Would you support rescinding the voting rights of some citizens?

[Dexter]

 

[ABX]

Not outside what the current law applies regarding federal crimes. Even then, the government isn't rescinding the rights, they are choosing to commit acts that result in losing rights (such as liberty, the ability to own firearms, etc).

Otherwise you are playing a very dangerous game.

[Dexter]

I am not for extending voting rights to illegals or non-citizen residents or felons or people below the age of 18.  But rescinding right?  No.  Are you kidding me?  Of course not.

One of our members made a post that implied that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I was curious if anybody here would actually support only allowing certain people to vote.

[Sanguine]

I have heard over at TOS that some people think women should lose the right to vote.  I figure they are Democrats trying to make us look bad.  Otherwise how can they be serious.

Oh, I'm pretty sure some of them are quite serious.

[ABX]

I have heard over at TOS that some people think women should lose the right to vote.  I figure they are Democrats trying to make us look bad.  Otherwise how can they be serious.

If it were some at TOS, only white males, over 35, who are property owners would be allowed to vote - and even then, they would be subject to a purity test first.

[massadvj]

I would not restrict voting rights except to non-citizens.  I would, however, constitutionally protect property and other rights, and therefore restrict what can be accomplished by voting.  Otherwise, voting simply becomes a means of looting the producers.

[Frank Cannon]

Voted Yes.

Would rescind voting rights for Democrats.

[ABX]

Voted Yes.

Would rescind voting rights for Democrats.

I know it is a joke, but once you give the government that power, it would then be used against you.

[Frank Cannon]

I know it is a joke, but once you give the government that power, it would then be used against you.

That's true, unless I can keep my dictator propped up and theirs out of power.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

People already vote at low levels in the US, so why rescind?

I would however, enforce voter ID and clean the process up.

[Bill Cipher]

People already vote at low levels in the US, so why rescind?

I would however, enforce voter ID and clean the process up.

That is the best idea yet. 

[Meshuge Mikey]

I think the vote should be withheld from Jim Robinson until a  72 hour mental health hold could be completed! Thank you.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think the vote should be withheld from Jim Robinson until a  72 hour mental health hold could be completed! Thank you.

For JR? Might wanna make it a whole week.

[sneakypete]

One of our members made a post that implied that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I was curious if anybody here would actually support only allowing certain people to vote.

Only property owners or war veterans should be allowed to vote.

Under NO circumstances should anyone on welfare be allowed to vote.

[sneakypete]

How can that be a serious position?  Back before women had the right to vote, the cultural landscape was very different.  Even at that, and as brilliant as the Framers of our constitution were, women and blacks both should have had the right to vote from the get go.  But they left it originally to the states.  They drew from what they knew and did a brilliant job.  They left us with the appropriate means to fix problems and we did exactly that.

I know that is what you,and everyone else was indoctrinated to think in school,but blacks and women were allowed to vote in Colonial Times if they owned property,and YES,woman and blacks could be property owners and voters.

[gafr60]

Yes.
The founders envisioned that the vote be left to property owners, i.e., those that had skin in the game.
Those that do not produce/contribute have no right to determine the disposition of the property of others.

[mirraflake]

Yes.
The founders envisioned that the vote be left to property owners, i.e., those that had skin in the game.
Those that do not produce/contribute have no right to determine the disposition of the property of others.

So....if you are a 18 year old guy with no property and a political party in power wants to draft you  and send you off to an  unjust war you would have no say in the matter...Bull crap.

The system is fine just as it is.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes.
The founders envisioned that the vote be left to property owners, i.e., those that had skin in the game.
Those that do not produce/contribute have no right to determine the disposition of the property of others.

This was easily defeated by Aaron Burr:

Although we have arrived at that point only once, in 1876, vote manipulation in presidential elections goes back to the very beginning. In 1800, Aaron Burr circumvented New York's requirement that voters own a minimum amount of property by persuading landless Republicans to pool their funds and purchase enough as "joint tenants" to meet the requirement. The special magic of the joint tenancy was that each tenant, no matter how large the group or how small his contribution, "owned" the entire estate. The Federalists responded by locating a loophole in New Jersey law, which did not specifically exclude women from voting. They marched their wives, daughters, and any other females they could find to the polls and buried the male Republican vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

[sneakypete]

ONLY citizens who are property owners who pay taxes and people who are citizens on active duty in the US military should be allowed to vote.
Military members get an exception on property ownership because most of them have lower rank that doesn't pay them enough to buy a house and get moved around too often in many cases to justify home ownership in any one area.

Even people who hold US citizenship's and property in the US should not be allowed to vote if they also hold citizenship in any other nation. Nor should anyone from anywhere be allowed to obtain US citizenship without giving up the other citizenship they also hold.

BTW,people who are not citizens should NOT be allowed to own real property in the US,either. They can lease or rent property if they legally come here to work or operate a business,but not allowed to own property until they become US citizens.

[Sanguine]

ONLY citizens who are property owners who pay taxes and people who are citizens on active duty in the US military should be allowed to vote.
Military members get an exception on property ownership because most of them have lower rank that doesn't pay them enough to buy a house and get moved around too often in many cases to justify home ownership in any one area.

Even people who hold US citizenship's and property in the US should not be allowed to vote if they also hold citizenship in any other nation. Nor should anyone from anywhere be allowed to obtain US citizenship without giving up the other citizenship they also hold.

BTW,people who are not citizens should NOT be allowed to own real property in the US,either. They can lease or rent property if they legally come here to work or operate a business,but not allowed to own property until they become US citizens.

I can get on board with voting at 18 if and only if they are active duty military.

But, then I'm the one who thinks citizens should achieve the old age of 25 before they have had enough life experience to vote.

[sneakypete]

I can get on board with voting at 18 if and only if they are active duty military.

But, then I'm the one who thinks citizens should achieve the old age of 25 before they have had enough life experience to vote.

Can't argue with that. In fact,I'll sign on to it.

[mirraflake]

BTW,people who are not citizens should NOT be allowed to own real property in the US,either. They can lease or rent property if they legally come here to work or operate a business,but not allowed to own property until they become US citizens.

So what you are saying is if a foreign co wants to buy land and build a plant to employee Americans they cannot do it right?

Non citizens have been allowed to own property in the US since the beginning of time..it is one of the things that has made our country great and  encourage people to live and invest in the US.

[sneakypete]

Non citizens have been allowed to own property in the US since the beginning of time..it is one of the things that has made our country great and  encourage people to live and invest in the US.

Only because we were a large and mostly underpopulated country,and "free" land was one of the major things that encouraged the poor and middle class of Europe to come here to live.

We are no longer underpopulated,and are being overran by 3rd world illiterates and unemployables. The law needs to be,but won't be,changed.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So what you are saying is if a foreign co wants to buy land and build a plant to employee Americans they cannot do it right?

Non citizens have been allowed to own property in the US since the beginning of time..it is one of the things that has made our country great and  encourage people to live and invest in the US.

 

[sneakypete]

So what you are saying is if a foreign co wants to buy land and build a plant to employee Americans they cannot do it right?

EXACTLY!

They can LEASE or RENT the property,though