What do you guys think of this?
No Home, No Vote?
- Thread starter inuswo
- Start date
I know this doesn't have to do with the topic... but I feel that only land or property owning individuals should have the right to vote anyway.
I guess the renters or someone living with their parents are out of luck then if you got your way :shrug:
When this Country was young, the vote (or franchise) was only intended for "White Men of Property"
As the centuries slipped by it was gradually loosened to include anyone that can be helped to fill out a ballot.
Maybe the clock should be turned back a little.
Maybe the right to vote should be earned.
Heinlein wanted it limited to Veterans only.
How about if we make it a financial requirement.
Everyone in the country gets one vote.
Additional votes can be purchased for $100.00 each. These shall be known as "bribe" votes. Since we all know that the wealthy speak with a louder voice than the poor. Eliminate all forms of political speech except directly from the candidates. Do we really want billionares like Soros controling an election by funding thousands of annoying ads? Let them PURCHASE votes, then we could see EXACTLY where, and how much they are spending to control America.
As the centuries slipped by it was gradually loosened to include anyone that can be helped to fill out a ballot.
Maybe the clock should be turned back a little.
Maybe the right to vote should be earned.
Heinlein wanted it limited to Veterans only.
How about if we make it a financial requirement.
Everyone in the country gets one vote.
Additional votes can be purchased for $100.00 each. These shall be known as "bribe" votes. Since we all know that the wealthy speak with a louder voice than the poor. Eliminate all forms of political speech except directly from the candidates. Do we really want billionares like Soros controling an election by funding thousands of annoying ads? Let them PURCHASE votes, then we could see EXACTLY where, and how much they are spending to control America.
I feel the same way. However, I'm not advocating that only property owners get the right to vote, every citizen should get the right to vote.
It is strange that the person who invests into land ownership and pays more taxes should have more voting power, what ever that means with out offending any non-property owners.
I think you should have to have made enough money to file a tax return the previous year to be allowed to vote. All voters should be taxpayers. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
LOL
The ignorance of you people never ceases to amaze. When this is in SD, I'll say more.
The ignorance of you people never ceases to amaze. When this is in SD, I'll say more.
motoman991
Banned
:lol:Can't wait to hear your brilliance! EIC, WIC, Foodstamps= NO VOTE!
x2, sorry but collecting government chesse on my dime should make those lazy asses voters
+ One million!
Not that we have slaves anymore, but they used to have the same law, no home, no vote back then to keep slaves (who weren't allowed to own property) from voting if I remember.
This seems like a democratic solution, attack a possible cause for the effect and hope it fixes it. Just like the 45million they just spent to put steel nets under the Golden Gate Bridge to catch the 20 suicide jumpers... First of all, no one is going to jump off that bridge anymore since they know they wont die and they'll be put in a mental place most likely, and second, they will just jump off another bridge.
I'm surprised reading the article that the republicans are backing it. As republican as I am, I have to go against my "party" on this... This would benefit the republicans... but it takes your rights away. If enough people are homeless and want us to be socialist, well as much as I don't like it, I believe in the majority vote. I hope to change peoples opinions and influence their vote, but suppressing a citizens right to vote is outrageous.
However, this article I can see clearly attacks republicans on this, so therefore, it has some degree of bias, so I'm sure theres more to this story than just in the article.
I would agree 100%.
This seems like a democratic solution, attack a possible cause for the effect and hope it fixes it. Just like the 45million they just spent to put steel nets under the Golden Gate Bridge to catch the 20 suicide jumpers... First of all, no one is going to jump off that bridge anymore since they know they wont die and they'll be put in a mental place most likely, and second, they will just jump off another bridge.
I'm surprised reading the article that the republicans are backing it. As republican as I am, I have to go against my "party" on this... This would benefit the republicans... but it takes your rights away. If enough people are homeless and want us to be socialist, well as much as I don't like it, I believe in the majority vote. I hope to change peoples opinions and influence their vote, but suppressing a citizens right to vote is outrageous.
However, this article I can see clearly attacks republicans on this, so therefore, it has some degree of bias, so I'm sure theres more to this story than just in the article.
I would agree 100%.
Last edited:
pfft just like your super delegates whose vote counts more than mine? :rollseyes
There should be a test:
US Constitution
US History
US Government
Economics
Basic Business
Ethics
English
Current Events
Exclusions:
If you are on Welfare, you may not vote.
If you cannot provide proof of residency, you may not vote.
If you cannot provide proof of citizenship, you may not vote.
If you cannot pass this test, you may not vote.
US Constitution
US History
US Government
Economics
Basic Business
Ethics
English
Current Events
Exclusions:
If you are on Welfare, you may not vote.
If you cannot provide proof of residency, you may not vote.
If you cannot provide proof of citizenship, you may not vote.
If you cannot pass this test, you may not vote.
But not Mccain right. We all know that republicans are never at the center of anything wrong like that :rollseyes
Users who are viewing this thread
