The_Patriot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,488
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I guess I will go with expanded voting rights as voting, in my opinion, is a matter of human dignity and is far more important than mere money.
I guess I will go with expanded voting rights as voting, in my opinion, is a matter of human dignity and is far more important than mere money.
A fine point of view, but do you agree with the non-property owners being able to use their votes to remove property from one group of people to another? What about using their power to legislate what they think the rest of the country should follow what they believe in regards to morality?
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:
Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:
Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:
Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
I agree about that concerning gays-just as gun owners should have the only say about gun laws? Hunters about bag limits? or net tax payers about tax rates.
And welfare recipients about welfare laws/benefits. See where this is heading? Niche voting, with each issue only addressed by the interest group. Problem is, each issue affects other people, involved in the issue or not.
A fair point, but I'd like to point out that back when there was Republican voting the state was involved a whole lot less in the lives of the people then it is today. If the issues were clearly related to the things the government is clearly defined to having a role in, by the Constitution, would you still hold that same view?
No taxation without representation
Was that not a rally cry of the American Revolution
That 7 year old buying candy is getting taxed (sales tax), the 15 year working at Burger King is paying FICA
nah, those being given welfare should have no say in how much others pay.
no representation without taxation and those who are net tax consumers shouldn't have a say
When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners. This was the way voting was done up until the 1820's when the Whig and Democratic parties platformed for change to allow all white males to vote and was passed in time for Andrew Jackson to be elected. This is why I prefer to call the Republican method of voting.
The current way of voting is that everyone can vote that is 18 and above. This had lead to a large warfare/welfare state where the key issues aren't filled with substance, but about who can redistribute the wealth of the property owners into the pockets of the non-property owners.
Which do you prefer?
I prefer contributors to be allowed to vote.
That is not based on gender, race, religion etc.
So one who does not add value or contribute in some quantifiable form to the, shouldn't be voting.
It is very short-sighted to consider money as the only quantifiable form of contribution.
Those being given welfare should absolutely have a say in what benefits they receive.
Money isn't the only way a person can contribute.
I dont recall the rally cry saying anything about net tax consumers.
Besides an 18 year old working at KFC, who is out of school living at home with mommy and daddy is paying more in taxes then he/she gets back. So they would get to vote, but 70 year olds on SS would not.
A sound idea, I think not.
I prefer contributors to be allowed to vote.
That is not based on gender, race, religion etc.
So one who does not add value or contribute in some quantifiable form to the, shouldn't be voting.
yeah they can decline them but they sure should have no say in how much I have to pay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?