Clinton on Benghazi - "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

[longeyes]

There really was no response, and apparently she didn't need one either.  And that is the truly scary part. 

I was just listening to a guy who is sure Hillary easily got the better of her GOP critics.  She showed the power, he noted, of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill or, even better, a "dominatrix."

Well, indeed, indeed...

[SADShooter]

Her interrogators were more interested in getting their questions read into the Congressional Record than in getting an answer from her. In that sense, it might as well have been Uma vs. the Crazy 88s.

[RevDisk]

Easy.  Float a bill to strip the useless of a right to vote.   I fully support restricting voting to property holders and veterans.   

Then they'll notice and howl.

Ironic thing to say when they're trying to strip you of your firearms rights.

Maybe we'll be better protected from tyranny if only those saintly property holders and veterans can have guns too?

Jake, De Selby is right and you are wrong. I am both a land owner and veteran, and I am saying this. I recently became a landowner. Prior to that, if you think I'd be willing to pay an effective 44.37% tax rate and NOT be given the right to vote, you'd be hilariously mistaken. And I would have been leery of enlisting in the military of country that did not represent me.

Stripping people of the right to vote without a good reason is dangerous talk.

[Ben]

Her interrogators were more interested in getting their questions read into the Congressional Record than in getting an answer from her. In that sense, it might as well have been Uma vs. the Crazy 88s.

This seems to be the way of all Congressional hearings. It's amazing when you think half these people are attorneys. You would think they would know how to interview a witness.

To what Longeyes said, I have been seeing a lot of press about Hillary blowing away her interviewers in the hearings and about her superior political abilities. Based on the press and comments at most Internet news sites, if i had to make a prediction based on facts in evidence today, she will win the presidential election in 2016 by a landslide if she chooses to run.

[Blakenzy]

I certainly hope not. She will make a natural tyrant. She will have Americans die, willy-nilly, and people will let it slide. 

[Monkeyleg]

I kept waiting for someone to ask who gave the order to stand down. I was also waiting for someone to ask if there was a drone with a video feed overhead, as had been reported. Did I miss those questions?

[Marnoot]

Jake, De Selby is right and you are wrong. I am both a land owner and veteran, and I am saying this. I recently became a landowner. Prior to that, if you think I'd be willing to pay an effective 44.37% tax rate and NOT be given the right to vote, you'd be hilariously mistaken. And I would have been leery of enlisting in the military of country that did not represent me.

Stripping people of the right to vote without a good reason is dangerous talk.

This.

How does a "landowner" that just took-out a zero-down mortgage on a house and has no equity have more "skin" in the game than someone renting an apartment?

For that matter, how does someone that owns their sub-1/4-acre lot in suburbia outright have more skin in the game than someone who rents?

How does someone that owns 5000 acres of land in Wyoming have more skin in the game than someone who owns an equivalent dollar-amount of personal property but happens to live in a rental in the city?

If you'd tried to take away my right to vote before I bought my house just because I didn't own land and haven't become "worthy" by serving in the military, you can bet I'd have done a lot more than "raise a stink" about it. As long as I'm being taxed and am subject to any one of the hundreds of thousands of laws of the land, I darn well better have a right to vote.

[mtnbkr]

It was just your typical "starship troopers" fantasy, of course nobody in the right mind supports such nonsense.

Right?

 

Chris

[RevDisk]

Now, one private notion I personally have, that I'd not advocating be made into law. One of those "It'd be an interesting idea..." things. Requiring an oath upon one's 18th birthday that they were an adult, tax payer and citizen. And a requirement to do something to earn the right to vote. Also, no federal taxes if you choose not to vote in federal elections.
 
It'd be too easy to be corrupted. Ueber rich would hire folks to vote for them via PACs or other dodges, and skip on the taxes. Poor would skip it and demand services anyways. Requirements would be corrupted so that the "requirement to do something" would become "public service" or whatnot, as in society is entitled to a portion of your life.

That's the problem with being a libertarian. You can't be a utopian idiot. You come up with grand ideas, shoot holes through it the size of Nebraska, and say screw it, why not leave folks alone?

[Ben]

As for skin in the game, I'd much rather that everyone's skin, in the game, be writing a tax check to Uncle Sam every April. I have often said it here, and I know it would be nearly impossible to implement, but if you wanted to sway voters to vote as "propertied" people would, let them know there's no free ride, and EVERYBODY has to pay their taxes.

The person making $20K a year would look at things in a completely different light if they had to write an annual check for even only $1000. The person making $50K that gets excited about their "tax refund!!!" wouldn't be so excited if they were cutting a $10K check to the .gov every year instead of having $12K taken out of their paycheck before they ever see it and then getting $2K of their own money back.

[longeyes]

I certainly hope not. She will make a natural tyrant. She will have Americans die, willy-nilly, and people will let it slide. 

Hillary is the ultimate extension of everything we have seen over the past decades.

Only one person can stop her: Michelle Obama.

[Strings]

There is, to me, only one possible way I could see any form of disenfranchisement being acceptable: removing the vote from anyone on a handout program, for as long as they are on the dole

[longeyes]

Hillary's performance confirmed that the real currency of the U.S.A. is not the Dollar, it's lies.

Accountability is one more barbarous relic, apparently.

[red headed stranger]

As for skin in the game, I'd much rather that everyone's skin, in the game, be writing a tax check to Uncle Sam every April. I have often said it here, and I know it would be nearly impossible to implement, but if you wanted to sway voters to vote as "propertied" people would, let them know there's no free ride, and EVERYBODY has to pay their taxes.

The person making $20K a year would look at things in a completely different light if they had to write an annual check for even only $1000. The person making $50K that gets excited about their "tax refund!!!" wouldn't be so excited if they were cutting a $10K check to the .gov every year instead of having $12K taken out of their paycheck before they ever see it and then getting $2K of their own money back.

The whole payroll witholding scheme is what has facilitated the higher taxes and attendant growth of government.  I would be in favor of everyone making quarterly estimated payments much like many businesses.  Then people would really feel how much they are taxed. 

[Doggy Daddy]

Hillary is the ultimate extension of everything we have seen over the past decades.

Only one person can stop her: Michelle Obama.

I had not thought of that possibility until you posted that.  You have given me a headache.  And nausea.   

[Rodensouth]

The whole payroll witholding scheme is what has facilitated the higher taxes and attendant growth of government.  I would be in favor of everyone making quarterly estimated payments much like many businesses.  Then people would really feel how much they are taxed. 

This is the answer coupled with a flat tax. After a couple of years I believe minds would be changed by the pain they felt every 3 months. I hate that ones who only take can vote for my tax increases.

[Bigjake]

If you allow only certain people to vote, those who have some "skin in the game" as it was phrased earlier, many or even most of those who don't get to vote probably wouldn't be bothered that much. They might raise a stink, but in the end, I don't think they care.

They don't care until you start cutting their benefits. Then they'll care. They'll riot, as we've seen in other countries. It will be a mess.

So, while we could have poll tests to make sure those who vote know at least something about government, or restrict voting to those who pay taxes, the system can't be changed to cut payments to those who are leeching off the system. Not without violence.

That.  In spades

.   

Jake, De Selby is right and you are wrong. I am both a land owner and veteran, and I am saying this. I recently became a landowner. Prior to that, if you think I'd be willing to pay an effective 44.37% tax rate and NOT be given the right to vote, you'd be hilariously mistaken. And I would have been leery of enlisting in the military of country that did not represent me.

Stripping people of the right to vote without a good reason is dangerous talk.

I see your point.  I have to admit pulling the concept out of my ass when I posted it originally,   I wasn't going for the Heinlienian Utopia concept.  Those were the two obvious groups I could think of that earned franchise.

I don't believe that voting should be as easy as it is.   Elections have turned into a game that the Left is adept at duping. ( "Hey, look at these boxes of ballots we found out in someones car,  and they're ALL for candidate X!")  They fight against any standard to prevent fraud or illegal votes.  I think that higher standards or restrictions would help curb this.  The entitlement class should have to work harder than just getting on a bus on election day and pulling the lever they're told to to strip me of rights and coin.  I'm sick of being a slave to the whims of the population centers. 

Massive thread drift,  I'd meant to tie that into the OP, but here we are.  Y'all can continue to beat my ideas around like a tether ball (Ideally,  in separate thread)I'm willing to learn, correct me.  How do we fix them within the limits of the Constitution?

 We're at a point where people want the "free" *expletive deleted*it they voted themselves,  and somebody has to pay for it.

[lee n. field]

Well, she hopes it won't make any difference to *her*.  But, seriously, they've had five *months* to work on this -- and *this* is the best they can come up with?  I have friends who have written entire novels and submitted them (under deadline) to their publisher since this happened!

So new, but so perceptive.  The force is strong in this one.

I am revolted by the mind that could think, after months of trying to craft the best response, that this would even be acceptable.

I get the feeling they're not even trying hard at looking credible anymore.  Lame excuses, no budget for how many years?, not talking about fiscal problems, and a desperate gun grab before everything goes south.

[Boomhauer]

I think curbing that abuse Bigjake would be as simple as saying "OK you pay taxes, you have a say. You don't pay taxes, no say" Whether you are a working joe making $20k a year or a multimillionaire CEO, you pay taxes and you get to vote. On the dole, sitting on your ass? You don't get to vote. You don't get to put politicians in office who promise to take from the productive and give to you. You don't get to vote yourself largesse from the public treasury.

That would break the grip of the Dems faster than anything else.

[lupinus]

Yeah, have to go with Jake and Avenger on this one. The question is more what's reasonable and what's not. Land owning is a piss poor measure.

But on the public dole, outside of temporary assistance like unemployment or "earned" benefits like social security, no vote. People shouldn't be voting themselves as much from the treasury as possible.

[slingshot]

Hillary Clinton... what's the difference?  That should be her motto going into the next presidential election cycle if she chooses to run.

I care about the little guy?  I care about whether you get that check that you are entitled to?  Debt?  What's the difference?

Other than the fact that the foreign services were utterly unprepared for the Benghazi attack, the problem is that this happened during the closing months of an election cycle.  The majority of the press ignored it or down played the signficance.  Why?  It would hurt their guy....  There lies the problem and the DIFFERENCE.  It seems that nobody has any responsibility for anything any more if related to the government (unless you are a contractor).

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's always been a problem with military issues meeting diplomatic issues. who here remembers story about palm tree the Vietnamese embassy as saigon fell

[Tallpine]

Yeah, have to go with Jake and Avenger on this one. The question is more what's reasonable and what's not. Land owning is a piss poor measure.

But on the public dole, outside of temporary assistance like unemployment or "earned" benefits like social security, no vote. People shouldn't be voting themselves as much from the treasury as possible.

Well, in the old days before income and sales taxes, being a land-owner was pretty much the same thing as being a taxpayer. 

As, I think it was the Colorado Springs Gazette used to say, who's going to pull the wagon when everybody wants to ride?

[longeyes]

So new, but so perceptive.  The force is strong in this one.

I get the feeling they're not even trying hard at looking credible anymore.  Lame excuses, no budget for how many years?, not talking about fiscal problems, and a desperate gun grab before everything goes south.

You don't need credibility when the people you want to reach are already true believers.

[RoadKingLarry]

I think curbing that abuse Bigjake would be as simple as saying "OK you pay taxes, you have a say. You don't pay taxes, no say" Whether you are a working joe making $20k a year or a multimillionaire CEO, you pay taxes and you get to vote. On the dole, sitting on your ass? You don't get to vote. You don't get to put politicians in office who promise to take from the productive and give to you. You don't get to vote yourself largesse from the public treasury.

That would break the grip of the Dems faster than anything else.

That and make election day the day after tax day.