• 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 people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%

  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%

  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%
  • Total voters
    120
phattonez said:
No, but people respond to incentives, and if you give people the legal ability to vote themselves money for doing nothing, then by and large they are going to do it.
Click to expand...

Question - rich people, large multinationals, what restrictions would you place on them?
 
Geoist said:
...And we are broadly defined as a democracy. You are really overcomplicating things here...
Click to expand...

sorry no.... the founders hated Democratic forms of government, which is why they created a republican form of government article 4 section 4..which is mixed government -federalist 40

the senate and the presidency are not democratic votes to the founders ...the senate is elected by the state legislatures, while the president is by the electoral college in second week of December.
 
phattonez said:
Yes, many do vote in their own self-interest. I do not support democracy by any means. At least with a narrower voting base the poor won't just vote to confiscate wealth from productive sectors of society in order to enrich themselves. Yes, if only the rich vote, they can enrich themselves, but in doing so they will face the threat of revolt from the poor. When the poor vote themselves more money, what are the rich going to do about it?
Click to expand...


I think you very seriously over estimate the power of the poor to do anything of the sort.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry that is wrong....

in the time of the founders there is no such thing as a democratic republic....the founders created our government off of the roman republic of "mixed government"....mixed government employs 1 single element of democracy , the house of representatives.

the senate and presidency is not democratic votes of the people.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the US Supreme Court does not embrace that delusion?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no.... the founders hated Democratic forms of government, which is why they created a republican form of government article 4 section 4..which is mixed government -federalist 40

the senate and the presidency are not democratic votes to the founders ...the senate is elected by the state legislatures, while the president is by the electoral college in second week of December.
Click to expand...

My calendar says it is 2015. Does yours still read 1790 EB?
 
Unrepresented said:
Absolutely. Those oppressed by the system should have equal say in correcting it, not less.
Click to expand...

people suckling off the tit of government are hardly being oppressed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no.... the founders hated Democratic forms of government,
Click to expand...

Yes, some of the Founders criticized democracy. Some of the Founders also owned slaves. Their personal feelings does not change what system we have (or supposed to have) today.

which is why they created a republican form of governmentarticle 4 section 4..which is mixed government -federalist 40

the senate and the presidency are not democratic votes to the founders ...the senate is elected by the state legislatures, while the president is by the electoral college in second week of December.
Click to expand...

I am not talking specifically about direct democracy... only the broader term which includes representative democracy.
 
haymarket said:
My calendar says it is 2015. Does yours still read 1790 EB?
Click to expand...

does not matter what date it is, because the constitution says it republican, and the senate is elected by the state legislatures, and the president by electoral college, and madison father of the constitution calls it a "mixed government" in federalist 40......so iam sorry for you but you cannot get around what was written by the founders about our government
 
ernst barkmann said:
does not matter what date it is, because the constitution says it republican, and the senate is elected by the state legislatures, and the president by electoral college, and madison father of the constitution calls it a "mixed government" in federalist 40......so iam sorry for you but you cannot get around what was written by the founders about our government
Click to expand...

SCREW MAdison and his opinion. Screw him and the worms that fed upon his long dead corpse since his opinion means NOTHING in reality.

When the US Supreme Court - the REAL PEOPLE with the REAL POWER to make such an opinion stick and be considered as law - let me know EB. Until then that opinion is not even worth the utilitarian value of a five pound bag of common garden manure.
 
ernst barkmann said:
they never answered......or are you not able to understand my post... because its a political question, they rule on constitutional matters.
Click to expand...

They never answered? They never answered what? They never spoke in the case presented to them where somebody challenged that the 17th Amendment destroyed our Republican from of government? Is that your claim EB?

Perhaps it is because nobody was that mentally unbalanced to offer such a ridiculous and absurd claim for them to have to judge in the first place. I can find NO challenge ever presented - can you EB? Can you show us one person in the entire history of the last century who agrees with you and who presented that argument to the courts?
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Yes, some of the Founders criticized democracy. Some of the Founders also owned slaves. Their personal feelings does not change what system we have (or supposed to have) today.



I am not talking specifically about direct democracy... only the broader term which includes representative democracy.
Click to expand...

if the founders had wanted a represenative democracy, then they would have created a direct vote of the people, for the house ,senate and the president but they didn't, they hate democratic forms of government because it is factious, and does not secure INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
 
haymarket said:
They never answered? They never answered what? They never spoke in the case presented to them where somebody challenged that the 17th Amendment destroyed our Republican from of government? Is that your claim EB?

Perhaps it is because nobody was that mentally unbalanced to offer such a ridiculous and absurd claim for them to have to judge in the first place.
Click to expand...

i an sorry you cannot understand...can someone is the forum answer and explain to haymarket.....about what IS a political question concerning the USSC ...since he dose not know...i have to go.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if the founders had wanted a represenative democracy...
Click to expand...

I never said the Founders wanted a representative democracy. I do find it funny, though, how we are speaking of "The Founders" as if they were a single entity with a single mind.


it is factious, and does not secure INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

I never said democracy alone secures individual rights.
 
haymarket said:
SCREW MAdison and his opinion. Screw him and the worms that fed upon his long dead corpse since his opinion means NOTHING in reality.

When the US Supreme Court - the REAL PEOPLE with the REAL POWER to make such an opinion stick and be considered as law - let me know EB. Until then that opinion is not even worth the utilitarian value of a five pound bag of common garden manure.
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? The Founders were all-knowing gods who had the perfect plan for a perfect society: a rich white male dominated one.

...And please ignore the fact that the Founders were often in disagreement amongst themselves over government/politics. ;)
 
ernst barkmann said:
i an sorry you cannot understand...can someone is the forum answer and explain to haymarket.....about what IS a political question concerning the USSC ...since he dose not know...i have to go.
Click to expand...

When will you get it through your head that the Supreme Court can say just about anything it wants to say and if they declare what constitutes a republican form of government is a political question - as is almost everything that comes before the Congress in one way or the other - that is perfectly fine.

That finding in no way shape or form supports your ridiculous claims about the 17th Amendment violating a republican form of government. In fact, since it was done via Constitutional Amendment it only makes it even more definitive that those who did so believed they were NOT violating the Constitutional mandate for a republican form of government. Every Congressman who voted for the 17th Amendment did so believing they were not violating that mandate. Every state legislative official who voted to ratify it believed it did not violate the Constitutional mandate.

Of course it is a political question and it was answered very clearly, very definitively and very loudly. And the answer given says YOU ARE WRONG in your beliefs.

You really have never gotten the point EB that ANYTHING in the CONSTITUTION can be changed through the Amendment process. And that includes what constitutes a republican form of government. And if the 17th Amendment changed that from the views of Madison or anybody else - it does not matter because the Constitution gives us the right to do just that. And if todays form of what constitutes a republican form of government violates the precepts and beliefs of madison or any other Founding Father or even ALL of the Founding Fathers - it is right and proper since it was done via the very mechanism of Amendment they gave us.

Now you can either accept that as reality or you can deny reality and dwell in a self imposed dissociative state of delusion.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Don't you get it? The Founders were all-knowing gods who had the perfect plan for a perfect society: a rich white male dominated one.

...And please ignore the fact that the Founders were often in disagreement amongst themselves over government/politics. ;)
Click to expand...

Well said. EB believes that when he says THE FOUNDERS all he needs is one man - Madison - to agree and the argument is over.
 
Geoist said:
Actually, it's anarchist. Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Call yourself what you want, it's the same idea.
 
JANFU said:
Question - rich people, large multinationals, what restrictions would you place on them?
Click to expand...

Ideally no one would vote, but at least with a restricted vote you don't have the idea that the actions of government have popular support, and so government is much more limited.
 
Gaius46 said:
I think you very seriously over estimate the power of the poor to do anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

Why? When majority rules is what goes, what's going to hold them back?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom