Are you aware that amendments are added to the Constitution to change things that the Framers originally did not add, or were not in approval of? The Constitution was written in 1787 by a bunch of rich white guys. It was amended to allow people of color to vote in 1870 (but blacks still had to fight for years to vote) and it was amended in 1920 for women to be able to vote.
No, you don't know any of that. In fact, the very fact that people on welfare vote for all different kinds of people, including those who would like to end welfare proves you wrong.
I said nothing in the part you responded to last about the poor. Why did you go back to the poor? I was talking about the wealthy, those not on the welfare programs that we know people really mean when they say "should those on welfare not be allowed to vote?".
:2razz:When will you get it through your head that the Supreme Court can say just about anything it wants to say and if they declare what constitutes a republican form of government is a political question - as is almost everything that comes before the Congress in one way or the other - that is perfectly fine.
That finding in no way shape or form supports your ridiculous claims about the 17th Amendment violating a republican form of government. In fact, since it was done via Constitutional Amendment it only makes it even more definitive that those who did so believed they were NOT violating the Constitutional mandate for a republican form of government. Every Congressman who voted for the 17th Amendment did so believing they were not violating that mandate. Every state legislative official who voted to ratify it believed it did not violate the Constitutional mandate.
Of course it is a political question and it was answered very clearly, very definitively and very loudly. And the answer given says YOU ARE WRONG in your beliefs.
You really have never gotten the point EB that ANYTHING in the CONSTITUTION can be changed through the Amendment process. And that includes what constitutes a republican form of government. And if the 17th Amendment changed that from the views of Madison or anybody else - it does not matter because the Constitution gives us the right to do just that. And if todays form of what constitutes a republican form of government violates the precepts and beliefs of madison or any other Founding Father or even ALL of the Founding Fathers - it is right and proper since it was done via the very mechanism of Amendment they gave us.
Now you can either accept that as reality or you can deny reality and dwell in a self imposed dissociative state of delusion.
That's not an argument.
Except I didn't give a good reason for it; it being disallowing just people on Welfare from voting.
If you want to say the notions form de Tocqueville and Franklin are legitimate reasons to deny people the ability to vote, then the only reasonable choice would be to disallow anyone who is gaining a benefit from the government to be disallowed to vote.
There's no reasonable explanation for JUST disallowing those obtaining a welfare check to do it....but not disallowing everyone who works for any business or university that recieves government funding in some fashion to vote. To disallow anyone who has a government college loan from voting. To disallow anyone who is a government employee from voting. To disallow employees of government contractors from voting. And on and on.
Utilizing elections as a means of voting into power those who will use the coffers of the United States to give you more money in some fashion is not an endevour limited in scope to those recieving welfare.
So if you're going to say the notions I mentioned are "legitimate reasons" to limit who can vote, the only reasonable choice is to evenly enforce said limitation. Otherwise, you're not actually limiting peoples votes for those reasons...you're limiting them for purely partisan political reasons. You'd be using those political philosophers and figures words simply as cover in an effort to obfuscate your true purpose and dishonestly paint your effots as some noble cause of liberty when it's really standard fare political jockying.
I'm not arguing with you, nor am I debating you. When you pull quotes from LBJ, then you've already made up your mind, and not much will change it.
I'm talking about all taxes. There are people that depend entirely on another person and never buy anything or buy things with someone else's money.
So this is just totally a coincidence, right?
But. . . .there is one other argument to be made. (Disclaimer: I am not uncharitable or unsympathetic to the poor. I devote a great deal of my time and talent and personal resources up close and personal with the poor.)
You may bend over backwards to accommodate the guest in your home and that makes you a good and gracious host. But how would you feel about it if that guest then assumed power to dictate to you what his sleeping accommodations will be, what food and drink you will serve at whatever expense, and that his every need be met?
How is that different from those who cannot or will not work for what they have dictating to those who must provide for them how much the others will provide?
And yet your graphs clearly show that there are still people who vote for Republicans in the lowest brackets, just as there are still people who vote for Democrats in the highest brackets. This is because people do not fit into small little stereotypical boxes that you try to put them in. They are simply not all the same. And that includes when it comes to what their values are.
You claimed that everyone would vote for more wealth if given the opportunity. Yet there are those on Welfare who vote to stifle their income by voting for people who would like to limit, reduce, or completely do away with Welfare programs for the poor.
No, everyone does not pay taxes.
Most of that 49% are seniors on Medicare and Social Security.
I'm talking about all taxes. There are people that depend entirely on another person and never buy anything or buy things with someone else's money.
That standard applies to literally everybody. I don;t care who you are or how much in taxes youpay, what gives you the right to vote on anything that affects me?Why? How does being an American citizen mean that you get the right to decide how the government interferes in the lives of others?
Yes, they do.No, everyone does not pay taxes.
Taxes are taxes, a revenue stream.Income taxes. Not everyone pays income taxes.
OMG! That's the finest hair splitting I have ever seen.I'm talking about all taxes. There are people that depend entirely on another person and never buy anything or buy things with someone else's money.
*IF* they vote at all, which is less likely... historically. Not as significant as you're trying to portray.They are about 3x more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. 300%!
Is a 300% relative frequency not very telling? Or are you trying to obfuscate?
That standard applies to literally everybody. I don;t care who you are or how much in taxes youpay, what gives you the right to vote on anything that affects me?
*IF* they vote at all, which is less likely... historically. Not as significant as you're trying to portray.
Yes, they do.
OMG! That's the finest hair splitting I have ever seen.
Even if they don;t spend the money them self, someone else does in their stead.
So this is just totally a coincidence, right?
Sure there are. They are called children and they can't even vote.
Here here!
You detailed a good plan. Let's do it. None of these people should be voting.
I actually find the graph amazingly interesting, but not at all surprising.
First, there's a steady downward trend for Republicans in all five categories in 2009. That doesn't really surprise me given the "wave" feeling of the Obama election back then. I imagine it's changed a bit since then.
Second, what's more interesting to me is looking right around 2004. And the numbers don't shock me. There's a big split between both in the lowest, with Democrats on top. It closes a bit in the second and then by the middle picture things are pretty much dead even. Meanwhile, from the other end, it's a similar big split at the highest, but with the Republicans on top. And it closes a bit in the second to last picture as it moves to the middle.
So in general, one could suggest that those with less money tend to more towards Democratic policies and those with money moeny tend more towards Republican policies.
Neither of those things are bad. And the flawed premise of this thread is that seemingly those in the first two boxes are somehow voting for people who will use the government to help them and thus shouldn't be able to vote.....but that somehow those on the other side should be able to vote because they're not doing that?
Ridiculous.
People from the lowest quintile to the highest are likely going to vote for the individual who is most likely going to push for the government to do things that will help themselves. Few people truly vote for a purely alturistic purpose.
Someone in the lowest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into welfare. On the flip side, someone on the highest may be voting to get the government to funnel more money into defense so their government contracting job can continue to make bank. In both instances, they're attempting to vote for someone that will use the government to funnel the tax payers money into a direction that will benefit them. That's what voting is for many people, and that's true regardless of which quintile they are a part of.
Attempting to stop that from happening on one side, but not the other, is not some defense of liberty or an attempt to make the system fair or to stop "takers"....it's simply a pathetic political ploy to disenfranchise those who disagree with you politically.
You're being obtuse. You'll have to do that by yourself. Carry on.So someone that depends on another person to survive is still paying taxes? Since when?
You're being obtuse. You'll have to do that by yourself. Carry on.
They are about 3x more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. 300%!
Is a 300% relative frequency not very telling? Or are you trying to obfuscate?
The point is that people vote for what personally benefits them, which is exactly the problem with democracy.
As far as it goes, I'd rather live under a political system that agrees with me personally instead of being forced to go along with one that I disagree with entirely.
The United States is not your "home". YOU, or any other individual citizen...is not the "sole" owner. Those who do not pay taxes into the system (which, in and of itself, is a dishonest misnomer) are not "guests", they are co-owners whether or not you like it. The fact that you see that analogy as legitimate inherently indicates a flaw in your thinking.
I'd perhaps be more understanding if people were somehow claiming that this stance should be taken across the board. That not only that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote, but that the WEIGHT of ones vote should somehow inherently be tied to how much taxes they pay. Indeed, the guy paying millions of dollars into taxes is being forced to "provide" things like roads, schools, police, national protection, etc for YOU and others who are likely not providing anywhere near the same level as him....should we allow his vote to count 100 times yours for electoral purposes while we're simultaneously disallowing those on welfare from voting?
Will those on welfare often try to vote for what's going to be best for their life and their situation, not what's necessarily "best for the country"? Absolutely. Guess wha. Middle class or upper class people, paying a good bit of taxes, are going to be doing the same thing. That's what voting is. And that's a right as a CITIZEN people should have...and not one that should be taken away simply because you think that the way THEY benefit of the government is inherently bad, but the way YOU benefit from the government is perfectly okay.
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?