Restrictions As To Whom Can Vote....

[Rainsford]

So if I understand this idea correctly, people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they even COULD be voting for personal gain? I'm sure both of the people who could still vote would like how short the lines at the polls are, but that sounds like a pretty silly idea to me.

 

[feralkid]

Its not so much that say giving the vote to say women in general is bad.

Of course we all know you think it was bad, nonetheless.

 

[Rainsford]

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?

Guaranteeing we have a government tailored to a non-representative group of people sounds like something we should actively try to avoid. If everyone was a middle class white guy, your plan might work (although it would be unnecessary). But if we restrict the vote that way, the inconvenient poor people, brown people and women won't suddenly go away...they'll just have no voice in government. So assuming your idea of who doesn't need government help is correct, your plan will ensure that it's the ONLY group that doesn't need help.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course we all know you think it was bad, nonetheless.

I just said there is no problem with women voting in general.

The problem is with the women who lack a man voting themselves government swag.

Guaranteeing we have a government tailored to a non-representative group of people sounds like something we should actively try to avoid. If everyone was a middle class white guy, your plan might work (although it would be unnecessary). But if we restrict the vote that way, the inconvenient poor people, brown people and women won't suddenly go away...they'll just have no voice in government. So assuming your idea of who doesn't need government help is correct, your plan will ensure that it's the ONLY group that doesn't need help.

I would say my plan sounds a lot better than having the government cater to leaches.

And as I clearly stated there is no reason there is an inherent problem with women are brown people voting. It is just that those groups tend to have a disproportionate number of people who want government swag.

 

[zsdersw]

I would say my plan sounds a lot better than having the government cater to leaches.

Your "plan" sounds like another country.. not the US.

 

[NTMBK]

I just said there is no problem with women voting in general.

The problem is with the women who lack a man voting themselves government swag.

I would say my plan sounds a lot better than having the government cater to leaches.

And as I clearly stated there is no reason there is an inherent problem with women are brown people voting. It is just that those groups tend to have a disproportionate number of people who want government swag.

You are a thoroughly unpleasant human being, and I hope that you are aware of that.

 

[feralkid]

I just said there is no problem with women voting in general.

The problem is with the women who lack a man voting themselves government swag.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

 

[Rainsford]

I just said there is no problem with women voting in general.

The problem is with the women who lack a man voting themselves government swag.

I would say my plan sounds a lot better than having the government cater to leaches.

And as I clearly stated there is no reason there is an inherent problem with women are brown people voting. It is just that those groups tend to have a disproportionate number of people who want government swag.

Why are the only two options catering exclusively to people who need/use government assistance or exclusively to financially well off people? The whole point of having a democracy is to get a government that "caters" to everyone and we get a system that works for everyone, not just your favorite group. Because even if you're a rich white guy, it benefits you to live in a society where rich white guys aren't the only ones doing OK.

 

[nehalem256]

Why are the only two options catering exclusively to people who need/use government assistance or exclusively to financially well off people? The whole point of having a democracy is to get a government that "caters" to everyone and we get a system that works for everyone, not just your favorite group.

You cannot have a government that caters to everyone. Look at those in prison. Clearly they are not being catered too.

Because even if you're a rich white guy, it benefits you to live in a society where rich white guys aren't the only ones doing OK.

And you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Did you miss for example this

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?

As well as all my mentions that the white and male is irrelevant. It is just that statistically speaking white and male will get you a group that is much more middle class.

EDIT: And in addition

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.

Catering to the lowest elements of society leads to the eventual collapse of that society. In the long run catering to the lowest elements of society is good for no one.

 

[zsdersw]

You cannot have a government that caters to everyone.

No, but you can have a government that caters to those who choose to vote. The government doesn't get to decide which law-abiding adult citizens it will cater to, those who vote make that decision.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You cannot have a government that caters to everyone. Look at those in prison. Clearly they are not being catered too.

Catering to the lowest elements of society leads to the eventual collapse of that society. In the long run catering to the lowest elements of society is good for no one.

Thus, by simple logic, you view poor people as being lower than criminals. Much like you view women as lower than men. Shocking, to nobody.

Why haven't you killed yourself yet? Do everyone a favor.

 

[nehalem256]

No, but you can have a government that caters to those who choose to vote. The government doesn't get to decide which law-abiding adult citizens it will cater to, those who vote make that decision.

And why is it legal to pop out bastard children you cannot feed and demand government swag. But illegal to go into a bank and demand them to hand over all their money.

What is the difference? Other than you probably get less money from robbing the bank.

 

[Atreus21]

If it was up to me no one below the age of 40 would be allowed to vote.

 

[zsdersw]

And why is it legal to pop out bastard children you cannot feed and demand government swag.

Everyone is free to demand that, but there is no obligation to meet those demands.

But illegal to go into a bank and demand them to hand over all their money.

You're free to demand all of the bank's money as long as you don't threaten violence.

 

[zsdersw]

If it was up to me no one below the age of 40 would be allowed to vote.

Thankfully, it is not up to you.

 

[nehalem256]

Thankfully, it is not up to you.

Why does the idea of even discussing whether it is good for society to have everyone vote scare you so much?

 

[nehalem256]

Everyone is free to demand that, but there is no obligation to meet those demands.

You're free to demand all of the bank's money as long as you don't threaten violence.

So demanding money or you will let or bastard child, that you CHOOSE to have, die doesn't sound like threatening violence to you?

 

[fskimospy]

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

That's because your ideas are childish, naive, and part of a larger pathological hatred of women.

Nice to chat again! How's your dating life going?

 

[Atreus21]

Thankfully, it is not up to you.

Too bad. I'd have this placed whipped into shape in no time.

 

[zsdersw]

Why does the idea of even discussing whether it is good for society to have everyone vote scare you so much?

It's not scary at all. It is, however, incredibly stupid.

 

[zsdersw]

So demanding money or you will let or bastard child, that you CHOOSE to have, die doesn't sound like threatening violence to you?

Nope.

 

[zsdersw]

Too bad. I'd have this placed whipped into shape in no time.

Mussolini and Hitler are among those who believed that, too.

 

[nehalem256]

That's because your ideas are childish, naive, and part of a larger pathological hatred of women.

So proposing solutions that keep women and children out of poverty is "hating" them now...

Nice to chat again! How's your dating life going?

Great! Thanks for asking.

 

[dank69]

Why does the idea of even discussing whether it is good for society to have everyone vote scare you so much?

Because you are discussing putting limits on democracy. That should scare you.

 

[yllus]

If it was up to me no one below the age of 40 would be allowed to vote.

The funny thing is, the problems the United States faces today are exclusively due to people over the age of 40 having almost absolute control of government.

How many young people vote themselves into going overseas to fight wars?

How many young people make enough money to pay for lobbyists?

How many young people pull down Medicare and Social Security?

The society you live in is completely biased against the young - yet they're the scapegoat. Amazing.