Tea Party - Don't let renters vote.

[Two Thumbs]

“the founding fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. it wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, i’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.”

renters don't have a vested interest in their community?

What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?

it's a lot easier for a renter to move if the area starts to disintegrate. Not quite so easy if you are the owner of the property. That's the difference.

By the way.... he didn't actually say anything about taking the right to vote away from renters... So there is no need to get hysterical about blacks, or women. Mmmmk? Rational over hypothetical.

what part of restrictions don't you understand?????

alert alert

mr. Shaman has hacked edthywhaters account!!

Alert alert!!!

 

[kwc57]

Universal suffrage is not a right.

Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nosmo King]

Restrict voting rights. What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?

 

[Ravi]

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Restrict voting rights. What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?

Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.

 

[kwc57]

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.

We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride. My step-nephew being one of them. He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables. He got a $600 tax return. Go figure.

 

[edthecynic]

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.

We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride. My step-nephew being one of them. He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables. He got a $600 tax return. Go figure.

You can thank the GOP's buying votes with tax cuts for that.

 

[goldcatt]

Suffrage is in a category separate from the enumerated rights, but that doesn't mean it can simply be taken away.

Voting is considered a liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Universal suffrage beyond the voting amendments was never mandated, but it's a liberty that once given cannot be taken away without due process of law (hence, convicted felons can be denied the right to vote) and equal protection.

Financial status or property ownership are not rationally related to the right to vote. There are also questions of whether the 24th would apply to payment of property taxes, as it bans the denial of the right to vote not just based on payment of a poll tax but payment of "any other tax". It's never been tested since nobody's been stupid enough to try it, but the language is more than clear.

It'll never happen anyway. It would take an Amendment, which would be a political kiss of death for every Congressperson and state legislator who supported it and the pols know it. But anybody who may or may not champion the idea doesn't know their basic 14th jurisprudence.

 

[Ravi]

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.

We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride. My step-nephew being one of them. He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables. He got a $600 tax return. Go figure.

A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.

 

[Nosmo King]

Restrict voting rights. What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?

Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.

I read the OP. I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights. This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party. Keep backpedaling. Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.

 

[JimH52]

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.

We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride. My step-nephew being one of them. He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables. He got a $600 tax return. Go figure.

A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.

That is far too simple for some to understand. This is just the beginning of Tea Bagger attempts to turn back the clock.

 

[goldcatt]

Restrict voting rights. What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?

Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.

I read the OP. I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights. This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party. Keep backpedaling. Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.

And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.

I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Restrict voting rights. What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?

Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.

I read the OP. I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights. This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party. Keep backpedaling. Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.

And that's why no one supports it. This person was talking about one of the Founders ideas on who can and can't vote.

Not a damn thing more.

But like you were supposed to do, you assumed all people in the TEA wanted to do this.

You were tricked by the headline, nothing more was expected.

 

[Nosmo King]

Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.

I read the OP. I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights. This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party. Keep backpedaling. Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.

And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.

I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.

And among the fringe types and Conservatives in general there is a pervasive attitude that civil liberties should be eroded. There's never any advocacy of expansion of civil liberties, ever. The only rights they are really interested in protecting and expanding is the right to pack heat.

 

[goldcatt]

I read the OP. I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights. This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party. Keep backpedaling. Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.

And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.

I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.

And among the fringe types and Conservatives in general there is a pervasive attitude that civil liberties should be eroded. There's never any advocacy of expansion of civil liberties, ever. The only rights they are really interested in protecting and expanding is the right to pack heat.

Depends which type of conservative. Yeah, there's a camp that's exactly like you describe. And they're loud, and they were in power for years. Authoritarian social cons, neocons, even some of the reactionary Big-L "libertarians" as I refer to them, the far right wing nuts who join the libertarian party but really aren't libertarian. There are others who are more classically or fiscally conservative, and more small-l libertarian. I hate saying "all" cons because we do have a fair number of that latter group around They just don't troll and scream.

 

[Provocateur]

The idiocy that comes out of this screwed up movement never ceases to amaze me.

First of all renters DO pay property taxes since that cost is figured into the cost of the rent.

Second of all everyone still pays local and state sales taxes.

This is a big movement but it will eventually (and rightfully) fizzle out and go away.

The state of denial is apparently very deep within you.

The Tea Party isn't leaving. I'm sorry that this is hard for you to accept. I'm here to help you work through it if need be.

November 2010 was step one. Step two is November 2012.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yup...

Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).

If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.

That's fucking absurd.

My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school. As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.

Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.

I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property? Owning property is the litmus test now? That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.

You guys really should run with this.

 

[California Girl]

Yup...

Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).

If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.

That's fucking absurd.

My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school. As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.

Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.

I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property? Owning property is the litmus test now? That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.

You guys really should run with this.

You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.

This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.

Critical thinking - it is your friend.

 

[Samson]

The idiocy that comes out of this screwed up movement never ceases to amaze me.

First of all renters DO pay property taxes since that cost is figured into the cost of the rent.

Second of all everyone still pays local and state sales taxes.

This is a big movement but it will eventually (and rightfully) fizzle out and go away.

Maybe it will "fizzle out and go away."

But it won't be because they support the portions of the original consitution. But it is no surprise that we have allowed this portion of the constitution to change.

Here is the actual quote from the Tea Party Representative from link in the OP:

“The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.”

Republicans have always had a fondness for the past. But, do we really want to jump right back to the Middle Ages?

First, it is called the TEA PARTY because they're against unfair taxes.

Second, it is TRUE that owners have a greater investment in the community than renters.

Third, if you don't get a vote because you don't own property, then you shouldn't be taxed for property (see #1).

If rental property is not taxed, then only the competitive market value of the rental property would be reflected in the price. Without having to float on a tax basis, rental prices would decrease.

Where would the government raise the revenue for that lost on rental taxes?

They would increase the tax on non-rental property owners (homes and businesses).


Soon everyone would choose to rent, and no one would be "vested in any community."

This is why the premise of only allowing property owners to vote didn't work.

 

[zzzz]

This would also take away the votes of college students, parents living with their children, children living with their parents, lots of senior citizens who do not own property and numerous other classes. It would never get a hearing and I think everyone knows this.