The Republican Party Today

#354
#354
GroverCleveland said:
Just to be sure, you realize that compromise was by the North, not the South. The South wanted slaves counted at 100%...just were not going to allow them to vote...
Click to expand...

Yes, people always misinterpret the three fifths compromise. They just use the mainstream talking points. I've done it. I haven't looked at the topic in some time but wasn't this about adding new states and the South wanting to have slavery in states west of the Mississippi. Three fifths was about taking away the power of their vote to enact slavery. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#355
#355
McDad said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you still including citizenship in your proposal? We allow foreigners and foreign interests to buy land in the US. A group of Chinese are suing FL about a law preventing Chinese and some other nationalities from owning land in FL. That's going to be a problem when the country, state, or local government sets limits on one nationality but not others; and I absolutely believe we should not be permitting Chinese ownership of US soil. But above and beyond that, land ownership should not supersede citizenship to gain voting privileges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#356
#356
EasternVol said:
The South wanted them counted @ 100% if I remember correctly. So it was a mutual compromise.
Click to expand...
Unless I am really bad mistaken, I said the South wanted them at 100%. Did misspeak by implicating it was the North‘s compromise. The North actually did not want slaves counted at all I believe, leading to the eventual 60%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and EasternVol
#357
#357
AM64 said:
Are you still including citizenship in your proposal? We allow foreigners and foreign interests to buy land in the US. A group of Chinese are suing FL about a law preventing Chinese and some other nationalities from owning land in FL. That's going to be a problem when the country, state, or local government sets limits on one nationality but not others; and I absolutely believe we should not be permitting Chinese ownership of US soil. But above and beyond that, land ownership should not supersede citizenship to gain voting privileges.
Click to expand...

We're one of the few countries that allow foreign ownership of land. We're also one of the few that allow dual citizenship. Both are stupid on our part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL and AM64
#358
#358
BreatheUT said:
Yes, people always misinterpret the three fifths compromise. They just use the mainstream talking points. I've done it. I haven't looked at the topic in some time but wasn't this about adding new states and the South wanting to have slavery in states west of the Mississippi. Three fifths was about taking away the power of their vote to enact slavery. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong.
Click to expand...
It was to limit the South in the House of Representatives, so yes, it indirectly had that effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BreatheUT, 825VOL and 1 other person
#359
#359
SpaceCoastVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Retired people have paid their dues and should still be able to vote. Many of us have retirement income derived from working incomes - retirement investments and pension plans ... even regular SS is based on work history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and McDad
#360
#360
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...

While not entirely disagreeing, the US was a very new nation back in those days, so there was a bit of a problem with having enough people to make it all work and people who would supposedly qualify as citizens. With the limits on transportation and distance, it was likely that most landowners (certainly those who farmed or actually used the land) were viewed as having a real stake in things. There probably were absentee owners even then, but getting here to cast a ballot probably drove a spike in their malicious hearts.
 
#361
#361
AM64 said:
Retired people have paid their dues and should still be able to vote. Many of us have retirement income derived from working incomes - retirement investments and pension plans ... even regular SS is based on work history.
Click to expand...
how does that mindset work in this idea that you have to have skin in the game to vote? would that standard apply to other people not old enough to retire. They worked and paid taxes, then were fired, the economy crashed, and were out of a job for a while, now they can't vote? or they are 20, in college, work in the summer, but come election are unemployed because they are in school, lets assume they aren't paying for that either, do they get to vote?

No one is actually paying ahead on their taxes. there is no upper limit on how much income tax the government wants from you. if they went back and worked they would have to pay taxes. when you retire you are a leach on the system as any "extra" SS you paid in doesn't get paid out past your spouse, and even then I don't think they get the full amount. if everyone stopped paying SS and the funds dry up, its not like there is an actual pot of your money laying around that the government can say "oh yeah thats AM64s". most people aren't forced to retire at a certain age, or at least there is no government laws saying you can't be employed somehow past a certain age.

I think if we want to argue that politicians shouldn't serve past a certain age, the same restriction would apply to voters. why would we trust the people voting if we have established an age where its acceptable to make political decisions for others. as hog said, there is no inherent requirement to vote in the Constitution.

I think if there is any type of pay to play scheme going on it needs to apply equally across ALL demographics. now if you want other qualifiers beyond paying taxes, then certainly a retired person COULD meet those qualifications, but if taxes is it, then no, they shouldn't vote.
 
#362
#362
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Definitely not for setting general restrictions outside what the Constitution and Amendments contain. We've done enough damage to the election process with Amendments as it is. It would be incredibly stupid to lower the bar and allow easier changes.
 
#363
#363
GroverCleveland said:
Unless I am really bad mistaken, I said the South wanted them at 100%. Did misspeak by implicating it was the North‘s compromise. The North actually did not want slaves counted at all I believe, leading to the eventual 60%.
Click to expand...
You did say that, sorry. I just butchered my reply. I meant to say the North wanted 0% and the South 100% thus the mutual compromise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and GroverCleveland
#364
#364
LouderVol said:
how does that mindset work in this idea that you have to have skin in the game to vote? would that standard apply to other people not old enough to retire. They worked and paid taxes, then were fired, the economy crashed, and were out of a job for a while, now they can't vote? or they are 20, in college, work in the summer, but come election are unemployed because they are in school, lets assume they aren't paying for that either, do they get to vote?

No one is actually paying ahead on their taxes. there is no upper limit on how much income tax the government wants from you. if they went back and worked they would have to pay taxes. when you retire you are a leach on the system as any "extra" SS you paid in doesn't get paid out past your spouse, and even then I don't think they get the full amount. if everyone stopped paying SS and the funds dry up, its not like there is an actual pot of your money laying around that the government can say "oh yeah thats AM64s". most people aren't forced to retire at a certain age, or at least there is no government laws saying you can't be employed somehow past a certain age.

I think if we want to argue that politicians shouldn't serve past a certain age, the same restriction would apply to voters. why would we trust the people voting if we have established an age where its acceptable to make political decisions for others. as hog said, there is no inherent requirement to vote in the Constitution.

I think if there is any type of pay to play scheme going on it needs to apply equally across ALL demographics. now if you want other qualifiers beyond paying taxes, then certainly a retired person COULD meet those qualifications, but if taxes is it, then no, they shouldn't vote.
Click to expand...

I pay income taxes - a lot of taxes on my retirement income. I see that as an extension of what I earned during my working years. You have a valid point on people out of work due to a collapsed economy, and that points out that there are no easy answers.

With respect to age, I never favor cutting off people once they reach a certain age. People like @SpaceCoastVol and my brother face/faced mandatory retirement on age alone, and I argue that both are capable of flying well beyond 65. Perhaps we (all of us) lose some attributes as we age; we also gain wisdom and experience. I wouldn't agree on a mandatory retirement for politicians, but the evidence is clear that a few have passed their primes - better voters who vote conscience rather than a line would cure a lot of that. Personally (and I'll be 77 in a few months) I wouldn't even consider running for office - not because I feel incompetent but because I don't feel up to the challenge that would be involved in the daily grind (and have no interest in the first place) - couldn't/wouldn't be willing to meet the demands. As opposed to some in office, I feel I'm at least honest about that.

I've made no bones that I believe the voting age is too low. There's a very distinct difference in intelligence and wisdom, and intelligence does not make up for wisdom and experience. I believe until someone is actually making a living - and you should know this having just bought and moved into a new house, that they are not fully aware of the challenges of making their way in the world. When you haven't learned those lessons - that it's your money and your continuing livelihood at stake, then it's too easy to be idealistic and to believe money from taxes should be applied to any nice sounding project/program. You have faced the responsibility of living within your means - far too many people haven't (and some never will) learn that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#366
#366
AM64 said:
While not entirely disagreeing, the US was a very new nation back in those days, so there was a bit of a problem with having enough people to make it all work and people who would supposedly qualify as citizens. With the limits on transportation and distance, it was likely that most landowners (certainly those who farmed or actually used the land) were viewed as having a real stake in things. There probably were absentee owners even then, but getting here to cast a ballot probably drove a spike in their malicious hearts.
Click to expand...
I believe those who own real property still have a substantial stake.
 
#368
#368
BreatheUT said:
Yes, people always misinterpret the three fifths compromise. They just use the mainstream talking points. I've done it. I haven't looked at the topic in some time but wasn't this about adding new states and the South wanting to have slavery in states west of the Mississippi. Three fifths was about taking away the power of their vote to enact slavery. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong.
Click to expand...
The argument over states west of the Mississippi resulted in the Missouri compromise, decades after the 3/5 compromise.

Edit: If I remember correctly the 3/5 compromise was about southern states want to count slaves to get more electoral college votes and representatives and the northern states, many of which had not outlawed slavery but had fewer slaves, not wanting to be overwhelmed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#372
#372
825VOL said:
Please explain how the 3/5ths compromise condoned slavery in your view.
Click to expand...
It acknowledges that the slave states could allow the ownership of other humans as property and deny them basic human rights, but still count them as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.
 
#373
#373
clarksvol00 said:
It acknowledges that the slave states could allow the ownership of other humans as property and deny them basic human rights, but still count them as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.
Click to expand...

You are partially right. Where I disagree with you is in the idea that anyone form the south or the north cared either way about slavery when coming up with the 3/5ths compromise. The compromise was all about power within the new Congress. This is exactly why the Missouri Compromise was enacted also. Again, both things were about power in Congress more so than any idea about the moral right or wrong on slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact, GroverCleveland, AM64 and 1 other person
#374
#374
McDad said:
Yes.
But I believe non citizens who pay taxes are due some representation.
Click to expand...

My view on that is that anyone eligible to vote needs to have lived long enough in this county to understand what we are all about. As an example, corruption is rampant in many countries south of our border; it is so ingrained in the society that people accept it and see it as normal. We've got our own problems, but nothing like that. Let's assume there are some who cross the border illegally with enough money to buy property and set up a business. Let's even say they aren't even sponsored by a cartel, they still have no concept because of their previous frame of reference is based on past history. Do we really need them bribing officials and creating a culture we don't already have, or do we want them to see that there is an order to how things are done and you don't get to jump the line with money under the table.

Not a fantastically good example perhaps, but considering the gangs that the illegals set up based on what they know, can you really say it's not a possibility if not a likelihood. We are already talking millions of people who don't respect our borders and our process. We also talk assimilation, but stop and take a hard look back at organized crime in the US and consider the sources and the players. They were immigrants from countries where "families" were a law unto themselves, and just imported the process with them ... it's hard to erase what was imprinted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, norrislakevol and McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top