The Soft Bigotry of...you know, the thing...

#101
#101
LouderVol said:
Sorry. Poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional. As were all the other methods to keep people from voting. Even a couple amendments about it.
Click to expand...

It was mid 1800s before the last state to remove the landowner requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#102
#102
hog88 said:
It was mid 1800s before the last state to remove the landowner requirement.
Click to expand...
So less than 100 years with it, more than 100 without. I would say we have established a pretty good precedent for not having a requirement.
 
#103
#103
LouderVol said:
So less than 100 years with it, more than 100 without. I would say we have established a pretty good precedent for not having a requirement.
Click to expand...

True but you said "always allowed" originally. Don't be a luther.
 
#105
#105
LouderVol said:
Our nation has always allowed the "freeloaders" to vote. That's one of the things that made us different from the Brits. You dont need to own property yourself to be productive.

Plenty of property taxes being paid by apartments in cities.
Click to expand...

There's a lot in what you did and didn't say here. Suppose a politician ran with a promise to treat property holders differently. The politician realized there are a lot more renters than people who buy and live in their homes, so by dividing the two he could gain votes by running a platform that would significantly benefit owners who rent - and their tenants. Suppose he told the renters that they are unfairly subsidizing people who own their homes and went on to say that they are renting because they are struggling to get by, but obviously homeowners are doing much better and could afford to shoulder more of the cost of government? This is where we are, and this is why who votes matters, and this is why the voting bloc of 18-21 year olds was and remains important to dems. We will continue down the road to failure if we don't either manage buying votes for favors or setting some boundaries on who may vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, Wireless1, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#107
#107
AM64 said:
There's a lot in what you did and didn't say here. Suppose a politician ran with a promise to treat property holders differently. The politician realized there are a lot more renters than people who buy and live in their homes, so by dividing the two he could gain votes by running a platform that would significantly benefit owners who rent - and their tenants. Suppose he told the renters that they are unfairly subsidizing people who own their homes and went on to say that they are renting because they are struggling to get by, but obviously homeowners are doing much better and could afford to shoulder more of the cost of government? This is where we are, and this is why who votes matters, and this is why the voting bloc of 18-21 year olds was and remains important to dems. We will continue down the road to failure if we don't either manage buying votes for favors or setting some boundaries on who may vote.
Click to expand...
We have set borders on who can vote. If you can serve in the military you can vote. 18+

The issue with your argument is setting the divide at property owners doesnt get rid of politicians playing favorites. It just changes it.

The reason I brought up renters is because the magic of owning property was apparently that you pay taxes on it. Rent covers those same taxes so it cant be used as an argument for only property owners getting a vote.
 
#110
#110
LouderVol said:
We have set borders on who can vote. If you can serve in the military you can vote. 18+

The issue with your argument is setting the divide at property owners doesnt get rid of politicians playing favorites. It just changes it.

The reason I brought up renters is because the magic of owning property was apparently that you pay taxes on it. Rent covers those same taxes so it cant be used as an argument for only property owners getting a vote.
Click to expand...

The solution could easily have been awarding the right to vote to members of the military regardless of age, and leaving the voting age at 21 for all others. That was never the issue in the first place; it was just a good slogan to tap a big liberal voting bloc.

Since we seem to be ruled by politicians who see vote buying as a means of staying in power, there's little means for changing how they choose to do things. Those who are promised more welfare or better government benefits at no real cost to themselves have absolutely no incentive to vote politicians who favor them out of the game. Corporations and the wealthy can provide a lot of campaign funding, money buys votes to some extent, but corporations can't vote and the wealthy still get only one vote per person, so the numbers game doesn't favor them when buying votes. The duped don't always get what they thought they would, and the big donors usually do regardless of party.
 
#112
#112
AM64 said:
There's a lot in what you did and didn't say here. Suppose a politician ran with a promise to treat property holders differently. The politician realized there are a lot more renters than people who buy and live in their homes, so by dividing the two he could gain votes by running a platform that would significantly benefit owners who rent - and their tenants. Suppose he told the renters that they are unfairly subsidizing people who own their homes and went on to say that they are renting because they are struggling to get by, but obviously homeowners are doing much better and could afford to shoulder more of the cost of government? This is where we are, and this is why who votes matters, and this is why the voting bloc of 18-21 year olds was and remains important to dems. We will continue down the road to failure if we don't either manage buying votes for favors or setting some boundaries on who may vote.
Click to expand...

I listen to a local talk show on the drive home. If you were an alien from outer space you would think the primary goal of an election was to have everyone vote. Listening to the callers and host, you'd think this is the most valuable metric to observe from an election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#113
#113
AM64 said:
The solution could easily have been awarding the right to vote to members of the military regardless of age, and leaving the voting age at 21 for all others. That was never the issue in the first place; it was just a good slogan to tap a big liberal voting bloc.

Since we seem to be ruled by politicians who see vote buying as a means of staying in power, there's little means for changing how they choose to do things. Those who are promised more welfare or better government benefits at no real cost to themselves have absolutely no incentive to vote politicians who favor them out of the game. Corporations and the wealthy can provide a lot of campaign funding, money buys votes to some extent, but corporations can't vote and the wealthy still get only one vote per person, so the numbers game doesn't favor them when buying votes. The duped don't always get what they thought they would, and the big donors usually do regardless of party.
Click to expand...
you are considered an adult at 18. you either get all rights then, or you get none. I am in favor of all. if they do dumb stuff, so be it. people have the right to be wrong in this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#114
#114
AM64 said:
They do well enough calculating how many hours they can work without losing benefits.
Click to expand...
I think some citizens, such as young, single mothers without a college degree, need the flexibility of scheduling from places like Wal-Mart. Even if they are working full time, they're still going to qualify for benefits
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#115
#115
LouderVol said:
you are considered an adult at 18. you either get all rights then, or you get none. I am in favor of all. if they do dumb stuff, so be it. people have the right to be wrong in this country.
Click to expand...

All things considered. Perhaps 18 isn't the appropriate age - after all it is just an arbitrary number. At a point in the past when most kids graduated from HS and went to work, it probably was more appropriate than today. We were a better people then with better work ethic and the thought that continuing on to college was not simply an extension of HS and a means to delay adulthood - especially if you can get government to pay for it, and there are politicians promising that for the kid vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and McDad
#117
#117
USAFgolferVol said:
I think some citizens, such as young, single mothers without a college degree, need the flexibility of scheduling from places like Wal-Mart. Even if they are working full time, they're still going to qualify for benefits
Click to expand...

Is the problem young single mothers? Or is it supporting them? Fix the first issue and the second is less problematic. To a great extent this is again the problem with kids voting - they don't understand what making a living means enough to be responsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and Rickyvol77
#118
#118
LouderVol said:
you are considered an adult at 18. you either get all rights then, or you get none. I am in favor of all. if they do dumb stuff, so be it. people have the right to be wrong in this country.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that’s what we need something other than an age to determine who has a say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and allvol123
#120
#120
LouderVol said:
Our nation has always allowed the "freeloaders" to vote. That's one of the things that made us different from the Brits. You dont need to own property yourself to be productive.

Plenty of property taxes being paid by apartments in cities.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I agree, women, slaves, 20 year olds, and illiterates weren’t allowed for the first 100+ years
 
#121
#121
LouderVol said:
Our nation has always allowed the "freeloaders" to vote. That's one of the things that made us different from the Brits. You dont need to own property yourself to be productive.

Plenty of property taxes being paid by apartments in cities.
Click to expand...
My property owner complaint is because owning property in Knoxville but my residence being in Knox county I pay city taxes without a voice
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#122
#122
LouderVol said:
We have set borders on who can vote. If you can serve in the military you can vote. 18+

The issue with your argument is setting the divide at property owners doesnt get rid of politicians playing favorites. It just changes it.

The reason I brought up renters is because the magic of owning property was apparently that you pay taxes on it. Rent covers those same taxes so it cant be used as an argument for only property owners getting a vote.
Click to expand...
And my point was anyone can be a property owner whether it’s your residence or somewhere else even a square foot of a nominal price proving you value of having a vote that you retain between elections
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#124
#124
Wireless1 said:
My property owner complaint is because owning property in Knoxville but my residence being in Knox county I pay city taxes without a voice
Click to expand...

You can vote in the city elections if you have property there but it’s limited to city matters only.
 
#125
#125
Did Tucker Carlson really embrace replacement theory tonight? That would give the original topic of this thread an ironic twist.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top