HockeyDad
a year ago

It would be too confusing. The Financial Services, Healthcare and Energy companies wouldn’t know who to bribe…. Errr. Donate to.

8trackdisco wrote:



That’s why we can’t have a third party candidate. Donation inflation.
rfenst
a year ago

OK, you don’t like the Constitution and don’t like the Supreme Court. Do we want to redefine the house and senate while we’re at it?

HockeyDad wrote:


Wrong again!!!

I never said I don't like it (you did), I just want to see the Constitution legally amended. I got no problem with that. We have done it plenty of times.

I never said I don't like SCOTUS (you did). I just want Justices who are not on the take. Oh, wait, that makes me racist! #-o

While the House and Senate do need to be straightened out in different ways, I have no desire to reform either constitutionally. And, what a coincidence: they are elected by "one man = one vote."

You must have felt great living in California where YOUR PRESIDENTIAL VOTE was pretty was worthless.
Stogie1020
a year ago

Wrong again!!!

I never said I don't like it (you did), I just want to see the Constitution legally amended. I got no problem with that. We have done it plenty of times.

I never said I don't like SCOTUS (you did). I just want Justices who are not on the take. Oh, wait, that makes me racist! #-o

While the House and Senate do need to be straightened out in different ways, I have no desire to reform either constitutionally. And, what a coincidence: they are elected by "one man = one vote."

You must have felt great living in California where YOUR PRESIDENTIAL VOTE was pretty was worthless.

rfenst wrote:



And their constituent base is much smaller and more localized in terms of governmental needs. It's like the framers figured this out.
HockeyDad
a year ago

Wrong again!!!

I never said I don't like it (you did), I just want to see the Constitution legally amended. I got no problem with that. We have done it plenty of times.

I never said I don't like SCOTUS (you did). I just want Justices who are not on the take. Oh, wait, that makes me racist! #-o

While the House and Senate do need to be straightened out in different ways, I have no desire to reform either constitutionally. And, what a coincidence: they are elected by "one man = one vote."

You must have felt great living in California where YOUR PRESIDENTIAL VOTE was pretty was worthless.

rfenst wrote:



If you want to amend the constitution to change the entire form of government, I have no problem with that as long as states can legally opt out of the union. Historically they would have never joined in the first place under your plan so they should be allowed out as part of the bait & switch. There also should be some referendum on the new system being called socialism or democratic socialism.

When it came to elections in California, it was great. You didn’t need to vote for anything. The system just took care of everything and they told you who the new Democrats coming into office where and what tax increases were coming. Instead of studying candidate positions, you can go to wine country for the weekend if you are allied with the correct people/industries. If not you can use the free time to work a second job to get by
MACS
a year ago

WHY?

rfenst wrote:



Really? You went to HS, college and then law school and you need to ask me why?

#-o

Justices aren't "on the take" because they're applying the constitutional law as intended. The problem is the affirmative action hires, not the ones who understand the law.
Gene363
a year ago

OK.
I get it.
You do not believe in one man equals one vote because it dilutes the power of your vote (in favor of those whose opinions differ from yours).

rfenst wrote:



Actually, I believe the right to vote should be joined to owning property and paying taxes. We have a crap-tion of people. organizations and corporations that live off the government dole. They do not have any skin in the game so they shouldn't be able to vote on taxing those that do.
Gene363
a year ago

If you want to amend the constitution to change the entire form of government, I have no problem with that as long as states can legally opt out of the union. Historically they would have never joined in the first place under your plan so they should be allowed out as part of the bait & switch. There also should be some referendum on the new system being called socialism or democratic socialism.

When it came to elections in California, it was great. You didn’t need to vote for anything. The system just took care of everything and they told you who the new Democrats coming into office where and what tax increases were coming. Instead of studying candidate positions, you can go to wine country for the weekend if you are allied with the correct people/industries. If not you can use the free time to work a second job to get by

HockeyDad wrote:




Absolutely! And it's getting worse by the day.
rfenst
a year ago

Actually, I believe the right to vote should be joined to owning property and paying taxes. We have a crap-tion of people. organizations and corporations that live off the government dole. They do not have any skin in the game so they shouldn't be able to vote on taxing those that do.

Gene363 wrote:


That's a bit too late 1700's for me.
rfenst
a year ago

Actually, I believe the right to vote should be joined to owning property and paying taxes. We have a crap-tion of people. organizations and corporations that live off the government dole. They do not have any skin in the game so they shouldn't be able to vote on taxing those that do.

Gene363 wrote:


That's a bit too late 1700's for me.
Gene363
a year ago

That's a bit too late 1700's for me.

rfenst wrote:



Maybe not now, but once you eliminate the Electoral college and the country is run by a giant version of the Jerry Springer show audiance, you will want to change your mind, but it will be too late.
RayR
a year ago

Maybe not now, but once you eliminate the Electoral college and the country is run by a giant version of the Jerry Springer show audiance, you will want to change your mind, but it will be too late.

Gene363 wrote:



😂 😂 😂 😂 You described direct duhmacracy perfectly.
Abrignac
a year ago

Actually, I believe the right to vote should be joined to owning property and paying taxes. We have a crap-tion of people. organizations and corporations that live off the government dole. They do not have any skin in the game so they shouldn't be able to vote on taxing those that do.

Gene363 wrote:




I find that idea a bit un-American. IIRC correctly a number of years back some Bostonians had a party. Something to do with taxation without representation. Pretty much anyone who buys anything pays at a minimum some sales tax. If they have a job where their income is reported they generally pay income tax. Of course there are many other forms of taxes that non-property owners pay. So essentially you’re saying that those who don’t own property shouldn’t get to vote on what taxes are levied and how those taxes are spent? Sounds like tranny to me.
frankj1
a year ago
funnier with "tranny" than tyranny.
HockeyDad
a year ago

funnier with "tranny" than tyranny.

frankj1 wrote:



Prolly autocorrect did that.
Gene363
a year ago

I find that idea a bit un-American. IIRC correctly a number of years back some Bostonians had a party. Something to do with taxation without representation. Pretty much anyone who buys anything pays at a minimum some sales tax. If they have a job where their income is reported they generally pay income tax. Of course there are many other forms of taxes that non-property owners pay. So essentially you’re saying that those who don’t own property shouldn’t get to vote on what taxes are levied and how those taxes are spent? Sounds like tranny to me.

Abrignac wrote:



Yes

You need more history about The Constitution.


https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ 

The Founders and the Vote
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."


James Madison, President of the United States
But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property....

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.




Abrignac
a year ago

Yes

You need more history about The Constitution.


https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ 



Gene363 wrote:



Then in your mind since the property I once owned is now ensconced in a trust because my child is disabled you don’t think I should have the right to vote?

Edit: When considering your answer keep in mind the I served my country for four years as an active duty enlisted man, 1 year as an active reserve and 1 year in the inactive reserves. In addition I served my community as a commissioned LEO for 15 years.

Oops forgot to mention that I paid well over $15,000 in taxes last year and you don’t think I should get to vote on how those taxes got levied or how they will be spent?
8trackdisco
a year ago

Yes

You need more history about The Constitution.


https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ 



Gene363 wrote:



Well, that would take care of the whole Black people voting issue. That would help Trump.

Or, would they at least get 3/5ths of a vote?
8trackdisco
a year ago
This would be fun.

Trump trounces Biden in the debate(s).
The DNC finally moves forward, finding a moderate under the age of 60, Dem to take over as Joe takes a rest.
Trump celebrates and applies a nickname to the new Dem as the worst candidate ever.
He loses the election to the by a sizable margin.

And like in the second to last scene of Trading Places, Mortimor Trump yells and screams TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!

HockeyDad
a year ago

This would be fun.

Trump trounces Biden in the debate(s).
The DNC finally moves forward, finding a moderate under the age of 60, Dem to take over as Joe takes a rest.
Trump celebrates and applies a nickname to the new Dem as the worst candidate ever.
He loses the election to the by a sizable margin.

And like in the second to last scene of Trading Places, Mortimor Trump yells and screams TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!

8trackdisco wrote:



The swap in candidate is Gavin Newsom.

There is still time for the Democrats to find someone to assassinate Trump so there’s no need to be printing up any ballots yet.
Abrignac
a year ago

Yes

You need more history about The Constitution.


https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ 



Gene363 wrote:



No surprise that James Madison felt that way. After all among his property holdings were slaves.
Users browsing this topic