The Briefing Room
Briefing Room Polls (Guests Welcome!) => The Briefingroom Polls => Topic started by: Dexter on April 04, 2016, 01:38:46 am
-
:pondering:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Voted Yes.
Would rescind voting rights for Democrats.
-
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.
-
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.
-
People already vote at low levels in the US, so why rescind?
I would however, enforce voter ID and clean the process up.
-
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.
-
I think the vote should be withheld from Jim Robinson until a 72 hour mental health hold could be completed! Thank you.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:amen:
-
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
-
EXACTLY!
They can LEASE or RENT the property,though
Just like communist China does to the US investors right? Only third world countries do as you want. Free countries allow non citizens to buy property and it makes those countries better in the long run because it brings in investment money
-
I really do hate having to be the one to point out the fact that there is no "right" to vote.
-
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.
Nope, some conservatives feel that way. FR poster bmwcycle is one..
I bet most though are loser males with the ladies.
-
I really do hate having to be the one to point out the fact that there is no "right" to vote.
Rights are funny things. Libertarian/Conservative types will always say that "right" are God given, not given by the government.
In the end it's just a worthless semantics argument IMO.
-
Just like communist China does to the US investors right? Only third world countries do as you want. Free countries allow non citizens to buy property and it makes those countries better in the long run because it brings in investment money
Get off your high horse,princess. ONLY countries that care about remaining sovereign restrict property ownership to citizens. Is Japan a 3rd World Country? Go to Japan and try to buy real property.
If you sell your nation to foreigners with no sense of loyalty to you,don't be surprised when they stab you in the back and try to take your nation away from you.
And your argument that it brings in investment money is completely bogus. The way that works in the local and state politicians cut them enormous tax breaks as well as give them "free" land to get them to come here. How are American companies supposed to compete with that kind of thing in your imaginary paradise?
Lease deals even allows foreign investors to build plants here with less initial capital outlay,and since this same option is available to American investors,it makes for a level playing field without compromising your sovereignty or political system.
-
Get off your high horse,princess. ONLY countries that care about remaining sovereign restrict property ownership to citizens. Is Japan a 3rd World Country? Go to Japan and try to buy real property.
If you sell your nation to foreigners with no sense of loyalty to you,don't be surprised when they stab you in the back and try to take your nation away from you.
And your argument that it brings in investment money is completely bogus. The way that works in the local and state politicians cut them enormous tax breaks as well as give them "free" land to get them to come here. How are American companies supposed to compete with that kind of thing in your imaginary paradise?
Lease deals even allows foreign investors to build plants here with less initial capital outlay,and since this same option is available to American investors,it makes for a level playing field without compromising your sovereignty or political system.
1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US
2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.
3. All companies, domestic and foreign get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area
4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term.
-
1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US
2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.
3. All companies, domestic and foreign get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area
4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term.
:thumbsup:
-
1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US
Is alluding that this is all because Japan doesn't allow foreign powers to buy up their property the best you can do?
2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.
WHAT lesson? And are you REALLY so thick you think that buying property in the US doesn't directly relate to buying crucial votes from local congressmen? They OWN the freaking land. Which means they control it to the point where they can just move away and refuse to sell,rent,or lease it to anyone else,which would have devastating effects on the local economy. If it is leased or rented,the lease or rent can be directed related to occupancy and production or the lease will be null and void.
3. All companies, domestic and foreign get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area
So what? The same things apply. The only thing related to all the listed that is different is that foreigners don't own the land. Are you trying to claim that Honda,Nissan,BMW,etc,etc,etc wouldn't have moved assembly plants here if they had of had to lease the land instead of buying it?
4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term.
One big reason is with land ownership comes political influence. Land sales to foreign corporations are also almost always at WELL below market rates because the local and state taxpayers pay the difference between purchase price and fair market value.
This is in addition to all the tax breaks they are given as well as other considerations. As for leases being bad,many,many businesses lease land and buildings rather than buy it. Which one is "best" from the POV of the corporation varies from deal to deal,but if they can turn a profit while operating under a lease,they will take the lease deal. Don't forget,they are not putting up plants in America because they want to do us a favor. They are putting them up to help them turn a profit.
-
:thumbsup:
You,too? Seriously?
-
You,too? Seriously?
Yes, allowing foreigners to own land benefits our own citizens.
-
Yes, allowing foreigners to own land benefits our own citizens.
A temporary benefit for a permanent loss. You should run for public office.
-
A temporary benefit for a permanent loss. You should run for public office.
Me? No I hate wearing suits.
-
I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.
Sound familiar?
-
I don't want government having the power to make those decisions
-
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.
Wow, I really liked the 80s, and you're taking me back!
This would be a nice way to crash the economy and make property values plummet. It would allow those not able to afford real estate to get into the market (if they still had money after investment in America was yanked). So it's not all a bad idea.
-
I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.
Sound familiar?
Sounds un-Constitutional.
:patriot:
-
I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.
Sound familiar?
I keep hearing this from conservative/libertarian types. Problem is that they found a way around it way back when:
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
Stupid idea IMO.
-
Would you support rescinding the voting rights of some citizens?
No I would not but I sure would fix it so that everyone who can vote also gets a part of the bill for the government we vote for!
-
Wow, I really liked the 80s, and you're taking me back!
This would be a nice way to crash the economy and make property values plummet. It would allow those not able to afford real estate to get into the market (if they still had money after investment in America was yanked). So it's not all a bad idea.
NONE of it is a bad idea. Protecting and preserving our sovereignty and Constitution is more important than profits or anything else. It's why we fought wars..
Until recently,that is. These days we fight wars because some foreign dictator has even cash to bribe our politicians to use American troops to fight his wars for him.
-
Sounds un-Constitutional.
:patriot:
If you really thing that you don't have a very firm understanding of the Constitution,or the early days of America.
-
I keep hearing this from conservative/libertarian types. Problem is that they found a way around it way back when:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm
Stupid idea IMO.
No,what's stupid is throwing up your hands in surrender even though you know the system has been corrupted and what needs to be done to save it.
-
If you really thing that you don't have a very firm understanding of the Constitution,or the early days of America.
And you would be mistaken.
:smokin:
-
No,what's stupid is throwing up your hands in surrender even though you know the system has been corrupted and what needs to be done to save it.
If you say so. Fact is it was done before and failed that time. Nothing to suggest a second time would be any different.
-
Dear old Ma always said the nation started going to Hell when they started letting women vote.
-
And you would be mistaken.
:smokin:
I am not the one that thinks limited voting to property owners is un-Constitutional.
-
Dear old Ma always said the nation started going to Hell when they started letting women vote.
Oddly enough,I have heard several women say that,but never heard a man say it that didn't seem to be joking.
-
In a word, no.
-
I would support rescinding the right to vote to anyone who isn't proficient in the English language. English is the language of the ballot box (and commerce).