Jump to content

Only Land Owners Should Be Able To Vote


Recommended Posts

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country. This includes on the Presidential level and all other levels below it.

 

I do not think that anyone who does not own property has the amount of vested interest in the particulars of voting.

 

I think this would eliminate a lot of our issues with voting and I think it would produce a more healthy process of voting.

 

What say you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I say you are either the craziest fu-ck to come down the pike in many a year or you just try to come up with most ridiculous scenarios for discussion purposes.     or both.

In my state when the town wants to raise the prop tax over %2.5 the proposal and the reason for the proposal must be voted on in a referendum. I own rental properties. EVERY time a %2.5 proposal is pu

Does my quote button not work because I am new? strange and frustrating

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country.

What say you?

 

 

 

I say you are either the craziest fu-ck to come down the pike in many a year or you just try to come up with most ridiculous scenarios for discussion purposes.

 

 

or both.

Edited by eclectic skeptic
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country. This includes on the Presidential level and all other levels below it.

 

I do not think that anyone who does not own property has the amount of vested interest in the particulars of voting.

 

I think this would eliminate a lot of our issues with voting and I think it would produce a more healthy process of voting.

 

What say you?

 

I say fu-ck you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country. This includes on the Presidential level and all other levels below it.

 

I do not think that anyone who does not own property has the amount of vested interest in the particulars of voting.

 

I think this would eliminate a lot of our issues with voting and I think it would produce a more healthy process of voting.

 

What say you?

There are definately plenty of schemes that would be better than what we have now.

 

The founding fathers never intended, in fact, didnt set it up so every tom dick and harry could vote. Its my understanding at that time that only landowners can vote.

 

As for the comment about nobody owns land, semantic wolf cry of a cynic.

 

Personally I think anyone who has served, should get 2 votes, and anyone who has seen combat duty should get three.

Anyone who is getting govt subsidy, foodstamps, welfare etc shouldnt vote at all.

 

BUT GOOD LUCK WITH ANY OF THAT, THE INMATES ARE ALREADY RUNNING THE SANITORIUM, THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED, ITS TOO LATE, IM ON MY WAY OUT, COSTA RICA, HERE WE COME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definately plenty of schemes that would be better than what we have now.

 

The founding fathers never intended, in fact, didnt set it up so every tom dick and harry could vote. Its my understanding at that time that only landowners can vote.

 

As for the comment about nobody owns land, semantic wolf cry of a cynic.

 

Personally I think anyone who has served, should get 2 votes, and anyone who has seen combat duty should get three.

Anyone who is getting govt subsidy, foodstamps, welfare etc shouldnt vote at all.

 

BUT GOOD LUCK WITH ANY OF THAT, THE INMATES ARE ALREADY RUNNING THE SANITORIUM, THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED, ITS TOO LATE, IM ON MY WAY OUT, COSTA RICA, HERE WE COME.

 

well the founders did want Tom Dick and Harry to vote just not Jill or Tyrone to vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Behold a retard lobbying against her own enfranchisement.

 

Oh, wait. I get it. The ignorant trollop managed to scrape up $1,200 to purchase the jerrymandered scrap of ghetto her junk-strewn trailer sits on - and now she's a-puttin' on the ritz. :lol:

 

I's a LAND OWNIN' GENTRY!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say you are either the craziest fu-ck to come down the pike in many a year or you just try to come up with most ridiculous scenarios for discussion purposes.

 

 

or both.

 

That's kinda funny that you say that. Why?

 

Because it used to be before the nineteenth century that in order to vote there were property qualifications in electoral laws - meaning you had to be a land owner to vote. So perhaps Washington, Jefferson and all others who actually imposed those qualifications are the craziest spam words to come down the pike in many a year or perhaps they were just trying to come up with the most ridiculous scenario for their country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kinda funny that you say that. Why?

 

Because it used to be before the nineteenth century that in order to vote there were property qualifications in electoral laws - meaning you had to be a land owner to vote. So perhaps Washington, Jefferson and all others who actually imposed those qualifications are the craziest spam words to come down the pike in many a year or perhaps they were just trying to come up with the most ridiculous scenario for their country.

 

 

 

We don't live in the 19th century anymore just like we don't use blood letting to cure illnesses either anymore.

 

 

next Twisted thread: Why do we need doctors when we can bloodlet at home ?

Edited by eclectic skeptic
Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't live in the 19th century anymore just like we don't use blood letting to cure illnesses either anymore.

 

I'd be feeling like an idiot too had I jumped the gun without doing my research first. I understand that you know it all and cannot even attempt to have a conversation, debate or discussion about something that doesn't fit along the 7th grade limits of your psyche.

 

I forgive you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No land is actually owned in this country. All your land is leased out by your master in the White House.

 

While that is understood by me - especially in the realm of imminent domain - I do wish to entertain a discussion about how property owners have more right and validity to vote than non-land owners do.

 

I think a Multiple Vote system would be a more effective change that restrictions on voting, until you have more than 1 vote you'll never have more than 2 parties.

 

I would actually support that, I think. However, I would restrict the multiple voting to 3. How would we handle close elections in that manner - say, if there was literally a "tie?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country. This includes on the Presidential level and all other levels below it.

 

I do not think that anyone who does not own property has the amount of vested interest in the particulars of voting.

 

I think this would eliminate a lot of our issues with voting and I think it would produce a more healthy process of voting.

 

What say you?

 

For LOCAL ELECTIONS have to say that I would AGREE 100% at the City Local and School District level ONLY legitimate PROPERTY TAX PAYERS should BE ALLOWED TO VOTE

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definately plenty of schemes that would be better than what we have now.

 

The founding fathers never intended, in fact, didnt set it up so every tom dick and harry could vote. Its my understanding at that time that only landowners can vote.

 

As for the comment about nobody owns land, semantic wolf cry of a cynic.

 

Personally I think anyone who has served, should get 2 votes, and anyone who has seen combat duty should get three.

Anyone who is getting govt subsidy, foodstamps, welfare etc shouldnt vote at all.

 

BUT GOOD LUCK WITH ANY OF THAT, THE INMATES ARE ALREADY RUNNING THE SANITORIUM, THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED, ITS TOO LATE, IM ON MY WAY OUT, COSTA RICA, HERE WE COME.

 

I agree with you about the sentiments on those who have served and then those who have served during combat. Capital letters on here, however are not going to gain any more of my attention than lowercase letters. In fact, I tend to ignore all caps messages due to the nature of their being irrational in my mind.

 

I do believe that those who have served and moreso those who have served under combat would be actually more validated to vote than land owners in this country simply because of the way that Presidents have begun taking "war" into their own hands instead of allowing congress to do their job by declaring actual war. It is actually the soldiers who hold the key to our future in their hands, not the ones doing the ordering on capital hill (even though decisions are made on capital hill).

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is understood by me - especially in the realm of imminent domain - I do wish to entertain a discussion about how property owners have more right and validity to vote than non-land owners do.

 

 

 

I would actually support that, I think. However, I would restrict the multiple voting to 3. How would we handle close elections in that manner - say, if there was literally a "tie?"

 

the way I would do it is simple. lets say 5 people are running for office you can vote for 1-4 ( you could vote for all 5 but you might as well stay home since you dont care who wins) of them, each vote holds the exact same weight and you cant vote for 1 person more than once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be feeling like an idiot too had I jumped the gun without doing my research first. I understand that you know it all and cannot even attempt to have a conversation, debate or discussion about something that doesn't fit along the 7th grade limits of your psyche.

 

I forgive you.

 

I don't need your forgiveness, child. Every one of your moronic threads are always against our American system of life and specifically against the poor and disenfranchaised. You would love to roll back 200 years of progress...being the fine conservative you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definately plenty of schemes that would be better than what we have now.

 

The founding fathers never intended, in fact, didnt set it up so every tom dick and harry could vote. Its my understanding at that time that only landowners can vote.

 

As for the comment about nobody owns land, semantic wolf cry of a cynic.

 

Personally I think anyone who has served, should get 2 votes, and anyone who has seen combat duty should get three.

Anyone who is getting govt subsidy, foodstamps, welfare etc shouldnt vote at all.

 

BUT GOOD LUCK WITH ANY OF THAT, THE INMATES ARE ALREADY RUNNING THE SANITORIUM, THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED, ITS TOO LATE, IM ON MY WAY OUT, COSTA RICA, HERE WE COME.

 

Gays with a uniform fetish will make just about any post an opportunity to lick combat boots.

 

The fact that I paid for these welfare recipients' panties and pastries should get me MORE ovtes than they get, not LESS.

 

I don't need your forgiveness, child. Every one of your moronic threads are always against our American system of life and specifically against the poor and disenfranchaised. You would love to roll back 200 years of progress...being the fine conservative you are.

 

Spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that only property owners should be able to vote in this country. This includes on the Presidential level and all other levels below it.

 

I do not think that anyone who does not own property has the amount of vested interest in the particulars of voting.

 

I think this would eliminate a lot of our issues with voting and I think it would produce a more healthy process of voting.

 

What say you?

I know one thing. this seen below should not be allowed to vote

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the way I would do it is simple. lets say 5 people are running for office you can vote for 1-4 ( you could vote for all 5 but you might as well stay home since you dont care who wins) of them, each vote holds the exact same weight and you cant vote for 1 person more than once.

 

That is an interesting idea. Think I might have to chew on that one for a while - the allowing a person to vote for the same person more than once scenario. I'm not entirely sure how that would end up, to be honest.

 

I made a thread once stating that women shouldn't be allowed to vote with my main premise being: mothers are nurturers and if devoting all their time to the upbringing of the children and maintaining a home, they cannot be distracted with worldly ideals such as politics. This allows the family to convene about the particular issue of voting during a family "meeting," whereas the outcome would be the man representing his family during the vote when he goes out to vote.

 

That's for another thread though and I can bump it if you wish. I just thought that perhaps your multiple votes idea would cure a lot of my un-answered questions from that debate I posted a year ago.

 

Let me get back to you on that one. Very interesting indeed.

 

I don't need your forgiveness, child. Every one of your moronic threads are always against our American system of life and specifically against the poor and disenfranchaised. You would love to roll back 200 years of progress...being the fine conservative you are.

 

I'm not a conservative, first off.

 

Second - I have yet to see you actually debate anyone on here. You come in and sneer and attempt to demean anyone with an opposing idea to you.

 

Is it that you are scared to death of change...or is it that you're just too incompetent to form the slightest of arguments against someone's premise?

 

Either way, you are who you are. Carry on - and I still forgive you. I am compelled to. Otherwise, I'd have to hunt you down and kill you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kinda funny that you say that. Why?

 

Because it used to be before the nineteenth century that in order to vote there were property qualifications in electoral laws - meaning you had to be a land owner to vote. So perhaps Washington, Jefferson and all others who actually imposed those qualifications are the craziest spam words to come down the pike in many a year or perhaps they were just trying to come up with the most ridiculous scenario for their country.

 

There has never been a law in this country restricting voting to those who own land. It was suggested by some of the more conservative members in the Continental Congress, but was resoundingly voted down.

 

"Are we to become that which we struggle against? Fat little lordlings with serfs to rule over? That way lies madness!" - John Adams

 

There were also conservatives who wanted a king to rule the thirteen states like some sort of American empire. Imagine that. Fighting a war for eight years to get rid of a worthless king, only to replace him with another worthless king. Typical conservative thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one thing. this seen below should not be allowed to vote

 

 

 

I guess everyone is going to have their views. This woman's life circumstances tell me that she's been neglected - insofar as politics is concerned. She is only concerned with her own life, and not the lives of all other Americans nor their families. She is self-centered and has a future horizon consisting of tomorrow - if that. She lacks the ability to actually discern.

 

Unfortunately, this is the reason that land-owners were the only allowed to vote for a period of time. Those who have no vested interest in the country...those who are not financially invested...those who are nothing more than emotionally invested (those who seek to have themselves taken care of by all others) should not be voting.

 

When an individual votes merely for the cause of furthering their dependence on welfare - or of others taking care of them - they need not vote. There is much more involved in what constitutes a "vote" than they will ever be able to grasp. People no longer vote out of the best interests of their community nor their nation. Rather, they vote with themselves in mind and themselves only. Non-property owners engaging in this type of activity sway the actual vote of people who have a vested interest in their communities, their states and the entire nation.

 

We need people voting who will implement the Nash equilibrium whereas - every man is doing what is best for himself as well as the entire community/state/nation - not just for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...