Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Should we make it easeir or harder for people to vote?
- Thread starter Phenom78
- Start date
H
heatherrae
Guest
easier....equal access and representation for all.
Phenom78 said:
Ughh. Definitely harder. People should be required to show some political aptitude and real world knowledge before punching the ballot.
Women should be tested even further of any knowledge. No longer will it be acceptable to vote for a candidate simply because he's "hot" or "cute".
tee-hee.
In the end though I doubt it will matter much. Politics and their practitioners themselves need an overhaul in decency/morals/etc. Some type of greed and corruption screening should be implemented. Oh, what? Wishfull thinking you say? I suppose so. 
Phenom78
New member
hanselthecaretaker said:
It always makes me laugh when people parrot the "more people should vote" line.
Based on what perceived societal benefit?
The strength and flaw of democracy is that everyone could vote. The strength is self evident. The flaw is that the dumbest, most clueless, and self interested among us have equal say in how things are done.
H
heatherrae
Guest
They used to have a requirement that voters be landowners in order to exclude the emancipated slaves. Then, they had literacy tests which were biased against African Americans. Of course there is racial gerrymandering to reapportion and redistrict people out of their voting power. Luckily, wise judges have long recognized these as unconstitutional restraints on the right to vote.
One of the worst decisions in the last several years was Easley v. Cromartie, which was decided in 1999 where the High Court decided that a voting district in NC was drawn based upon voting behavior instead of upon racial characteristics so that NC's weird, misshapen district was allowed to stand. It was an obvious case of racial gerrymandering in that the district was divided truly upon race (most of the African Americans there were voting democrat, so they just reshaped the district) In clearly an erroneous decision the Supreme Court upheld the decision in Easley v. Cromartie, 532 US 234 (2001). That is a sad decision when a judge clearly ignores existing precendence and the constitution in order to support their own political party. It's extremely disheartening.
One of the worst decisions in the last several years was Easley v. Cromartie, which was decided in 1999 where the High Court decided that a voting district in NC was drawn based upon voting behavior instead of upon racial characteristics so that NC's weird, misshapen district was allowed to stand. It was an obvious case of racial gerrymandering in that the district was divided truly upon race (most of the African Americans there were voting democrat, so they just reshaped the district) In clearly an erroneous decision the Supreme Court upheld the decision in Easley v. Cromartie, 532 US 234 (2001). That is a sad decision when a judge clearly ignores existing precendence and the constitution in order to support their own political party. It's extremely disheartening.
Phenom78
New member
HeatherRae said:
Gerrymandering districts to give advantage to ones party has been a staple of both parties since the beginning of the republic. If you truly imagine it has been used exclusively based on race then you are too ignorant to join this discussion.
I would add that racial gerrymandering of districts was near the exclusive province of democrats, albeit admittedly largely in the south.
H
heatherrae
Guest
My discussion didn't even bring up the whole "shame on this party or that party" which is the crutch of every one of your political posts. My discussion was about racial gerrymanding. So, if you can't read my post and comprehend that the issue is bigger than which party you vote your straight ticket for, phenom, then you, sir, are too ignorant to join the discussion.Phenom78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Coming from a person who doesn't even support the one person/one vote concept...Phenom78 said:
Phenom78
New member
anthrax said:
We aren't a democracy. We're a republic. We abandoned the notion of direct representation at the founding of the nation.
The ideal criteria in my estimation would be taxpayer. If you aren't paying for it, then you shouldn't be deciding how to spend other peoples money. Especially true since it would largely be used to vote yourself tax payer funded largesse.
No free rides.
H
heatherrae
Guest
My hair is natural, not that it is important to the conversation. Of course, you have to resort to name calling, once again, in order to support your viewpoints rather than discussing the facts or even your opinions on the issue. Instead, you spout third grade insults. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....you are, once again, a dull bore.Phenom78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Yes, what about students? What about people who work but who make so little that they have no tax liability. What about retirees?anthrax said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
So, you don't want a democracy?
H
heatherrae
Guest
Yes, I prefer a democracy to a totalitarian military regime that you would have, hands down. What demostrable evidence makes me prefer a democracy--hmmmm....history of a few hundred years...lol.Phenom78 said:
Phenom78
New member
HeatherRae said:
Yes, I'm a huge proponent of totaliarian military regimes. I cleverly hide the fact by allowing idiots on the left propogandize about how they should all be allowed to exist without US intervention since we are just as bad as they are.
Also lol @ a "lawyer" not knowing we don't live in a democracy. I guess you slept through the 3 years of law school where that would have been covered.
digimon7068
New member
Voting is a privilege. . .like driving. . .it's not a right. You oughta hafta work a little for it. . .registration's a snap. To many young people are apathetic. . .I was one of them. . .back in my early 20's, if they had offered money to register I wouldn't have done it. . .just didn't give a shit.
Personally, I don't want people to vote if they aren't going to get off their ass and learn a little about the candidates.
Personally, I don't want people to vote if they aren't going to get off their ass and learn a little about the candidates.
Phenom78
New member
anthrax said:
Republican forms of government also allow its citizens to vote. But there are significant differences between the two, not the least of which is the amount of power we place in the executive branch.
America is fairly unique in that respect in comparison to our more democratic western friends. The amount of power we place in the presidency has been the death knell to many of the countries who have attempted to mimin our system in the last 200 years.
It is a failure to comprehend that important distinction in how our system was intended to work that leads to so many of the inane debates we have today on matters of policy. With so many idiots speaking of how undemocratic these executive powers and priveleges are
They are undemocratic. They are Republican in nature.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Yeah, talk about crazies...going off on some weird tangents about how our government isn't a democracy. You're a pretty loony extremist, but it's pretty funny to poke you with sticks. I love the way you get topics of the day from whatever right wing rag your reading each day, spout them as if you came up with them, and then pat yourself on the back.Phenom78 said:
When another democrat is elected to run this country, I could fully see you becoming one of those crazy survivalist types who form compounds and want to overthrow the government. You have a screw loose.
Phenom78
New member
HeatherRae said:
LOL @ still not grasping the difference between republic and democracy.
Tell the truth. No way you were a lawyer. Maybe a glorified legal secretary. I don't generally have a very high opinion of lawyers, but even I give them more credit than to include you among their ranks.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Once again reduced to personal insults. You never addressed the questions about students, retirees, low income people in your utopian government scenario. You can't. All you can do is attack personally, because your right wing rags didn't give you an answer and you lack any creativity or original thought of your own....lol. If you wan't to know whether I went to law school or not, look it up. It isn't hard to figure out, if you are smart.Phenom78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
PS...to have me on ignore, you sure read every one of my posts...lol.
HeatherRae said:
Low income still have to fill out a tax report every year then the IRS or Revenue agency decides if they owe something or if its the government that owes them some bling. Retirees who worked before should have the right to vote. Students who wont work at all should not have the right to vote. I went to law and Bar school full time while working 20-25 hours a week. Ok it wasnt the funniest 4 years of my life but I made it.
H
heatherrae
Guest
law and bar school? what is bar school? here they just call it law school. Is that a separate training? I worked through undergraduate school and law school, too, by the way.manny78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Oh yeah, what about stay-at-home mothers? Are they not allowed to vote either? What about the handicapped who can't work? What about missionaries? preachers? etc.
H
heatherrae
Guest
phenom owns himself constantly. lol.anthrax said:
HeatherRae said:
You go to law school (university) for 3 years where you get your degree. Then, you have bar school for 6 months straight. It's very simple, basically a review of what you already saw before but going deeper. 6 sections of one month each with a different topic (penal, civil, business, administrative......). So you do one topic for 4 weeks full time, one week off (to study lol), exam. Then another section and blablabla... One of the reason is because recording, certification, and authentication of documents are done by notaries in my province so after law school, some will go to bar school, other to notarial studies and the rest welll God knows where...
HeatherRae said:
Stay-at-home mothers shouldnt. Handicaped i'm still unsure but if the person used to work then of course he should have the right to vote. I have a very hard time concerning preacher, priests and all these mafiosos. Dunno how it goes in the US but here churches dont pay taxes yet so why should they get any benefits ?
digimon7068
New member
. . .to the US to chase ambulances??manny78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Oh, I see. We have optional study courses after law school which are run by private companies (not the schools) where we review all that we learned in law school, but it isn't 6 months long. Law school here is 3 years. You only take the review courses if you want to, and then you sit for the bar exam.manny78 said:
HeatherRae said:
Unfortunately, bar school is mandatory. I mean, you have to pay the tuition (was around $3000 back in 2000), then you stay at home, go to your classes, it's up to you. You fail one exam, it's $500 for another try. And since it's a monopoly then you get an idea about how much money these pigs make.
H
heatherrae
Guest
yeah, we have mandatory requirements to be members of the state bar association. We are required to be members and pay dues. Of course, lawyers challenged it on the basis freedom of association. They lost. lol.manny78 said:
H
heatherrae
Guest
Holy shit! I was complaining about $300/per year in dues!manny78 said:
I took the bar in 2000. The fee was $600 if I remember correctly. I think I spent about $2000 on review courses and materials, but that wasn't really necessary. I luckily passed it the first time, so I didn't have to pay twice.
mrplunkey said:
If I am misinformed please educate me
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/corrupt/2002/0326evasion.htm
Phenom78 said:
It is a NY Times article
Just like this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/b...057a4ce9864574&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
On a side note what about my post #40 (page 2)?
mrplunkey
New member
ROFL!anthrax said:
Yes, by all means. Lets crack-down on 7 and 8-figure taxpayers who use a credit card in tax haven countries to buy lunch!
That will fix that deficit right up!
Try-out this link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=455
You'll be comforted to know that 0.4% of the US population hits the 35% tax bracket. Of those 0.4%, they pay 7.5% of the total revenue collected.
The majority of people (36%) fall in the 15% tax bracket. They represent only 33.8% of the revenue collected.
So lets see... 36% cover 33.8% of the burden and a whopping 0.4% cover 7.5%? Yeah... that's really fucking fair. I'm sure those 0.4% use the roads more, need more national defense, breathe more air, require more law enforcement, etc. etc.
Phenom78
New member
anthrax said:It is a NY Times article
Just like this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/b...057a4ce9864574&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
On a side note what about my post #40 (page 2)?
To address your article the assets being hidden are not for the purpose of avoding income taxes. Generally speaking they would have represented investment income.
As stated earlier, the wealthiest 1% of Americans pays close to 35% of all income taxes. Conversely the bottom 50% (half of which pay no taxes whatsoever-and these only count people actually working, not those who dont receive any income) pay less than 4% combined.
If there is any unfairness in our tax system it isn't directed against low income earners. The main complaint by the left of any income tax reduction is that it doesnt help the poor and thus favors the wealtheir. That's because the poor dont pay taxes.
