Voting.
- Thread starter saracelica
- Start date
bburnett
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 147
- Display Name
Display name:
Bryan B PA30
Everyone gets one vote. Then for each additional $1,000 in taxes you get another vote.
Isn't it funny how people always complain about how corporations shouldn't be able to donate to a political candidate, but none of those people talk about not taxing corporations. Didn't we fight a war over that a couple hundred years ago?
Isn't it funny how people always complain about how corporations shouldn't be able to donate to a political candidate, but none of those people talk about not taxing corporations. Didn't we fight a war over that a couple hundred years ago?
...Which is precisely how we've managed to elect public servants through a Cult of Personality, rather than educated and informed consideration of their positions and the ramifications to the country as a whole.
I'm sure you'd feel differently if having uneducated voters didn't particularly benefit your end of the political spectrum, right?
Last edited:
RalphInCA
Cleared for Takeoff
Exactly.
I also cannot believe the stupid comments about not allowing crack whores or other people like that to vote. Those people are citizens, and perhaps if we had better social safety nets in this country they would not be crack whores.
Perhaps the crack whore would like to vote for a person who would help set up systems that would help them become contributing parts of society.
And yes, I am a liberal. Flame away.
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
The stockholders of the corporation have no say. The heads of the corporation and the board decide. If the stockholders are allowed to vote then it's a different situation. The boards are all rigged, many of the same people are on many different corporate boards. If you think stockholders elect the management your sadly mistaken. And no, we didn't fight a war over this......ever.
N747JB
Final Approach
Or reproduce! I'd rather see a test for reproduction before a test for voting. If some of the really stupid ones didn't reproduce, we'd have fewer on welfare to keep voting for more welfare!
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,091
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
It doesn't benefit my end of the political spectrum but I don't think we should deny someone's vote because I disagree with their ideals.flightwriter; said:
Nauga,
Who thinks more people should vote, not fewer
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Or reproduce! I'd rather see a test for reproduction before a test for voting. If some of the really stupid ones didn't reproduce, we'd have fewer on welfare to keep voting for more welfare!
We tried that already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,091
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
asechrest
En-Route
Not in the slightest. I hated Bush, but I would never suggest we restructure voting rights to favor a side. You wouldn't have found me on message boards suggesting anti-redneck tests. (Offensive, isn't it?)
The very suggestion of it takes us back to a dark time in US history. I submit that there exists no appropriate way to structure such voter requirements.
The fact is that there is no problem with a voter choosing a candidate for any reason at all, even the color of their hair. I wish they wouldn't do that, but there's nothing wrong with it. If you feel that's inappropriate, you tackle that from a different angle: voter outreach and education, as examples. But you don't posit a "solution" that tramples voting rights for entire segments of the population.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
I'm not really a fan of voting. I don't really have a better suggestion though. I can come up with some but it wouldn't be long before the people in power mangled the intent for their own benefit.
JOhnH
Ejection Handle Pulled
I keep hearing this but I never heard anyone say they wanted a test to keep opposing views out. Any test would only be used to try to assure that the voters have at least some idea of what they are voting for.
Now I did hear somebody allude to the fact that allowing low information voters to vote may benefit one party more than the other. I would think THAT would be more offensive than testing for knowledge. Unless you admit that allowing low information voters helps your party.
I'm sorry, but I just don't want uninformed people deciding who runs our country. I don't think rich people should get extra votes. Being rich is it's own reward. A poor but informed voter deserves to be heard too so that perhaps he can vote for a politician that he thinks will allow him to become successful.
But I don't think anyone on welfare and not paying taxes should vote. Would you let prisoners vote on their prison terms or living conditions?
asechrest
En-Route
There is no way to prevent abuse of such a power from being used as a tool to keep opposing viewpoints out.
Every voter deserves to be heard. There is no objective way to determine who is informed or not. Attempts to determine such are fraught with peril, ripe for abuse, and typically unconstitutional.
Being uninformed is not against the law. Prisoners retain many rights, though I'm not prepared to speak on that tangent. I would, however, at the very least, restore voting rights to all felons after time-served.
JOhnH
Ejection Handle Pulled
Saying that it can't be done, or that it can't be done well, is different than saying it shouldn't be done.
I believe it should be done,
And I believe it can be done. And done well. But it would certainly take majority buy-in and that might not be possible.
I believe it should be done,
And I believe it can be done. And done well. But it would certainly take majority buy-in and that might not be possible.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not fully accurate. Even if you have a huge loan (mortgage) you (or you and your other equity holders) are the equity owner of the house. (The deed of trust usually provides that a "trustee" has legal ownership of the house - and the trustee is usually NOT the lender). Therefore, the majority of people own their homes.
The note, deed of trust & other loan documents contain clauses that revoke that ownership & allow the house to be repossessed if you fail to meet your obligations under the note. For example, you don't pay your taxes, the bank gets to take certain actions to protect their loan interest in the house. But they don't "own" it without court action. Now if they take an equity position in the house, then it's a different story.
Foreclosure - or "repossession" - of the house requires legal action & usually requires a judgment. The trustee then sells the house & pays the bank for the remaining money due on the mortgage and pays the equitable owner the remainder.
Very nitpicky, but you have to be very precise on these things.
(incidentally, most companies have a capital structure that involves equity and debt. Stock, for example, is equity. Debt can be bank debt, bonds, or other forms of lending. Most bank debt carries performance covenants - just like a home mortgage note would. There may not be a trustee involved, but it can operate in much the same way.)
Agree 150%. The ONLY criteria should be age (over 18) and citizenship.
cowman
Final Approach
So quick straw poll... has anyone here seen a politician from the big 2 parties at the federal level who they genuinely believed in? I mean someone you think has the right position and acts on it over 90% of the time?
Or, like I suspect most people do, are you just afraid of what's going to go down if the opposition party comes in?
We have all these knock-down drag-out left vs right arguments in the public, then it seems like the politicians in office just keep going off and doing things NONE of us want over and over and we can't ever get organized enough to vote them out because we're too obsessed over things like abortion and gun control(arguments which have not changed in my lifetime and very little ground has been gained or lost on).
In the meantime our civil liberties are going down the crapper, they're spying on us, they've essentially voted it legal for them to accept all the bribes they can take, every other bill contains big corporate giveaways... none of us like this. You can't in any objectivity claim one side is better than the other... yet as a nation we keep voting them in every year and they keep stabbing us in the back.
I really really wish we could all just get behind someone... put aside our little pet causes and look at what's really important and get behind a candidate who will actually help. I actually have one in mind but due to not properly supporting pet causes I already know he's not going to be electable. *sigh*
Or, like I suspect most people do, are you just afraid of what's going to go down if the opposition party comes in?
We have all these knock-down drag-out left vs right arguments in the public, then it seems like the politicians in office just keep going off and doing things NONE of us want over and over and we can't ever get organized enough to vote them out because we're too obsessed over things like abortion and gun control(arguments which have not changed in my lifetime and very little ground has been gained or lost on).
In the meantime our civil liberties are going down the crapper, they're spying on us, they've essentially voted it legal for them to accept all the bribes they can take, every other bill contains big corporate giveaways... none of us like this. You can't in any objectivity claim one side is better than the other... yet as a nation we keep voting them in every year and they keep stabbing us in the back.
I really really wish we could all just get behind someone... put aside our little pet causes and look at what's really important and get behind a candidate who will actually help. I actually have one in mind but due to not properly supporting pet causes I already know he's not going to be electable. *sigh*
JOhnH
Ejection Handle Pulled
I'm not disagreeing with you in principal. Both sides are lead by slimy politicians.
But everyone says both parties are the same. I dispute that.
The problem is that they all politicians with their own agendas.
When the Democrats are in power, they try to get everything they want done, which most Republicans abhor.
Then when the Rs are in power, they try to get their agenda passed, which the other half of the country abhors. So now we have everyone ****ed off.
But I would rather have the other half ****ed off than my half. And my half has been ****ed off for too long now.
But everyone says both parties are the same. I dispute that.
The problem is that they all politicians with their own agendas.
When the Democrats are in power, they try to get everything they want done, which most Republicans abhor.
Then when the Rs are in power, they try to get their agenda passed, which the other half of the country abhors. So now we have everyone ****ed off.
But I would rather have the other half ****ed off than my half. And my half has been ****ed off for too long now.
cowman
Final Approach
I don't disagree with any of your points, in fact I'd say you're dead on. But we're missing out on a lot of middle ground this way.
The party extremists run things and we fail to err on the side of liberty.
Eg I'm somewhat of a gun enthusiast and I support gun rights. That said I really wish there was some better mechanism to keep guns away from people with mental health problems. Unfortunately, the right opposes all gun control and the left only seems to push legislation that attacks legitimate law abiding gun owners.
I'm of the opinion tax rates for individuals and corporations are too high. However we know corporations and the rich are using loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying much of anything. There seems to be room for a compromise solution there but you won't see it. The guys taking advantage of this keep the money flowing for the Rs and the Ds.
mjburian
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Hmm...I got "recruited" to jury duty years ago and I'm not a registered voter???
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,091
- Location
- The city of Townsville
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
Ah, a financial test of eligibility. No thank you. We all get to vote on issues that affect all of us. When only some of us do then we've strengthend the 'ruling class'.
Nauga,
Voting no on no voting
cowman
Final Approach
Citizenship, age, and maybe proof of identity are the only reasonable restrictions I can think of for voting. Otherwise, it's not really a democracy anymore.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Umm no. Both parties do the same exact thing they just spin it different. Bush ran a couple of wars, spent loads of money, and was hard on civil liberties. The current guy has moved the ball further down the field in the same direction. The difference is theater.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Amen, brother.
After the last several election debacles, I decided it was time to give a new group a shot. The Libertarian Party isn't perfect (it's hard to find anyone to run, when the overall belief is LESS government!
), but after half a century of being fooled by the Democlicans and Republicrats, they are a breath of fresh, clean air.
sourdough44
En-Route
By all means go & vote, but don't hang your hat with ANY politician. One needs to make their own way forward, regardless of who is in office.
Clip4
Final Approach
I find it offensive that a crack whore can cancel out my vote.
You are too easily offended.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,014
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
A guy kills someone with a knife and we ask what's wrong with the guy.
A guy kills someone with a baseball bat and we ask what's wrong with the guy.
A guy kills someone with a gun and it's focus on the taking guns away.
People with mental health problems need treatment.
I think you are grossly generalizing.
If the anti-gun crowd proposed measures that were rational* (and constitutional) there could be some progress along those lines. Unfortunately, too many of the anti-gun crowd appear to be have an ultimate objective of eliminating guns for everyone.
*rational: based on reason and logic. In other words, something that is not arbitrary, is on point, and would actually work.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,014
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
concur.
While it may have its downside, the right to vote comes with being a citizen. It's not for you, me, or anyone else to decide how someone determines who to vote for.
Perhaps we should not have votes cast for an individual at all, but rather individuals should have their position on various current topics registered and voters should weigh in on their position on those topics, where the best match of the public takes office.
It'll never happen of course. The money wouldn't allow that.
It'll never happen of course. The money wouldn't allow that.
silver-eagle
En-Route
Congrats and welcome to your wife. If I were you, I would be real careful about getting her to write you in. Town elections could be made by just one vote.My wife took the oath of alligiance and became a US citizen on 19 June 2014. The first thing she did as a citizen was register to vote. She can't wait to vote for anything.!!! I tell her she should just write my name in on the ballot. She gives me an accusing look and then I assume she curses at me in her native language..!!!
Mr Dog Officer, sir? Congrats to you too!
One day before an election a guy called Joe came by to say he was running for the local town council. I mentioned knowing Bill who was currently chairman of the town council and he agreed they were friends. He asked me how things were going and are there any problems. I pointed to the pothole in the middle of the street that had been there for a couple of years and we both shook our heads. Two days later, a work crew filled the pothole in our street.
Election day came and I was busy, so decided not to go vote. About an hour before the polls closed, the phone rang and it was Joe. He said that Bill needed our vote and he wondered whether we could get to the polls. He would appreciate our vote, too. So, we jumped in the car and voted for Joe and Bill. Joe won by a few votes and Bill lost by a few. I wondered whether Bill spent election day calling voters.
I love living in a small community.
Juries are drawn from Driver License rolls, too.
Jim_CAK
Line Up and Wait
About 10 years ago I started traveling a lot for work. I never knew if I would be home for Election Day. I started getting absentee ballots and voiting by mail. I now wonder why I did not do it sooner. I get the ballot in the mail, I can research the candidates on the internet, No lines to stand in. I feel beter about looking up the candidates and doing a little research than just leaving the ballot blank.
JOhnH
Ejection Handle Pulled
On the other hand, most people don't leave the ballot blank. They just mark a name that sounds familiar, or sounds (black, white, hispanic etc), or sounds male or female. There is very little reason to put as much thought into it as you seem to. But I am glad you do.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Mr. Dog Officer Billy..... I like the sound of that..I'll demand more respect around here now!!
My wife says thank you.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Other than not standing in line and voting by mail, the rest of what you are doing is what any good, informed voter shoud be doing anyway regardless of the method of voting.
Morgan3820
En-Route
OK...
Morgan3820
En-Route
But what happens when the 'recipient' class can vote to themselves all of the money?