- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:11 am to Swamp Angel
quote:
hate to suddenly show up and have multiple posts in a row in a thread, but you do understand that owning land pretty much ensures that one has "skin in the game" right?
Meh. Not exactly. All it takes is an activist selling tiny tracts of land to folks who don’t meet any of the requirements I proposed. Too easy to skirt in my opinion.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:13 am to fjlee90
quote:
ll it takes is an activist selling tiny tracts of land to folks
Just sell an undivided interest in a couple of acres to a million people.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:25 am to fjlee90
I'm not at odds with your proposals entirely. You have some great thoughts that are fair and make very good sense. Property ownership, however, generally includes being a part of the tax base despite the possibility of paying no income tax. That means that property owners have skin in the game. I can see your point and for the most part I agree with what you have stated. I just think a little more thought ought to be given to it and maybe work through it a little more to determine who is included in suffrage for voting rights.
Ultimately, though, the STATES should have the last say in this, since it is the states from whom the federal government receives its authority in any respect, and not the federal government who grants powers and authority to the states. Of course, just because it's on paper that way doesn't mean that's the way it has been in reality or practice for the last century or more.
Ultimately, though, the STATES should have the last say in this, since it is the states from whom the federal government receives its authority in any respect, and not the federal government who grants powers and authority to the states. Of course, just because it's on paper that way doesn't mean that's the way it has been in reality or practice for the last century or more.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:30 am to Swamp Angel
quote:
I'm not at odds with your proposals entirely
We’re trying to get to the same end goal.
I just think that there’s a finite amount of land. You’ll end up creating a society of oligarchs if land ownership is the entry fee to voting. Kind of a poll tax.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:40 am to TrueTiger
Letting anyone other than the landed gentry vote was the beginning of the end for western civilization.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
with a minimum IQ of 130
Should also apply this to presidential candidates
Biden wouldn’t be in office
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
with a minimum IQ of 130.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:48 am to Walt OReilly
quote:Even more so.
with a minimum IQ of 130quote:
Should also apply this to presidential candidates
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
130 is where the bell curve approaches zero. It’s actually around 333,000,000 people who have an IQ below 130 (if 340,000,000 is the population). Around 2.1% have an IQ over 130.
Basically correct. The 2.1% is limited to the people within the third standard deviation, and excludes those higher. Everyone above 130 would thus be closer to 2.2% of the population
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:50 am to fjlee90
quote:
You’ll end up creating a society of oligarchs if land ownership is the entry fee to voting
I can understand your concern regarding this. I'm simply saying that land ownership should be one of several criteria to be met in order to be eligible to vote. It should not be the only one, nor should it be a prerequisite, but it should be considered among a list of prerequisites.
For example, a person should have a minimum of three pre-requisites from a list of several, such as:
REQUIRED:
1) citizenship
2) attained the age of majority (be it 18, 21, or even 25)
3) a resident of the state in which they vote
ADDITIONAL (Must demonstrate two of three apply):
1) Land ownership
2) payment of taxes to the state in which one seeks to vote
3) be gainfully employed for three of four quarters of the current year, or
4) be retired or independent of government funds for personal use - i.e. subsidized housing or monthly stipend (other than retirement funds from government employment or Social Security)
5) other criteria to be determined from which to select
What would your thoughts be along these lines?
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:53 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Might as well be Socrates' own words, he warned of demagogues and pure democracy.
Actually, his student Plato was more extreme in anti-democracy advocacy.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:56 am to TrueTiger
Anyone who doesn’t own property or is a woman should not be allowed to vote.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 9:58 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Is the system we use to hire presidents broken?
Absolutely. Many people in this country value someone who is entertaining, relatable, or "decent." It's about personality.
We're seeing this right now in the GOP Primary. If any other Republican had done what Trump has done from 2017-now they'd be finished politically. But because Trump is "relatable" and "charismatic", it's okay to excuse his numerous failures and get in line behind him over a more proven and successful executive like DeSantis.
What's funny is those same people who like Trump's personality and have an emotional connection to him are doing the same thing as suburban women who voted for Biden. They rag on them for voting with their feelings and for believing that Biden would bring "decency" and "normalcy" back to the White House. And they're right to rag on them. Those suburban women are morons. But they're doing the same fricking thing as them.
This post was edited on 8/5/23 at 9:59 am
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:00 am to Swamp Angel
quote:
This is one reason I get extremely irritated by the endless calls from asshats offering to purchase my home when I have never once indicated that I have any intention of selling.
Those calls and texts are quite annoying.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:00 am to TrueTiger
The press has really fawked this up. They hold no-one who is of like mind accountable for anything. And they attack those who aren't like-minded. I wonder if any version of journalistic ethics is taught in our socialist universities anymore?
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:01 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Their version of ethics is taught. It’s a new version.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:02 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Just sell an undivided interest in a couple of acres to a million people.
Democrats already sort of do this with the hundreds of names on mail-in ballots listing the same empty lot as their residential address.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:04 am to PsychTiger
quote:
Democrats already sort of do this with the hundreds of names on mail-in ballots listing the same empty lot as their residential address.
Yes.
You are describing a ballot system, which is not the same thing as a voting system.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 10:05 am to ShinerHorns
Too much suffrage leads to suffering.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News