It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FL lawmaker’s ‘radical’ cure for uninformed voting: You ‘have to be a property owner’

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
www.rawstory.com...




Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) has warned that uninformed voting is as dangerous as a “loaded gun,” and that one solution could be allowing only “property owners” to vote.


So my question is...

How does owning property make you more informed than anyother taxpayer?

If a person pays taxes in this country and is a legal resident then his right to vote should not be impinged even if you rent an apartment.

Elitist GOP scumbags, just trying to maintain preferential treatment for the wealthy.


edit on 21-5-2014 by olaru12 because: OxO



+9 more 
posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
I think that the citizens would be better off if it was more like jury duty. Everyone has their name in the pool, they draw your name.... you are the new congressman for your district.

I'd rather take the chance that a neo-Nazi, New Black Panther or even some raving lunatic were to become my latest congressman over having the Corporations pay for a drawn out fake arse election that buys their candidate.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Yoho's a yahoo, you should hear some of the gems that comes out of his pie-hole. I know not many are a big fan of Salon.com, but browse this article anyway. Aside from earning umpteen facepalms for implying the CRA is unconstitutional, they also link some of his other pearls of wisdom.

Nobody really listens to this guy down here, other than when he makes an arse out of himself, and we listen just for laughs at that point.
edit on 5/21/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
www.rawstory.com...




Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) has warned that uninformed voting is as dangerous as a “loaded gun,” and that one solution could be allowing only “property owners” to vote.


So my question is...

How does owning property make you more informed than anyother taxpayer?

If a person pays taxes in this country and is a legal resident then his right to vote should not be impinged even if you rent an apartment.

Elitist GOP scumbags, just trying to maintain preferential treatment for the wealthy.



Look at most of our laws, and legal procedures.

It is no myth, that being poor basically guarantees a conviction if charged, and wealth means little to no actual consequences for the same actions.

See OJ Simpson

Or "affluensa" for more details.

If a big bank steals a trillion from regular folks they get a fine of millions, net gain for them and no actual negative consequences for any of them.

Regular Joe steals a penny from a big bank, it is punished to the maximum extent of the law.


We regular folks or " little people" as they so lovingly brand us, do not even actually exist in their world.

" know your role, and shut your hole, you piece of peasant trash!!!"



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

What kind of property? If the bank owns the house, and the government owns the land the bank's house is on...

Obviously, uninformed voting is what got this Yoohoo in. Might as well repeal the entire constitution, thinking like this guy does.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Fascists.

Ironically, elitism is the foundational value of the USA. The founders were elitists and they rigged the system for themselves. "White males in good standing" which was debt free, fearing the New testament Christian God.

Whiteness, as usual had a murky definition. Customized to whatever serves the elites.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

“I’ve had some radical ideas about voting,” Yoho adds. “You used to have to be a property owner to vote.”


He's suggesting that we should disenfranchise the poor and the young. He also left out the rest of the criteria which was that you had to be a white male, who owned property to vote. Yeah, this guy sucks.

EDIT:

I'm reminded of what another ahole, Tom Perkins, said a few months ago:


But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?

edit on 2014-5-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Not sure why it makes you smarter, but if you own property you are more familiar with paying certain kind of taxes, Government requirements and laws regarding your land. Most land owners are home owners, they understand what it takes to retain, furnish and keep up with bills. I think his point is that people who live for free off the government, get most of their food for free from the government, have a vested interest in voting for people who will give them more free things.


+5 more 
posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Wow, that's a throw-back to the past. That's how they used to keep blacks and women from voting.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Wow, that's a throw-back to the past. That's how they used to keep blacks and women from voting.

Correct! That and the poll tax.
I'd hoped that we had left all those ideas behind by now.
I guess not.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
It's really quite simple: no taxation without representation.

If I have to pay taxes, then I get a vote.

You don't have the right to force me into civic duties in the form of dues or labor to a government that I didn't consent to, either by voting or by failing to vote when I had the chance. That is the very definition of slavery, and it is anathema to everything the U.S. was founded on.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Isn't that a convenient solution. Since the '08Crash how many lost property or will never get an opportunity to be a property owner? Combined with gerrymandering, stricter voting laws, hours in line to vote, all very convenient.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: olaru12
I think that the citizens would be better off if it was more like jury duty. Everyone has their name in the pool, they draw your name.... you are the new congressman for your district.

I'd rather take the chance that a neo-Nazi, New Black Panther or even some raving lunatic were to become my latest congressman over having the Corporations pay for a drawn out fake arse election that buys their candidate.



This I agree with 100%.


Right now we only have the illusion of options anyway.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

This guy is an idiot who apparently does not know what the Constitution states, let alone the Supreme Court rulings during and after the civil war when it came to requirements in order to vote.

I think politicians should be required to demonstrate they know what the Federal / State constitutions state, that they understand their oath and who exactly they represent.


This representative needs to be tossed out with the rest of the garbage politicians we have.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
In the early days of the republic the topic was pretty hot. There was a lot of argument for not just denying women voting rights.
Reason prevailed.
www.vindicatingthefounders.com...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Is it just me or does it look like the GOP is self destructing by it's members even suggesting such an asinine proposition.

Do they actually think they can win elections by alienating everyone but pissed off white affluent males?

Are they so out of touch?

My next question is....does voting really even matter in this Corpratracracy where the taxpaying public is the last to be taken into consideration?
edit on 21-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'd rather we have an enforceable requirement where you have to be a citizen to vote.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

To add it should be a one and done.

Your name gets pulled, you serve the role, when the time is up you're ineligible to be chosen again.

Also all terms should be reduced to two-year maximums. None of this 4 or 6 year nonsense.

A common argument against the jury duty method is it is unfair to ask a person to leve their job, family, home to travel to DC and be a full time politician.

What this argument fails to take into account is global communication is instantaneous and if it werent for all the time spent positioning yourself for a re-election and spinning every word and pandering to morons over non-issues a typical politician only works maybe 4 hours a week. All that other time is completely wasted.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere
Agreed.
That would also take care of the issue of paying lifetime retirement benefits to members of Congress.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think you'll find that was the main reason that the first European pioneers left their respective countries. At that time in England only land owners could vote, the ordinary working man had no say whatsoever over his political orpersonal environment. That purely was the main reason for the war of independence and the setting up of the United States Of America.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join