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.
No, you need to reread what I said. I never claimed that to be fact, it is my opinion based on personal experience.
What exactly do you take issue with? My belief that the "recipient class" is ignorant of politics or the fact that people who are ignorant of politics should not be voting?
How about a simple "who is the vice president" question.
obama would have lost about 1/2 of his voters.
Republicans would win 50 states if there were a civics test prior to voting.
Obama would have lost half his voters! Really! How about 90% of the country couldn't distinguish Washington state from Washington D. C. if there was a gun pointed to their heads. And couldn't pick either out on a map. Republicans, Democrats, libertarians whoever. 90%
The question is why would you want to limit the voting rights of people simply based on the fact they are receiving public assistance?
They as long as they are U.S. citizens they should have the right to vote.
The question is also do you want a plutocracy where only the rich or influential have a say in government and government of the people?
Your last statement is assuming A LOT. Nobody said anything about having money or being influential. The point is, people who are not paying into the system should not have a right to say how said system is run (i.e., how tax dollars are spent). That's like not belonging to a credit union but still wanting to dictate who the credit union's chairpeople are. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
No, voting is a right, but with rights come responsibilities. In this case, knowledge of each candidate and issue are the responsibilities.
Honestly, I could deal with the "recipient class" voting if they could prove they know real facts about the issues. Same goes for any other class. We have too many people who just vote for someone b/c they were told to, their name sounds good, their slogan sounds good, Christmas-treeing the thing, etc. That's a huge problem.
If you haven't been living in a cave, then you know that there are millions getting food stamps, medicaid, etc. right now who, before the wall street theives tanked our economy, worked hard all their lives. Now you want to take away their rights after wall street took everything else. Buddy, karma isn't fun. If I were you I'd start watching over my shoulder because karma is right behind you.
Oh stop with the dramatics. Wall Street did play a part in the economic crash but individuals and the gov't played equal if not greater parts. Talk about living in a cave.
No problem. I have a sister who took 3 years out of her life to care for both of our ailing parents until they both passed away, mom just last month. For three years my sister had no income, no job (she was already out of work when she started caring for our parents). By the way, she received no government handout, no unemployment, nothing from outside the family. She wasn't "contributing to society" during that time.
Should my sister have her right to vote taken away because people who think like you and Andrea feel that people like my sister don't contribute to society??!!
I have a very close friend who was laid off from her job over 18 months ago. She received unemployment for a while because she paid into it for over twenty years. She doesn't sit around waiting for a check. She looks for work on a regular basis, but hasn't found a job that makes sense for her to take. In fact, she's only had a few interviews and no offers. She's one of the smartest people in her field that I know. Should she no longer have the right to vote because "she has no skin in the game"?
Your middle-ages mentality is the worst kind on modern-day elitism I have ever seen.
Let's hope that people who think like you do never get into positions of power.
You are not getting it. If your sister was not mooching off the gov't, I have no problem. And she WAS contributing to society if she was helping your dying parents. How would that not be contributing to society?
Only three states require employees to pay into UE, so unless your friend is in that state, she did not in fact pay in. And if your friend still cannot find work after however many months, maybe she needs to "settle" for something "beneath" her. It's so annoying to hear cries of "Woe is me!" when there are plenty of jobs out there for the taking. Even if they are not the perfect job, they are something to help people get by instead of suckling the gov't teet.
I see part of the problem as being that her field is not an expanding, growing field. It's sort of like being a Swiss Watchmaker in a Digital Watch world. A dying art.
Apparently it's time for her to switch careers instead of just mooching for as long as possible before really getting down to business and looking at ALL opportunities for employment. Someone like that, yeah, I think they should not be allowed to vote until they once again become productive members of society.
His definition would include women who have made the choice to stay at home and to raise their children (as the cons want); the unemployed through no fault of their own...
Looks to me like the OP wants white men to vote and will find excuses to deny the right to vote to others unlike him.
How do you figure that stay at home moms are part of the recipient class? Do you understand that in order to be a SAHM, you have to have enough income from the husband's side in order to get by and not count on two incomes? They are not mooching off the taxpayer.
People unemployed through no fault of their own should be able to receive UE for 3 months, with one extension of 3 months, for a total of 6 months. There should be no two years of UE going on. It DOES become one's own fault that they REMAIN unemployed.
The US and Britain are unique amongst democracies in not letting prisoners vote. This should be done away with. Many of the problems that exist in the US are fueled by low voter turnout. Increasing the number of voters would make for a healthier democratic republic.
We're a "democratic republic" now, are we?
Benjamin Franklin Had It Right (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/chip-wood/3844-benjamin-franklin-had-it-right - broken link)
Quote:
At first I couldn’t believe my eyes.
In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic … if you can keep it.”
No, he didn’t!
Granted, most Americans probably believe that the United States is a "democracy" because that's what they've heard all their lives. But I was stunned that a regular reader of this column would get Franklin's quote so wrong.
A democracy is the worst form of government there is... it's four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
But we need to face facts, with half the citizens no longer paying federal income tax the country as we knew it is gone. We are quickly morphing into a Soviet style democratic republic (broke and lawless) and by the way most have behaved the American people deserve it.
Otherwise I think more realistically there should be a test on basic constitutional laws and political history to obtain a voter's card.
Are you sure that's what you want?
That would be devastating to "your" side.
Even a basic literacy test would put the
Democrats in a permanent minority.
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.
