toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

[Granite]

Only land-owning citizens should be allowed to vote.

What a terrible and snobbish idea.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What a terrible and snobbish idea.

Allowing anyone to vote is a foolish idea, and there is nothing snobbish about requiring land-ownership as a prerequisite for voting.

Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.

I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?

People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.

The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".

That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.

source

 

[Angel4Truth]

Allowing anyone to vote is a foolish idea, and there is nothing snobbish about requiring land-ownership as a prerequisite for voting.

Why do you think owning land is so important to voting or that it makes one qualified to vote?

 

[Buzz]

Only land-owning citizens should be allowed to vote.

And only the men.

 

[Huckleberry]

Identification is required for every other government service that I can think of. It should be provided in order to vote as well. More than that citizenship itself should be shown before one is allowed to vote. Yet again that's just common sense.

I've heard the objection that this is just some trick by Republicans to keep poor people from voting. I understand that objection but I don't care even if it were true. Making it easier for people who can't provide identification to vote does not seem like a good reason at all not to confirm citizenship before one is allowed to vote.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And only the men.

Are you serious?

 

[Buzz]

Are you serious?

 

[Granite]

Allowing anyone to vote is a foolish idea, and there is nothing snobbish about requiring land-ownership as a prerequisite for voting.

Yeah, there is. To say that renters don't feel property taxes is asinine, for one thing, considering it's factored into the rent they pay. To say that a fellow who lives in a condo knows less or is less qualified to vote than white trash who happens to own their property is equally inane. Land ownership proves or disproves nothing in terms of a voter's legitimacy--this requirement would, however, establish a not-so-neat-and-tidy aristocracy that would bastardize any pretense of a free and equal republic.

To oppose free and equal voting regardless of persons is nothing more than arrogant, sneering, venal snobbery run amok.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yeah, there is. To say that renters don't feel property taxes is asinine, for one thing, considering it's factored into the rent they pay. To say that a fellow who lives in a condo knows less or is less qualified to vote than white trash who happens to own their property is equally inane. Land ownership proves or disproves nothing in terms of a voter's legitimacy--this requirement would, however, establish a not-so-neat-and-tidy aristocracy that would bastardize any pretense of a free and equal republic.

To oppose free and equal voting regardless of persons is nothing more than arrogant, sneering, venal snobbery run amok.

That wasn't racist or unneeded to make a point.

 

[Granite]

That wasn't racist or unneeded to make a point.

I'm sorry. "Inbred redneck bums" is what I was shooting for.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Well genuineoriginal isnt answering my question.

I guess i have to assume that he believes these things as well:

1) A man in the military who has no permanent address since he rents while in the service to this country, is not qualified to vote.

2) A woman who is married to someone who has their property in his name, is not qualified to vote.

As well as a host of other things.

 

[Sherman]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 5th, 2012 08:40 AM

toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

Yes. A person must be able to prove they are a resident of this country in order to vote. If they can't prove it, then they shouldn't be able to vote. Picture ID should be furnished to reduce the possibility of voter fraud.

Valid forms of ID could be Driver's license, The ID card that is issued to non drivers, Military ID card. Veteran's ID Card.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And only the men.

Why would you think that?

 

[sky.]

Why do you think owning land is so important to voting or that it makes one qualified to vote?

I think this was proposed early in American history but it was rejected.

 

[genuineoriginal]

To say that a fellow who lives in a condo knows less or is less qualified to vote than white trash who happens to own their property is equally inane.

This has nothing to do with whether the property owner knows less than a renter.
A renter does not have the kind of vested interest in the community that a property owner has.

 

[fool]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 5th, 2012 08:40 AM

toldailytopic: Do you favor voter ID laws? Why or why not?

I can think of no reason why we wouldn't expect people to show us that they are who they say they are.

 

[Buzz]

Why would you think that?

As long as were going back

 

[Angel4Truth]

This has nothing to do with whether the property owner knows less than a renter.
A renter does not have the kind of vested interest in the community that a property owner has.

Renters do not pay county and city taxes on their purchases and out of their incomes? Landlords do not configure the rent they charge to pay taxes on the property rented?

 

[Granite]

This has nothing to do with whether the property owner knows less than a renter.
A renter does not have the kind of vested interest in the community that a property owner has.

What possibly makes you think this? An "owner" of a property who lives 500 miles away is less invested in his community than a renter who's lived there a lifetime. And even if their financial investment isn't on equal footing--at least when it comes to their home--their political and emotional interest in a community is completely intangible. For you to presume that we disenfranchise those who by circumstance or choice don't own a home is appalling. Since when was the litmus test for a worthy ballot paying a bank for the privilege of a roof over your head?

And what of those who've been evicted and lost their property? Now that they rent are they any less "invested" in their community?

 

[fool]

A renter does not have the kind of vested interest in the community that a property owner has.

Great idea!
The first thing the Owners could do then is pass a law that Owners can only sell to other Owners, that would keep those pesky renters in their place!