- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,350
- Reaction score
- 6,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Felons?
Once they have finished their sentence, yes.
Felons?
I selected "Other" because I think the vote should be weighted according to the degree of dependence the person has on the state or others. Welfare might make up 10% of one person's needs vs. 95% of another person's needs. I don't think it makes sense to completely eradicate civic participation among anyone who gets help, I just think the votes should weigh a little less to the extent that one relies on government for basic needs.
Once they have finished their sentence, yes.
I hope this applied to self-defense with arms.
Why should ones reliance on assistance matter?
That would be essentially taking away that person's voice.
what? You asked if felons should be allowed to vote. I replied that once they have finished their sentence, yes. Once a person is no longer incarcerated they should not lose any rights and noone should be allowed to access their crimes at all. Nothing should be held against them in any way.
His point is simply that they are not paying taxes or making this country better so why should they have a say.
Who in their right mind would really suggest that the poor should not be allowed to vote.
What do you think?
I voted other. No but with further restrictions. Nobody who receives a salary from the government should be allowed to vote. I am not just talking. I practice what I preach. I never voted the whole 4 years while I was in the Marine Corps. What was I going to vote for? Higher pay. Duh!
Public servants should be servants not Lords. In my county there are 1,200 county employees. All republicans who win the primaries automatically win in the general election. The highest vote getter in the county commissioner race recieved less than 4,500 votes. Anybody see the problem? Those 1,200 people could gang up on the rest of the county ang get anything they want. Government employees should never be allowed to vote. They should instead be proud to serve their country, state, county, city or town. I feel less strongly about welfare recipients because most cases of welfare are temporary. What if your temporary moment was right before an election? What if you were on welfare for 3 years and then suddenly got off of welfare right before the election? I suppose the same could be said of government employees. Either way this is a silly argument. I don't think this discussion will ever see the light of day. It's just fantasy talk.
I selected "Other" because I think the vote should be weighted according to the degree of dependence the person has on the state or others. Welfare might make up 10% of one person's needs vs. 95% of another person's needs. I don't think it makes sense to completely eradicate civic participation among anyone who gets help, I just think the votes should weigh a little less to the extent that one relies on government for basic needs.
Most Americans vote with their interests in mind. Rich people vote for what they think will be in their best interests, so does the middle class. By your twisted ass logic, why let anyone vote?
The only one who can vote himself a pay raise is a Congressman.
Only senators can.
Some men are more equal than others?
Six of one...
Uhh, I'm not sure you understand the concept of voting...everyone who votes can be said to have a conflict of interest.
If I'm a small business man, I'd vote for the candidate who would keep my taxes low. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a teacher, I vote for a candidate who promises to put more money into education. Conflict of interest.
If I'm a software engineer, I vote for a candidate who promises to increase copyright law. Conflict of interest.
I'm an elected government official, I vote for myself. Conflict of interest.
I could go on and on, but the idea we shouldn't let a certain segment of the population vote because society has kicked them in the teeth is absurd and very dangerous thinking.
Misspeaking is your own fault. A representative, who is a congressman, cannot vote himself/herself a pay raise. A senator can though, sure.
Yeah yeah, that's great. The rest of the board knew what I meant.
Everyone but you apparently knew.
Why do we currently not allow dependents to vote?
Why do we currently not give dependents a voice?
Everyone should be able to vote, even felons who have paid their debt to society.
I disagree, felons commit crimes knowing they will lose their voting privileges if caught and they do them anyway, in essence they sign off on losing them.