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: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:29 PM
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.



Uh, screw them, that's what the electoral college is about. Which they could do away with today, because we have the news TV shows. This is just another power grab to control WHO gets to vote.




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Ted Yoho? Should be Ted Yahoo.

I keep telling people. We need a min IQ test for all elected officials.
And they need to pass a test to get into office. Plus have a specialization of some sort other than lawyer of businessman.

We test people to drive and become a US citizens.

Politicians should be held to no less of a standard.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

OJ and "affluenza" aren't laws. they are legal decisions. We didn't vote on that crap, it was foisted upon us.

Not that there aren't adequate laws to poke fun at.

RE: the OP....this guy sounds like he is from Sparta. How about addressing uninformed voting by righting the atrocity that is known as Public "Education" in America.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

So we need an IQ standard and testing to represent the people but no standards for the people who elect the representative?

Seems the same to me.

Whether we have a bunch of Nobel winners voting Corky into office or a bunch of Corkys voting a Nobel winner into office the problem of stupidity running our lives remains.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere
Corky actually crossed my mind when I wrote my first post in this thread.
I didn't want to go there.
Thank you for going there.

I would back Corky over most of the incumbents in Congress right now. He could probably understand the idea of only being able to spend what money he has in his hand... unlike the current Congressmen.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12



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.



He's just flailing around and finding a rather ham-fisted answer to address a genuine (if contentious) point.

Government is funded through taxation. Government's function is, at its core, to spend your money for your benefit - by "your" benefit I mean "you the nation", not necessarily you as a specific individual. Sure, you can attribute a whole range of other functions to Government but it always, always, comes down to the money. That you gave it, at the metaphorical (or not so metaphorical these days) point of a gun.

So what's the contentious point? Well, who should have the greater say in how your money is spent? Many would say that the people putting money into the system should have the greatest say over how it is spent. How do you have any say in how that money is spent? By voting - the entire election campaign process is to set out what the party wishes to achieve and how they intend to spend your money to achieve it. In an ideal world you then vote for the party that is asking to spend it in the way that you prefer.

Let's consider an example. You and some friends decide to go to watch a movie. One friend has hit on hard times so you all chip in to cover the cost of a ticket - because that's the kind of things friends do. You all get to the cinema and you all want to go and watch Atlas Shrugged - except for the guy who isn't paying. He's threatening to throw a temper tantrum unless you all go and watch Bad Boys XIV. He's also pretty pissed off that you didn't buy him enough candy and popcorn.

How do you handle your friend? Do you feel guilty? Do you appease him? Do you tell him that he can make the choices when he's paying for his own damn ticket?

This is the issue that the politician is trying to address. Badly, in this case. He's trying to say that the people deciding how money is to be spent should be the people putting up the money in the first place. If they want it to be spent buying movie tickets for their hard-up friends, that's fantastic - but if they're paying for the ticket then they should get to choose which movie to watch.

The difficulty is that it is incredibly hard to draw a line that does anybody justice. Owning land is ridiculous. Paying tax? Perhaps more realistic, but do you then distinguish between people who make a net contribution or anyone who makes any contribution? Should that divide exist at all?

Personally I think the division shouldn't exist. I acknowledge the problem and the reality of the impact that it has (because it does have a very real impact) but the right to vote should only require the voter to be a legal resident of the country who is of age. You could add to this a requirement that the person is still alive and is only allowed to vote once, but that would unfairly disadvantage the Democratic party.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
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.


What's surprising, yet not surprising, is the media coverage on ID laws and voting. Kansas passed legislation that specifically addressed that issue.

Kansas was fighting with the Feds over voter ID laws, noting that the Feds do a crappy job when it comes to enforcing laws and who can vote.

Their solution was to hold the state elections on a different day than the Federal elections. The Federal elections occur on the same day every year.

By moving state elections to a different day it removed the federal hurdle with regards to voter ID's. In order to vote in state elections you must be a citizen of that state and must have id to verify it.

What really concerns me is the comment itself on land ownership. This guy is pretty much summing up the fact that the people really have no desire to vote for one reason or another. Instead of addressing why that is, this guy wants to compound the problem by restricting the vote (it wont hold up to State or Federal constitutional muster).

What is it going to take to get it through the heads of our elected officials that creating a new problem in an effort to resolve an old problem only creates havoc / chaos with no real fix.

I guess we could always try and change it up in terms of elections. Maybe more people would vote if the loser gets tossed into the Sarlac Pit.


Maybe they should look at why people are not participating. Im sure most would be floored to discover people don't vote because our elected officials act like they are better than the people.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
What is it going to take to get it through the heads of our elected officials that creating a new problem in an effort to resolve an old problem only creates havoc / chaos with no real fix.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What evidence do you have that that's even remotely possible?
You realize that's by design, though, no? The government identifies a 'problem', names it something, then passes a bunch of totally unrelated legislation tied to that 'problem' that does absolutely nothing to address it, but does create a windfall of federal largesse for some cronies.

'War on [insert something bad here]'
'No Child Left Behind'
'Patriot Act'
etc
etc
etc

Those who see through the charade are pilloried as 'hating children' or the flag or something. And way, way too many people buy into it. Way more than can be countered by reason and logic, apparently or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

I have little hope it can be corrected. Some, but not much.


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 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

I don't think it's the same.

A politicians makes decisions that can affect hundreds of millions of people. Anytime you do something that can affect others there is some sort of license or testing involved to make sure that person knows what they are doing and doesn't hurt others.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra



Maybe they should look at why people are not participating. Im sure most would be floored to discover people don't vote because our elected officials act like they are better than the people.


There is that.........

But I think most people now realize that we haven't had representational government for quite some time when they see preferential treatment for the "to big to fail" corporate welfare and other corruption favoring the elite wealthy.

Even stupid people see this and say...."why bother, I don't matter, they are going to do what they want anyway"

and they are right! See any change?.......I don't

It's cool to see one of my threads make it to a second page before getting trashed or moved and forgotten.
edit on 21-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
On the subject of uninformed voting they are talking of making voting mandatory here in the UK. It would seem the lack of participation in votes and peoples apathy for the lying bastards in government is starting to become an embarrassment.
They also want to give the vote to 16yr olds. Sigh.
edit on 20145America/Chicago05pm5pmWed, 21 May 2014 14:12:04 -05000514 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Anytime you do something that can affect others there is some sort of license or testing involved to make sure that person knows what they are doing and doesn't hurt others.


Like when a bunch of people elect a nut representative?

There isn't much more devastating or powerful than a vote cast. Assuming votes count that is.

Psychos and idiots don't get into office on their own. They need to convince millions of morons out there to put them into that office.

Your vote affects my life and my vote yours.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Anytime you do something that can affect others there is some sort of license or testing involved to make sure that person knows what they are doing and doesn't hurt others.


Like when a bunch of people elect a nut representative?

There isn't much more devastating or powerful than a vote cast. Assuming votes count that is.

Psychos and idiots don't get into office on their own. They need to convince millions of morons out there to put them into that office.

Your vote affects my life and my vote yours.


Voting doesnt change anything.

The elections are fixed.

They just need to convince the millions of morons that they actually have a say.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   


With Rand Paul’s Endorsement, Ted Yoho Kicks Off Second-Term Bid

“I am glad to endorse my friend and colleague Ted Yoho for re-election,” Paul said. “The thing about Congressman Yoho is that he has been unafraid, and I think why he has been unafraid to defend liberty, defend limited government and our Constitution is because he had a real life.

www.tedyoho.com...


"defend liberty, defend limited government and our Constitution"

So that how you do it by taking away people's rights...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" -Ben 'the playa' Franklin

If someone says here's 10 bucks, you say OK, thanks. If someone says, can I have 10 bucks. You ask why. Skin in the game usually makes you get more inormed.

All that would happen is that 30 people would win the same house....like the non voter fraud in Florida...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dfens
I agree with you.Ridiculous and rather Predjudiced,when it comes down to it.
To even suggest that because you are a property owner makes you "special",socio-economic predjudice. BAH



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Damn...That was the first post of yours I can remember starring



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Researched him. He was part of the TP wave. An idiot for sure, but not long in office hopefully.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Variable
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.




Yes because those millions of old retired people and veterans living in retirement rental properties in Florida are free loading and vote for the DNC. The fact is he is pretty much daming his own politcal base.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join