Be honest.

[Bruh]

Should women be allowed to vote?

 

[Bruh]

Should men?

I don't know.

 

[patriotic]

Should women be allowed to vote?

Not at the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo Lodge.

In political elections - yes.
In churches - yes.

But then, I am a woman, so I probably shouldn't have been allowed to answer.

 

[fishinnut]

Should women be allowed to vote?

I have a longstanding practice of refusing to answer dumb-as-a-duck questions.

 

[Bruh]

Should women be allowed to vote?

I have a longstanding practice of refusing to answer dumb-as-a-duck questions.

LOL!

Ok listen, the only reason I started this thread is because XFiles believes women shouldn't vote. At least it seemed that's what he believes from an earlier post.

And I thought for sure that if a Hacker down here were to be honest that maybe we would see at least one that believes women shouldn't vote.

 

[pbuckhunt]

A better requirement to vote is that you should have to be a property owner. It is easy to vote for programs that cost a lot when you are not invested in the country!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A better requirement to vote is that you should have to be a property owner. It is easy to vote for programs that cost a lot when you are not invested in the country!

What about "taxation without representation"?

Seems to me that those who pay taxes should have the right to be represented. In the case of untaxed spouses, if they file jointly (assuming one or the other has no income to be taxed), both should be allowed to vote.

If one is not taxed, I can see not being allowed to vote. But with property owner, this leaves the political power in the hands of the wealthy. In essence, I don't 'own' my property because I still have a mortgage with a lender. If I default, someone else would be entitled to the property. So I think being a taxpayer would be a better rule of thumb.

 

[RAIDER]

If men would be the head of their homes, be the only ones allowed in business meetings, and be the only ones allowed to vote, there would never be a church problem. 

 

[Walt]

Should women be allowed to vote?

I'm for intelligent voting - to vote, you must know something about our  government: such as (1) What is the document that lays out our form of government?  and (2) Of how many branches is our government formed, and what are the names of each branch?

If one doesn't know these two very, very basic questions, I don't think they should be voting.

I'd also be in favor of denying the vote to people on welfare.

 

[Bruh]

A better requirement to vote is that you should have to be a property owner. It is easy to vote for programs that cost a lot when you are not invested in the country!

What about "taxation without representation"?

Seems to me that those who pay taxes should have the right to be represented. In the case of untaxed spouses, if they file jointly (assuming one or the other has no income to be taxed), both should be allowed to vote.

If one is not taxed, I can see not being allowed to vote. But with property owner, this leaves the political power in the hands of the wealthy. In essence, I don't 'own' my property because I still have a mortgage with a lender. If I default, someone else would be entitled to the property. So I think being a taxpayer would be a better rule of thumb.

After you pay the property off, you still will not own it.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A better requirement to vote is that you should have to be a property owner. It is easy to vote for programs that cost a lot when you are not invested in the country!

What about "taxation without representation"?

Seems to me that those who pay taxes should have the right to be represented. In the case of untaxed spouses, if they file jointly (assuming one or the other has no income to be taxed), both should be allowed to vote.

If one is not taxed, I can see not being allowed to vote. But with property owner, this leaves the political power in the hands of the wealthy. In essence, I don't 'own' my property because I still have a mortgage with a lender. If I default, someone else would be entitled to the property. So I think being a taxpayer would be a better rule of thumb.

After you pay the property off, you still will not own it.

That's a good point.

 

[patriotic]

If men would be the head of their homes, be the only ones allowed in business meetings, and be the only ones allowed to vote, there would never be a church problem. 

Because there would be no church.

 

[lnf]

Walt, I am specifically replying to one line in your post:  I'd also be in favor of denying the vote to people on welfare.

Do you espouse that if a person is on any sort/level of welfare they should not be allowed to vote? 

I ask, not for myself, but for my son.  He has a full-time job and earns $10/hr as an electrical helper.  He is the father of an infant son, who he supports.  His son is on Medicaid.  My son qualifies for food stamps of $125/month.  My son and the mother of his child are together, but are not married.   

My son had no medical insurance until this year, when he asked me to help him sign up for Obamacare, for the sole purpose of avoiding the tax penalty for non-compliance.  I researched plans for him.  Yes, he qualified for a premium subsidy.  But I was absolutely shocked to see just what sort of insurance that subsidy would buy him in the marketplace.  Yes, he could sign up for a plan with 0 additional premium, but with an astronomical deductible!  To the tune of $6500 a year!  Granted, most people his age do not need recurring healthcare services, but what if he has an accident?  He could rack up a ton of medical bills in one fell swoop.  A $6500 deductible equates to more than $3.00/hour in a 40-hour work week.  What young person (with or without a family) can afford that?  For him, Obamacare does nothing except relieve him of the tax penalty.  It does not provide him with viable health insurance.  But what it does do is shift tax dollars to insurance companies who will not have to pay out a dime for the claims of the average health care user.

Now, I said all that to say this:  our government has passed legislation that directly affects my son.  Granted, in his station in life, he gets several tax breaks/assistance due to low income.  But that does not negate the fact that he has a vested interest in how our country legislates. 

Based upon that fact alone, I believe my son should be allowed to vote.

 

[Walt]

Walt, I am specifically replying to one line in your post:  I'd also be in favor of denying the vote to people on welfare.

Do you espouse that if a person is on any sort/level of welfare they should not be allowed to vote? 

One of the problems in our society is the slow increase (the "creep") of the bureaucratic mindset: that every situation can be covered by blanket rules, with no right of the person in charge to make his own judgment.  This leads to the outrageous "zero tolerance" instances we've all heard about.

So, there may be cases in which a blanket statement such as mine should have exceptions.  Instead of bureaucrats with zero thought, but a a long list of degrees, I'd rather put in a wise man of good character and judgment and allow him to make the decision for certain cases.

I specifically had in mind the case where a young girl has a couple of kids by one or two husbands, and then goes on the dole for life.

I ask, not for myself, but for my son.  He has a full-time job and earns $10/hr as an electrical helper.  He is the father of an infant son, who he supports.  His son is on Medicaid.  My son qualifies for food stamps of $125/month.  My son and the mother of his child are together, but are not married.   

My son had no medical insurance until this year, when he asked me to help him sign up for Obamacare, for the sole purpose of avoiding the tax penalty for non-compliance.  I researched plans for him.  Yes, he qualified for a premium subsidy.  But I was absolutely shocked to see just what sort of insurance that subsidy would buy him in the marketplace.  Yes, he could sign up for a plan with 0 additional premium, but with an astronomical deductible!  To the tune of $6500 a year!  Granted, most people his age do not need recurring healthcare services, but what if he has an accident?  He could rack up a ton of medical bills in one fell swoop.  A $6500 deductible equates to more than $3.00/hour in a 40-hour work week.  What young person (with or without a family) can afford that?  For him, Obamacare does nothing except relieve him of the tax penalty.  It does not provide him with viable health insurance.  But what it does do is shift tax dollars to insurance companies who will not have to pay out a dime for the claims of the average health care user.

Now, I said all that to say this:  our government has passed legislation that directly affects my son.  Granted, in his station in life, he gets several tax breaks/assistance due to low income.  But that does not negate the fact that he has a vested interest in how our country legislates. 

Based upon that fact alone, I believe my son should be allowed to vote.

I have never believed that so-called "ObamaCare" is about helping people -- it's about funding bureaucracies and/or transferring funds to insurance companies, as you say.  It sounds like you (and maybe your son) see the evil of ObamaCare and want it gone.

Most people in his situation would be wanting the government to lower the deductible to something affordable, and so they have a vested interest as well.  Everyone on welfare has a "vested interest" as well (in continuing it at a high of a level as possible, usually).

The other sad truth is that there are seldom any easy solutions; almost any decision (or even philosophy) benefits some and hurts others.

It sounds to me like your son has the right concept of the harm OC is doing - if that is the case, he is a rare one.

Nevertheless, his situation is what can bias him, and I tend to think I would not allow him to vote.

Fortunately, it's not up to me, and your son is welcome to vote today.

 

[lnf]

Walt, you are right in thinking both my  son and I see major problems with Obamacare.  The truth is, though, that Obamacare is just one example of a long line of bad legislation.

You are absolutely right that decisions/philosophies impact people in different ways, both positively and negatively. 

As to your quote:  Nevertheless, his situation is what can bias him, and I tend to think I would not allow him to vote.

According to this line of thinking, perhaps none of us should be allowed to vote, because we all are biased according to our situation, at least to some degree.

And aleshanee is spot on in her assessment of the ramifications of denying the vote to certain classes of people.  It's a slippery slope.

aleshanee, I do disagree somewhat with the closing line of your post, where you state that because we can vote, we will never elect such a one that would take away our voting rights.  I think that could happen, if only for the reason that people have hidden agendas which don't always come to light until after they are in a position of power. 

In closing, Walt I totally agree with your statement:  I'd rather put in a wise man of good character and judgment...

It behooves each of us to use our God-given discernment when exercising our right to vote.