Restrictions As To Whom Can Vote....

[Greenman]

Why not just charge for voting. You vote as many times as you want, no I.D., no registration, no questions. Just a flat $200 every time you push the button.

 

[openwheel]

One of the dumbest threads I've read here in a while.

above is definitely not a very intelligent post.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What if you have a government job? Should you be barred from voting? What if you're in the military? How about if you own a company that gets government contracts, should you be able to vote? What if you work for a company that is a government contractor? It's all still government money coming your way. If you've received government benefits how long should you be banned from voting for? Unemployment insurance has frequently been subsidized by the federal government, so if you lose your job should you lose your right to vote?

I eagerly await the well thought out answers to these questions. People are always looking for ways to keep people who don't agree with them from voting, it's pathetic. Democracy exists to provide the greatest possible quality of life for the greatest possible number of people in the country. If you can provide that, you will do well. If Republicans concentrated on that more they might find more electoral success.

Hi there. This is called a topic of discussion. This is not called "THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND I DEMAND THEY BE PUSHED INTO LAW IMMEDIATELY"

It was a simple concept - and asking if anyone else agree's or has any input on the subject. The logic of tossing in these technicalities as if I want veterans to starve is absolutely stupid - and assumptions.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Absolutely not, How does it make sense to let people on welfare vote, they will vote for more welfare, Who cares about the debt

Then you don't believe in America where all men are created equal. If you don't like it, please move to another country.

Politicians, government employess depend on the government, I'm guessing you don't want them to vote either?

Welfare, so if they're off welfare, they can vote? Elderly on medicare? So, the majority of this country would not be able to vote. Why don't not let women vote or only count blacks as 1/2 a vote while we're at it. And muslims can't vote, right?

At least think with a little intelligence when you post.

 

[Capt Caveman]

above is definitely not a very intelligent post.

Wow, you troll multiple forums. I look forward to another one of your posts whining about iFans.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Then you don't believe in America where all men are created equal. If you don't like it, please move to another country.

Politicians, government employess depend on the government, I'm guessing you don't want them to vote either?

Welfare, so if they're off welfare, they can vote? Elderly on medicare?

At least think with a little intelligence when you post.

People vote on what is best for them, without thinking of their country. That was the foundation of this nation - it was about country - and coming together as people.

Everyone (especially liberals here) bitch about Walmart. But guess what? You feed it. You make it. You make their record profits. Why? Because they have the lowest prices, and everyone in this forsaken nation will save 3 dollars on their grocery bill instead of doing intense labor - such as growing fruits/veggies in their backyard. Tough TOUGH labor... watering... oh man, that brings back nightmares.

That was the point he is trying to make. The people on welfare are only going to vote for MORE welfare. It isn't about the recovery of this nation, it's about their ability to buy another box of ciggs.

Perhaps pictures will help those here that are inept to basic economics.

 

[Capt Caveman]

People vote on what is best for them, without thinking of their country. That was the foundation of this nation - it was about country - and coming together as people.

Everyone (especially liberals here) bitch about Walmart. But guess what? You feed it. You make it. You make their record profits. Why? Because they have the lowest prices, and everyone in this forsaken nation will save 3 dollars on their grocery bill instead of doing intense labor - such as growing fruits/veggies in their backyard. Tough TOUGH labor... watering... oh man, that brings back nightmares.

That was the point he is trying to make. The people on welfare are only going to vote for MORE welfare. It isn't about the recovery of this nation, it's about their ability to buy another box of ciggs.

Perhaps pictures will help those here that are inept to basic economics.

Actually, you fail at economics. I'm a liberal and won't step into a Walmart.

Based on your logic, the rich will only vote to help themselves and their own interests and not the country. Romney and the GOP is an example of this. Then government employees should not be able to vote. They depend on the government.

Since, we are a single country where all men are created equal. You want to go against the consitution and what this country stands for.

Can't believe I got sucked into a troll thread.

edit - forgot, you need to add farmers, employees of corporations that receive government funding, subsidies and/or tax breaks. They depend on the government also.

 

[Arkaign]

Do you really understand what you're saying? The classical definition of handout-style welfare is now smaller than corporate welfare. Social Security is money that people pay into the system anyway (that corrupt politicians from both parties never should have touched). Medicare/Medicaid spending goes up with health care costs, but that's not really anything new. With the welfare-to-work programs and so on, there is actually a lower per-capita welfare rate now than in the last year of Reagan's term.

This concept that there are a bunch of poor people voting themselves free money is absurd.

It goes like this :

Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare = giant spending, the budget could still be balanced without touching these however, and I'm extremely uneasy about fucking with SS because after all, seniors with no other income that retire, that paid into the damn thing all their life, well I feel they should get what they paid for. Medicaid/Medicare could use some restructuring, but are otherwise okay.

Corporate welfare. This is a massive expense. Why?

Military welfare, school grants, pensions, care for wounded vets, etc. Why would anyone crap on these people? Even so, this spending is massive, and dwarfs the comparitive costs of things like food stamps, per person who is using these resources. I still think this is $ well spent though.

Aha, Food stamps. Much like the EITC, this is a great target for morons to yell about, but people need to remember two things that apply to both : (1)- The programs are not very expensive at all in the big picture, and (2)- The money put into these programs cycles right back through the economy quickly, helping stores, businesses, and especially the people that need the help. Ideally one wouldn't want to subsist on such programs, but they're not the giant boogeymen some 'tards like to spout nonsense about.

We continue to outspend the rest of our allies (and potential enemies) combined on defense year after year. While I think we should maintain a strong military, I do think we have vastly excessive foreign bases. And that brings me to a huge reason our debt is so fucked :

Two unfunded wars. How many trillions total was this cost? To make matters worse, this is not spending that has a dramatic impact on domestic economic health. For one, they pay soliders little more than a dick in the ass, and second, the bulk of the money is spent building up and helping countries that are chock full of people that just want to get rid of us. Any US profits are concentrated around corporate entities that don't employ that many people here anyway. It's just a terrible value any way you look at it. I think maintain a strong navy, strong USAF, cutting edge satellite, nuclear, and drone technology, and let 9/10th of our bases around the world go. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars building and maintaining bases in completely irrelevant locations.

And this brings me to :

Foreign 'aid'. Yeah, fat lot of good that does. That's just hardcore corruption-bait if I've ever seen it. Lets give money to Pakistan, despite them being chock full of the most die-hard Jihadists around, including those in the intelligence and military that both shielded Bin Laden AND arrested and most likely tortured the Pakistani that helped us confirm his location. $ to Egypt? Nuff said. They can take care of themselves.

This is a long way around, but again, most of the welfare/gov't assistance people in the country are NOT who you think they are. The real reason that the Republicans lost in '12, despite Obama being pretty weak on most issues, is that their message, and their ideas, have been too perverted by extremists like the Koch brothers. Gone is the intellectual authority of men like William F. Buckley, and replaced with flat bullshit propaganda that includes the very talking points that are now being regurgitated on talk radio and now here.

 

[Geosurface]

Then you don't believe in America where all men are created equal.

For the majority of this nation's short history we've had greater restrictions on who could vote than what we have now. Call the current "everyone votes" period a failed experiment.

We still have restrictions, relating to age, criminal history, etc.

Advocating for additional restrictions isn't the same as not believing in America. It's a matter of degree.

Otherwise I could tell you you don't believe in America where everyone is equal if you don't think people should be able to vote before 18 also. This little game of acting like total, unthinking, limitless equality is always smart or the ultimate measure of a person's worth is whether they advocate that or not, is stupid and childish.

In 2012 we like very much to think that all the generations prior to our own were stupid, and laboring under a laundry list of prejudices, ignorant views, fears, and that we can reject all the wisdom of our grandfathers and great grandfathers because we've got it figured out. They were more in agreement with notions that had held sway for thousands of years than we are now... so it's easy to just associate the entire past and lump it all together.

Discard it as just a bunch of ignorance. I did that, for a long time.

I feel, however, that we are now seeing a crumbling of society which demonstrates that in SOME THINGS (I wouldn't want to revert completely) our forefathers had more wisdom than we gave them credit for.

 

[buckshot24]

Hi there. This is called a topic of discussion. This is not called "THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND I DEMAND THEY BE PUSHED INTO LAW IMMEDIATELY"

You'll learn soon enough that any link you post, any idea you float, or any idea you do not condemn will mean that you full throatedly accept those ideas. You'll also need to be able to prove those ideas to mathematical certainty or you're an idiot.

It was a simple concept - and asking if anyone else agree's or has any input on the subject. The logic of tossing in these technicalities as if I want veterans to starve is absolutely stupid - and assumptions.

Of course you want veterans to starve! You're evil.

 

[Tsavo]

If voting could actually change anything, they'd make it illegal.

 

[Moonbeam]

One of the dumbest threads I've read here in a while.

I know. It should be 'Restrictions as to who can vote.."

 

[nehalem256]

I want to know why liberals are so worried about restricting who can vote. They are always so happy to point out that red states are the ones sucking the government teat. So logically based on this it is Republicans who would be restricted.

 

[nehalem256]

Aha, Food stamps. Much like the EITC, this is a great target for morons to yell about, but people need to remember two things that apply to both : (1)- The programs are not very expensive at all in the big picture, and (2)- The money put into these programs cycles right back through the economy quickly, helping stores, businesses, and especially the people that need the help. Ideally one wouldn't want to subsist on such programs, but they're not the giant boogeymen some 'tards like to spout nonsense about.

You do realize that Food Stamps is as much or more than the Bush tax cuts for the rich right?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Actually, you fail at economics. I'm a liberal and won't step into a Walmart.

Based on your logic, the rich will only vote to help themselves and their own interests and not the country. Romney and the GOP is an example of this. Then government employees should not be able to vote. They depend on the government.

Since, we are a single country where all men are created equal. You want to go against the consitution and what this country stands for.

Can't believe I got sucked into a troll thread.

edit - forgot, you need to add farmers, employees of corporations that receive government funding, subsidies and/or tax breaks. They depend on the government also.

Thats the debate here. When you are depending on the government, you are sucking the government teet. You are no longer a man. You are a baby just sucking away

I'm sure my time will come, unexpected mass layoffs - might have to apply for unemployment for a month or so. At the time it does happen, I would feel incredibly shameful - but it's what we do. Any NORMAL person would feel shameful to have to depend on others. The problem is that no one feels shameful for doing it anymore. They go to the grocery store with the food stamps card and flash it proudly like a badge of honor. I don't consider myself high and mighty because like I said, I don't doubt it can/will happen to me.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In 2012 we like very much to think that all the generations prior to our own were stupid, and laboring under a laundry list of prejudices, ignorant views, fears, and that we can reject all the wisdom of our grandfathers and great grandfathers because we've got it figured out. They were more in agreement with notions that had held sway for thousands of years than we are now... so it's easy to just associate the entire past and lump it all together.

Funny you should say that - I see our up and coming generation and only have 2 words to say "We're Fucked".

 

[zsdersw]

I want to know why liberals are so worried about restricting who can vote. They are always so happy to point out that red states are the ones sucking the government teat. So logically based on this it is Republicans who would be restricted.

Probably because, as with everything that imposes restrictions, it all comes down to enforcement... and the varying amounts of favoritism/fraud/abuse that inevitably creeps into these situations.

So, not only do we have a, frankly, stupid additional restriction on who can vote... but it's selectively enforced and prone to error. Great! That'll really solve whatever problem it was intended to solve.

 

[nehalem256]

Then you don't believe in America where all men are created equal. If you don't like it, please move to another country.

Sounds like an argument for eliminating things like food stamps, EITC, welfare, WIC, etc.

After all if I am able to feed myself. And we are all equal... then clearly everyone should be able to feed themselves

Politicians, government employess depend on the government, I'm guessing you don't want them to vote either?

Let us not go full retard. There is a massive difference between paying someone to paint your house and them coming in and helping themselves to your refrigerator.

Welfare, so if they're off welfare, they can vote? Elderly on medicare? So, the majority of this country would not be able to vote. Why don't not let women vote or only count blacks as 1/2 a vote while we're at it. And muslims can't vote, right?

At least think with a little intelligence when you post.

The majority of people are morons. Actually there is an interesting argument for not letting people on Medicare/SS vote. They essentially promised themselves your money, maybe they would have been a little more careful about doing so if they knew they would be dependent on you voting to decide to keep your money.

 

[Exterous]

Do you think - for any reasons (list them), that we should make a system that restricts a citizen to be unable to vote in an election?

To only those with a valid ID

Do I win the thread?

I would be much more interested in limiting special interest groups' ability to finance/influence campaigns before restricting a citizen's ability to vote

 

[CLite]

For the majority of this nation's short history we've had greater restrictions on who could vote than what we have now. Call the current "everyone votes" period a failed experiment.

Ok so the following steps make-up your failed experiment in reverse chronological order:
1) Native Americans
2) Woman
3) African-American
4) Remove property ownership requirement

So we've been "crumbling" in your viewpoint since about 1924 if our current demise is due to natives being able to vote. If it's due to woman being able to vote we've been "crumbling" since 1920. If it's due to African-Americans being able to vote we've been "crumbling" since 1870. If it's due to property-ownership requirements we've been "crumbling" since the early 1800's.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats the debate here. When you are depending on the government, you are sucking the government teet. You are no longer a man. You are a baby just sucking away

I'm sure my time will come, unexpected mass layoffs - might have to apply for unemployment for a month or so. At the time it does happen, I would feel incredibly shameful - but it's what we do. Any NORMAL person would feel shameful to have to depend on others. The problem is that no one feels shameful for doing it anymore. They go to the grocery store with the food stamps card and flash it proudly like a badge of honor. I don't consider myself high and mighty because like I said, I don't doubt it can/will happen to me.

I live in a neighborhood where there are lots of people on food stamps. I have never witnessed people proudly displaying their cards like a badge of honor. Where did you see this, when, and how often?

Those questions I asked you earlier were to show you that you had narrowed your idea of 'getting stuff from government' to basically poor people when large other segments of the population could be similarly classified quite easily. You would be far better off devoting your time to helping people get out of poverty than from paternalistically attempting to deprive them of their vote.

 

[zsdersw]

The essential problem with the OP's rationale for restricting the voting rights of those on welfare is that such a restriction would leave only about 5% of the country able to vote.

Far too many people in this country are on some sort of welfare for such a restriction to keep this country a democracy (or even a republic). Moral of the story: it's too restrictive.

If you say only certain people on the kind of long-term welfare that the OP is likely talking about (the stereotypical "moochers") cannot vote then you're talking about a small portion of the population. Moral of the story: not restrictive enough to make a real difference.

This type of restriction on voting not only doesn't make much sense but it fails on multiple levels.

 

[nehalem256]

Ok so the following steps make-up your failed experiment in reverse chronological order:
1) Native Americans
2) Woman
3) African-American
4) Remove property ownership requirement

So we've been "crumbling" in your viewpoint since about 1924 if our current demise is due to natives being able to vote. If it's due to woman being able to vote we've been "crumbling" since 1920. If it's due to African-Americans being able to vote we've been "crumbling" since 1870. If it's due to property-ownership requirements we've been "crumbling" since the early 1800's.

Its not so much that say giving the vote to say women in general is bad. It is that you are extending the vote to classes of people that have a higher percentage of leaches.

By restricting the vote to essentially middle class white men you have essentially guaranteed that you won't have people who will vote themselves benefits, because they have no need of it.

Interestingly I wonder if extending the vote to lower classes actually empowers the rich, because then the middle class has to decide whether to side with the 1% or the leaches at the bottom of society?

 

[nehalem256]

Those questions I asked you earlier were to show you that you had narrowed your idea of 'getting stuff from government' to basically poor people when large other segments of the population could be similarly classified quite easily. You would be far better off devoting your time to helping people get out of poverty than from paternalistically attempting to deprive them of their vote.

When I try to keep people from falling into poverty you whine about me depriving of their freedom

 

[zsdersw]

By restricting the vote to essentially middle class white men you have essentially guaranteed that you won't have people who will vote themselves benefits, because they have no need of it.

That would make the US an oligarchy.. which it is not, per the Constitution.