Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[.Shane.]

Looks like they want to build a time machine to 1790.

Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States.

From Judson Phillips himself:

PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

Here's a link to the TP audio blog, but I could not find a transcript there.

The source for the story and quote.



Note: If you can't discuss the merits of the quote and comment in general, please don't reply. If all you can muster is "OMG ITS FROM THINK PROGRESS", please just don't post.

 

[civver_764]

Jesus Christ that guy is despicable.

 

[galdre]

disgusting

 

[GenMarshall]

Apparently the Tea Partyers want to disenfranchise the non homeowners from voting. Looks like the Tea Party movement just shot itself in the foot, again. At least the Coffee Party is more sensable than this party of wackos.

What's next? Taking away voting rights from African Americans and women?

Excuse me while I...

 

[useless]

The tea party, a corporatist funded movement who seek to screw themselves over

also racist

 

[Thedrin]

How is property owner defined? I don't own land or any form of dwelling, but I own the laptop I'm typing this post on. Would that qualify me as a property owner [if I were a US citizen]?

 

[downtown]

I saw this on PoliticalWire as well, it got play in other, less partisan political blogs.

Edit: I'm sure he's talking about land, its a throwback to the old rules in the 1700s that restricted voting to landowning males

 

[GenMarshall]

How is property owner defined? I don't own land or any form of dwelling, but I own the laptop I'm typing this post on. Would that qualify me as a property owner [if I were a US citizen]?

I beleve so long as you own a house. Not sure if this would extend to auto owners since they are also taxed. I doubt personal property (laptop, computers, etc) dont count.

 

[.Shane.]

I saw this on PoliticalWire as well, it got play in other, less partisan political blogs.

Can you link to one for me and I will put it in the OP to try and eliminate those who have dismissive tendencies.

What's next? Taking away voting rights from African Americans and women?

Well, that's what the Founding Father's intended, so why not?

What cracks me up is that he says "Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today." so, clearly, he recognizes that much of this stuff is archaic and crazy. In other words, the FF's are infalliable, except for when they are not. In which case I will pick and choose what I like and then throw a fit if anyone sees it otherwise.

LUNATICS

 

[Thedrin]

So an owner of 'a property' rather than owning possessions.

 

[.Shane.]

So an owner of 'a property' rather than owning possessions.

Clearly this is land owners. Even slaves had personal property.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I actually see (Though I disagree with) his point. At present, the rich are skirting the tax system, and the poor are paying nothing (And sometimes collecting!) The Middle Class, meanwhile, is paying up to half their money in taxation, yet get no more representation. Not to mention people who aren't even allowed to be here are voting.

I don't agree with his solution, but there is no question there is a problem. If you aren't paying any income taxes, you are investing anything in this community. Now, I oppose all income taxes and think it should be replaced with a sales tax, but they exist, and those who aren't paying it have the same amount of representation. Therefore, I would be OK with a temporary measure that allows only those who pay income tax to vote, at least so we can force them to change the system.

But I don't agree that owning a home gives you anything special. If it was about not living off government housing, he'd have a point, but if you are renting a home out of your own paycheck, its no different from owning one.

 

[Supr49er]

Weren't Slaves themselves considered property?

What a despicable idea Judson. People really think this way??

 

[galdre]

I actually see (Though I disagree with) his point. At present, the rich are skirting the tax system, and the poor are paying nothing (And sometimes collecting!) The Middle Class, meanwhile, is paying up to half their money in taxation, yet get no more representation. Not to mention people who aren't even allowed to be here are voting.

I don't agree with his solution, but there is no question there is a problem. If you aren't paying any income taxes, you are investing anything in this community. Now, I oppose all income taxes and think it should be replaced with a sales tax, but they exist, and those who aren't paying it have the same amount of representation. Therefore, I would be OK with a temporary measure that allows only those who pay income tax to vote, at least so we can force them to change the system.

But I don't agree that owning a home gives you anything special. If it was about not living off government housing, he'd have a point, but if you are renting a home out of your own paycheck, its no different from owning one.

so unemployed people should lose the right to vote

 

[GhostWriter16]

so unemployed people should lose the right to vote

My point was more to force them to change the system, then get rid of the law, but not inherently. The requirement would be having paid income tax sometime in the last X years.

Which, if done right, would either be everyone, or income tax would just be abolished.

 

[useless]

I actually see (Though I disagree with) his point. At present, the rich are skirting the tax system, and the poor are paying nothing (And sometimes collecting!) The Middle Class, meanwhile, is paying up to half their money in taxation, yet get no more representation. Not to mention people who aren't even allowed to be here are voting.

I don't agree with his solution, but there is no question there is a problem. If you aren't paying any income taxes, you are investing anything in this community. Now, I oppose all income taxes and think it should be replaced with a sales tax, but they exist, and those who aren't paying it have the same amount of representation. Therefore, I would be OK with a temporary measure that allows only those who pay income tax to vote, at least so we can force them to change the system.

But I don't agree that owning a home gives you anything special. If it was about not living off government housing, he'd have a point, but if you are renting a home out of your own paycheck, its no different from owning one.

TL;DR Lets screw them poors and stop 'em from voting

 

[Cutlass]

Well, they're anti-American about everything else. Why should this surprise anyone?

 

[GenMarshall]

so unemployed people should lose the right to vote

By his logic, yes.

Which makes me want to grab my laser rifle, pitch forks, and storm the nutty Tea Party conventions.

 

[Souron]

Surely you don't agree, .Shane.?

This would effectively prevent almost all city dwellers from voting.

 

[GhostWriter16]

TL;DR Lets screw them poors and stop 'em from voting

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

Well, they're anti-American about everything else. Why should this surprise anyone?

:Shakeshead: so quickly you forget that the Tea Party is a decentralized group.

By his logic, yes.

Which makes me want to grab my laser rifle, pitch forks, and storm the nutty Tea Party conventions.

No I did not mean that. Read my response.