• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should public employees be allowed to vote?

Should public employees be allowed to vote?


  • Total voters
    54
I have two questions for you:

Question 1: Have you ever heard of a government "for the people and by the people"? If so, this implies that the people are the highest authority.

Question 2: Are you a government employee or military member (which is somehow different) ? If so, your disgust for me is justified and mutual.
I fully understand that you realize that public servants are never going to lose their right to vote. That this thread is an attempt to desensitize the public to the outrage of other voter suppression.
Your dreams of a country run by an elite oligarchy are absurd and unrealistic.
I am not an employee of the government nor the military but my disgust towards your ideals is not unique here or across the nation.
Look at the numbers in your stupid poll.
 
I fully understand that you realize that public servants are never going to lose their right to vote. That this thread is an attempt to desensitize the public to the outrage of other voter suppression.
Your dreams of a country run by an elite oligarchy are absurd and unrealistic.
I am not an employee of the government nor the military but my disgust towards your ideals is not unique here or across the nation.
Look at the numbers in your stupid poll.

that I am agreeing with you constantly on this thread should have sent him a rather pointed message:mrgreen:
 
I fully understand that you realize that public servants are never going to lose their right to vote. That this thread is an attempt to desensitize the public to the outrage of other voter suppression.
Your dreams of a country run by an elite oligarchy are absurd and unrealistic.

In any good oligarchy, the rich and the government workers get to vote, and eliminate the masses from being able to do so. His suggestion merely pollutes the crop of voters.
 
1. It doesn't matter what the constitution says. I'm discussing the merits of allowing everyone to vote, not the legality of it.

2. Your objections about small business owners are noted and valid, but those are merely details to be ironed out. Anyone who owns a business that employs at least 1 person should be able to register to vote.

3. I never said the elderly should be excluded from voting. Students, if they're under the age of 30, don't have enough life experience to make informed decisions - a requirement since the decisions made in a democracy affect us all.

Fine, the merits are that our government is actually empowered by the people, as opposed to an elite class of people. It can adhere to the principles of free election and equality. With these kinds of restrictions on voting, we wouldn't really be the USA anymore. And I like the USA being the USA. Don't you?

2. So what do you have against people who don't employ others, and simply do freelance work on their own? A solo practicing professional takes individual contracts, and isn't employed by anyone, nor has to employ anyone. Why do you want to exclude people like that?

3. Actually, you did. You said only people who are employed. So every retired person is suddenly out. And your bit about "life experience" is nonsense. For every claim you have that young people don't know enough, I can offer a claim that older people are too self-centered and only care about their continued comfort to vote for positive changes for the country.

Every part of your idea here is awful and contrary to the best interests of this nation.
 
If a conflict of interest exists at all, I suspect it is most pronounced when a public employee union is involved.

A hypothetical example:

Two candidates running for a position in state government.
One candidate supports additional funding to X state agency.
The union employees of said agency belong to provides financial and other support to that candidate, and they end up winning.
They implement their policy, and the state agency in question grows, providing additional job opportunities and pay for it's employees.

Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I tend to see a slight conflict of interests in that.

"Vote for candidate who will do things I want him to do" is literally how representative democracy works for everyone.
 
This may not have crossed your mind but these are government employees. No. They shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Especially the military. The family members should be allowed to vote. They aren't public servants. It is absurd that we tolerate the potential for the military to form a voting block. Aren't they supposed to be taking orders. It's ridiculous that military personnel are giving orders.
Voting isn't "giving orders."
 
that I am agreeing with you constantly on this thread should have sent him a rather pointed message:mrgreen:
Yes TD ...You and I don't see eye to eye on many things but what vasuderatorrent is advocating here is Anti-American and just plain crazy.
I believe he is getting that message.
 
what are up braying about? I paid more taxes in a quarter than I was paid as a federal LEO for a year. I have other sources of income

I am just saying that I have never met or even heard of a person that hates the poor so passionately that isn't a government employee. I thought you were different. I gave you credit for being an unusual find. I thought that you meritted your opinion.

Now I found out that you were a government employee. Can you please help me find a person that looks down on welfare recipients that isn't a government employee who bums off of the government hard core?

I have never seen it in my whole entire life. I haven't even seen it in this forum. I thought you were different. Honestly. I thought you NEVER BUMMED off of the government. I honestly believed you when you made your self-righteous claims.

You are bigger government bum than all those people that you hate so much. You f***ed the taxpayers hard core. Food stamp recipients get $500 a month. How much money did you get from the taxpayers? More or less than $500 a month?

YOU ARE NORMAL!!!
 
I pay taxes just like you do.

That's completely impossible. Your paycheck comes from taxes. Your taxes are taxes of taxes. If your taxes exceed your paycheck then yes. You do pay taxes. If your taxes are less than your paycheck then no. You are not paying any taxes whatsover. That would be impossible.
 
As we are talking about buying votes, I would say you have a warped sense of reality if you think it occurs as often as it seems you are suggesting.

Well then, consider me warped, along with nearly every lobbyist, Congressional member, and various corporate interests not only here, but also in many other countries as well. That's just hitting the most notable, too. There are plenty more.
 
I voted yes they should be able to vote because not allowing someone to vote based on their receiving a government paycheck is downright silly. It makes public employees sound like freeloaders and thugs. If that's the case, then no one should take payments from public employees on principle, grocery stores, gas stations etc. This kind of thinking started with Reagan selling his "government is the problem" philosophy.
 
No I am not.
There most definitely is a big difference.
Most legislators agree with what they vote for. Show they don't.
Show they don't agree and only vote for something because they received a donation.


I just did. But you want to play semantics.

And you are going to tell me that you believe Hillary parlaying $1,000 in cattle futures to a profit of $100,000 was just blind luck.

Off the top of my head:

Jack Abramoff and Deputy Secretary Griles, Neal Voltz and many others simply loved Indians?
Ted Stevens?
William "Ice Box" Jefferson?

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Christ, government is so rife with corruption at every level I find your naiveté astounding.
 
It makes public employees sound like freeloaders and thugs.

That's a very interesting point. I know a lady that used to teach Kindergarten. She might be one of those people who made that accusation.

Anybody of every heard of the State of Wisconsin? Anybody ever heard of the City of Chicago?

Thugs don't always use guns or sell drugs. Sometimes stealing is much more civilized but more despicable than armed robbery.
 
Well then, consider me warped, along with nearly every lobbyist, Congressional member, and various corporate interests not only here, but also in many other countries as well. That's just hitting the most notable, too. There are plenty more.

And again, since you have proven nothing.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.





I just did.
:lamo You haven't done any such thing.



And you are going to tell me that you believe Hillary parlaying $1,000 in cattle futures to a profit of $100,000 was just blind luck.

Off the top of my head:

Jack Abramoff and Deputy Secretary Griles, Neal Voltz and many others simply loved Indians?
Ted Stevens?
William "Ice Box" Jefferson?

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Christ, government is so rife with corruption at every level I find your naiveté astounding.
It is your naiveté that we are speaking of.
A naiveté that you can not defend, and as such, are now attempting to change the goal posts here by arguing in-general corruption (which can come in many forms) when we were specifically speaking of being bought.


So again, since you have not proven that politicians have been bought in any significant number. (which you can't do.)


There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

[...]

Most legislators agree with what they vote for. Show they don't.
Show they don't agree and only vote for something because they received a donation.

Until you can provide the underlined in significant numbers, you are doing nothing other than espousing convoluted thoughts of the juvenile conspiratorial horse crap variety.
 
And again, since you have proven nothing.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

You're just whistling past the graveyard. Here's one report. You can Google as many as you like and receive hits all day long for years on end.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/25/yes-politicians-buy-votes/
 
And again, since you have proven nothing.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

You're just whistling past the graveyard. Here's one report. You can Google as many as you like and receive hits all day long for years on end.

Yes, politicians buy votes | The Daily Caller
 
You're just whistling past the graveyard. Here's one report. You can Google as many as you like and receive hits all day long for years on end.

Yes, politicians buy votes | The Daily Caller
:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
No you did not.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

So again.
There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
No you did not.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

So again.
There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

Sure. When the president (doesn't matter which one) holds a $30,000 a plate dinner for the very wealthy, they only expect a good meal. For the very wealthy, it's a simple contribution.
 
Sure. When the president (doesn't matter which one) holds a $30,000 a plate dinner for the very wealthy, they only expect a good meal. For the very wealthy, it's a simple contribution.
:lamo:lamo:doh:lamo:lamo
Oy Vey! That is not buying votes.

So again.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.
 
Sure. When the president (doesn't matter which one) holds a $30,000 a plate dinner for the very wealthy, they only expect a good meal. For the very wealthy, it's a simple contribution.

I would also expect said dinner to be served on a real 24-carat gold charger plate placed underneath a priceless Ming Dynasty dinner plate! All ten pieces of silverware - which should also be real gold - should be properly placed on each side of the plate. If ostentation is the goal, no better way to be vulgar than this! :lamo:
 
:lamo:lamo:doh:lamo:lamo
Oy Vey! That is not buying votes.

So again.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

The majority of human relations are quid pro quo relations. This is true in politics, like everything else. If you hold a different view, more power to you. My experience tells me otherwise, and my experience is validated by the real world. Good luck with your view, but I see the possibility that you may be profoundly disappointed as a very real possibility. For your sake, I hope your view rewards you.
 
I would also expect said dinner to be served on a real 24-carat gold charger plate placed underneath a priceless Ming Dynasty dinner plate! All ten pieces of silverware - which should also be real gold - should be properly placed on each side of the plate. If ostentation is the goal, no better way to be vulgar than this! :lamo:

Yeah. The truth is that they could be served corn flakes and they'd still be impressed. As long as there's at least two salad forks.
 
My experience tells me otherwise, and my experience is validated by the real world.
No, your convoluted viewpoint tells you otherwise.

So again.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.
 
No, your convoluted viewpoint tells you otherwise.

So again.

Simply contributing to a candidate is not buying votes.

There is a big difference between giving to a politician that supports what you want passed, and that of actually buying a vote.
People need to get off this corruption kick. It doesn't happen that much.

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
Back
Top Bottom