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 voting for fat people. You've already placed a burden on society more than you can pay in taxes.
No voting for old people. The OP is just not sure you are still smart enough to make good decisions.
No voting for women during certain "irrational" days.
No voting for drivers of foreign cars...you are secretly commies anyway.
Nope. All you have to do is show a gross somewhere in the black, and are old enough to have observed at least two political cycles.
The trainwreck that is the Obama admiinistration has shown we need to reform voting standards NOW. Suggestions:
1) Only those paying income tax may vote.
2) Raise the minimum voting age to 25.
The framers were onto something when they said only landowners could vote. They founders knew voting was a privilege and only active contributors to the system should have a say.
We should revert to that mentality today. Only those who show gross income on their tax returns should be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve the privilege. We use the gross figure so as not to penalize people who play the game but have earned tax credits or other deductions which help the economy (such as charitable contributions and depreciation for rental property).
If you're a welfare momma, you stay home on election day. This isn't a punishment; it's the absence of a privilege. Only those who support the system should get a say in how money is spent. If you only sponge off society, why should you get to vote yourself more benefits?
This would go along way in slowing the cycle of inter-generational dependency the Democrats have created. It would also curtail their practice of getting elected by buying votes as Obama has done. And above all, it will reverse the ever-looming point-of-no-return threshold where more than half the population pays no taxes. (See the Roman Empire).
As for a minimum voting age, I think it's important to have first-hand historical perspective. 1992 seems like yesterday to me. For those who recall, we had a similar situation as we have today. We had an unqualified candidate in Bill Clinton with a thin resume and questionable character getting a total pass. We saw the results; an ineffective incompetent morally bankrupt president whose big legacy was getting impeached. We paid for his inaction against terrorism with 9-11. You could argue Clinton's incompetence and inattention to the job (he spent all of 1998 working on his impeachment defense) caused 9-11 and thus the Iraq War. Economically, Clinton's actions with the CRA were the foundation of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent severe recession we are in. Yes, we are still paying and paying dearly because the media failed to scrutinize Bill Clinton.
The problem is, many young voters don't remember any of this. An 18-year-old is too young to have witnessed the backstory, and to have seen the disaster from a media that does not vet liberal candidates.
The result? History has repeated itself. We again elected a completely unvetted unqualified incompetent dishonest candidate in Obama who, only a month in, is wreaking disaster on this country and this economy. And as with Bill Clinton, America will be paying a dear price for decades to come for not heeding history.
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown, or a 20-year-old unmarried high school dropout on welfare with three kids should have an equal say in choosing our leadership as the guy working 70 hours a week, employing five workers, and raising a decent family?
I don't. We need voting reform NOW!
This is one of the most anti-American, anti-democratic screeds I have ever read on this forum. Call up Michele Bachman. I'm sure the two of you can come up with a plan to rid America of its universal freedoms.
nononsenseguy, again, the question: Why, in you opinion, is it okay for people under the ages of 21 and 25 to join military and go to Iraq and die in a war, yet you think they are probably too dumb to vote? If those folks are too dumb to vote, then surely we should not send them off to war to be killed. We don't even execute retarded people (who have been convicted of murder) in many states in this country!
Surely those same under-age-21-and-age-25 citizens who are too dumb to vote would be too dumb to have a clue as why they were going to war, other than the propaganda being fed to them by recruiters.
Honestly, I do tend to agree with you on this point. But most high school kids have no clue about what made America great, our capitalist system (they are being poisond, quite literally) and how the economy works.
I think if someone enlists in the military, they have a right to vote. That would be my answer.
Generally though, those in H.S. who have not worked, and have no responsibility (again, generally speaking) should not be voting. Any married people should vote. I dunno...they aren't teaching these kids about America anymore and until you are out fending for yourself, you have no clue. What do you think? Those are my thoughts. Look at the stupididty and ignorance we see posted here. It's scary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin13
Certainly, making the voting age higher (21 or 25, as eeek suggests), would require that we make the age for joining the U.S. military higher. Plus an IQ test would be good. Plus a review of their income tax returns wouldn't hurt. Hmmmm. Make sure they're "good citizens" before sacrificing them to the war gods.
I guess voting means more to me than just how it affects my wallet. Yeah, that's a big thing...but I want to live in a truly AMERICAN (in spirit) country where every citizen has a voice and some dignity.
There is unfairness on BOTH the "welfare mom" side and the "corporate greed" side. Both sides have people that take advantage. But I think MOST people work hard and try to do the best they can. They deserve a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Remember?
If people are doing the best they can, all they have to do is earn at least a dollar to report on their tax returns. If they can't do that, then they're one of the bottom feeders who should stay the hell home on election day.
This thing about "corporate greed" pisses me off. It's nothing more than an anti-capitalist meme of the far-left crowd. There is nothing bad or greedy about corporations doing their best legally and ethically to earn a profit. When they do so, they help stockholders, investors, and thus, the economy. Corporate profit is good.
Government greed, now that's what's EVIL. When politicians want more and more money to buy more and more power, that hurts the economy and helps no one but the politicians.
So let's start talking about "government greed", shall we?
I guess voting means more to me than just how it affects my wallet. Yeah, that's a big thing...but I want to live in a truly AMERICAN (in spirit) country where every citizen has a voice and some dignity.
There is unfairness on BOTH the "welfare mom" side and the "corporate greed" side. Both sides have people that take advantage. But I think MOST people work hard and try to do the best they can. They deserve a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Remember?
We aren't talking about "dignity" not being given to the non-producers and bottom-feeders. We're talking about a privilege that should be earned. If you do not contribute in the system, why should you have a say in the sytem? Why do you liberals insist on getting something for nothing?
Basically get rid of poor voters ( who vote Democratic) and young voters ( who vote Democratic)
On behalf of every Democratic voter here.....kiss my asse you elitist anti-American bastarde
So you are saying most of the Dumbass Vote goes to Democrats? Whose fault is that? Maybe you should ask yourself what that says about your whole ideology. Maybe you need to revamp it into something sensible.
Wow.... You sat by while the REpublicans overthrew the government in 2000. They illegally refused the right to vote to people quite eligible, they stole ballots, and then the Supreme Court got involved and took away an entire states right to vote. Now that a majority spoke against what you think you think we need reform. It isn't voter reform you want but a republican dictatorship.
btw the reason young people don't recognize Clinton caused 9/11 is because it isn't true. but what a warped imagination you have. Seems you would be far more concerned about Bush ignoring the waring of 14 governements and intelligence organizations that an attack was immanent. Do you recall the white house ordered all their close people like the attorney general to stop taking civilian aircraft and fly private? I'm sure you don't care about questioning why the secret sevice started placing surface to air missles where the president was staying....
You want cupability for 9/11.... look to those you seem to adore so much. they won't be shown in a good light. They wanted it to happen and immediately made use of the incident for their own personal gain and agenda. Take the rose colored glasses off and see them for what they were, traitors and oportunists. I still want them held accountable for their war crimes.
voter reform.... yes but lets go back and throw those responsible for the government overthrow of 2000 in jail. But I'm certain you don't think anything is wrong about taking law abiding citizens that pay taxes and listing them as felons so they can't vote. They don't agree with your view of the world, they believe in a democracy, not the facist regime you seek.
You think Bush did something illegal to win the presidency in 2000 and I am the one with the "warped imagination"?
Come on, man. It's fiction that voters were "disenfranchised" in Florida in 2000 unless you are talking about those voters in line in the western part of the state who were told by the leftwing media that Florida had gone for the Democrats. All the courts ended up siding with Bush. Bush won all recounts. Stop the looney stuff and pay attention to what ACORN is doing (Under investigation for voter fraud in 13 states).
I'm definitely for raising the voting age. The state of the public schools is so bad that most high school students haven't a clue what they are voting for. They have no idea of our histroy, and are taught that capitalism is bad.
Is it any wonder we wind up with people like Obama, and the Democrat idiots that we have in Congress like Pelosi, Reid, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer ... Well I guess I'd have to name almost every one.
Because the Bush Republicon regime was such a rousing success? People elected Bush TWICE! Well, actually ONCE since he stole one. Talk about stupid. That whole snarling pack of war mongers and corporate wh@res Bush, Cheney, Wolfie, Rummie was an unprecedented disgrace and disaster that's effectively bankrupted this country not to mention the countless murdered and maimed by these war criminals. Whatever mistakes the Dems make pales in comparison to the Republicon atrocities.
This is one of the most anti-American, anti-democratic screeds I have ever read on this forum. Call up Michele Bachman. I'm sure the two of you can come up with a plan to rid America of its universal freedoms.
What's anti-American about actually contributing to the system in exchange for the privilege of voting? Oh I get it. Obama's America and it's disciples think lazy bottom feeders should be given more goodies than contributors.
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.
