Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[.Shane.]

Surely you don't agree, .Shane.?

This would effectively prevent almost all city dwellers from voting.

Of course not. This is lunacy. So much so that I didn't think I needed to add much editorial to that effect.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Just about everyone owns or rents property anyway, so go ahead.

Also include a stipulation that if you share a house with friends, parents, etc. you get the vote as well.

Net effect: None. There goes that poor attempt to disenfranchise the less fortunate.

 

[galdre]

Just about everyone owns or rents property anyway, so go ahead.

renting property would not count under what that guy is suggesting

 

[useless]

My point was because the tax system is so screwed in favor of the poor (And super-rich.)

Waiting for that "WELFARE QUEENS" line.

 

[illram]

Sure, let's disenfranchise 33% of the population of the United States. Brilliant!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just about everyone owns or rents property anyway, so go ahead.

Also include a stipulation that if you share a house with friends, parents, etc. you get the vote as well.

Net effect: None. There goes that poor attempt to disenfranchise the less fortunate.

But what about the hobo drug addicts that contribute zero to society and don't pay any taxes? And how about those that live in prison cells? Don't they deserve a say in this country?

Waiting for that "WELFARE QUEENS" line.

Oh yes, a lot of them exist. Most people who would not be allowed to vote under my suggestion though would be those intentionally gaming the system however, since my suggestion would allow for at least 2 years of paying nothing before voting privileges being taken away. With that in mind, I almost support it as a permanent solution.

 

[RedRalph]

I would hope we can now stop referring to the TP movement as a conservative movement. They are reactionaries. Completely and utterly deranged reactionaries.

 

[GenMarshall]

And how about those that live in prison cells? Don't they deserve a say in this country?

Prisoners and convicts already have there voting rights taken away.

 

[.Shane.]

They are reactionaries. Completely and utterly deranged reactionaries.

RR, it has long been my contention that the Repub party, in general, is regressive. If the Dems were smart (which they are not) and had any ability or desire to win the messageing war they would seize on this and utter "regressive" every 4th word. But they don't.

 

[Cutlass]

RR, it has long been my contention that the Repub party, in general, is regressive. If the Dems were smart (which they are not) and had any ability or desire to win the messageing war they would seize on this and utter "regressive" every 4th word. But they don't.

Like I've said elsewhere, for a bunch pf career politicians they are unbelievably bad at politics.

 

[useless]

Oh yes, a lot of them exist. Most people who would not be allowed to vote under my suggestion though would be those intentionally gaming the system however, since my suggestion would allow for at least 2 years of paying nothing before voting privileges being taken away. With that in mind, I almost support it as a permanent solution.

You are on the same level as Judson Phillips, because you advocate the right to vote to be based upon wealth

 

[RedRalph]

RR, it has long been my contention that the Repub party, in general, is regressive. If the Dems were smart (which they are not) and had any ability or desire to win the messageing war they would seize on this and utter "regressive" every 4th word. But they don't.

Even I wouldn't have expected this though. I mean this is... straightjacket type madness. If enough people both heard and thought about this, the Tea Party would vanish overnight.

 

[Left]

Should owners of multiple properties get multiple votes then? Owners of two houses are twice as vested in the community.

The number of votes you receive should be equal to your groundskeeping bill.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Prisoners and convicts already have there voting rights taken away.

I am aware, it was a joke. Since it was basically impossible to seriously criticize T-Fox's comment from that direction.

You are on the same level as Judson Phillips, because you advocate the right to vote to be based upon wealth

No, but I do believe those who never contribute to the country do not deserve a voice.

 

[.Shane.]

Even I wouldn't have expected this though. I mean this is... straightjacket type madness. If enough people both heard and thought about this, the Tea Party would vanish overnight.

It shows how either ignorant or hypocritical (or both, take your pick) the TP movement is. If you recall during the health care debate, in spite of the fact that the Congress represents us and had recently won a significant Democratic majority, they were going apenuts crazy because some polling indicated a majority against some forms of legislation under the idea of "OMG YOU ARE INGORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE".

But now that its in their interest, they would love nothing more than to restrict voting at all turns to push their interests (for example, wanting to make Senators no longer directly elected).

 

[Lord of Elves]

I love how the Tea Party's "leaders" seem to think the Tea Party's members are profiles of responsible, home-owning and debt-less Americans who are completely financially dependent. I highly suspect that if they got their way, a very high percentage of their supporters would no longer be able to vote.

 

[Cutlass]

I am aware, it was a joke. Since it was basically impossible to seriously criticize T-Fox's comment from that direction.



No, but I do believe those who never contribute to the country do not deserve a voice.

That would mean no Republican would be allowed to vote!!

 

[Traitorfish]

No, but I do believe those who never contribute to the country do not deserve a voice.

What is "the country", in this context? The state, the community, the economy? You're going to have to lend your proclamations a little more definition.

 

[useless]

No, but I do believe those who never contribute to the country do not deserve a voice.

The seriously disabled?
Those in poverty?

Seriously you couldn't care less about rights or freedom, as long as money is involved.
You're not a libertarian as the proposal you've suggested goes directly against your own ideology, why rely on the government, why take away someone's right to vote, their voice?

 

[RedRalph]

It shows how either ignorant or hypocritical (or both, take your pick) the TP movement is. If you recall during the health care debate, in spite of the fact that the Congress represents us and had recently won a significant Democratic majority, they were going apenuts crazy because some polling indicated a majority against some forms of legislation under the idea of "OMG YOU ARE INGORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE".

But now that its in their interest, they would love nothing more than to restrict voting at all turns to push their interests (for example, wanting to make Senators no longer directly elected).

I think this goes beyond ignorant or hypocritical. These people are out-and-out crazy.