Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Can you prove you pay more in taxes than you receive in government funded benefits? And I mean all benefits. Including the military that's defending you.

Let's hear you prove it.

You're just one more of these Leftist jackasses who can't tell the difference between welfare and earned benefits. Apparently in addition, you think that living in a country defended by a military is welfare too. I can't dumb myself down enough to engage with you on such sophomoric thinking.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You didn't actually read that, did you?

 

[bripat9643]

Can you prove you pay more in taxes than you receive in government funded benefits? And I mean all benefits. Including the military that's defending you.

Let's hear you prove it.

You're just one more of these Leftist jackasses who can't tell the difference between welfare and earned benefits. Apparently in addition, you think that living in a country defended by a military is welfare too. I can't dumb myself down enough to engage with you on such sophomoric thinking.

Agreed. The arguments libs come up with aren't just wrong, they are breathtaking in their stupidity.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

I've thought about this subject a lot over the years.

Who should get to vote..

You're idea of excluding those on welfare is not without merit, but it needs to be clarified, anyone who has been on welfare for more than 50% of that election cycle is ineligible to vote.

The guy who lost his job and got on SNAP for 3 months to feed his family while looking for a job shouldn't lose his vote.

Those who can prove their identity and eligibility to vote of course

Those who can prove that they have some basic knowledge and understanding of what it is they are voting on via some simple voter exam.

That last would certainly eliminate a fair number of people both young and old. But too bad. If you're some dumb punk who doesn't even know who the secretary of state is but you want to vote , get an education. If you're some older person who old age has caused you to lose a thought or two, I'm sorry but it's time to let the younger generation make the decisions.

And so on and so forth.

 

[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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Umm you do realize this country was not founded on "every person gets a vote" don't you?

It's not voter suppression if you choose not to qualify to vote.

"no blacks" would certainly be voter suppression since who can help being black?

Has anyone suggested no blacks?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

I've thought about this subject a lot over the years.

Who should get to vote..

You're idea of excluding those on welfare is not without merit, but it needs to be clarified, anyone who has been on welfare for more than 50% of that election cycle is ineligible to vote.

The guy who lost his job and got on SNAP for 3 months to feed his family while looking for a job shouldn't lose his vote.

Those who can prove their identity and eligibility to vote of course

Those who can prove that they have some basic knowledge and understanding of what it is they are voting on via some simple voter exam.

That last would certainly eliminate a fair number of people both young and old. But too bad. If you're some dumb punk who doesn't even know who the secretary of state is but you want to vote , get an education. If you're some older person who old age has caused you to lose a thought or two, I'm sorry but it's time to let the younger generation make the decisions.

And so on and so forth.

100% agreed! It's not temporary situations such as unemployment we're talking about, it's chronic dependency on welfare subsidies, not earned benefits such as Social Security or Veterans benefits.

The principle is very simple. Those who choose to live their lives dependent on the labors of their neighbors should not at the same time be empowered to vote to sustain and increase their welfare at the expense of their countrymen.

 

[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.

Umm you do realize this country was not founded on "every person gets a vote" don't you?

It's not voter suppression if you choose not to qualify to vote.

"no blacks" would certainly be voter suppression since who can help being black?

Has anyone suggested no blacks?

Voter eligibility has been settled law since 1974 and yet you seek to erode it. By any definition, that is seeking to erode freedom. It is, indeed, voter suppression.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

How wonderful it would be if you Leftists were as committed to rights that are actually spelled out in the Constitution as you are "rights" that don't appear anywhere there such as voting, gay marriage, and abortion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Umm you do realize this country was not founded on "every person gets a vote" don't you?

It's not voter suppression if you choose not to qualify to vote.

"no blacks" would certainly be voter suppression since who can help being black?

Has anyone suggested no blacks?

Voter eligibility has been settled law since 1974 and yet you seek to erode it. By any definition, that is seeking to erode freedom. It is, indeed, voter suppression.

There is no such thing as "settled law" in our form of government

 

[Montrovant]

While I can, to some extent, understand and sympathize with the idea of only letting a certain group vote, I think there are very compelling arguments against such restrictions.

The idea that those dependent on government will vote to extend such benefits certainly is logical, but seems to ignore the fact that there's no reason any particular group won't vote to create or extend government benefits they are eligible for. Paying taxes or being a property owner does not magically negate the possibility of voting for government programs for one's own benefit.

Making use of government benefits a bar to voting almost automatically makes family income level a voting standard. The children of rich parents are certainly far less likely to ever use the government benefits derided in this thread. That kind of wealth discrimination seems unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

And of course, for every group that is denied the right to vote, the country's government becomes less representative of the will of the people. It becomes a government of some people, by some people, for some people.

 

[Amazon]

"Those who can prove that they have some basic knowledge and understanding of what it is they are voting on via some simple voter exam."

So that cuts out the viewers of Faux News.

 

[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.

How wonderful it would be if you Leftists were as committed to rights that are actually spelled out in the Constitution as you are "rights" that don't appear anywhere there such as voting, gay marriage, and abortion.

Even more freedoms you want to repress! Good Lord! Why call yourself American? Here in America, we cherish freedom. Your arguments to repress freedom will always be rejected by Americans.

 

[Amazon]

The Constitution spells out rights that are given to the government by the people, not the other way around.

 

[bripat9643]

"Those who can prove that they have some basic knowledge and understanding of what it is they are voting on via some simple voter exam."

So that cuts out the viewers of Faux News.

I think members of Congress should be selected by lottery. Someone selected randomly from the Dallas phone directory is just as likely to do a competent job as someone who ran for the position.

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.

How wonderful it would be if you Leftists were as committed to rights that are actually spelled out in the Constitution as you are "rights" that don't appear anywhere there such as voting, gay marriage, and abortion.

Even more freedoms you want to repress! Good Lord! Why call yourself American? Here in America, we cherish freedom. Your arguments to repress freedom will always be rejected by Americans.

Voting and freedom are two separate things. In fact, they are almost mutually exclusive. Everything politicians do places further limitations on my freedom. They almost never expand it. Furthermore, the expropriate an ever greater percentage of my wealth every year.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Time for this rightwing lunacy to make another of its regular appearances.

How do you propose to calculate whether a rich guy is a giver or a taker? He might pay taxes of a certain amount, but he might be getting a net higher benefit from all the government funded goods and services he's using,

in a business, for example.

You have hit on the one legitimate objection to this plan. There are ways around it, but they would all become political footballs.

It's about as likely to happen as a Congressman turning down a bribe.

 

[Nosmo King]

"Those who can prove that they have some basic knowledge and understanding of what it is they are voting on via some simple voter exam."

So that cuts out the viewers of Faux News.

I think members of Congress should be selected by lottery. Someone selected randomly from the Dallas phone directory is just as likely to do a competent job as someone who ran for the position.

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.

How wonderful it would be if you Leftists were as committed to rights that are actually spelled out in the Constitution as you are "rights" that don't appear anywhere there such as voting, gay marriage, and abortion.

Even more freedoms you want to repress! Good Lord! Why call yourself American? Here in America, we cherish freedom. Your arguments to repress freedom will always be rejected by Americans.

Voting and freedom are two separate things. In fact, they are almost mutually exclusive. Everything politicians do places further limitations on my freedom. They almost never expand it. Furthermore, the expropriate an ever greater percentage of my wealth every year.

Oh! You're so repressed!

We Americans enjoy a society free from violent political struggle, free from authoritarian governments, free from state controlled media, free to be protected under Habeus corpus, free to earn a living (and free to strike).

You complain as if you lived in 1918 Soviet Union or 1939 Nazi Germany or 1989 Uganda or 1979 Iran.

Would you strip away greater freedom than the freedom to elect your representatives? Freedom IS the vote. A voice in government is what the American Revolution was fought for.

And you can connect two obvious dots like "Freedom" and "Voting"!

 

[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.

 

[Amazon]

"The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[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.

Umm you do realize this country was not founded on "every person gets a vote" don't you?

It's not voter suppression if you choose not to qualify to vote.

"no blacks" would certainly be voter suppression since who can help being black?

Has anyone suggested no blacks?

Voter eligibility has been settled law since 1974 and yet you seek to erode it. By any definition, that is seeking to erode freedom. It is, indeed, voter suppression.

Wrong. Voting isn't freedom.