The Republican Party Today

#302
#302
McDad said:
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?
Click to expand...
How about a fast track to citizenship for those non-citizens that are contributing? You work and pay into the system, you get to move up in the line versus those that are here stealing my oxygen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#305
#305
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
So was the three-fifths compromise.
 
#306
#306
clarksvol00 said:
You mean citizenship?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I agree with McDad. You should have skin in the game before taking from others, and you certainly shouldn't be voting on things that allow you to benefit from others' work and contributions. That goes for the uber wealthy too. If they pay zero tax, they shouldn't get to vote either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
#308
#308
SpaceCoastVol said:
Fair enough. I agree with McDad. You should have skin in the game before taking from others, and you certainly shouldn't be voting on things that allow you to benefit from others' work and contributions. That goes for the uber wealthy too. If they pay zero tax, they shouldn't get to vote either.
Click to expand...
We may disagree, but it's too your credit that you're consistent about it.
 
#309
#309
K-town Vol Fan said:
That pesky constitution
Click to expand...
I just think its a morally corrupt system in general. may be constitutional, but that doesn't make it an inherently moral thing.

I think the sticking point most people think they find is they think I am saying that only some people voting is an issue, and thus would be wrong to pick and choose. I am saying the entire system of voting is morally flawed, regardless of who is allowed to vote in it. or even what is voted.

Life changing decisions for millions of people are made without consideration to the fallacy of a one size fitting all policies that voting provides. Those decisions/votes are generally made without any real understanding of the item in question and instead rely upon whatever bs is used to sell them. in our system it relies not even voting on a pure policy issue, but instead of the people who make the decisions on that policy. so you may want to your representative to vote one way on a policy, but there is no guarantee that they will vote the way you want them to when you voted for them. and further there is a good chance you don't even understand what it is their policy is, 1 because they lie to you about the actual issues are, and 2 because they lie to you about what they will actually do. so the one size fits all policy isn't even based on any real "best preference" over another "best preference". Its really just one limited preference you are given over another limited preference you are given.

and that one size fits all policy almost always only benefits one group by taking away from another group(s). you can't justify behavior just because it effects everyone, or that everyone had a voice in the matter. the results are what make any system moral or not. all we are doing is hiding our own culpability in the system.

Which leads into my next moral issue. It separates people from the consequences of their decisions. the politicians get to claim the "will of the people" and the people get to claim "well it was my representative, not me". the ability to separate from the consequences allows bad actions/actors to continue. and then it becomes a system of governance based on selling the POSSIBILITY, but the actual results never directly feed back. without that feed back into the system we are never able to correct our mistakes, there is generally no direct way to, because we are separated, and there is also no direct interaction with those voting, so they may not even know how their vote impacted things. so when that one size fits all actually comes in and harms people there is no real recourse to avoid the consequences of someone's else vote. doesn't matter if YOU had a vote in the matter or not, someone else made a decision for you, and you typically aren't allowed any recourse based on individual circumstances. so morally the system of voting doesn't provide a real path to getting better, which is theoretically the argument for it, and as things get fit into the one policy, more and more people are involved with less and less connection to control of their own lives.

Voting is supposed to be this principal of everyone having a voice, but it is very far removed from that. Only the majority ever has a voice. the minority opinion(s) are never represented, no considerations are made for them, and no considerations are made for what is actually the best option. if an objective best exists. If 51% vote to have their houses painted green, and the other 49% vote to have their houses blue, everyone's house is just painted green. if everyone's vote actually mattered you would have 51% painted green, and 49% painted blue. but this only gets brought up by the loser when they lose, because if they win then clearly they are right. voting as a version of might makes right relies almost solely on the barest minimum number of preferences, instead of anything measurable or definable as some form of "good" that you are forcing on others.

and this doesn't even get into the specific failures of our particular versions of voting. the false dichotomy of only red vs blue, the tribalism the evolves from that. you also have the issue of what all is actually left up to a public vote vs an elected official vote.

I see voting as no morally different than a king making the decision unilaterally. involving more/all people in the process doesn't provide any moral superiority to flawed results. does 51% voting to beat up Joe make it ok? No. Does 51% voting to steal from Jane make it ok? No. its no different with wars, laws, and taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
#310
#310
clarksvol00 said:
So was the three-fifths compromise.
Click to expand...
Land ownership as a pre-requisite to voting was never in the constitution, but the thread has moved quickly so maybe he’s talking about something else.

It was debated but left out for the express reason that they didn’t think it could get ratified.

The practice was not uncommon prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment (and probably not that uncommon in some parts until 1964). Which provides good examples of what it would look like in practice. Absolutely floored that anybody would look at those examples and say “yup, works for me.”

Cc: @McDad
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, McDad and clarksvol00
#311
#311
SpaceCoastVol said:
And lowered the nutritional value as well. When things grow too fast, they are not as healthy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the brilliant and insightful scientific analysis. Completely inaccurate but also completely expected coming from you.
Many GMO foods are specifically engineered to have more nutritional value.
 
#313
#313
TN Ribs said:
Thanks for the brilliant and insightful scientific analysis. Completely inaccurate but also completely expected coming from you.
Many GMO foods are specifically engineered to have more nutritional value.
Click to expand...
LOL suuuuuuure they are. And I am so happy that they built in the immunity from things like RoundUp and other glysophates so that they can have that kind of crap sprayed all over it as well. But it is safe for human consumption, Monsanto says so. Human beings are just so incredibly smart these days with their modification of such things. Viruses... DNA.... but it's sCieNcE, right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#315
#315
TN Ribs said:
I know, you don't believe in science. Conspiracy theories are easier for you to digest.
Click to expand...
Do a little research Chief. Or drink a cup of RoundUp.

And it seems these days 'scientists' can be as easily bought as politicians. Should have seen it coming when we heard '4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend...'
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and EasternVol
#316
#316
McDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the idea of letting the federal government set any standards for voting beyond what is currently in the constitution and the constitution is pretty clear on how elections are conducted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GroverCleveland and McDad
#317
#317
RockyTop85 said:
Land ownership as a pre-requisite to voting was never in the constitution, but the thread has moved quickly so maybe he’s talking about something else.

It was debated but left out for the express reason that they didn’t think it could get ratified.

The practice was not uncommon prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment (and probably not that uncommon in some parts until 1964). Which provides good examples of what it would look like in practice. Absolutely floored that anybody would look at those examples and say “yup, works for me.”

Cc: @McDad
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. So the landed gentry entrenched in early state constitutional conventions and legislatures decided to restrict governing to themselves. Makes sense.
 
#318
#318
clarksvol00 said:
Where am I harping about fair share, Giggles? I merely don't agree with the voting restrictions.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with setting an age to vote? Limiting voting to citizens only? If you do then you agree with voting restrictions.
 
#319
#319
hog88 said:
Do you agree with setting an age to vote? Limiting voting to citizens only? If you do then you agree with voting restrictions.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating against all restrictions. I'm opposed to restrictions like the ones being proposed like wealth, land ownership, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#320
#320
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do states currently conditions on the exercise of one's rights? If yes, is that dictatorship? I am curious because we tend to discuss constitutional rights on this forum a lot. And we are all aware of where exercise of those rights are conditional.

I used 'jurisdiction'. You are using state. I am saying jurisdictions place qualifiers on rights now and it seems to pass muster. (I cannot bear arms in NYC, for example). Which,to me, means a state can place qualifiers on the (such as taxes paid) to exercise the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
#321
#321
SpaceCoastVol said:
How about a fast track to citizenship for those non-citizens that are contributing? You work and pay into the system, you get to move up in the line versus those that are here stealing my oxygen.
Click to expand...
Would love to see a fast track system of assimilation. I have used the concept of condition, provisional, and full citizenship for immigrants in the past.
 
#324
#324
SpaceCoastVol said:
Fair enough. I agree with McDad. You should have skin in the game before taking from others, and you certainly shouldn't be voting on things that allow you to benefit from others' work and contributions. That goes for the uber wealthy too. If they pay zero tax, they shouldn't get to vote either.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Incomprehensibly wealthy people who don't own real property and do not pay taxes would be far more dangerous to our Republic as voters than any poor person who didn't meet the minimum standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#325
#325
Sudden Impact said:
Like it or not it ain't what it use to be. Trump is destroying what it use to be and the basis of it's foundation.
Article is over the top? Not as much as one would think.
What's more, is that this Party is digging a hole to hand over the Country to a bunch of feel good liberals.
Our Country is in total chaos at the moment because of the division and it is not getting any closer to solution.
Most of it is self serving pricks on both sides in their quest for power & $$$$ using any means to stay on top.
You may agree or not agree with this Article. It makes no difference if you do or don't. It is just gas on the fire for both parties to blame each other.
Enjoy the read.

Donald Trump entered the Republican Party into "international arrangements of oligarchies" (msn.com)
Click to expand...
Meanwhile you believe Ward Clever is running the democrats. The old school left was overtaken by progressives using the name for votes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Sudden Impact
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top