The Republican Party Today

#227
#227
clarksvol00 said:
I think the only thing you're convinced of is that there need to be voting restrictions and those voting restrictions would favor people who think like you.
Click to expand...

It is comical that even the Democrat Party realizes that they rely heavily on masses of immigrants and welfare recipients to maintain power. What does that say about their party and the future of the US? I have never understood why any hard working American would want to have the same political views as an immigrant from Ecuador or Guatemala lol those are bastions of educated, freedom loving citizens. Not only that but vote for politicians who espouse political views that are more in line with Third World nations, it literally makes zero sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#229
#229
Citizens should meet one of a, b, or c, plus satisfy d to be eligible to vote.
a. Land owners
b. Tax payers
c. Honorably discharged service members
d. Minimum age (full rights obtained)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#230
#230
RockyTop85 said:
Democracy didn’t cease to exist when we created the social safety net. There are people who live off of it and people who abuse it. They’re a small minority of voters who have no hope of sustaining a filibuster against a coalition of “responsible,” propertied, or tax paying members of society. If you think that’s wrong, go build a coalition of people to overturn it.

If you don’t think it’s wrong then you’re just in favor of denying those people the right to vote and subjecting them to a dictatorial government so you can have your way.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Did you really understand that post as saying once any kind of socialist type program starts then"poof!" the country disappears? That I believe the country should have collapsed in the late 30s when FDR fostered Social Security on the nation?

I don't think you do; you're not that nonsensical, just jumping all over some hyperbole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#231
#231
McDad said:
Voters should meet one of a, b, or c, plus satisfy d.
a. Land owners
b. Tax payers
c. Honorably discharged service members
d. Minimum age (full rights obtained)
Click to expand...

Question about b, any defined level of taxes paid? Like would people who qualify for EITC be able to vote? What about an individual proprietor who lost money one year and ended up at net zero income taxes paid? And I'm assuming and please correct me, b refers to federal income taxes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and GroverCleveland
#232
#232
landscapingvol said:
It is comical that even the Democrat Party realizes that they rely heavily on masses of immigrants and welfare recipients to maintain power. What does that say about their party and the future of the US? I have never understood why any hard working American would want to have the same political views as an immigrant from Ecuador or Guatemala lol those are bastions of educated, freedom loving citizens. Not only that but vote for politicians who espouse political views that are more in line with Third World nations, it literally makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're telling me all this. I haven't mentioned any politicians or their views. I haven't said anything about immigrants and the only reason I mention welfare recipients is because the topic of largesse was brought up. I only point out that the proponents of disenfranchisement will likely come up with a plan that favors their own viewpoints. Hence my comparison to farmers. We throw around philosophical quotes about largesse; but then apply it only to certain beneficiaries of that largesse.

By the way do you have statistics on the number of immigrants from Ecuador or Guatemala that are actually registered to vote?
 
#233
#233
hog88 said:
I don't care who a person votes for or why, I just want people voting that are informed and voting for the future of the country and not deciding on what's best for me today. Hence why your argument regarding farm subsidies swayed me.
Click to expand...
I had you pegged as one of the biggest "what's the immediate impact on my wallet" voters out there. Glad to see I was wrong.

If more people were able to think long term and not strictly through the prism of immediate personal greed - it would be a different world.

It would certainly change a lot of perceptions of Carter and Reagan.
 
#234
#234
luthervol said:
I had you pegged as one of the biggest "what's the immediate impact on my wallet" voters out there. Glad to see I was wrong.

If more people were able to think long term and not strictly through the prism of immediate personal greed - it would be a different world.

It would certainly change a lot of perceptions of Carter and Reagan.
Click to expand...

You generally are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BreatheUT and GroverCleveland
#235
#235
hog88 said:
Question about b, any defined level of taxes paid? Like would people who qualify for EITC be able to vote? What about an individual proprietor who lost money one year and ended up at net zero income taxes paid? And I'm assuming and please correct me, b refers to federal income taxes?
Click to expand...
Tax payer would be defined as someone who has paid taxes to the jurisdiction in which they are voting. At the city/county level, property taxes would suffice. State income taxes or sales taxes. Federal income, cap gains, etc.

The vast majority of people would satisfy this requirement at some level of governance.
 
#236
#236
GroverCleveland said:
What are you talking about? Did you really understand that post as saying once any kind of socialist type program starts then"poof!" the country disappears? That I believe the country should have collapsed in the late 30s when FDR fostered Social Security on the nation?

I don't think you do; you're not that nonsensical, just jumping all over some hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I’m talking about how we’re nearly 100 years removed from FDR and there’s still a supermajority of people earning enough to pay taxes and you’re over here whining about the political power of a minority of the remainder who live off the government.

Petulant hyperbole is not persuasive.
 
#237
#237
hog88 said:
You generally are.
Click to expand...
You're slowly coming around. Just over the past two days I've seen movement and growth. I'll let it rest in your sub-conscious; I'm relatively certain the conscious Hog would reject and deny.

3, 2, 1, ......
 
#238
#238
RockyTop85 said:
I’m talking about how we’re nearly 100 years removed from FDR and there’s still a supermajority of people earning enough to pay taxes and you’re over here whining about the political power of a minority of the remainder who live off the government.

Petulant hyperbole is not persuasive.
Click to expand...
If you're referencing federal income taxes, I am not sure the percent who pay is a supermajority.

In total, about 59.9 percent of U.S. households paid income tax in 2022. The remaining 40.1 percent of households paid no individual income tax.

Although 60% would be consistent with a political super majority of 3/5 ths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GroverCleveland and hog88
#239
#239
McDad said:
Tax payer would be defined as someone who has paid taxes to the jurisdiction in which they are voting. At the city/county level, property taxes would suffice. State income taxes or sales taxes. Federal income, cap gains, etc.

The vast majority of people would satisfy this requirement at some level of governance.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I like your ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#241
#241
McDad said:
Tax payer would be defined as someone who has paid taxes to the jurisdiction in which they are voting. At the city/county level, property taxes would suffice. State income taxes or sales taxes. Federal income, cap gains, etc.

The vast majority of people would satisfy this requirement at some level of governance.
Click to expand...
Who doesn't pay sales taxes?
 
#242
#242
Voting is not going to change. It was and in some cases still is a Country that Convicted Felons could not vote but they could Run for Office. Some states still have this rule, but it is funny that if you are a convicted felon you can run, but you cannot vote for yourself. Ever want to get into a humorous conversation sit in a group convicted felons and talk politics.

I honestly think that they should raise the voting age to 24. At 18 you aren't even close to experiencing what the real world is like and with 6 years of experience you have a better perspective of life in the real world after you move out of your parent's home and live on your on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#245
#245
McDad said:
Tax payer would be defined as someone who has paid taxes to the jurisdiction in which they are voting. At the city/county level, property taxes would suffice. State income taxes or sales taxes. Federal income, cap gains, etc.

The vast majority of people would satisfy this requirement at some level of governance.
Click to expand...
Initially believed that your list of criteria was short by one (subject to laws that have the potential to subject them to loss of life, liberty, or property) but was thinking property and income tax only. If you’re going to include sales tax, this seems like a distinction without a difference.

I don’t know that the number of voting, self-sufficient squatters are worth worrying about. As long as citizenship is automatically conveyed at birth or at some later point, like domicile at the time of legal emancipation, I think this seems reasonable.
 
#247
#247
hog88 said:
Nope. Good list.

Ideally we'd make our federal government so inconsequential to our daily lives that who votes doesn't matter but that ain't happening through the ballot box.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You and I want to see all politics become local politics. If you own property in a county, you vote in that county. If you don't own property but pay into the state's taxes, you can vote in state elections.

I think it scales appropriately and gives the vast majority of those who meet requirements a voice at some level of governance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#248
#248
RockyTop85 said:
Initially believed that your list of criteria was short by one (subject to laws that have the potential to subject them to loss of life, liberty, or property) but was thinking property and income tax only. If you’re going to include sales tax, this seems like a distinction without a difference.

I don’t know that the number of voting, self-sufficient squatters are worth worrying about. As long as citizenship is automatically conveyed at birth or at some later point, like domicile at the time of legal emancipation, I think this seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
I could see an additional requirement dictating not incarcerated. But I would want all who served their time to have their right to vote fully restored so long as they met the other stipulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#249
#249
McDad said:
Uh, those who live in states with no sales tax???
Click to expand...
So you would only restrict voting in these five states? (states with no general statewide sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top