• 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!

Would you vote for the compromise?

How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?

  • Total voters
    49
hallam said:
I am not taking their rights away. I am discussing enhancing the voice in the government to those who support that government. If they want to vote support the government, it is as easy as that. There is no abuse here. It is just a limitation on voting rights just like we currently do.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent statement that is all propaganda and no substance.
 
I'm against the compromised proposed.

But I don't see it as being horribly wrong - it's not like our individual votes are tallied for a net election result - we have the the electoral college that votes on our behalf and only in good faith votes with the majority.

And then we have various votes that aren't counted at all when they should be.

But I think the compromise would also de-personalize the vote-system and make it take even longer ot vote.
 
Folks who are arguing for the compromise are arguing from a position of a false premise. Their premise is that the only way to contribute to society is to pay taxes. Arguing with any of them on any of the details is pointless. Their position is illogical and a failure from the start. Arguing on the details give their position credibility... which it has none. Try to keep that in mind.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Incomes under $15k: 73-25 Obama
Incomes $15-30k: 60-37 Obama
Incomes $30-50k: 55-43 Obama

I would wager that those 47% are disproportionately democrats.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
Click to expand...

Since your evidence is based on "exit polls", it wouldn't include many servicemembers (which generally vote conservative and absentee ballot). It also wouldn't include people who didn't vote in that election. Many of those would be part of that 47% too.
 
roguenuke said:
Since your evidence is based on "exit polls", it wouldn't include many servicemembers (which generally vote conservative and absentee ballot). It also wouldn't include people who didn't vote in that election. Many of those would be part of that 47% too.
Click to expand...

What percentage of voters are active servicemembers voting by absentee ballot? 0.5%? 0.2%?

Do you have any reason to believe that non-voters are disproportionately likely to be poor and conservative?

Is there any reason to believe that those two factors combined would be anywhere near enough to outweigh the drastically disproportionate figures that I presented?

I'm open to any additional evidence that challenges my conclusions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Folks who are arguing for the compromise are arguing from a position of a false premise. Their premise is that the only way to contribute to society is to pay taxes. Arguing with any of them on any of the details is pointless. Their position is illogical and a failure from the start. Arguing on the details give their position credibility... which it has none. Try to keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

Income taxes, none the less.
 
RightinNYC said:
Are you seriously arguing that any policy that would disproportionately impact minorities is a racist policy?
Click to expand...

The application of this scheme would greatly cut both African American voters and Hispanic voters off the roles in far greater percentages than anyone else. When you look at the people on a national level who advocate such a thing and have written about the "47% problem" they tend to be the most right wing on almost any racial issue.

from Wikipedia

Race

personal and household incomein the United States Census in 2005


Percent of households with six figure incomes and individuals with incomes in the top 10%, exceeding $77,500.
Despite advances minorities have made to exit poverty and with many Black Americans and Latino Americans joining the middle class, there is still an uneven racial distribution among the income quintiles. While White Americans made up roughly 75.1% of all persons in 2000,[17] 87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. Only 4.75% of all household in the top 5% were headed by someone who identified him or herself as being Hispanic or Latino of any race,[18] versus 12.5% of persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the general population.[17] Overall, 86.01% of all households in the top two quintiles with upper-middle range incomes of over $55,331 were headed by a head of household who identified him or herself as White alone, while only 7.21% were being headed by someone who identified as being Hispanic and 7.37% by someone who identified as being African American or Black.[18] Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans or Blacks were underrepresented in the top two quintiles and overrepresented in the bottom two quintiles. Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian alone, on the other hand, were overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population. Whites were relatively even distributed throughout the quintiles only being underrepresented in the lowest quintile and slightly overrepresented in the top quintile and the top five percent.[18]
Click to expand...

Now apply the Turtle scheme to these numbers. Then apply the figures that RightinNYC gave regarding income and voting tendencies.
Incomes under $15k: 73-25 Obama
Incomes $15-30k: 60-37 Obama
Incomes $30-50k: 55-43 Obama

I would wager that those 47% are disproportionately democrats.
Click to expand...


The result is undeniable and clear.


In this case, such a scheme to deny millions of people the vote, is primarily motived by a desire to keep the Republican party in power by denying its enemies their most reliable voting blocs.

If it walks like a duck.... you know the rest.

from Turtle

so its blacks and hispanics who violate our borders and immigration laws the most. that sounds like a RACIST claim to me.
Click to expand...

much like the famous line from Indiana Jones, you really do make it up as you go along. Utter poppycock.
 
Last edited:
Well, this entire thread is flawed because of two things:

1) You are all talking about net income tax contributors and net income tax consumers. Nothing is mentioned about property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes that, as a group, the poor pay. Therefore, if a poor person loses the right to vote because they don't pay a net income tax, then I think they also shouldn't have to pay any of those taxes either. Rather, they should be given a card noting their sales tax exemption that they can produce whenever they purchase a product. So if someone doesn't get any vote at all, they shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

2) While Democrats may vote for politicians who use tax money for social welfare, Republicans may vote for politicians who use tax money for corporate welfare. After all, Republicans support the defense industry and farm subsidies. Therefore, any owner of a stock in a company who receives a tax break or a government contract should be disallowed to vote as well. If the poor can't benefit from government programs that give them money, then businesses can't benefit from government programs that give them money.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Folks who are arguing for the compromise are arguing from a position of a false premise. Their premise is that the only way to contribute to society is to pay taxes. Arguing with any of them on any of the details is pointless. Their position is illogical and a failure from the start. Arguing on the details give their position credibility... which it has none. Try to keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

You again fail to actually represent my position. I have never said that there are no other ways to support the government. I have said that this is a legitimate way to define support and that we can discuss this compromise with this definition. You have still failed to show why this compromise is wrong since the government currently arbitrarily sets voting limitations. Plus you can't claim fascism by correlation alone of one policy.

/sarcasm....The German set voting limitations......oh no anyone who does limits voting become a Nazis.

You have no counter argument that is why you appeal to this. You can only claim correlation and have failed at ever level to describe why this is wrong. No, you entire argument is based off emotion or else you would have come with more meat. You accept current voting limitations currently. You accept limitation on prisoners and age which are completely arbitrary. Therefore, I can only rationally conclude that you are way you say. If anyone who limits voting rights are fascist, then we are all fascist, including you, because the US government currently limits voting rights of its citizens.

You have producing nothing but fallacies here. You have even talked bad about yourself. I would call you a Nazi too but Godwin's law is not an appropriate response to any conversation.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
so people are RACISTS for not wanting the children of illegals who come here in violation of our laws to be citizens?

when liberals start using the term "racist" it pretty much means they are out of intelligent arguments.
Click to expand...

It seems this is true when the claim fascism as well.
 
haymarket said:
Your plan is one of the most obvious racist schemes that anyone has come up with to disenfranchise massive numbers of African American and Hispanic voters. It would proportionately impact those person in far greater percentages that it would White voters. That is the personification of a racist policy. You and will are simply engaging in the right wing tactic to attack the use of the term to take it off the table so that their motives can be hidden and not exposed.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. You do realize that white people use all entitlements more than any other group both in percentages and in pure hard counts, don't you?
 
So now the radical right wing wants to eliminate any reference to FASCISM as well? It seems we have struck a nerve with some here.
 
hallam said:
This is ridiculous. You do realize that white people use all entitlements more than any other group both in percentages and in pure hard counts, don't you?
Click to expand...

Please provide the factual evidence to support that claim.

And then take the factual evidence that I have provided from the census on income distribution and take the information that others have provided on income groups voting for political parties and tell all of us why this scheme to disenfranchise scores of millions of voters would not adversely impact African Americans and Hispanics more than whites and impact Democrats more than Republicans.

This is where the rubber meets the road.

You seem to love to present what you believe are facts and then offer nothing in support except your own opinion to support them.

You do understand the idea of proportionality don't you?

As for fascism and the efforts of the far right to take any mention of it off the table less it embarrass some of their own positions, this is worth reading

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So now the radical right wing wants to eliminate any reference to FASCISM as well? It seems we have struck a nerve with some here.
Click to expand...

you seem to be as clueless about fascism as you are of racism. its you who wants a bigger government with more control over our freedoms than any of those you call "radical right wing"
 
Personally, I'm sick of all of these uppity voters without any land.

Hell yes to the compromise.
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem to be as clueless about fascism as you are of racism. its you who wants a bigger government with more control over our freedoms than any of those you call "radical right wing"
Click to expand...

Would it be too much for you to explain exactly and specifically what "freedoms" of yours I want to control by getting a bigger government?

You extremists on the right really hate when anyone brings up racism and fascism. It hits a nerve and the nerve is in you and you recognize the reality of it.
 
haymarket said:
Would it be too much for you to explain exactly and specifically what "freedoms" of yours I want to control by getting a bigger government?

You extremists on the right really hate when anyone brings up racism and fascism. It hits a nerve and the nerve is in you and you recognize the reality of it.
Click to expand...

you demand an explanation when you constantly mischaracterize anyone who opposes tax hikes on the wealthy and the progressive income tax as "radical right wingers" when that was the law of the land for more than half this country's history.


progressive income taxes treat people unequally and make those who already pay the most pay even more. taxing someone is taking wealth and labor from someone. and your rants about racism is a pathetic curtin emotobabbling lefties use to cloak their lack of rational arguments. Being opposed to illegals children born here while their parents are in violation of our laws getting citizenship has nothing to do with racism.
 
from Turtle

progressive income taxes treat people unequally and make those who already pay the most pay even more.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. So what? That is the point is it not?

you demand an explanation when you constantly mischaracterize anyone who opposes tax hikes on the wealthy and the progressive income tax as "radical right wingers" when that was the law of the land for more than half this country's history.
Click to expand...

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you - with supporting evidence from an authoritative source - that progressive taxation goes back at least to the start of the Civil War nearly a century and a half ago. But you ignore that like you love to ignore any information which shows you are in error of the facts.

and your rants about racism is a pathetic curtin emotobabbling lefties use to cloak their lack of rational arguments.
Click to expand...

Ah if it were only so the world would be much simpler. But alas it is not so.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on African Americans than it would on Whites. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on Hispanics and Latinos than it would on Whites. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on Democrats than it would on Republicans. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Deal with those realities and then let the other readers here decide what you are up to.
 
Maybe I tend to ignore things that I do not like.
Any politician that says "vote for me and I promise you money and riches"....is not to be trusted..
Yet, very few actually do this.....directly...
no compromise, there should be no connection with this and voting rights.....even if greedy idiots vote.
 
haymarket said:
from Turtle



Of course they do. So what? That is the point is it not?



It has been repeatedly pointed out to you - with supporting evidence from an authoritative source - that progressive taxation goes back at least to the start of the Civil War nearly a century and a half ago. But you ignore that like you love to ignore any information which shows you are in error of the facts.



Ah if it were only so the world would be much simpler. But alas it is not so.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on African Americans than it would on Whites. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on Hispanics and Latinos than it would on Whites. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Your scheme would have far greater negative impact on Democrats than it would on Republicans. You don't like the implications of that upon your character but you have never denied the reality of it.

Deal with those realities and then let the other readers here decide what you are up to.
Click to expand...

the concept of a progressive income tax was anathema to the founders. your appeal to history means nothing to me since I am aware of the facts. And yes, it would impact the dems more. DUH!
 
One person, one vote. End of story.
 
TurtleDude said:
you demand an explanation when you constantly mischaracterize anyone who opposes tax hikes on the wealthy and the progressive income tax as "radical right wingers" when that was the law of the land for more than half this country's history.


progressive income taxes treat people unequally and make those who already pay the most pay even more. taxing someone is taking wealth and labor from someone. and your rants about racism is a pathetic curtin emotobabbling lefties use to cloak their lack of rational arguments. Being opposed to illegals children born here while their parents are in violation of our laws getting citizenship has nothing to do with racism.
Click to expand...
If you were to walk among the poor, Turtle, would this change your philosophy? And do you disagree with the concept that man is a social creature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom