What if only men voted?

a reply to: ketsuko

Logic says I ought to go for something different. I look at Trump's policies and they are more in tune with what I think will help my family, all of it. So that's where I go.

Your choice...Follow that pervert right into amped paradise for all I care. Great role model for the kiddos eh? He's a coke addict; can't you tell?

a reply to: ketsuko

ya, but you have to wonder, just how much of the loss of american income was the result of bush's policies, the housing collaspe, the bank bailouts, ect...
it just might be that obama really didn't do that bad in that department.

oh, and this year, I think it was over 9 trillion is kind of missing from the budget... no trace, no idea where it went...
but some are claiming that it went to settling the mess with securities fraud and such.

I'll be honest, I have several ideas about how to restrict voting privilege, but they are all gender-neutral.

1) Everyone's vote is worth the percentage of annual income they bring in without government subsidy/welfare. So if a person is earning all their own money, no problem their vote is 100%. If they get some type of check from the government that they did not work for, deduct that much value. So if a person makes $30,000 per year but $1000 is in some type of welfare, their vote is only worth 29/30 of a vote, or 97%. As a compiling effect it could have a noticeable impact. Obvious problem is it'd be too math-crazy.

2) No one can vote unless they actually pay associated income or sales taxes. Period stop. This could allow people to vote on local and state issues but not federal. Problem is it'd require separate ballots and voter ID's for the separate tiers.

3) Every ballot has 10 questions pulled randomly from the most recent naturalization quiz. Every correct answer is worth 10% toward your vote. Score 100%? Great! Your vote is worth 1 vote. Score 80%? Great, your vote is worth 0.8. Brush up on your civics! Problem is some snowflake would complain that literacy requirements make it into a poll tax or something.

But the main point is, no gender litmus test.

I'd also like to see every state apportion their electoral votes like Vermont and Nebraska. Popular vote of each congressional district is worth 1 elector, then the popular vote of the state gets the 2 senatorial electors. It would never happen because the Democrats in California and New York would scream in fear and whine endlessly then use judicial activists to negate it or something. Then tell us how wonderful the popular vote is.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: ketsuko

Logic says I ought to go for something different. I look at Trump's policies and they are more in tune with what I think will help my family, all of it. So that's where I go.

Your choice...Follow that pervert right into amped paradise for all I care. Great example for the kiddos eh?

As opposed to Hillary's being above the law, lying endlessly, murdering her opponents* and sacrificing ambassadors.


*You can call Trump an addict, I can call HIllary a murderer.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I disagree with your litmus. We have enough issues with money controlling our government, without further destroying the voice of the people by further making wealth a designation of worth.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

ya, but you have to wonder, just how much of the loss of american income was the result of bush's policies, the housing collaspe, the bank bailouts, ect...
it just might be that obama really didn't do that bad in that department.

oh, and this year, I think it was over 9 trillion is kind of missing from the budget... no trace, no idea where it went...
but some are claiming that it went to settling the mess with securities fraud and such.

I hope you mean 9 billion

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I disagree with your litmus. We have enough issues with money controlling our government, without further destroying the voice of the people by further making wealth a designation of worth.

It's not about money, it's about independence.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

They are pushing more and more people below the poverty line. What we don't need is making people forced into this position to not have as much of a voice. That means the more people pushed under the poverty line the easier they are in control.

originally posted by: underwerks
Thank God for women.

We should rename the Republican Party under Trump to the Sausage Party.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

so, let's see....
men who've worked their whole lives and retired once they are too old and feeble shouldn't be able to vote?? nice why to take the wisdom of the elders out of the voting process!
and stay at home moms who are home with their kids don't deserve to vote....although, I think most would agree, it does seem more beneficial for moms to be home with their kids...

and what's great is.....
trump wouldn't be able to vote, because till he coughs up his tax return, I am just assuming that they are right and he hasn't paid any taxes in ages!!!

of all the options you listed, the most acceptable one is a simple test to confirm that the voters understand how our gov't functions. at least that might give some people the motivation to remember what they learned in grade school!

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Teikiatsu

They are pushing more and more people below the poverty line. What we don't need is making people forced into this position to not have as much of a voice. That means the more people pushed under the poverty line the easier they are in control.

Hate to break it to you, the people below the poverty line keep voting for the policies that keep them in poverty.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

lol, watch the video, it's in the first part of it... she is saying TRILLION!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

so, let's see....
men who've worked their whole lives and retired once they are too old and feeble shouldn't be able to vote?? nice why to take the wisdom of the elders out of the voting process!
and stay at home moms who are home with their kids don't deserve to vote....although, I think most would agree, it does seem more beneficial for moms to be home with their kids...

If they aren't paying into the system, why should they have a say in how it functions?

and what's great is.....
trump wouldn't be able to vote, because till he coughs up his tax return, I am just assuming that they are right and he hasn't paid any taxes in ages!!!

Fair point. Capital gains would have to be included too. That would allow retired people living on 401Ks or other taxable savings to keep voting.

of all the options you listed, the most acceptable one is a simple test to confirm that the voters understand how our gov't functions. at least that might give some people the motivation to remember what they learned in grade school!

It'd be the easiest to implement as well. We already have the nationalization quiz ready to use.

a reply to: Puppylove

What is poverty anymore?

Since Obama's administration has changed the measure of poverty to be a percentage of mean income, it means there will always be some who live in poverty ... even if everyone makes a six digit income.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hard to say, but more and more people are struggling. I think that's a good measure.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

lol, watch the video, it's in the first part of it... she is saying TRILLION!!!

She had to have misspoke. I'm not going to watch a 44 minute video from a stupid claim.

Here's the breakdown: Current revenues under Obamataxes are ~3 trillion. At most Obama is putting us in debt by less than ~1 trillion because he wants to look like a 'deficit hawk' compared to his 1.2 trillion debt from his first year.

So that's a budget of ~4 trillion

You don't lose 9 trillion from 4 trillion. Not even voodoo progressive policies are that irresponsible.

We learned that Hillary's state department lost 6 billion tax-payer dollars over 6 years. That's a much more plausible/believable number, and further proof she should not be trusted with the Presidency.

www.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

you wouldn't have to listen long, she says it in the first part of it...

You know you have a bad candidate when you're saying... 'if only women weren't allowed to vote...'

originally posted by: underwerks
Thank God for women.

Glad I read the thread before I posted, because that was my exact thought.


So I'll second it....Thank God for women!!!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'll be honest, I have several ideas about how to restrict voting privilege, but they are all gender-neutral.

1) Everyone's vote is worth the percentage of annual income they bring in without government subsidy/welfare. So if a person is earning all their own money, no problem their vote is 100%. If they get some type of check from the government that they did not work for, deduct that much value. So if a person makes $30,000 per year but $1000 is in some type of welfare, their vote is only worth 29/30 of a vote, or 97%. As a compiling effect it could have a noticeable impact. Obvious problem is it'd be too math-crazy.

2) No one can vote unless they actually pay associated income or sales taxes. Period stop. This could allow people to vote on local and state issues but not federal. Problem is it'd require separate ballots and voter ID's for the separate tiers.

3) Every ballot has 10 questions pulled randomly from the most recent naturalization quiz. Every correct answer is worth 10% toward your vote. Score 100%? Great! Your vote is worth 1 vote. Score 80%? Great, your vote is worth 0.8. Brush up on your civics! Problem is some snowflake would complain that literacy requirements make it into a poll tax or something.

But the main point is, no gender litmus test.

I'd also like to see every state apportion their electoral votes like Vermont and Nebraska. Popular vote of each congressional district is worth 1 elector, then the popular vote of the state gets the 2 senatorial electors. It would never happen because the Democrats in California and New York would scream in fear and whine endlessly then use judicial activists to negate it or something. Then tell us how wonderful the popular vote is.

Thanks for opening the door to fascism. Completely. You really think it's a good idea to restrict who can vote?