why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[republicanchick]

No, it is the result of a rational look at the current mess caused by opening the vote to every politically ignorant person that can be persuaded by a sound bite because they have no time to find out which candidate is worth voting for.

poor people are NOT stupid and not necessarily uneducated.

I am "poor" (though not really, but comparatively speaking) and i am educated (self educated, mostly) and have a high IQ

u would deprive me of the vote?

I'm also R

 

[Caledvwlch]

Your ignorance is a prime example of why allowing everyone to vote is a bad idea.

We weren't talking about political ignorance. You mentioned the national debt and insinuated that social welfare programs are the main reason it's as high as it is.

 

[republicanchick]

We weren't talking about political ignorance. You mentioned the national debt and insinuated that social welfare programs are the main reason it's as high as it is.

I say we cut Congress' salary

AND "the poor" checks

 

[Caledvwlch]

I say we cut Congress' salary

AND "the poor" checks

Okay, so you might get that 18 trillion down to 17.5 trillion. Maybe. Then what?

 

[genuineoriginal]

We weren't talking about political ignorance. You mentioned the national debt and insinuated that social welfare programs are the main reason it's as high as it is.

I did not insinuate that social welfare programs are the main reason for the national debt.

That is your liberal mind going blank that did that.

The national debt is proof that our government is going bankrupt because "the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits".

 

[Caledvwlch]

I did not insinuate that social welfare programs are the main reason for the national debt.

That is your liberal mind going blank that did that.

The national debt is proof that our government is going bankrupt because "the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits".

That last quoted part is why I assumed you were talking about social programs. You used the word "benefits."

 

[genuineoriginal]

poor people are NOT stupid and not necessarily uneducated.

I never said they are.

I am "poor" (though not really, but comparatively speaking) and i am educated (self educated, mostly) and have a high IQ

Would you like to compare stories about being poor, or would you like to compare stories about having a high IQ?

Let's do the poor one.
My family was so poor that indians living on a reservation gave us food that they got from the government because we needed it more than they did. Have you ever eaten government peanut butter from a #10 can?

u would deprive me of the vote?

Do you own property?
Or are you a transient?

I'm also R

So, you are almost a conservative?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Do you own property?
Or are you a transient?

Yeah, let's get back to this. Still waiting for a good reason to restrict the vote to property owners that doesn't boil down to "poor people vote for Democrats."

And also, is someone who rents an apartment a "transient"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

That last quoted part is why I assumed you were talking about social programs. You used the word "benefits."

Okay, that is understandable.

Our current system relies on political candidates spending large amounts of money from corporate sponsors in order to convince the public to vote for them based on sound bytes that can fit in a 30 second ad.

The sound bytes are the promises of benefits that gain the votes, but the corporate sponsors are the ones that really benefit from the political candidate getting in office, since the next thing they typically do is provide the candidate with pre-written bills for the candidate to present as his own.

This system that benefits the corporate sponsors is actually harmful to the voters.

On the other hand, the founders of America put the vote into the hands of the land owners who would have a vested interest in voting for candidates that would look out for the welfare of their communities.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Okay, that is understandable.

Our current system relies on political candidates spending large amounts of money from corporate sponsors in order to convince the public to vote for them based on sound bytes that can fit in a 30 second ad.

The sound bytes are the promises of benefits that gain the votes, but the corporate sponsors are the ones that really benefit from the political candidate getting in office, since the next thing they typically do is provide the candidate with pre-written bills for the candidate to present as his own.

This system that benefits the corporate sponsors is actually harmful to the voters.

On the other hand, the founders of America put the vote into the hands of the land owners who would have a vested interest in voting for candidates that would look out for the welfare of their communities.

Alright, now I finally see where you're coming from. Cool.

Anyway, we could take that corporate influence out of politics by publicly financing elections and banning private donations entirely. And everybody could still be allowed to vote.

 

[genuineoriginal]

is someone who rents an apartment a "transient"?

_____
A 1997 study found that 34 percent of apartment renters moved in the previous year, compared with 32 percent of other renters and 6 percent of homeowners.
source
_____​

 

[Caledvwlch]

_____
A 1997 study found that 34 percent of apartment renters moved in the previous year, compared with 32 percent of other renters and 6 percent of homeowners.
source
_____​

The word transient invokes the image of a homeless person, is all I'm getting at.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Alright, now I finally see where you're coming from. Cool.

Anyway, we could take that corporate influence out of politics by publicly financing elections and banning private donations entirely. And everybody could still be allowed to vote.

That is an alternative idea that could also work.

So, how would you handle the cancelling out of votes that is caused by everyone voting however they wanted to vote?
(An example is a husband that votes for one candidate and a wife that votes for an opposing candidate.)

 

[Caledvwlch]

That is an alternative idea that could also work.

So, how would you handle the cancelling out of votes that is caused by everyone voting however they wanted to vote?
(An example is a husband that votes for one candidate and a wife that votes for an opposing candidate.)

Doesn't that happen now? I don't really see that as a problem.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The word transient invokes the image of a homeless person, is all I'm getting at.

Yes, I know.

I am from an era that was taught that the American Dream for the average American was to find a company to work for, buy a house with a white picket fence, get married and raise 2.3 children (or so), then retire.

It is my belief that the average American should own property instead of making others rich by renting.

Holding out the right to vote to average American that buys a house is an incentive to pursue the American Dream.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes, I know.

I am from an era that was taught that the American Dream for the average American was to find a company to work for, buy a house with a white picket fence, get married and raise 2.3 children (or so), then retire.

It is my belief that the average American should own property instead of making others rich by renting.

Holding out the right to vote to average American that buys a house is an incentive to pursue the American Dream.

I agree that it's better to own property than to make others rich by renting, but for many, it's simply not possible. I have more than a handful of good friends with full time jobs who would laugh at me if I told them they need to buy instead of rent.

And taking away their right to vote is just going to make them want to burn down the statehouse and hang everyone who tries to escape. And rightfully so.

 

[Granite]

Nothing about my remark trashes the poor and needy.

Yes, it most certainly does. Making them second-class citizens is degradation, plain and simple. For you to presume anyone in bad financial shape doesn't deserve the right to vote is, simply put, arrogant and snobbish in the extreme.

 

[Granite]

I am from an era that was taught that the American Dream for the average American was to find a company to work for, buy a house with a white picket fence, get married and raise 2.3 children (or so), then retire.

Right, because it's just that simple these days. Maybe the problem is that your thinking is out of touch with reality and completely dated.

It is my belief that the average American should own property instead of making others rich by renting.

Bully for you. Doesn't explain why anyone who happens to, say, rent an apartment or a duplex--or an entire house, which isn't unheard of--should be deprived of a right to the ballot. You're implying that such folks who, through circumstance or choice (for a variety of reasons) don't happen to be paying rent to a bank are second class citizens.

You don't seem to understand how wildly unrealistic your ideal picket fence cookie cutter society is for so many people.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I agree that it's better to own property than to make others rich by renting, but for many, it's simply not possible. I have more than a handful of good friends with full time jobs who would laugh at me if I told them they need to buy instead of rent.

We all have idiot friends. :chuckle:
Maybe they can buy a condo?
That is like living in an apartment but is considered "real" property.

And taking away their right to vote is just going to make them want to burn down the statehouse and hang everyone who tries to escape.

That is a typical liberal response and is never justified.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, it most certainly does. Making them second-class citizens is degradation, plain and simple. For you to presume anyone in bad financial shape doesn't deserve the right to vote is, simply put, arrogant and snobbish in the extreme.

It appears that your nose is stuck so high in the air that it is interfering with your ability to think rationally.