Who should be allowed to vote? · General Discussion Forum

Silent Master Senior Member

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That depends on what you were referring to by "those who don't pay their taxes." If you are referring to all people in that group, then those who are violating the law with that refusal to pay taxes should have to face whatever legal consequences are present first. Those who aren't paying taxes because they aren't legally required to should be allowed to vote.

Why? after all; if they didn't pay taxes then they didn't pay for the right to vote, which was your standard.

If you pay taxes then you've already purchased the right to vote.

Rockydonovang freedom fighter

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why? after all; if they didn't pay taxes then they didn't pay for the right to vote, which was your standard.

Uh, no, that wasn't my standard, that was the standard of the post you replied to.

Here is my standard:

They still have to abide by the country's laws(including tax laws) and get punished for breaking them, hence they have the right to vote..

Taxes are a legally permissible forfeiture of someone's property. Taxes are part of adhering to a country's laws. If a government isn't representing my interests, then why should I give a shit about what it tells me to do?

If your response is that the government will put you in jail, then you're supporting the government violating other people's freedoms without justification, which is also known as oppression.

Silent Master Senior Member

My bad, that was said by Tzeentch

Rockydonovang freedom fighter

Do you have an opinion on my standards?

riv6672 Senior Member

Originally posted by Silent Master
My bad, that was said by Tzeentch

Paying taxes is a citizen's responsibility, like obeying federal/state/local laws, jury duty, serving as a witness and registering for the draft.

Silent Master Senior Member

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Do you have an opinion on my standards?

At this point I think voting is pointless as both sides are extremely corrupt. so I stopped caring.

riv6672 Senior Member

Fair enough!

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The comments on this thread are moronic. The way to stop corruption, is to let the corrupt choose who gets to vote for them?

Since when did the educated become equated with corruption?

You show your true colors, Supreme Leader Pol Pot.

Your comment, right here, is more than enough to to convince me of what a truly disgusting and despicable person you are.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If the population is uneducated, then it's on the burden of the school system, the news, and the politicans to make them educated. That ignorant masses would otherwise throw them out should be ample motivation for politicans to fix this. If it's not, then those politicians will be thrown out for those who might give a crap about an educated electorate.

You chase the chicken and the egg, here. If the government controls education, and the electorate is woefully ignorant of who they vote for and the policies that they have, is not the government perpetuating corruption based on your logic?

Fact: the USA electorate is woefully ignorant of incumbent's, incumbent's policies and candidate's and their policies.

http://www.justfacts.com/news_2017_poll_voter_knowledge.asp

Fact: the USA has demonstrably provable corruption at all levels of government and that's just for the people who get caught:

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/measuring-illegal-and-legal-corruption-american-states-some-results-safra

Fact: the US Government does not represent the people.

YouTube video

So while you take the very conservative position that the US Government is "just fine, no need to change it", we clearly do need to change it.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And instead of defending the rich getting to decide policy regardless of what people want....
Let's call it what it actually is, the practice of an oligarchy. If you believe we should be an oligarchy rather than a republic, then say so, otherwise let the republic be what a republic is supposed to be, a republic.

We are already an oligarchy.

Also, I am curious as to why you think the rich = politically educated.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The "woefully ignorant" are more likely to vote against corrupt candidates than the rich who know the candidates will benefit them. Hence, restricting who can vote would help keep the corrupt in power.

No they do not. That vast majority are politically ignorant. From the post you quoted of mine, if what you said was correct, the majority elected to office would not be incumbents or people with Ds or Rs in front of their name.

Beniboybling Worst Member

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your comment, right here, is more than enough to to convince me of what a truly disgusting and describable person you are.

pastry man is bitter and full of hate, rocky, wouldn’t waste time on him. ❌

Rockydonovang freedom fighter

Originally posted by riv6672
Paying taxes is a citizen's responsibility, like obeying federal/state/local laws, jury duty, serving as a witness and registering for the draft.

We have no responsibility to a government that doesn't represent us. That's kinda the reason America became it's own country in the first place.

Rockydonovang freedom fighter

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since when did the educated become equated with corruption?
You show your true colors, Supreme Leader Pol Pot.

laugh: Restricting voting rights are what dictators do. Protecting and expanding voting rights is the opposite of the kind of act that would make me worthy of being a "supreme leader."
Originally posted by dadudemon
You chase the chicken and the egg, here. If the government controls education, and the electorate is woefully ignorant of who they vote for and the policies that they have, is not the government perpetuating corruption based on your logic?

Indeed, so now explain to me why only representing the needs of the educated would make our populace more educated?

Fact: the USA electorate is woefully ignorant of incumbent's, incumbent's policies and candidate's and their policies.

So? Regardless of ignorance, all citizens are expected to follow the law, hence, regardless of ignotance, all citizens should expect to vote. If the government wants an educated populace, then educate the populace.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: the USA has demonstrably provable corruption at all levels of government and that's just for the people who get caught:

Fact: This is a non-sequitir
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fact: the US Government does not represent the people.

Which is why I argued that it should represent the people, not that it does.
So while you take the very conservative position that the US Government is "just fine, no need to change it", we clearly do need to change it.[/i]

Actually, I've argued the opposite saying we do need to change it by expanding the right of voting, getting rid of lobies, getting rid of superpacs, getting rid of partisan gerrymandering, and making sure that in national elections, all people are given equal representation.
That's what any true liberal would advocate for. Advocating for oligarchy is taking away freedoms from the many and giving it to the few. It would seem you are the conservative here.
Naturally you don't respond to what I say, so you draw up a strawman arguing the exact opposite of what I've advocated for.

We are already an oligarchy.

Right, now explain to my us having an oligarchy makes us having an oligarchy?

Whether we have an oligarchy or not was never disputed. What I've claimed and you need to argue is whether we should have an oligarchy.

This time when you respond to me, address what I say, or leave me alone.

Robtard Senor Member

If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.

The reality then would be that they voted, supported and defended a traitor to America, they should in the very least lose the right to vote. Maybe a "yuge' fine as well, a traitor's fine.

The Ellimist The Shadow

Originally posted by Robtard
If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.
The reality then would be that they voted, supported and defended a traitor to America, they should in the very least lose the right to vote. Maybe a "yuge' fine as well, a traitor's fine.

So should everyone who voted for Nixon be banned from voting too?

Robtard Senor Member

Originally posted by The Ellimist
So should everyone who voted for Nixon be banned from voting too?

Was Nixon a traitor?

Nephthys The Gr8est!!!!!!!!

They should be banned from life.

The Ellimist The Shadow

Originally posted by Robtard
Was Nixon a traitor?

Debatably?

Robtard Senor Member

He was definitely a criminal. Not sure about being a traitor.

The Ellimist The Shadow

If treason is defined as levying war against the United States or aiding an enemy in doing so, we're implying that interfering with elections is analogous to some sort of war. Then doing it yourself is treason just as doing it for another country would be.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

i recall no treason by nixon...neither committed nor alleged.