What if....

dirtygrass

Active Member
Messages
623
What would the USA be like if non-contributing members of society were not allowed to vote? Such as: people on welfare.
 
In the early years of the Republic, in most States, only males with property were allowed to vote. Their logic was, "without skin in the game, you can't vote objectively" or some think along those lines.

I can see the abuse that could take place under those rules today but it would be interesting to see what might happen, if we could some how go back to a requirement to have some "skin in the game". May be if you pay a certain amount of taxes. At least that way, you could have some input in who and how your taxes were used, and the large business/property owners couldn't take advantage of the working class.

Pipe dreams of course, the way we're headed the Syrians and Iranians will be getting to vote soon enough.

DC
 
Why shouldn't Syrians and Iranians be able to vote like any other naturalized citizen? there is no muslim ban in the constitution. Trump just learned that too.

Blacks didn't vote until 1870, Indians until 1924, women in 1920. to ask a question like this I have to assume you're pondering what Trump means by make America great again .


Good luck.







Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
My wife has been saying for years anyone on welfare should lose the right to vote and only get that right back if they got off receiving welfare checks.

Dude is not only a self admitted racist, but also appears to be a closet chauvinist and women being given the right to vote before Indians has made him a hateful miserable piece of humanity. Seems like our politicians in the 20's were smarter then they are today.

RELH
 
How can a country, a business, a bureaucracy, or any other organization, succeed, if it allows people that do not contribute decide how the entity is run?

It seems like madness. We wouldn't even consider it in our personal lives, yet we take it for granted in our public lives.

DC
 
If it wasn't for the Electoral College the people that don't contribute would have decided who is running our country.

How do you think the election would have turned out if...the electoral college was broken out by county instead of state.
 
The reason all citizens should and can vote is because it is the rules and laws of society that does suppress people, literally tens of thousands of laws on the books. But it is the private ownership of the land and resources that is the most suppressing. As in all countries most people who do not own resources are condemned to migrate to cities, it happens all over the world. cities are where money circulates.

We cannot all be like Dude or RELH, or Trump there simply is not even close to enough land and resources for that.

So should only those with land be allowed to vote? Should handicapped citizens be allowed to vote? Women who dont work? Alcoholics?

It's stupid and preposterous and ignorant to say only say only the lucky and the best people should vote. But it's as America goes, the stupid and rich will vote us into a third world "have - have not" third world country, you can almost smell it coming.
 
>The reason all citizens should and
>can vote is because it
>is the rules and laws
>of society that does suppress
>people, literally
>tens of thousands of laws
>on the books.
>
> But it
>is the private ownership of
>the land and resources that
>is the most suppressing.
>
> As in all countries
>most people who do not
>own resources are condemned to
>migrate to cities,
> it happens
>all over the world.
> cities
>are where money circulates.
>
>We cannot all be like Dude
>or RELH, or Trump
> there simply is not
>even close to enough land
>and resources for that.
>
>So should only those with land
>be allowed to vote?
> Should handicapped citizens be
>allowed to vote?
>Women who dont work?
> Alcoholics?
>
>It's stupid and preposterous and ignorant
>to say only say only
>the lucky and the best
>people should vote.
>
>
>But it's as America goes,
> the stupid and
>rich will vote us into
>a third world "have -
>have not" third world country,
> you
>can almost smell it coming.
>
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID WHEN I LET HER UP
 
RELH, the OP said anyone who's not productive should not vote.

If that means welfare it has to mean social security too. watching Matlock and playing bingo is not productive where I come from. so you're done voting.


If we're going to play it this way I say we make a weighted vote based on how much taxes you paid in the last year. after the 1st 50k you get one vote, and one vote for each 50k thereafter. let's freeze the trailer trash out for real, what better way to determine who's productive in a republican lead society.
















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>
>
>
>RELH, the OP said anyone
>who's not productive should not
>vote.
>
> If that means welfare it
>has to mean social security
>too. watching Matlock and
>playing bingo is not productive
>where I come from.
>so you're done voting.
>
>
> If we're going to play
>it this way I say
>we make a weighted vote
>based on how much taxes
>you paid in the last
>year. after the 1st
>50k you get one vote,
>and one vote for each
>50k thereafter. let's freeze
>the trailer trash out
>for real, what better
>way to determine who's productive
>in a republican lead society.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends
By all means Trogans for tax payer funded abortions.
 
Maybe the more money you have the more votes you should have? One vote for every 100k

That would immediately get rid of all trailer trash votes, and the tiered system would ensure that trickle down economics would be strengthened and enhanced.
 
Maybe the more money you have the more votes you should have? One vote for every 100k

That would immediately get rid of all trailer trash votes, and the tiered system would ensure that trickle down economics would be strengthened and enhanced.
____________________________________________________________

FW has a good point that was unintended on his part. By doing what he suggested would get rid of 75% of the liberal Democrat vote.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-17 AT 12:11PM (MST)[p]
>
>
> RELH would be out.
>So would welfare Manny.
>
> I like it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends


Dude do u always spread lies... just wondering.....I mean I do not get any government subsidies of any kind not even welfare but I see u have, I currently have two successful businesses I'm not rich but we get by...thanks for asking tho
 
The blue states are definitely the wealthy ones but do you really believe that a concentration of the 1% will be enough people to win the vote? If you have ever been to California you know that by far the majority of voters are lower income. If you have a couple of Bill Gates and a Warren Buffet to skew the incomes that does not mean the vote in numbers is there for you.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom