Tea Party - Don't let renters vote.

[geauxtohell]

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.

As there is no official "Tea Party", there really is no official "Tea Party Platform", which is why I responded to a specific poster who agreed with this notion.

But let's just treat this as an academic exercise where a TP person came out and said that there is merit to the idea that only property owners should vote. Now, for the sake of debate, let's say this is an actual ideal that is being proposed to we can discuss it on a *gasp* political message board:

Do you support it?

 

[Provocateur]

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.

I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say). From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.

Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.

It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion. You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.

Pathetic, really.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say). From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.

Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.

It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion. You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.

Pathetic, really.

Let's discuss the principal, then.

If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me: a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.

If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?

 

[Provocateur]

I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say). From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.

Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.

It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion. You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.

Pathetic, really.

Let's discuss the principal, then.

If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me: a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.

If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?

I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.

Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago? Yes. Do I think that it is reasonable still today? No. I think that renters should not be penalized.

Here is a test for you.

Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:

A) Voting for landowners only
B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters


I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.


Will you get zany out there Tea Party people? Of course. They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.

The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending. They want them to make better choices.

And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.

 

[geauxtohell]

I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say). From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.

Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.

It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion. You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.

Pathetic, really.

Let's discuss the principal, then.

If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me: a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.

If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?

I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.

Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago? Yes. Do I think that it is reasonable still today? No. I think that renters should not be penalized.

Here is a test for you.

Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:

A) Voting for landowners only
B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters


I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.


Will you get zany out there Tea Party people? Of course. They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.

The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending. They want them to make better choices.

And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.

That's why I asked you. If you aren't going to advocate for this, then obviously we aren't going to debate it.

 

[Provocateur]

Let's discuss the principal, then.

If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me: a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.

If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?

I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.

Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago? Yes. Do I think that it is reasonable still today? No. I think that renters should not be penalized.

Here is a test for you.

Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:

A) Voting for landowners only
B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters


I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.


Will you get zany out there Tea Party people? Of course. They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.

The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending. They want them to make better choices.

And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.

That's why I asked you. If you aren't going to advocate for this, then obviously we aren't going to debate it.

I don't think you will find many to debate you. Some, perhaps. I hope that doesn't lead you to believe that a few people represent an entire movement.

 

[California Girl]

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.

As there is no official "Tea Party", there really is no official "Tea Party Platform", which is why I responded to a specific poster who agreed with this notion.

But let's just treat this as an academic exercise where a TP person came out and said that there is merit to the idea that only property owners should vote. Now, for the sake of debate, let's say this is an actual ideal that is being proposed to we can discuss it on a *gasp* political message board:

Do you support it?

There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't think you will find many to debate you. Some, perhaps. I hope that doesn't lead you to believe that a few people represent an entire movement.

I don't think that.

 

[geauxtohell]

There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*

At least one poster on here agreed with the position. That is why I responded to him.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Case in point:

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.

 

[Toro]

Tea Party: Don’t Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com

Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!

The flaw in this reasoning - or at least one of the hundreds of flaws - is that it assumes the property owners are more likely to do what's best for the community.

But property owners are a special interest group unto themselves, and have incentives to write laws to benefit only themselves at the expense of everyone else.

 

[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.

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

My bad for not being descriptive enough. My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him. The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends. He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself. He is a classic moocher. To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid. In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government. My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check. For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.

True story!

 

[Ravi]

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.

My bad for not being descriptive enough. My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him. The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends. He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself. He is a classic moocher. To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid. In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government. My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check. For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.

True story!

The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.

Sorry, I doubt the story.

 

[Toro]

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.

I owe you a rep for this.

One thing I don't understand from the Far Right who espouse the idea of linking voting with property rights is that the individual as sovereign is, or at least appears to be, a fundamental ideal of what it means to be an American. Yet, there is no greater exercise of personal sovereignty than determining how one is to be ruled. If an individual has no say over how he is to be ruled, how can the individual be sovereign? It seems that someone who is denied a voice in how he is ruled because he does not own property is a politically indentured servant to those who do.

 

[Toro]

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.

I would be willing to bet that most Tea Party supporters disagree with making property a precondition to voting.

 

[Toro]

There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*

At least one poster on here agreed with the position. That is why I responded to him.

Oddball has made this argument before.

 

[kwc57]

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

My bad for not being descriptive enough. My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him. The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends. He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself. He is a classic moocher. To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid. In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government. My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check. For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.

True story!

The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.

Sorry, I doubt the story.

Of course you do. Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit. I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

Tea Party: Don’t Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com

Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!

The flaw in this reasoning - or at least one of the hundreds of flaws - is that it assumes the property owners are more likely to do what's best for the community.

But property owners are a special interest group unto themselves, and have incentives to write laws to benefit only themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Right! Like letting landlords write housing codes! Or factory owners writing environmental or workplace safety regulations.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

I would be willing to bet that most Tea Party supporters disagree with making property a precondition to voting.

Then I guess we'll see a public denial of the comments made by Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation?

 

[Ravi]

My bad for not being descriptive enough. My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him. The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends. He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself. He is a classic moocher. To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid. In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government. My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check. For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.

True story!

The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.

Sorry, I doubt the story.

Of course you do. Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit. I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.

Then provide a link showing how someone can get a refund without an earned income credit.