The So-And-So Vote

[whitehall]

The dirty little secret is that we hear about a "candidate can't win (fill in the blank)" mostly from the liberal media or political operatives who have a stake in the election. Anybody who relies on polls or political opinions regarding who can win (fill in the blanks) is generally a low information victim of the liberal mainstream pundits.

 

[9aces]

The dirty little secret is that we hear about a "candidate can't win (fill in the blank)" mostly from the liberal media or political operatives who have a stake in the election. Anybody who relies on polls or political opinions regarding who can win (fill in the blanks) is generally a low information victim of the liberal mainstream pundits.

I've always found the "XXX can't win" argument funny.

Is winning what's important, or what you believe in?

It's been said well you can't get through what you want if you don't win, which is true. But to say you can only win if you pick somebody who doesn't demonstrate any conviction in their beliefs. Are you just supposed to hope they'll suddenly find some?

 

[Boss]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, again... it has nothing to do with your worth. If you pay the economy rate for a hotel room, you aren't given the luxury suite because they don't think you deserve it. It's because you get what you pay for. Has nothing to do with what you are worth as a person.

I think government SHOULD be run like a business... we wouldn't have a $17 trillion debt if it were with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Right now, government is being run like a fucking candy store by children with no concept of monetary value. Let's just all line up and hold our hands out for the free candy!

It has to do with the value or worth of your political opinion. One person's views become more valuable as they have more votes.

It is sad if you think government should be a matter of 'you get what you pay for'.

Government is not about making a profit. Why would you run a government the same way as a business, which is about making a profit? That isn't saying you cannot have some overlap; certainly there are aspects of individual businesses and business in general which can apply to government. However, since the goals, means, and structure of government are different from business, using the same system to run them seems like an odd idea.

I think the person putting up the money should have more of a say. Sorry... just how I feel about it. If you and I and another person are planning a party, and the other person and myself are putting up the money for the party, and you're not contributing anything... you're not getting to pick what kind of beer we buy! Just ain't happening, dude! I've tried to give you several examples and you're just not getting this... I don't know why.

No, government is not about making profit... it's also not about giving away free shit. It's also not about... hey, let's spend someone else's money! Running it like a business would ensure stability and growth instead of ensuring massive debt that can never be repaid. You'd have a country that operated within it's means and made sensible sound decisions and choices. Yeah, that sounds like a really ODD idea, doesn't it?

 

[Boss]

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, it's how much taxes you pay... has nothing to do with your wealth or money.

How much you pay in taxes has nothing to do with money? Did you really type that?

Well, it doesn't. I know that you libtards believe that how much tax you pay is related to wealth but it's just fucking NOT. I don't know what else to tell you. RICH people don't fucking pay taxes! The people who are paying the highest tax rates on the largest incomes are not usually exuberantly wealthy, they are still trying to get there. They have a small business and file taxes as an individual. And back to the party analogy above... if they are paying for the party, why shouldn't they get to pick what kind of beer we buy? Hell, you and I ought to just be thankful we're invited to the party.

 

[Montrovant]

Plenty of people 'contribute' without earning income. For a long time that was the norm in this country; men generally earned wages while women stayed at home, raised children and took care of the house. While that is not the norm it once was, there are still probably millions of housewives and househusbands out there who earn no income and would have less of a voice under a tax based system.

No they file joint tax returns so the stay-at-home housewife gets the same number of votes as her husband.

Your argument seems to boil down to the same basics as the 'only federal income tax payers should get to vote' proponents...

No because Williams' argument is that everyone gets a vote. You still have a sizable portion who don't pay taxes who would still have political influence.

If the top earners would only have one extra vote, what is the point? It seems to be to limit the voting rights of those that you (or Williams) deem less worthy. It is the idea that income determines worth again.

No that's your characterization and it's based on a false premise. This has nothing to do with your worth. Again, do you give half your check to a homeless person to keep them from feeling less worthy? I doubt it.... you'd not be in favor of such a thing. Nor would you allow the homeless person to dictate how your money is spent. Has nothing to do with how much worth you think that person has.

No one has said a damn thing about limiting voting rights, again, that is you interjecting a characterization that is false. Again, your votes would be proportional to the amount of tax you pay and there is nothing unfair about that... we do this all the time... you go to a hotel and you can pay the economy rate and get the bare essentials or you can opt to rent the luxury suite. You rent a car, you can pay a little and get an economy car or pay a lot and get a luxury car. It has ZERO to do with what you are worth. If you paid for an economy car then demanded to be given a luxury car the rental agent would just laugh at you. It's not because he doesn't think you're worthy.

Once again you have this need to equate government to business. They are not the same, no matter how often you use such comparisons. Yes, government uses money, but it is not a business.

Worth is absolutely part of this type of system. What is each person's political opinion worth? That would be determined by the amount of taxes they paid. If a person gets 2 votes because of their taxes and another person gets 1 vote, the first person's opinion, their political voice, is stronger, is worth more, than the second person's. If some people get more votes than other people, the voting rights of those other people are limited. By expanding the voting rights of some, the voting rights of others are inherently limited.

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, again... it has nothing to do with your worth. If you pay the economy rate for a hotel room, you aren't given the luxury suite because they don't think you deserve it. It's because you get what you pay for. Has nothing to do with what you are worth as a person.

I think government SHOULD be run like a business... we wouldn't have a $17 trillion debt if it were with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Right now, government is being run like a fucking candy store by children with no concept of monetary value. Let's just all line up and hold our hands out for the free candy!

It has to do with the value or worth of your political opinion. One person's views become more valuable as they have more votes.

It is sad if you think government should be a matter of 'you get what you pay for'.

Government is not about making a profit. Why would you run a government the same way as a business, which is about making a profit? That isn't saying you cannot have some overlap; certainly there are aspects of individual businesses and business in general which can apply to government. However, since the goals, means, and structure of government are different from business, using the same system to run them seems like an odd idea.

I think the person putting up the money should have more of a say. Sorry... just how I feel about it. If you and I and another person are planning a party, and the other person and myself are putting up the money for the party, and you're not contributing anything... you're not getting to pick what kind of beer we buy! Just ain't happening, dude! I've tried to give you several examples and you're just not getting this... I don't know why.

No, government is not about making profit... it's also not about giving away free shit. It's also not about... hey, let's spend someone else's money! Running it like a business would ensure stability and growth instead of ensuring massive debt that can never be repaid. You'd have a country that operated within it's means and made sensible sound decisions and choices. Yeah, that sounds like a really ODD idea, doesn't it?

Actually, government is very much about spending someone else's money, if you consider taxation spending someone else's money.

If you don't like how the government spends money, vote for candidates that will change that. Why is restricting the voting rights of others your solution? You don't like how other people vote so you want to make their votes count less?

Businesses are not assured of either stability or growth. More businesses go under than succeed. So the idea that running government like business would ensure those things strikes me as overly optimistic.

Again, if you want to have certain aspects of government modeled on business practices, I don't see anything wrong with that. However, I think what you really mean is you want government to be fiscally responsible. That can be accomplished without somehow trying to run our courts, as an example, like a business. It can also hopefully be accomplished without restricting anyone's voting rights or limiting anyone's voice in government.

Perhaps if voting were only about how taxes are spent, I could more readily accept the idea of voting rights based on taxes paid. Since voting also will affect laws, foreign policy, environmental issues, and potentially constitutional interpretation, I find the idea of basing voting on taxes paid unpalatable at best.

 

[Montrovant]

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, it's how much taxes you pay... has nothing to do with your wealth or money.

How much you pay in taxes has nothing to do with money? Did you really type that?

Well, it doesn't. I know that you libtards believe that how much tax you pay is related to wealth but it's just fucking NOT. I don't know what else to tell you. RICH people don't fucking pay taxes! The people who are paying the highest tax rates on the largest incomes are not usually exuberantly wealthy, they are still trying to get there. They have a small business and file taxes as an individual. And back to the party analogy above... if they are paying for the party, why shouldn't they get to pick what kind of beer we buy? Hell, you and I ought to just be thankful we're invited to the party.

Income tax is based on....wait for it....income. Income is, basically, money. Therefore, taxes absolutely have to do with your money. If you talk about more than just federal income tax, it has to do with even more of your money, but all taxes have to do with your money. What the hell else do taxes have to do with than money? You're not going to pay the IRS with Twinkies.

Oh, and rich people don't pay taxes? What kind of asinine blanket statement is that? Some may not pay federal income taxes, but that's not the same as rich people don't pay taxes.

Let's go with your party analogy. Sure, if you are paying for the party, you get to buy the beer. However, if some people who aren't paying for the party are, instead, setting up the party, or letting the party take place in their home, should they not get a say in what kind of beer is bought? What if some people going to the party are allergic to the kind of beer you prefer? What about the couple who just had their home robbed, going to make them fork out some cash before they get a say in what kind of beer is served? For that matter, if my friends were putting together a party they wouldn't be such dicks as to completely ignore my desires for drinks, even if I weren't paying for it. They wouldn't simply take my orders, but they would take my input into consideration. Unlike you, apparently, the people I know don't do everything based solely on financial contribution.

 

[Montrovant]

The basis of this idea is that money determines how much a person's voice counts in our political process. That is already an unfortunate reality, I don't want to make it even more prevalent.

No, it's how much taxes you pay... has nothing to do with your wealth or money.

How much you pay in taxes has nothing to do with money? Did you really type that?

Well, it doesn't. I know that you libtards believe that how much tax you pay is related to wealth but it's just fucking NOT. I don't know what else to tell you. RICH people don't fucking pay taxes! The people who are paying the highest tax rates on the largest incomes are not usually exuberantly wealthy, they are still trying to get there. They have a small business and file taxes as an individual. And back to the party analogy above... if they are paying for the party, why shouldn't they get to pick what kind of beer we buy? Hell, you and I ought to just be thankful we're invited to the party.

Oh, guess what? I'm not a liberal. I'm sure you're happier labeling me as such so I can fit into whatever preconceived notions you have about liberals, though.