Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely understand that it is a constitutional right for every American citizen to vote, with notable exceptions.
That being said, is it time for a constitutional amendment taking that right away from people who have no skin in the game?
I would deny the parasite class the right to vote for the same logic and reasoning a judge who has an interest in the matter at the bar recuses himself - conflict of interest. If you are a parasite, who takes, but does not give, you have a conflict of interest.
If you take away people's right to vote based on nothing more than their status don't expect them to live by the laws enacted by those who do vote.
No, that is what they deserve by accepting handouts. Our money, our terms. If they want to take any sort of welfare, they have to live by the rules. If they don't want to live by the rules, they can find a job and support themselves.
Can you prove you know "the real facts about the issues"? Are you really that more privy to solid information than others?
I'm not sure that anybody knows the real facts. You are just as subject to lies and manipulation by candidates as anybody else.
People of all classes have the right to vote regarding issues that impact their lives just as you do. I'm not sure that you know any more than "they" (whoever it is you've decided "they" are), you just think you do.
Okay, you're right, nobody can possibly know the truth and the whole truth about any candidate. But you should have to know more than just their name in order to make an informed decision on who to vote for. These people who voted for Obama b/c he's part black, or who voted for Hilary just b/c she's a woman, or who voted for Obama just b/c he has a "D" next to his name (likewise with Republican candidates), that kind of nonsense needs to stop.
I would deny the parasite class the right to vote for the same logic and reasoning a judge who has an interest in the matter at the bar recuses himself - conflict of interest. If you are a parasite, who takes, but does not give, you have a conflict of interest.
Besides the fact that your abhorrent views are literally dehumanizing poor people (the parasite class?!), what you favor here is blatantly unconstitutional.
Quote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Further,
Quote:
a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
I think the views you're expressing here in this thread are literally anti-American. You are trying to divide people based on their wealth, and you seem to be single-mindedly obsessed with money, money, money. There is more to elections than how money is spent. Will our country have a representative who advocates a strong foreign policy? What about the social issues of the day? Who do you want in charge in an emergency? Those questions are things that have nothing to do with how money is spent, and they're questions that make every single citizen has a stakeholder.
and how would you know that? How many "recipient class" people do you know?
Plenty, unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna-501
Where you aware that many people in all "classes" don't have a clue but go by what others say and vote that way. So do you want to give a test to see if they fit up to your standards?
Of course. None of them should be voting. I asked a guy at work the other day about politics and he said he doesn't care, he does not give two craps about politics, he's apathetic. I asked him if he votes, and he said no, and I said GOOD. That's how it's supposed to be, either you care enough to educate yourself and you vote according to that knowledge, or you don't care and you don't educate yourself so you don't vote, or at least you shouldn't vote anyway.
In my experience, the recipient class knows nothing of politics but will vote D if they vote at all, b/c they know it'll keep the gravy train on the tracks.
I hate to say this, but I have payed into Social Security for over 65 years now and really wonder what happened to all that money if I can't get any of it back. Right now I pay as much into Medicare as anyone I know of and you say I shouldn't be able to get money from it?
I can see that you aren't too close to 65 yet. Have you ever thought about why food is relatively cheap in the US? I guess you have never worked a small family farm. Of course, too many corporate farms get too much in the way of subsidy just as wealthy old people get as much SS as I do but how to you avoid all of that happening without it being discriminatory?
We need to phase out SS since its coffers are being robbed, or rather cleaned out, by politicians. People who have paid in should absolutely get a return on their investment, or at least get back what they paid in. The current system does not work. Any changes should not be to the detriment of those who are already approaching retirement age.
Well, it's somewhat of a relief that you have clarified your position. You want to take the right to vote away from those whom you feel are not informed enough to cast a vote. As I stated earlier, not "contributing to society" and not being politically informed are not interdependent conditions.
There are plenty of politically astute "non-contributors" in this country, and there are a great deal more politically ignorant "contributors" in this country as well. I have had conversations with the former work around a lot of the latter.
Hopefully you won't continue to confuse the terms "poor" - as in non-contributors who are waiting for a government handout, according to you, and "ignorant" - in this case, those who are not politically knowledgeable.
All poor are not ignorant and all ignorant are not poor.
The groups are not mutually exclusive. I don't think people on the dole deserve a vote b/c they literally have no money going in to the system, thus, they shouldn't have a say as to how others' tax dollars are spent. We also have a problem with those who are not informed. There is some overlap, but I never once said the problem of ignorance lies exclusively with the recipient class. I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Besides the fact that your abhorrent views are literally dehumanizing poor people (the parasite class?!), what you favor here is blatantly unconstitutional.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Further,
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
I think the views you're expressing here in this thread are literally anti-American. You are trying to divide people based on their wealth, and you seem to be single-mindedly obsessed with money, money, money. There is more to elections than how money is spent. Will our country have a representative who advocates a strong foreign policy? What about the social issues of the day? Who do you want in charge in an emergency? Those questions are things that have nothing to do with how money is spent, and they're questions that make every single citizen has a stakeholder.
Nobody is saying this is something that will happen. It's just a thread on a forum about politics.
Nobody is dividing by wealth. Our tax code sucks and makes it so that 47% of Americans do not pay any taxes. There is something wrong with that. These people reap the rewards of society but yet contribute nothing. Why do they deserve a vote on who is elected and thus, have a say in how tax dollars are spent, when they did not contribute any of those dollars? That does not make any sense, and it's not anti-American to recognize that fact.
If you are on the public dole, you are going to vote for any politician who will give you more money. '
If you don't work, you couldn't care less what the tax burden of the working people is.
It is immensely easy and rewarding to give away other people's money; politicians are addicted to it on a massive scale. This is how we get such huge governments spending such obscene amounts of money, eventually becoming so large that the economy dies under the weight of overtaxation and overregulation.
That is how democracies fail. Too bad we became a democracy.
The groups are not mutually exclusive. I don't think people on the dole deserve a vote b/c they literally have no money going in to the system, thus, they shouldn't have a say as to how others' tax dollars are spent. We also have a problem with those who are not informed. There is some overlap, but I never once said the problem of ignorance lies exclusively with the recipient class. I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Maybe you're having to repeat yourself because some posters here are understandably incredulous at your unconstitutional proposal that goes counter to some of America's most fundamental principles. Your proposed poll tax (you can't vote unless you're a taxpayer) is explicitly unconstitutional; literacy tests are almost certainly unconstitutional as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
