Resolved... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Resolved...


gwalchmai
05-02-2012, 16:19
Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.

certifiedfunds
05-02-2012, 16:21
How would he know?

Angry Fist
05-02-2012, 16:28
Only if the dad is a Republican... :whistling:

gwalchmai
05-02-2012, 17:27
How would he know?Good point. Maybe better if each taxpayer gets an extra vote for each dependent over 18.

G-19
05-02-2012, 19:23
Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.

Are they some how not capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for? Why should it be as their father says? Why not their mother?

If they are of age and living at home for free, it has to be ok with their parents. It don't remove their rights.

gwalchmai
05-02-2012, 19:52
Are they some how not capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for? Why should it be as their father says? Why not their mother?Well, I would think it would go without saying that her husband would tell her how to vote....

Cavalry Doc
05-02-2012, 20:00
If their father is intelligent, he can convince them rather than make them. If you've raised your kids right, they will make good decisions. Don't let that stop you from letting them making mistakes. That's how most of us learned maturity anyway.

Jonesee
05-02-2012, 20:17
If you have done your job as a parent:

By the time your kids are old enough to vote, they should be mature enough, intelligent enough and confident enough to make up their own mind.

lancesorbenson
05-02-2012, 20:21
Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.

I think I might support a return to allowing only property owners to vote. Kids who leaching off their parents probably aren't really voting much.

Jonesee
05-02-2012, 20:43
I think I might support a return to allowing only property owners to vote. Kids who leaching off their parents probably aren't really voting much.

This practice was abolished in 1812-1860.

The 15th amendment in 1870 expanded the ban and widened the protection.

By virtually all accounts, the law you propose was used in the past to allow a voting class of only the wealthy landed population.

Post civil war, it and literacy tests were used almost exclusively to prevent minorities from voting.

I must misunderstand what you are proposing because it sure sounds like you are trying to turn the clock back to 1870 and are advocating the practices that were used to limit control of the law to just the white rich.

Heck, if that is what you are advocating, let's bring poll taxes back too. What do you think about $50,000-$100,000 due at the polling station? I'm still voting are you? Let's limit the voting electorate to only those of the population that have proven they have the ability to earn and retain substantial wealth. Maybe we need a poll tax substantially higher than that to keep the likes of me from voting... By your logic, the normal work-a-day man can't understand the high finance of government. Right? So let's nail everyone with a tax only the wealthiest can afford.

It's all tongue in cheek of course, but think about what you advocated in your post.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 21:07
This practice was abolished in 1812-1860.

The 15th amendment in 1870 expanded the ban and widened the protection.

By virtually all accounts, the law you propose was used in the past to allow a voting class of only the wealthy landed population.

Post civil war, it and literacy tests were used almost exclusively to prevent minorities from voting.

I must misunderstand what you are proposing because it sure sounds like you are trying to turn the clock back to 1870 and are advocating the practices that were used to limit control of the law to just the white rich.

Heck, if that is what you are advocating, let's bring poll taxes back too. What do you think about $50,000-$100,000 due at the polling station? I'm still voting are you? Let's limit the voting electorate to only those of the population that have proven they have the ability to earn and retain substantial wealth. Maybe we need a poll tax substantially higher than that to keep the likes of me from voting... By your logic, the normal work-a-day man can't understand the high finance of government. Right? So let's nail everyone with a tax only the wealthiest can afford.

It's all tongue in cheek of course, but think about what you advocated in your post.

There is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.

Jonesee
05-02-2012, 21:09
There is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.

There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated and protects classes of voters. I footnoted, please go read it.

You are using circular logic. My sons used to do that when they were young.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 21:16
There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated. I footnoted, please go read it.

Amendment XV

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.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv


:dunno:



I don't see anything guaranteeing the right to vote in national elections. It just says that you can't be discriminated against based on race, color or servitude.

Jonesee
05-02-2012, 21:22
Keep digging young man. Look at the precedent law and the subsequent clarifications.

I've seen your posts before and I completely understand when you take a stance, your points will be far ranging and not always to the point. I choose not to participate in a debate you will no never acquiesce. As I've observed, you have never admitted a change in your stance ever.

The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 21:22
There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated and protects classes of voters. I footnoted, please go read it.

You are using circular logic. My sons used to do that when they were young.

No, there is no guaranteed right to vote in national elections. Boortz explains it in this book.

Amazon.com: Somebody's Gotta Say It: Neal Boortz: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-KEUQkgQL.@@AMEPARAM@@51-KEUQkgQL

If the right to vote is guaranteed then why is Jesse Jackson Jr. introducing legislation to do just that, guarantee the right to vote?

http://www.fairvote.org/rep-jesse-jackson-jr-d-il-introduces-rtv-amendment#.T6H5elLfW0M

Ruble Noon
05-02-2012, 21:22
Keep digging young man. Look at the precedent law and the subsequent clarifications.

I've seen your posts before and I completely understand when you take a stance, your points will be far ranging and not always to the point. I choose not to participate ina debate you will no never acquiesce.

The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.

See post below yours. :wavey:

ChuteTheMall
05-02-2012, 21:24
Raise the voting age to adults only.

A 29 year old pot head living in Mom's basement is not an adult, a 20 year old Marine is an adult.










I guess administering it would be a challenge:whistling:


OK, how about voting on tax day, turn in your return in order to vote. Bring photo ID with Form 1040 & etc.

If your refund exceeds your taxes, you're not a taxpayer, you're on welfare, and you don't get to vote this year.
As your consolation prize, take home a pound of delicious government cheese, while supplies last.
:eat:

Jonesee
05-02-2012, 21:32
See post below yours. :wavey:


You never answered it. Circular logic again.

Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 00:16
Instead of limiting the vote, how about we simply level out the people with skin in the game?

National budget / # of citizens of majority age = your share

And everyone who wants to vote, votes.

certifiedfunds
05-03-2012, 00:18
You never answered it. Circular logic again.

Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.

I used to feel the same way he did but I've migrated. I don't want any man to have another's will democratically forced upon him. Limiting the vote to landowners, net taxpayers, poll tax or whatever allows one man to hold dominion over another man's life. While I understand the sentiment, I disagree with that.

Instead, see post above.

gwalchmai
05-03-2012, 04:26
This practice was abolished in 1812-1860....10 posts before someone backhandedly called it racist. I love GnG. :supergrin:

gwalchmai
05-03-2012, 04:30
The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.Read my first post. It also poses a yes or no question.

Brucev
05-03-2012, 07:05
Efforts to limit the vote reflect a fear of loosing control. Wanting to qualify voters by requiring property ownership, tax payment, military service, etc. demonstrate in this thread that apprehension, specifically loss of political control to other interest groups. It is no different than when demokrats try to disenfranchise servicemen voting overseas by not counting their ballots on the rational that there aren't enough of them to make a difference in the outcome, etc.

The founding fathers wrote the COTUS with an eye to their class. Universal suffrage was no more in view than a broad participatory government. As political power began to accrue to other interest groups, it was inevitable that the franchise would be broadened. It has not at times been convenient for those who would hold on to power. It has been best for the nation. Those who would restrict the franchise by whatever logic are on the wrong side of history.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 07:12
If it were possible, it would be nice, but it's just another pipe dream. Everyone is going to have the ability to vote. That's just the way it is. You'll get a ton of pushback as soon as you try to disenfranchise anyone.

gwalchmai
05-03-2012, 07:21
Those who would restrict the franchise by whatever logic are on the wrong side of history.So, Bruce, tell me - when the net producers in this country have allowed the net consumers to strip them of all wealth and hope, and we are left with nothing but a welfare state mired in crushing debt, will we be comforted by the knowledge that we are on the right side of history?

Chronos
05-03-2012, 08:18
A vote is just an opinion someone is willing to force on you at gunpoint.

Besides, it's known to be fundamentally, irredeemably unjust. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

In short, the theorem proves that no voting system can be designed that satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:

1) If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.

2) If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).

3) There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

Cavalry Doc
05-03-2012, 08:53
A vote is just an opinion someone is willing to force on you at gunpoint.

Besides, it's known to be fundamentally, irredeemably unjust. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

The other option is government without representation. Unless there is another option you are considering. How would you make it fair. And the gunpoint analogy is an extreme example. Most people here have not been forced to do anything at gunpoint.

Ruble Noon
05-03-2012, 10:46
You never answered it. Circular logic again.

Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.

No, I am not advocating for these laws to be reinstated. I was just pointing out that there is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.