Why Do We Need Less People Voting And Not More??

[buckeye45_73]

No answer yet huh?

got it.

no it's very simple
we don't want acorn registering one person 70 times
we don't want people using government to vote them selves unlimited services.

 

[TNHarley]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

No i wouldnt. I dont want to do that, either.
I just clearly stated i wanted only land owners to vote.

Yes and that is clearly stupid.

Why? Because some rat said so?

Because anyone who wants to damage voting rights and be ruled by the elites is stupid. The stupid crown is yours, enjoy.

"damage voting rights"
Dude, mother fuckers like you damage our rights every day.
Go beg the govt to take more rights away.

 

[Brain357]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

It used to be that.

Yep. I dont mind women or blacks voting. Or anyone.
I just dont want some gutter bitch welfare queen to have a say in where my tax money is going. FFS, I already feed her fat ass anyways.

You think they are voting now? That is funny.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

I've seen it on both sides. If your election is to be decided by a smaller number of voters....there is more a chance your social networks will reach those most likely to vote (activist at some level).

Nobody wants to have to depend on the middle.

 

[August West]

I bet you used the term "elitist" in an unflattering way before haven't you?

It's clear that the answer to that question is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, I included freeloaders who game the system to reduce their effective tax rate (rich people).

Every voter should have skin in the game. Every voter needs to contribute. Those who do not contribute should not be allowed to vote, unless we all agree to go with option b.

It`s doubtful that the GOP would want to give up their trailer park constituency. Maybe owning lots of guns could make a person an eligible voter.

 

[Brain357]

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

No i wouldnt. I dont want to do that, either.
I just clearly stated i wanted only land owners to vote.

Yes and that is clearly stupid.

Why? Because some rat said so?

Because anyone who wants to damage voting rights and be ruled by the elites is stupid. The stupid crown is yours, enjoy.

"damage voting rights"
Dude, mother fuckers like you damage our rights every day.
Go beg the govt to take more rights away.

I can’t pretend you came close to an intelligent thought. Want to try again?

 

[TNHarley]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Because regressively trending toward a feudal society is the way to spread enlightenment?

Yes, we are the epitome of enlightenment. Trump, obama, bush, bush, clinton, reagan, all the retarded congressman... Yea, letting dumbfucks vote is how we progress.
Thanks.

Stupidity is the most powerful force in the universe, no doubt about that. But do you really think society would be better off by moving back towards feudalism?

Would it go to that? Kind of a big ordeal to just assume, doncha think?
Would society be better off the way we are going?
These little bedwetting faggots are going to vote our right to memes away!

 

[TNHarley]

No i wouldnt. I dont want to do that, either.
I just clearly stated i wanted only land owners to vote.

Yes and that is clearly stupid.

Why? Because some rat said so?

Because anyone who wants to damage voting rights and be ruled by the elites is stupid. The stupid crown is yours, enjoy.

"damage voting rights"
Dude, mother fuckers like you damage our rights every day.
Go beg the govt to take more rights away.

I can’t pretend you came close to an intelligent thought. Want to try again?

You can pretend anything. Thats the only thing you are good at.

 

[Brain357]

Yes and that is clearly stupid.

Why? Because some rat said so?

Because anyone who wants to damage voting rights and be ruled by the elites is stupid. The stupid crown is yours, enjoy.

"damage voting rights"
Dude, mother fuckers like you damage our rights every day.
Go beg the govt to take more rights away.

I can’t pretend you came close to an intelligent thought. Want to try again?

You can pretend anything. Thats the only thing you are good at.

I don’t have to pretend that you are stupid, you admitted it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I know pseudo-libertarians love the belief of "property über alles " -- which is basically the belief that property is above everything else -- including people -- so no wonder they are the main ones who argue that land owners should be the only ones who vote.

...but here is something they don't tell you -- what happens when someone with the capital to do -- can own all the property their money can buy?

Very quickly, those of us with the power to vote will become smaller and smaller -- until we end up at what we claimed to be against -- this is why libertarians are usually terrible people.

 

[task0778]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

I've seen it on both sides. If your election is to be decided by a smaller number of voters....there is more a chance your social networks will reach those most likely to vote (activist at some level).

Nobody wants to have to depend on the middle.

I dunno about that SD, the middle tends to be the people who end up paying most of the bill for whatever we do policy-wise. As for skin in the game, well it's the middle and lower classes that pay the SS tax, right? And sales taxes, and are they not the ones who will get hit hardest if the costs of goods and services and energy go up? So, they do have some stake in what's going on, but the problem is we don't have an honest media that is telling us the truth and our education system sucks despite the fact that we've been pouring gobs of money into it for what, 50 years? And we get lied to by our politicians from both parties, so who can you trust? Answer: NOBODY. Okay, almost nobody, and isn't that a crying shame?

 

[Darkwind]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

NO right is absolute; isn't that the mantra of your ilk?

Besides, only those government say should vote should be allowed to vote. Our rights come from government, isn't that right?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

I've seen it on both sides. If your election is to be decided by a smaller number of voters....there is more a chance your social networks will reach those most likely to vote (activist at some level).

Nobody wants to have to depend on the middle.

I dunno about that SD, the middle tends to be the people who end up paying most of the bill for whatever we do policy-wise. As for skin in the game, well it's the middle and lower classes that pay the SS tax, right? And sales taxes, and are they not the ones who will get hit hardest if the costs of goods and services and energy go up? So, they do have some stake in what's going on, but the problem is we don't have an honest media that is telling us the truth and our education system sucks despite the fact that we've been pouring gobs of money into it for what, 50 years? And we get lied to by our politicians from both parties, so who can you trust? Answer: NOBODY. Okay, almost nobody, and isn't that a crying shame?[/QUOTE]
Not only a shame.... it is the design.

 

[Darkwind]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

I am curious. Do you walk in lockstep with everything someone on the left says or does? You seem to think that the right does; which is an indictment of your ability to observe people.

 

[task0778]

I know pseudo-libertarians love the belief of "property über alles " -- which is basically the belief that property is above everything else -- including people -- so no wonder they are the main ones who argue that land owners should be the only ones who vote.

...but here is something they don't tell you -- what happens when someone with the capital to do -- can own all the property their money can buy?

Very quickly, those of us with the power to vote will become smaller and smaller -- until we end up at what we claimed to be against -- this is why libertarians are usually terrible people.

This is a load of BS. Libertarianism affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their property. And vote. Basic libertarianism does not support limiting the right to vote to those who own property; those who do are as you say, pseudo-libertarians.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who sets the criteria for determining who has contributed and who hasn't?

Is that something you feel government would be good at?

Maybe you are right. Maybe we shouldn't let government decide such things. So, why do we allow the government to decide how much each of us should pay?

 

[Brain357]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

NO right is absolute; isn't that the mantra of your ilk?

Besides, only those government say should vote should be allowed to vote. Our rights come from government, isn't that right?

Everyone should be able to vote.

 

[task0778]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

I've seen it on both sides. If your election is to be decided by a smaller number of voters....there is more a chance your social networks will reach those most likely to vote (activist at some level).

Nobody wants to have to depend on the middle.

I dunno about that SD, the middle tends to be the people who end up paying most of the bill for whatever we do policy-wise. As for skin in the game, well it's the middle and lower classes that pay the SS tax, right? And sales taxes, and are they not the ones who will get hit hardest if the costs of goods and services and energy go up? So, they do have some stake in what's going on, but the problem is we don't have an honest media that is telling us the truth and our education system sucks despite the fact that we've been pouring gobs of money into it for what, 50 years? And we get lied to by our politicians from both parties, so who can you trust? Answer: NOBODY. Okay, almost nobody, and isn't that a crying shame?[/QUOTE]
Not only a shame.... it is the design.

No, it's not in the design, it's in the people who run things. The distrust and corruption doesn't have to happen.

 

[Darkwind]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

NO right is absolute; isn't that the mantra of your ilk?

Besides, only those government say should vote should be allowed to vote. Our rights come from government, isn't that right?

Everyone should be able to vote.

Everyone you say.

Isn't that an interesting insight into what you think of the American citizen.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a load of BS. Libertarianism affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their property. And vote. Basic libertarianism does not support limiting the right to vote to those who own property; those who do are as you say, pseudo-libertarians.

That is why I provided an alternative, which is really what I want. If I can't have what I want, freeloaders should not be allowed to vote themselves more of my money. That's all I am saying.