesn't own property does not mean they should be denied the right to vote. It could be they live in a city where apartments are a necessity - or it could be they just don't want to own property because they either can't afford it or don't have the time to keep it up.

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth. We should begin discussing if we should allow those who recieve welfare the privelage to vote because they are beginning to vote away other people's money.

Those who don't own property are not a drain on the system. They are just poor and are not asking for public money so I don't see why they should be denied the right to vote.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano, the decision is about whether individuals can vote for presidential electors, a very narrow and limited decision. It has no application at all to other elections state or federal. If you know that, then you deliberately miscast the conclusion (a malignant act) or you are uneducated on the point, or you are mentally feeble.

The agenda-driven reactionary activists on this board are far more guilty of the deliberate lie then are the conservatives, moderates, and liberals here combined.

This is why you reactionary wingnuts on the fringe right will never have more than 20 to 25% support nationally (hmmm, sounds like the fascists in Weimar Germany), and the majority here will never give in to an unconstitutional minority attempting to take power.

 

[Ame®icano]

Americano, the decision is about whether individuals can vote for presidential electors, a very narrow and limited decision. It has no application at all to other elections state or federal. If you know that, then you deliberately miscast the conclusion (a malignant act) or you are uneducated on the point, or you are mentally feeble.

The agenda-driven reactionary activists on this board are far more guilty of the deliberate lie then are the conservatives, moderates, and liberals here combined.

This is why you reactionary wingnuts on the fringe right will never have more than 20 to 25% support nationally (hmmm, sounds like the fascists in Weimar Germany), and the majority here will never give in to an unconstitutional minority attempting to take power.

Who do you think you are to judge me?

I quoted what SCOTUS said, and you're labeling me as malignant, uneducated or wingnut?

What that makes you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To suggest that a narrow decision by SCOTUS is somehow probative for disqualification of an entire group of American CITIZENS tells me that you despise the Constitution and our God-given rights. Thus we can only conclude that you are malignant. Who the hell do you think you are, your agenda-drive reactionary fringe whacko?

The next morning: Americano never responded, simply ran away from the truth.

 

[JBeukema]

The right to vote is not universal or felons would have the same right to do so. We restrict the right to vote to people for various reasons because if we allowed felons to vote they would vote out laws restricting their freedom to rape, murder, rob, and so forth..

Many felons vote.

I know for a fact than in Az, you don't even have to ask if it's your first and only felony. The right is restored automatically upon completion of your sentence and payment of all fines.

The only thing not restored automatically is your 2nd amendment rights- and it's still possible to get those back for most offenses-- even for some violent crimes, depending on the circumstances, how hard you want to fight, and whether you've shown yourself to be a law-abiding and trustworthy citizen after the fact.

This policy has yet to see 'rape, murder, theft, and so on' decriminalized because the few out there who would truly attempt to legalize such things are not only a very small minority but are likely to find themselves, should they act on their desires, in prsion forever or with a needle in their arm.

 

[Ame®icano]

To suggest that a narrow decision by SCOTUS is somehow probative for disqualification of an entire group of American CITIZENS tells me that you despise the Constitution and our God-given rights. Thus we can only conclude that you are malignant. Who the hell do you think you are, your agenda-drive reactionary fringe whacko?

The next morning: Americano never responded, simply ran away from the truth.

Did you understand at all what SCOTUS wrote?

Let's try it again, dummy.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." - SCOTUS, December 12, 2000

Show me where SCOTUS is disqualifying "entire group of American CITIZENS". The bold part explaining to you that constitution gives rights to STATES, and not to federal government, to decide who can vote and to whom is going to give electoral college votes. Any fourth grader could understand that.

Also, I see you haven't been sleeping and couldn't wait to run back to message board and declare how I never responded to "your truth". It's questionable did you ever leave...therefore, the only truth here is that you are a moron.

 

[Care4all]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

 

[Ame®icano]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

 

[Care4all]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

no it is not self explanatory, not without the full case? how do i even know by the bold, what the SC was even referring to? did you link the case somewhere in the thread, so i can go in to it, and read it?

 

[Care4all]

so once the state declares an election, the citizens have the right to vote....is that what the SC states?

 

[goldcatt]

Bush v. Gore isn't to be used as precedent anyway. It is a narrow decision specifically limited to that case.

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

BUSH v. GORE

 

[Ame®icano]

it is speaking about the electoral college....the state has the power to choose their electoral college NOT the people through a right to vote for each elector chosen....??? no???

No. Read the bold part. It's self explanatory.

no it is not self explanatory, not without the full case? how do i even know by the bold, what the SC was even referring to? did you link the case somewhere in the thread, so i can go in to it, and read it?

To me, that part explain tenth amendment. It's up to the States to determine who can vote, not to the feds. It's should apply to every case. This one is from 2000, Bush vs. Gore.