Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[bripat9643]

And again we see Right Wingers salivating over the possibility of wide spread voter suppression! The Rabid Right will tirelessly work to erode freedoms unless that freedomis the 'freedom' to own any weapon they choose. But voting rights? The Rabid Right has no problem repressing the MOST ESSENTIAL of all American liberties.

Voting isn't freedom. It's the tyranny of the mob.

Tyranny of the mob (a.k.a. citizens) vs Tyranny of the few or the one. Yeap, those tend to be the choices on this planet with some shades of gray in the middle. Give me democracy, thank you.

Wrong. Those aren't the only choices. However, those with a vested interest in the status quo will claim they are.

 

[Nosmo King]

And again we see Right Wingers salivating over the possibility of wide spread voter suppression! The Rabid Right will tirelessly work to erode freedoms unless that freedomis the 'freedom' to own any weapon they choose. But voting rights? The Rabid Right has no problem repressing the MOST ESSENTIAL of all American liberties.

Voting isn't freedom. It's the tyranny of the mob.

Tyranny of the mob (a.k.a. citizens) vs Tyranny of the few or the one. Yeap, those tend to be the choices on this planet with some shades of gray in the middle. Give me democracy, thank you.

Wrong. Those aren't the only choices. However, those with a vested interest in the status quo will claim they are.

The tyranny you seek is the tyranny of the oligarchs. And that is a tyranny that promotes only those qualifying to be in the elite. Egalitarianism is a vice under such tyranny. Greed is a virtue.

 

[Toro]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Why would you exclude those on SS? Most people who draw SS never paid the taxes to justify what they receive. Therefore, they are net consumers of government, and according to your premise shouldn't be allowed to vote.

How do you determine if someone is a "net consumer of government" anyways? Every person in the United States pays taxes of some sort. Do you include government borrowing and net that out against taxes? What about those who pay local taxes but not federal taxes? What about those who are wealthy and squirrel their wealth offshore? Do you net out the implied subsidies of those who live in suburbs and consume an above average amount of government infrastructure to commute into a city to which they don't pay taxes?

 

[JFK_USA]

Again with this shit? THEY PROVIDE A SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
So how about anyone on welfare become soldiers ...or possibly pick up trash to earn their welfare.
You people are some stupid MFers.

In one breath you guys beat your chests and say that anyone on welfare is a ward of the State and should have their rights revoked. In the next breath anyone who is totally dependent on the government is eligible to keep their rights if they contribute a few years of their lives in duty to the nation.

My question is...what if they have a foot in both worlds? Which special class do they fall into? Do they keep their special designation if they get dishonorably discharged or later get onto welfare once they leave the service?

If you're wanting to erect superficial barriers you will need to have details as to who gets to vote. It's not a cut-and-dried process.

But that's the problem with the simplistic mindset of Republicans. It's great when it comes to campaigns and speaking about ideas, but when it comes to ACTUAL GOVERNANCE, their plan fails miserably. The world is grey. Not everyone fits into this nice box. Not even you when it comes to certain issues. I'm sorry that's too big for your small mind to wrap it's head around but it's true.

And again, Republicans fail to realize that in one way or another, everyone pays taxes. They just don't want the people that they feel vote against them to have the right to vote.

Talk about failing miserably. You're a Short attention span theater life time member.
How'd those midterms work out for ya.

You're still deflecting the questions. How do you deal with those legitimate issues?

You didnt pose a question. The dumbfuckery continues unabated.......

Yes I did and we will follow your handle, "Here we GO Again"

If someone doesn't pay federal taxes, but pays state and local taxes through sales tax, do they get to vote? If so is it any amount of taxes? A certain amount? How much proof? What type of proof? Safeguards in place to prevent fraud so only true taxpayers vote?

You're proposal of "No one who doesn't pay taxes should vote" is embarrassingly simplistic that it does not withstand the rigors of scrutiny. Not to mention you claim that you want "limited government" but then you want the government to dictate who can elect the officials FOR the government. How is that "limited government"?

So let's save the horseshit okay? Now you know I asked you questions, you'll deflect and say "stupid liberals" and the board will love you because apparently we are in 1st grade and we make policy arguments accordingly.

 

[rightwinger]

Even someone living under a bridge has a right to vote

A Congressman or Senator represents them too

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In one breath you guys beat your chests and say that anyone on welfare is a ward of the State and should have their rights revoked. In the next breath anyone who is totally dependent on the government is eligible to keep their rights if they contribute a few years of their lives in duty to the nation.

My question is...what if they have a foot in both worlds? Which special class do they fall into? Do they keep their special designation if they get dishonorably discharged or later get onto welfare once they leave the service?

If you're wanting to erect superficial barriers you will need to have details as to who gets to vote. It's not a cut-and-dried process.

But that's the problem with the simplistic mindset of Republicans. It's great when it comes to campaigns and speaking about ideas, but when it comes to ACTUAL GOVERNANCE, their plan fails miserably. The world is grey. Not everyone fits into this nice box. Not even you when it comes to certain issues. I'm sorry that's too big for your small mind to wrap it's head around but it's true.

And again, Republicans fail to realize that in one way or another, everyone pays taxes. They just don't want the people that they feel vote against them to have the right to vote.

Talk about failing miserably. You're a Short attention span theater life time member.
How'd those midterms work out for ya.

You're still deflecting the questions. How do you deal with those legitimate issues?

You didnt pose a question. The dumbfuckery continues unabated.......

Yes I did and we will follow your handle, "Here we GO Again"

If someone doesn't pay federal taxes, but pays state and local taxes through sales tax, do they get to vote? If so is it any amount of taxes? A certain amount? How much proof? What type of proof? Safeguards in place to prevent fraud so only true taxpayers vote?

You're proposal of "No one who doesn't pay taxes should vote" is embarrassingly simplistic that it does not withstand the rigors of scrutiny. Not to mention you claim that you want "limited government" but then you want the government to dictate who can elect the officials FOR the government. How is that "limited government"?

So let's save the horseshit okay? Now you know I asked you questions, you'll deflect and say "stupid liberals" and the board will love you because apparently we are in 1st grade and we make policy arguments accordingly.

I've already answered this.
If your only income is welfare you pay ZERO in taxes,state,federal or sales.
So no you shouldnt be able to vote if thats the case.
Anyone who receives more money from the government then they pay in taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote.
When that persons situation improves and they are a productive member of society they get that right back.

 

[JFK_USA]

But that's the problem with the simplistic mindset of Republicans. It's great when it comes to campaigns and speaking about ideas, but when it comes to ACTUAL GOVERNANCE, their plan fails miserably. The world is grey. Not everyone fits into this nice box. Not even you when it comes to certain issues. I'm sorry that's too big for your small mind to wrap it's head around but it's true.

And again, Republicans fail to realize that in one way or another, everyone pays taxes. They just don't want the people that they feel vote against them to have the right to vote.

Talk about failing miserably. You're a Short attention span theater life time member.
How'd those midterms work out for ya.

You're still deflecting the questions. How do you deal with those legitimate issues?

You didnt pose a question. The dumbfuckery continues unabated.......

Yes I did and we will follow your handle, "Here we GO Again"

If someone doesn't pay federal taxes, but pays state and local taxes through sales tax, do they get to vote? If so is it any amount of taxes? A certain amount? How much proof? What type of proof? Safeguards in place to prevent fraud so only true taxpayers vote?

You're proposal of "No one who doesn't pay taxes should vote" is embarrassingly simplistic that it does not withstand the rigors of scrutiny. Not to mention you claim that you want "limited government" but then you want the government to dictate who can elect the officials FOR the government. How is that "limited government"?

So let's save the horseshit okay? Now you know I asked you questions, you'll deflect and say "stupid liberals" and the board will love you because apparently we are in 1st grade and we make policy arguments accordingly.

I've already answered this.
If your only income is welfare you pay ZERO in taxes,state,federal or sales.
So no you shouldnt be able to vote if thats the case.
Anyone who receives more money from the government then they pay in taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote.
When that persons situation improves and they are a productive member of society they get that right back.

What is this "money received" mean? Does it mean if you live in an apartment but your kids go to a school that you don't pay property taxes for, are you received more money (or benefits) from the government than you are paying for? So under your system, they wouldn't be allowed to vote. So what do you do then?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Talk about failing miserably. You're a Short attention span theater life time member.
How'd those midterms work out for ya.

You're still deflecting the questions. How do you deal with those legitimate issues?

You didnt pose a question. The dumbfuckery continues unabated.......

Yes I did and we will follow your handle, "Here we GO Again"

If someone doesn't pay federal taxes, but pays state and local taxes through sales tax, do they get to vote? If so is it any amount of taxes? A certain amount? How much proof? What type of proof? Safeguards in place to prevent fraud so only true taxpayers vote?

You're proposal of "No one who doesn't pay taxes should vote" is embarrassingly simplistic that it does not withstand the rigors of scrutiny. Not to mention you claim that you want "limited government" but then you want the government to dictate who can elect the officials FOR the government. How is that "limited government"?

So let's save the horseshit okay? Now you know I asked you questions, you'll deflect and say "stupid liberals" and the board will love you because apparently we are in 1st grade and we make policy arguments accordingly.

I've already answered this.
If your only income is welfare you pay ZERO in taxes,state,federal or sales.
So no you shouldnt be able to vote if thats the case.
Anyone who receives more money from the government then they pay in taxes shouldnt be allowed to vote.
When that persons situation improves and they are a productive member of society they get that right back.

What is this "money received" mean? Does it mean if you live in an apartment but your kids go to a school that you don't pay property taxes for, are you received more money (or benefits) from the government than you are paying for? So under your system, they wouldn't be allowed to vote. So what do you do then?

Are you fucken stupid! If your sole income is welfare you dont pay taxes..PERIOD!!!
Why cant you get it through your thick skull?
And I dont know about you but I pay significantly more in taxes than I get back in services from the government.
So tell me genius,how can a society continue to function when the majority dont put in more than they receive?
I'm sure your answer is to tax the rich but how long before the rich say FUCK YOU!!

Alexander Fraser Tytler said it best.

 

[rightwinger]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

The farmer wants to farm. The gov doesnt want him to.
So who do you blame?
But I'll say no,he shouldnt be able to vote if he's just sitting back and collecting a check for nothing. Thats no different than welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

The farmer wants to farm. The gov doesnt want him to.
So who do you blame?
But I'll say no,he shouldnt be able to vote if he's just sitting back and collecting a check for nothing. Thats no different than welfare.

Still taking a government handout. Why should a farmer be allowed to vote for more handouts?

 

[JFK_USA]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

The farmer wants to farm. The gov doesnt want him to.
So who do you blame?
But I'll say no,he shouldnt be able to vote if he's just sitting back and collecting a check for nothing. Thats no different than welfare.

Still taking a government handout. Why should a farmer be allowed to vote for more handouts?

Because they are mostly republicans and/or white.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

The farmer wants to farm. The gov doesnt want him to.
So who do you blame?
But I'll say no,he shouldnt be able to vote if he's just sitting back and collecting a check for nothing. Thats no different than welfare.

Still taking a government handout. Why should a farmer be allowed to vote for more handouts?

I know you're a lazy bastard but come on!!! It's only four or five sentences.

 

[Jarlaxle]

In one breath you guys beat your chests and say that anyone on welfare is a ward of the State and should have their rights revoked. In the next breath anyone who is totally dependent on the government is eligible to keep their rights if they contribute a few years of their lives in duty to the nation.

My question is...what if they have a foot in both worlds? Which special class do they fall into? Do they keep their special designation if they get dishonorably discharged or later get onto welfare once they leave the service?

Dishonorable discharge should lose all benefits.

If you're wanting to erect superficial barriers you will need to have details as to who gets to vote. It's not a cut-and-dried process.

Actually, it is...well, unless you are really simple!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, the states did NOT form the COTUS, the Continental Congress did, learn some fucking history.

Also, no Amendment has ever been ratified except through Congress.

No, the states formed the Constitution, which is why they had to ratify it.

And since like all Leftists you've never read the Constitution, you wouldn't know that the Constitution provides for an Article 5 convention by which the states themselves can change the constitution. Just because it's never been done yet doesn't mean it can't. When the states take back their country, that will be the end of your evil Leftist "utopia".

You fucking idiots are so stupid. If you're on the right and someone disagrees with you, they are leftists, and if you're on the left and someone disagrees with you they are rightards.

Here's a clue moron. I don't disagree with you on whether they states or Congress wrote the COTUS because of your political persuasion, I disagree because you are WRONG.

The Costitution was written by the Constitutional Congress, then RATIFIED by the states.

And the PEOPLE in those states didn't ratify shit, their state legislators did.

Ratification Dates and Votes - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Idiot

Read Article 5. The point is that the states can amend the constitution without Congress.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the states did NOT form the COTUS, the Continental Congress did, learn some fucking history.

Also, no Amendment has ever been ratified except through Congress.

No, the states formed the Constitution, which is why they had to ratify it.

And since like all Leftists you've never read the Constitution, you wouldn't know that the Constitution provides for an Article 5 convention by which the states themselves can change the constitution. Just because it's never been done yet doesn't mean it can't. When the states take back their country, that will be the end of your evil Leftist "utopia".

You fucking idiots are so stupid. If you're on the right and someone disagrees with you, they are leftists, and if you're on the left and someone disagrees with you they are rightards.

Here's a clue moron. I don't disagree with you on whether they states or Congress wrote the COTUS because of your political persuasion, I disagree because you are WRONG.

The Costitution was written by the Constitutional Congress, then RATIFIED by the states.

And the PEOPLE in those states didn't ratify shit, their state legislators did.

Ratification Dates and Votes - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Idiot

Read Article 5. The point is that the states can amend the constitution without Congress.

You truly are clueless.

The issue has nothing to do with how the Constitution might be amended.

The issue is that you and others on the right are actually advocating that a class of persons have their inalienable, fundamental right to vote taken from them for no other reason then your partisan animus toward that class of persons.

This is one of many examples of how utterly reprehensible most conservatives are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that every jackass breathing should be able to vote.

"Now as to the representative house, which ought to be so constructed as to answer that character truly: I was for extending the rights of suffrage (or in other words the rights of a citizen) to all who had a permanent intention of living in the country. Take what circumstances you please as evidence for this, either the having resided a certain time, or having a family, or having property, any or all of them. Whoever intends to live in a country must wish the country well, and has a natural right of assisting in the preservation of it."

[From Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 1:504.]

Tell me, have you ever researched anything before you posted it, or do you just spit it out there hoping that everyone is as careless as you?

I suppose you believe that Paul Revere's famous ride was about the right to gun ownership too.

Every male citizen of the commonwealth liable to taxes or to militia duty in any county, shall have a right to vote for representatives for that county to the legislature." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes for a Constitution, 1794. FE 6:520

No representation without taxation. That was our founding philosophy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

WTF is a "paid message board poster?"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You truly are clueless.

The issue has nothing to do with how the Constitution might be amended.

The issue is that you and others on the right are actually advocating that a class of persons have their inalienable, fundamental right to vote taken from them for no other reason then your partisan animus toward that class of persons.

This is one of many examples of how utterly reprehensible most conservatives are.

Voting is not an inalienable right. Children can't vote. Felons can't vote. Non citizens can't vote, though Democrats are working hard to change that. Ignoramus that you are, you're using language from the Declaration of Independence and applying it to something the founders never believed was an inalienable right, punctuated by the vigorous debates on who should vote, debates left to the states to decide for themselves. Voting is not a "constitutional" right, an "inalienable" right, or any kind of right. The vote belongs to those who society deems worthy of having a voice in the representation in each level of government. It was never for everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

If a farmer is receiving government subsidies to farm....should he be allowed to vote?

WTF is a "paid message board poster?"

I get paid to post here

You don't?