The Republican Party Today

#276
#276
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#278
#278
clarksvol00 said:
Which is why I am against these voting qualification proposal. Most of the state legislatures are hyper-partisan and will in no way be fair about the qualifications.
Click to expand...

They would have to be fair otherwise the courts would strike them down. No faith in the court system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#279
#279
hog88 said:
They would have to be fair otherwise the courts would strike them down. No faith in the court system?
Click to expand...
Depends on how they write them. Looks like McDad is already working on a plan that seems ok in its face, but is geared toward cutting out the poor who don't pay taxes, but protects the rich wo do.
 
#280
#280
RockyTop85 said:
Choosing to vacation is an act of consent to the laws of the destination. Hypothetical John hasn’t consented. He was just born there.

I don’t mind requiring an de minimus affirmative act to exercise the right to vote (registering, driving to the poll, etc. etc.) but requiring an affirmative act to obtain the right to vote really bothers me in the same way that having a discretionary process for obtaining a license to carry a firearm concerned the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.
Click to expand...

Does John not have choice? Choice to work? Choice to serve? Choice to find a way to be eligible to exercise his right to vote. John has the right, he doesn't have the duty.

It's a great comparison. There are jurisdictions which restrict the right to carry firearms but require an affirmative act to do so. For example, becoming a LEO of said jurisdiction.

I am simply applying that standard to the ability to exercise the right to vote. Whether you or I like it or not is inconsequential because those jurisdictions apparently have the legal authority to require an affimative act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GroverCleveland and hog88
#282
#282
RockyTop85 said:
If the state rather than constitution gets to decide what taxes or amounts qualify, then I’m out and retract my prior concessions. That’s effectively establishing a dictatorial regime.

Being subject to loss of life, liberty, or property is sufficient “skin in the game” to require consent.
Click to expand...
If not the state deciding who would meet the standard of taxes paid to vote in the state, then who would? Also, I think it would be just a valid to serve in the TN National Guard and be honorably discharged if the state wanted to create that pathway.
Again, that standard would be to vote in the state elections. The standard for federal elections (president, rep, and senator) would not be tied to the state's standards but to the federal.
 
#283
#283
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...
Sales tax? I was with you up until that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#284
#284
clarksvol00 said:
Which is why I am against these voting qualification proposal. Most of the state legislatures are hyper-partisan and will in no way be fair about the qualifications.
Click to expand...

I think we are all comfortable or accepting of current qualifications simply because they have been in effect long enough for us to not consider them. I don't see much difference in new qualifications since the number of people prohibited in having a voice at some level of governance would be infinitesimal.
 
#285
#285
McDad said:
I think we are all comfortable or accepting of current qualifications simply because they have been in effect long enough for us to not consider them. I don't see much difference in new qualifications since the number of people prohibited in having a voice at some level of governance would be infinitesimal.
Click to expand...
I see wealth restrictions as a problem.
 
#286
#286
SpaceCoastVol said:
Sales tax? I was with you up until that.
Click to expand...
Sales tax is as close to equally applied in a state as anything. In fact, it may be the only tax the vast majority of people in a state pay. It is unlike a use tax or fee (one associated with bikes or cars for example).
How can we deny those paying state taxes a say in the way their state is governed?

I am not in favor of taxation without representation. I am also not in favor of representation without taxation (or other types of standards).
 
#288
#288
TN Ribs said:
GMO seeds have made them both less susceptible to heat/drought, GMO seeds have also increased yields dramatically.
Click to expand...
And lowered the nutritional value as well. When things grow too fast, they are not as healthy.
 
#290
#290
clarksvol00 said:
Why is land ownership an alternative to payment of taxes?
Click to expand...
It isn't an alternative to payment.

Real property ownership would meet one of the standards to exercise a person's right to vote.

eta: did you mean an alternative to the standard of taxes paid as a qualifier to vote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#291
#291
McDad said:
Sales tax is as close to equally applied in a state as anything. In fact, it may be the only tax the vast majority of people in a state pay. It is unlike a use tax or fee (one associated with bikes or cars for example).
How can we deny those paying state taxes a say in the way their state is governed?

I am not in favor of taxation without representation. I am also not in favor of representation without taxation (or other types of standards).
Click to expand...
Well then that is pretty much where we are currently.. Like luther said, 'who doesn't pay sales taxes'? That includes the illegal invaders from the south.

Nah. If you don't file a 1040 with actual earned income from employment, you shouldn't be voting on any program from which you will benefit. And to take it a step further, congress should not be voting on their own pay.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#293
#293
clarksvol00 said:
Depends on how they write them. Looks like McDad is already working on a plan that seems ok in its face, but is geared toward cutting out the poor who don't pay taxes, but protects the rich wo do.
Click to expand...
What about that 'fair share' thingy you lefties are always harping about? Does that mean 'the rich' have to pay ALL taxes and 'the poor's' fair share is zero?
 
#296
#296
SpaceCoastVol said:
Well then that is pretty much where we are currently.. Like luther said, 'who doesn't pay taxes'? That includes the illegal invaders from the south.

Nah. If you don't file a 1040 with actual earned income from employment, you shouldn't be voting on any program from which you will benefit. And to take it a step further, congress should not be voting on their own pay.
Click to expand...
Great. I am not looking to restrict anybody from voting for, at a minimum, some level of governance.

Non citizens who pay taxes should have some sort of representation...i just don't know what that would be or how to structure it. A convo for another day, maybe?
 
#297
#297
McDad said:
Does John not have choice? Choice to work? Choice to serve? Choice to find a way to be eligible to exercise his right to vote. John has the right, he doesn't have the duty.

It's a great comparison. There are jurisdictions which restrict the right to carry firearms but require an affirmative act to do so. For example, becoming a LEO of said jurisdiction.

I am simply applying that standard to the ability to exercise the right to vote. Whether you or I like it or not is inconsequential because those jurisdictions apparently have the legal authority to require an affimative act.
Click to expand...
If the state gets to arbitrarily set predicate conditions on John’s suffrage, then it’s not a right to vote. You’re arguing for a dictatorship.

Neither of the other two paragraphs are correct. States conclusively lost the power to do either of these things in 2022 and 1868, respectively.
 
#298
#298
clarksvol00 said:
Where am I harping about fair share, Giggles? I merely don't agree with the voting restrictions.
Click to expand...
Oh. So you have no problems with the invading hoard from the south voting as well? I'm trying to define the boundary here. Help a brother out.
 
#299
#299
clarksvol00 said:
I'm wondering why that makes you inherently worthy of voting.
Click to expand...
Non of the standards make someone inherently worthy of voting. The only thing inherent in the discussion is the inherent right to vote. It isn't a worth or lack of worth issue. The issue is qualifying someone's ability to exercise their right to vote.
Land owners were part of the original constitution. Good enough for them, good enough for me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top