Listening to Huckabee on the saturday morning FNC show. Why in the hell didn't we nominate him?
Listening to Huckabee on the saturday morning FNC show. Why in the hell didn't we nominate him?
We split our vote. We got stuck with the worst candidate. Let's try to remember that in 4 years.
//Am saying that thinking he was ever electable is a delusion
Listening to Huckabee on the saturday morning FNC show. Why in the hell didn't we nominate him?
Listening to Huckabee on the saturday morning FNC show. Why in the hell didn't we nominate him?
No, that's how democracy usually works.I know it's been said that Democracy may not be perfect but its the best we've got right now.
Why in the hell a scumbag on welfare who's never earned an honest dollar in their life has a vote that is worth as much as mine who has worked
Because the purpose of government is not to administer tax dollars. As such it's irrelevant how much taxes you pay.You didn't answer the question.
Why should the vote of a welfare mother who pumps out future gang bangers count as much as that of a law abiding and productive citizen?It shouldn't, and the founders knew this. Now granted, they may have been a little to strict given they were products of their time. All races, all sexes, etc should be allowed to vote. Land owning may even be a bit extreme.
Why do non-producers get an equal amount of say as the producers who support them?
Why do non-producers get an equal amount of say as the producers who support them?
We ought to go back to land owning being a requisite to vote, poll taxes, literacy tests, the whole ball of wax.
I'm sick of politicians pandering to the scum of the earth and buying their votes. SICK!
yes, she does. And that is why we have protections.
However, she and her kind don't have the right to elect the biggest welfare check possible.
Why should the vote of a welfare mother who pumps out future gang bangers count as much as that of a law abiding and productive citizen?
it's not about people we don't like. It's about not handing the reins to people voting for the biggest welfare check or payout to their special interest group.
This country was much better run when people who had an actual stake in its success had the vote. The founding fathers knew this that's why it was done that way.
by an ever growing amount of leaches who have a say in which juicy vein they can latch onto.
So employees in government-subsidized businesses should also not be able to vote, according to you?
I'm not sure. I've seen some things that it sounds like you haven't.
I do think that, in the real world, conflicts of interest can land people in legal trouble and sometimes even in jail. So why should someone be allowed to vote himself money?
I just don't know exactly how to deal with implementation.
I don't think that someone who is a net tax recipient has any particular right to vote. The Constitution limited voting rights to property owners, i.e. people who owned a stake in the country and who didn't have the same motivation to use the voting booth to take away property rights.
Note that this has nothing to do with ideology (i.e. gun owners).
So employees in government-subsidized businesses should also not be able to vote, according to you? What about military veterans that may vote to increase their pensions (that's part of what brought the downfall of the Roman Republic)? What about old people on Social Security?If you are working and productive, don't care who you work for or how much "net tax" you pay. The key is a working productive citizen. Veterans and those on social security? If they have already paid their dues then sure let them keep their vote. Those temporarily unemployed when an election rules around should be able to vote also. They key here is to avoid leaches who care about nothing but socialism and a bigger welfare check away from the polls. They don't vote in the best interests of the country, the market, their rights, etc. They vote for one thing only, the biggest government handout.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to open up the franchise, actually. The founders were not united in their opinion on this issue, and nowhere does the Constitution mention franchise requirements of any kind, except that everybody over the age of 18 must be allowed to vote.No one said, ever, that all the founders were in 100% agreement on everything.
The amount of welfare recipients in the United States fell 57% in the last 12 years.HA. Define welfare on that statistic.
Does this mean that no shareholder in the stock market, or in a corporation that has a net tax of zero, should be allowed to vote?Of course they should, they are working productive citizens. And no, they weren't infallible. Thats why women and people of all colors can now vote. They key was, and should remain, being a productive citizen who has a stake in the whole thing not collapsing.
What about any holder of an interest in a business that supplies services to the government priced at amounts higher than the net tax outflow from that year?
Seems you'd be cutting most of the property owners out of the equation with this formula, but anyway, the original enfranchisement requirements were clearly not infallible and have rightly been expanded over the years.
They key was, and should remain, being a productive citizen who has a stake in the whole thing not collapsing.
Please explain how this is not a violation of the 15th amendment to the constitution.
You people scare the excrement out of me sometimes. Limiting who has the right to vote...
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Please explain how this is not a violation of the 15th amendment to the constitution.
You people scare the excrement out of me sometimes. Limiting who has the right to vote...
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
the original enfranchisement requirements were clearly not infallible and have rightly been expanded over the years.
Can we please put this voting-disfranchisement-thing in the bin of things that will never happen
Or maybe, should we have universal military service, like Switzerland or Austria?
Or maybe, should we have universal military service, like Switzerland or Austria?
Huckabee has a history of idiocy. The worst I can recall was when he sent a sappy letter to a convicted rapist in prison, because the rapist supposedly had changed his ways. Later on, the rapist was released, and proceded to commit other crimes, including murder.
Thats a joke! If military service ever became required, even if there was just a small draft, Canada would have a whole lot of new residents.
Most young men are to self centered and scared of dying to fight for a government they don't trust. They lack a love of their country. I know, I go to school.
The values good for military service are not good for civilian society.
Think of it - do we wear uniforms in civilian life?
then there'd probably be more trust in our government
A business suit is a ridiculous thing, from any practical standpoint, and every bit a uniform.
More than half of the delegates went to McCain. He did not have a plurality of the votes, he had a majority. Romney and the others endorsing him was just the icing on the cake.
This is not the fault of the people who voted for Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or any of the other candidates. It's the fault of the people who voted for John McCain.
Thats a joke! If military service ever became required, even if there was just a small draft, Canada would have a whole lot of new residents.
I don't think even Heinlein took that one really seriously.
The values good for military service are not good for civilian society. Think of it - do we wear uniforms in civilian life? :)
As someone who has experienced universal military service: NO.
Maybe you have to work with engineers to understand what I mean.
That's a good deal for us, IMO.
The values good for military service are not good for civilian society. Think of it - do we wear uniforms in civilian life? :)
The problem is that when you start restricting voting it becomes a question of what those restrictions are. For example, you start restricting voting to 'productive' people.
You seriously think that a draftee scrubbing floors somewhere against his will is more useful to society than a college graduate?
Pretty simple actually. You go back to the original constitution and limit voters to property owners exclusively.
I take it you've never been to Starbucks.....
Pretty simple actually. You go back to the original constitution and limit voters to property owners exclusively.
(1): Generally worthless degrees that only tell an employer, "I spent four years in college and wasn't too drunk most of the time to attend class." Examples such as mass communication, sociology, psychology, etc. The modern equivalent of a high school diploma in the 1950s and 1960s.
The U.S. Constitution (either as originally ratified, or with the Bill or Rights amended) nowhere specifies who may vote. That issue was left to the states. I could be wrong here, but I don't think all of the state constitutions (if any) limited the franchise to property holders. And yes, I do understand that property requirements were in effect in many places in early America, at various times. But the situation was not as simple as you describe.
And I think women and blacks were often barred from voting, even if they did own property.
LOL
I wouldn't say that.
A lot of high school grads in the 1950s had marketable skills when they got out.
. . . the sort of skills taught today in the first degree of humanitarian colleges . . .
NO! Really...
I want to know!
Why in the hell a scumbag on welfare who's never earned an honest dollar in their life has a vote that is worth as much as mine who has worked since I was 12, paid over quarter million in taxes in my life (and that's just income - doesn't include all the other BS ways the thieving government takes our money), served my country in the military for 13 years, raised 3 more law abiding tax payers to contribute to society and am now raising another.Why?
It ain't right and it sure as heck isn't fair!
AND!
It's starting to PISS me OFF!
I liked Cobra Commander better then Huck, YES WE SHALL!
Nowadays any fool can vote even if they're dead in some places and most don't have a pot to piss in or a boot to pour it out of.
And no, I don't think they'd keep people in office who run the country into the ground cause they actually have something to loose in the process.