It's funny to see you pad this list with legislation where the chief opposition to the bills were Democrats.
Only if they are Military, Police or Fire veterans.
No, it makes you a dandy exception on that point.
:shrug: in this country, we have a long history of recognizing that those on public assistance have a strong incentive to vote merely for increased public assistance, rather than good governance.
What do you mean "pad", and no, democrats were not the "chief" opposition to any of that.
If we honor living in a democratic society than yes.
democratic forms of government are vile....and should be avoided as a monarchy or an oligarchy should be.
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
We are doing a good job of pushing an oligarchy.
you are correct,..VERY CORRECT.....because democrat forms of government eventfully turn into oligracies, run by the rich elite.
this is able to take place because democractaic forms of government have many factious combinations in them, to lobby government and create laws to benefit themselves, at the expense of the people,the states and the union... because the people are easy lead, beguiled and seduced into doing things not in their interest.
which is WHY the founders created a republican form of government, to hinder factious combinations, but the politicians have destroyed with the help of the un-education population....who have been sold the false idea democracy means liberty, which it does not.
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.Only a republican form of government does not hinder factious combinations. The powerful make sure they will win at any cost, and yes lots of people vote against their best interest.
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.
how does a republican form of government hinder factious combinations.......by dividing power, where as democracy concentrates power, and make it easy for faction to lobby and control.
in democratic forms of government factions only have to seduce/ beguile. only 1 source of power in 1 central location.
in a republican form of government faction has to seduce /beguile 2 sources of power, which are separated..1 in Washington, and the others spread across the states.
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
This is such a difficult question when it is evaluated objectively and outside of partisan propaganda, political correctness police action, and other emotion-charged responses.
I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who pay no federal taxes would have ability to vote for people who pledge to raise taxes on everybody else.
I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are little or not at all affected by increases in property taxes have ability to vote on initiatives that will raise those taxes for property owners.
And I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are supported by the rest of us have ability to vote for those who pledge to keep the gravy train going for those who are supported and thereby increase the burden on those of us who are footing that bill.
It is the righteous sense that those who pay the bills should be the ones to vote on how much of those bills they are willing to pay.
And that righteous sense is made very difficult weighed against the concept of one citizen, one vote.
Ah yes, the Gilded Ages showed us how power was divided:lol:
Ah yes, the Gilded Ages showed us how power was divided:lol:
No but, when you get off welfare, please step into the booth.
A better question might be, "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat?"
Amazing that it is even asked. How should economic standing and accepting the help offered justify the removal of a democratic right, THE core democratic right.
In this country a natural born Canadian cannot lose his or her right to vote for any reason, ever. Prisoners vote.
And I hold that sacrosanct
What if value a free society more?
yes a republican form of government does, however america as not had a republican form of government in over 100 years.
As do I in practice. But philosophically, given the gross inequities in responsibility and affect created by government, the one person, one vote concept has created a different kind of injustice. If we could restore the government to the original concept in which no special classes exist and everybody, rich and poor, provides his/her proportional share, then of course the one person one vote model is the only reasonable model.
But when he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on support from Paul and all that . . .
I
Heinlein fan?
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?