(11-06-2018 11:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 11:34 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 09:43 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The more restriction one demands for voting means that the government will decide restrictions on voting. How on earth can any conservative think that is a good idea?

Democrats are openly radical, racist and anti-American to the extreme. And sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to control the Senate, the House, the Executive and the Courts. And they will come for you and you rights when they have that power.

Everything a conservative should support places limits on the government and granting rights to the people. All of the people. Not granting the damn government more authority.

FFS

Normally when I read your posts I find myself agreeing with you on a regular basis but I think we part company on this one.

I agree that under "normal" circumstances, the less power government has the better. The more power the people have the better.

However.

Our society has become dependent on welfare, entitlements, and give-aways. We're currently crowding $22 trillion of debt because people want "things" and expect the mysterious "someone else" to pay for it. We have open socialists running for and winning elections with the promise of giving away even more. We have gotten to the point where we need to hit the brakes and do something to protect not only our country but our way of life. When you have a large (and growing) group of people who contribute nothing and feel society OWES them a living, that's a problem. When those same people have the same "say" as those of us who contribute and who are productive, that's a problem.

We need to consider ways to take back control and stop the insanity. Giving the people who are asked to be the contributors a larger say in how things run seems a common sense plan.

I find this thread interesting. Miko is masterfully trolling and informing the board all at once. Our initial government under the founding fathers required that you run a business or own land before you could vote. They definitely believed that voters should have "skin in the game".

As to 18 year olds and the veterans issue Viet Nam changed my thinking in that regard. If you serve in the Armed Forces that's definitely skin in the game. During the Viet Nam War I frequently questioned why 18 year olds could die for the country but were too young to buy a beer (21 was the age until near the end of that war). It was also the impetus for changing the voting age.

Personally speaking the draft age should have been 21 and the voting age should have remained the same.

The sad part was that 18 year olds were much more mature mentally in 1968 than they are in 2018. Hell, 30 might be too young maturity wise for voting today.

I would be completely on board with service in the military being considered skin in the game.

I'm sure there are other common sense compromises that could be considered as well. There's not really a "one size fits all" approach.

What I fear is more and more people voting for "themselves" and not worrying about the effects on the country. As the % of people voting for the likes of Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez goes up, so does the chance of the foundation of the country being drastically changed. I worry about enough people eventually voting for their own destruction. I'm sure the people of Venezuela never thought that could/would happen to them....

(11-06-2018 08:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 08:48 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 08:45 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Yea i want the government to decide who has enough skin in the game. Jesus Christ

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

I also abhor government involvement in deciding who votes, but since they already do this is a bit of a moot point.

I do think the voting age should be raised back to 21, and the drinking age lowered back to 18.

I can go for that it's cut and dry.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The drinking age should be below the driving age. Let them learn to drink before they drive.

(11-06-2018 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The fact that you didn't is what is so revealing.

Are you under some impression I am for illegal aliens voting in American elections?

(11-06-2018 12:31 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 11:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 11:34 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 09:43 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The more restriction one demands for voting means that the government will decide restrictions on voting. How on earth can any conservative think that is a good idea?

Democrats are openly radical, racist and anti-American to the extreme. And sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to control the Senate, the House, the Executive and the Courts. And they will come for you and you rights when they have that power.

Everything a conservative should support places limits on the government and granting rights to the people. All of the people. Not granting the damn government more authority.

FFS

Normally when I read your posts I find myself agreeing with you on a regular basis but I think we part company on this one.

I agree that under "normal" circumstances, the less power government has the better. The more power the people have the better.

However.

Our society has become dependent on welfare, entitlements, and give-aways. We're currently crowding $22 trillion of debt because people want "things" and expect the mysterious "someone else" to pay for it. We have open socialists running for and winning elections with the promise of giving away even more. We have gotten to the point where we need to hit the brakes and do something to protect not only our country but our way of life. When you have a large (and growing) group of people who contribute nothing and feel society OWES them a living, that's a problem. When those same people have the same "say" as those of us who contribute and who are productive, that's a problem.

We need to consider ways to take back control and stop the insanity. Giving the people who are asked to be the contributors a larger say in how things run seems a common sense plan.

I find this thread interesting. Miko is masterfully trolling and informing the board all at once. Our initial government under the founding fathers required that you run a business or own land before you could vote. They definitely believed that voters should have "skin in the game".

As to 18 year olds and the veterans issue Viet Nam changed my thinking in that regard. If you serve in the Armed Forces that's definitely skin in the game. During the Viet Nam War I frequently questioned why 18 year olds could die for the country but were too young to buy a beer (21 was the age until near the end of that war). It was also the impetus for changing the voting age.

Personally speaking the draft age should have been 21 and the voting age should have remained the same.

The sad part was that 18 year olds were much more mature mentally in 1968 than they are in 2018. Hell, 30 might be too young maturity wise for voting today.

I would be completely on board with service in the military being considered skin in the game.

I'm sure there are other common sense compromises that could be considered as well. There's not really a "one size fits all" approach.

What I fear is more and more people voting for "themselves" and not worrying about the effects on the country. As the % of people voting for the likes of Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez goes up, so does the chance of the foundation of the country being drastically changed. I worry about enough people eventually voting for their own destruction. I'm sure the people of Venezuela never thought that could/would happen to them....

Anyone who votes for a group think block instead of what they truly believe is guilty of the destruction of the Republic. We are nation built upon shared values and personal accountability. Kill values and accountability goes out the window. Once that is accomplished nothing can prevent the destruction. Emphasize group approval over personal accountability and atrocities will follow. A group does not have a conscience, only an agenda. Without individual conscience any act, no matter how vile, may be perpetrated and the group absolves itself of guilt. That is until they are defeated and they they will all claim they were just following orders.

(11-06-2018 11:55 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 11:49 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 08:59 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  We need to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, which tells us that each State's two Senators shall be selected by popular vote amongst said State's citizens, and give that power back to each State's legislature, as intended by the Founding Fathers. I believe that a lot of this bullcrap we've seen is due to the Seventeenth Amendment being law. Repeal it, and I believe we see the K Street lobbyists go away. (Or at least focus their efforts on the House of Representatives.)

You'd just see lobbyists move to state legislatures. That wouldn't "solve" anything.

You'd be mistaken. While you'll never get rid of lobbyists because of the 1st Amendment, you would force them to deal with politics on a smaller, more local scale. That decentralizes their influence out of necessity because not only do the lobbyists have to go to more places - they also will have to navigate the opposing forces of States Rights and Federal Power. It would reintroduce a new check and balance.

Ehhhh, I'm not convinced. They'd just hire more people to span out into the local areas, just picking & choosing which states to focus their energies on.

Every American has skin in the game whether they realize it or not and every American has and should have the right to vote. To empower some to determine which American has skin in the game is a path that would lead to a place none of us wish to go. I understand the sentiment but even those who would vote themselves money by taxing others eventually are impacted by those taxes in one way or the other.

(11-06-2018 02:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Every American has skin in the game whether they realize it or not and every American has and should have the right to vote. To empower some to determine which American has skin in the game is a path that would lead to a place none of us wish to go. I understand the sentiment but even those who would vote themselves money by taxing others eventually are impacted by those taxes in one way or the other.

When our country was founded, we started out at the point you fear to go to today. The founding fathers did not support universal suffrage. I strongly believe that this was intentional on their part to act as another check against the risk of Tyranny by the Majority.

The problem with Republicans is that they want to go after the less than 1% of voting fraud by actually banning a lot of people from voting who did not did any voting fraud. The elderly, the poor, the ill, and the disable can not afford an ID card. Here in Arkansas, it costs $40 when majority of the lower class can not afford it. I do think if the state wants people to show ids before voting? They should give out free ids to the qualify people. It is not just hurting votes for democrats, it can hurt votes for Republicans as well.

(11-10-2018 08:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with Republicans is that they want to go after the less than 1% of voting fraud by actually banning a lot of people from voting who did not did any voting fraud. The elderly, the poor, the ill, and the disable can not afford an ID card. Here in Arkansas, it costs $40 when majority of the lower class can not afford it. I do think if the state wants people to show ids before voting? They should give out free ids to the qualify people. It is not just hurting votes for democrats, it can hurt votes for Republicans as well.

I can support free IDs.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-06-2018 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Democrats are openly radical, racist and anti-American to the extreme.

This is why Fox News needs banned. It's effect has taken normal good natured people and turned them into this.\

Imagine a leftie saying:

Republicans are openly hostile to reproductive rights, want to kill workers in unregulated work places, see no need for a minimum wage, and don't care if water or air is safe for the public in mass. Their God is money and greed.............. They are anti public health to the extreme.


Boy reading through that. Which sentence is more believable? Stanley's or mine. Sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

What did he say that was factually incorrect?

(11-10-2018 08:54 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-10-2018 08:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with Republicans is that they want to go after the less than 1% of voting fraud by actually banning a lot of people from voting who did not did any voting fraud. The elderly, the poor, the ill, and the disable can not afford an ID card. Here in Arkansas, it costs $40 when majority of the lower class can not afford it. I do think if the state wants people to show ids before voting? They should give out free ids to the qualify people. It is not just hurting votes for democrats, it can hurt votes for Republicans as well.

I can support free IDs.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I fully support free IDs to anyone that is of voting age and does not have a drivers license.