|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1552324236 Message started by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 10:10:36 |
|
Title: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 10:10:36 Let's actually define this... Conservatives hear this word and think Authoritarian Communisim, aka, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.... Liberals hear this word and think Democratic Socialism, aka, Sweden, Norway, France, the UK.... All of the polices being proposed by the Democratic party "socialists" all align with policies already enacted in Sweden, Norway, France and the UK.... but yes, those policies also exist in Cuba and Venezuela and the now defunct USSR... So are we, as Americans, closer to Cuba and China and Venezuela.... or Sweden, France and the UK??? As long as we continue to have fair elections, which the democrats support and republicans seem to dread, We will go down the path more like Sweden, Norway and France, if we avoid the cult of personality trap that ensnared Cuba and Venezuela, then we won't end up like them, unfortunately, Trump and his supporters fully embrace the pursuit of that cult style of governance (imo) |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/11/19 at 10:25:31 2F0C10172211170A1017630 wrote:
That statement just went down the path of Cuba/China/Venezuela/ Especially in light of recent events: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/ House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting https://www.dailywire.com/news/44440/breaking-democrat-house-votes-favor-illegal-ryan-saavedra Democrat House Votes In Favor Of Illegal Immigrant Voting, Report Says |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 10:42:06 A good point Lost. But, Sweden, Norway, France, the UK were all able to institute socialist policies because the US had their military backs. They spent very little to protect themselves. And those countries are rapidly going downhill. They cannot afford to maintain what they are doing. Plus, the assumption is everything is better over there. Its not. The it's a good question, if AOC and her ilk gain control, would we look like Sweden or Venezuela? I'd say Venezuela. The leftist Democratic party don't remind me of Swedish socialist who still have very much a live and let live philosophy. Leftist Democrats are more of a do it my way or else. The Swedish opposition parties don't hate their opponents the way American Leftist do. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 11:07:10 4D6E537072696E67000 wrote:
That statement just went down the path of Cuba/China/Venezuela/ Especially in light of recent events: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/ House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting https://www.dailywire.com/news/44440/breaking-democrat-house-votes-favor-illegal-ryan-saavedra Democrat House Votes In Favor Of Illegal Immigrant Voting, Report Says [/quote] so, wanting people who live here to have a voice here... that's anti-democratic???? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 11:10:03 734146575041566945564F240 wrote:
yeah, the military spending is an issue, but we choose that, our military industrial complex wanted that, would it be better for us to continue with that? or maybe try something else? with the military industrial complex having such a stronghold on us, it would be easy for any leader to use it to control us the way Cuba and Venezuela did/do. and if any nation can pull of having the best of both sides, why wouldn't it be us? the Greatest Nation ever? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/11/19 at 11:44:05 "so, wanting people who live here to have a voice here... that's anti-democratic???? " By that logic should we allow convicted, currently incarcerated inmates vote? I want people who live here "Legally" to have a voice. I feel that currently committing crimes restricts your ability to have input on certain things, like voting in local and national elections. For instance if illegal immigrants moved into your area and voted for 50% taxation on your income, since they don't work taxable jobs, would you be ok with 50% of your income going to the State since it was democratically enacted? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 11:50:37 yeah, the military spending is an issue, but we choose that, our military industrial complex wanted that, would it be better for us to continue with that? or maybe try something else? You could look at it that way. Or you could look at it like an investment that we had to do because no one else was able to. If we hadn't, what would the world look like now? Hard to say, we can only guess. And by the way, while Sweden is the crown jewel of your examples, it's not all it's cracked up to be. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/11/19 at 12:01:10 Good questions Lost - and predictable answers thus far. The conservative viewpoint always points to Venezuela as the only trajectory for socialism in the US. It's simply not true nor even in the realm of possibility. Yeah, they may happen to be a federal republic and have the same voting age as the US, but what sets us apart (among many other things) is our Constitution (funny how the conservatives forget about that at convenient times). That, and the fact that what's being proposed by the likes of Bernie, AOC and Beto is far from the "socialist utopia". But why are we even talking about a socialist agenda? Easy - Look no further than the massive tax break the trump administration gave corporations and the top 1%. How's that worked out so far? Fewer people have the majority of the wealth in this country today. We're getting to the point where our productivity is topping out, yet our salaries have barely budged in decades. While the middle class shoulders a large burden of the taxes, it sees the smallest return. And it's because of welfare. The welfare that's being given to corporations and the top 1%. They carry very little (if any) burden. (How much did Amazon pay?) These are the facts - no one is proposing an exclusively socialist government. No one is proposing that the state take control of businesses. No one is proposing we throw out the Constitution. What is being proposed is that we grant our citizens - all of them - the right to healthcare, a living wage and education. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 16:02:14 Easy - Look no further than the massive tax break the trump administration gave corporations and the top 1%. How's that worked out so far? Given the economic condition of the USA right now, I'd say great. While the middle class shoulders a large burden of the taxes, Above $500k pay 38.3% of all taxes; effective rate average of 27.1% $200 - $500 pay 20.6% with effective rate of 19.4% $100 - $200 pay 21.7% with effective rate of 12.7% $50-100 pay 14.1% with rate of 9.2% $30 - 50K pay 4% with rate of 7.2 Less than 30k pay 1.4% with effective rate of 4.9% This from Pew Research. No one has 2018 data yet. It will be a while and you can't guess what the rates will be based off the tax changes because, once again, there are too many variables to account for. I found this data for Trump tax rates For incomes of $9525 – 82,500 were cut 3% over 2017 10% - 22% rate $82500 – 157500 cut 4% 24% rate $157500 - 200k cut 1% 32% rate 200k – 500k remained the same 35% rate 500k+ cut 1.6% 37% Now, you still can’t take this data and calculate what the final actual numbers will be for the same table as above. Despite what idiots like AOC and a few one here think and say, no one pays the effective rate. No one paid 90% back in the day when all was great with world... So more lies cemented as facts by leftist and their media friends, but unfortunately, the rich pay their share plus some. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/11/19 at 16:05:08 While the middle class shoulders a large burden of the taxes, it sees the smallest return. And it's because of welfare. The welfare that's being given to corporations and the top 1%. They carry very little (if any) burden. (How much did Amazon pay?) And it's that socialist/communist attitude that makes the American Democratic Socialist Party far more likely to lead us to Venezuela than Sweden. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 16:19:54 5070727A6770150 wrote:
at the core of the concept of democracy, 1 person 1 vote right? and while you feel that some people are less worthy and therefor less human than others. (you'd be creating/reinforcing a second class of the population) I do not. Maybe you'd be happier if only White Male Landowners voted.... but is that More or Less democratic, like on a sliding scale of democracy... you can argue for "reasonable" constrictions on people's rights... but then you're arguing for restricting people's rights, regardless of the merits of your rationale and maybe I can agree with some of those restrictions and maybe I can't with others, I'm not against allowing inmates to vote, maybe then private prisons wouldn't be such a problem... idk.. and who says only illegals work under the table... I know a few white people that work under the table while collecting SDI and they are still only barely scraping by. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 16:20:36 5A686F7E79687F406C7F660D0 wrote:
how is that statement of FACT an attitude? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/11/19 at 16:30:17 152720313627300F233029420 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/11/19 at 16:49:08 5A7965625764627F6562160 wrote:
Is a Citizen, of the Country one votes in, less of a human-being than a person, who is Not a Citizen of that Country ? NO. So I am just as good of a human-being, as the, Citizens/Subjects, of Every Other Country on this Planet. So do I, get to send in a Vote to every one ? How about just this continent ? Well maybe, just Mexico, and Canada, which I have been in many times. And most certainly time my next visits, with their elections. (So Eegore's Reply #5, didn't explain it ?) |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/11/19 at 18:41:41 "at the core of the concept of democracy, 1 person 1 vote right?" No. Person or citizen? Should 8 year olds vote? They are people. "and while you feel that some people are less worthy and therefor less human than others" Not at all what I have ever said. "who says only illegals work under the table" I didn't. No different than asking who said every Legal citizen pays taxes. Nobody did. I very specifically asked if people who are Illegal not citizens voted to increase your taxes, would you be ok with that. To clarify I am presenting a hypothetical where these Illegal non citizens are not paying taxes to the State or IRS, since it would be illegal for them to do so. I do not believe the core of Democracy is giving a vote to anyone in the world who happens to be in the location during an election. Votes belong to people who are citizens, meet guidelines like legal age, and not actively committing crimes. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 08:49:30 6D5F58494E5F48775B48513A0 wrote:
LOL - no, they don't . Again, you miss the point. The burden is not the same. A person with $1000 in cash is going to miss $20 far less than the person with $50 in their pocket. It's simple burden, not amount. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 08:50:51 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
So you're cool with the likes of Amazon effectively paying zero taxes? It's so nice to see that you welcome the oligarchs. SMH |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 11:52:43 60437E5D5F44434A2D0 wrote:
Is a Citizen, of the Country one votes in, less of a human-being than a person, who is Not a Citizen of that Country ? NO. So I am just as good of a human-being, as the, Citizens/Subjects, of Every Other Country on this Planet. So do I, get to send in a Vote to every one ? How about just this continent ? Well maybe, just Mexico, and Canada, which I have been in many times. And most certainly time my next visits, with their elections. (So Eegore's Reply #5, didn't explain it ?) [/quote] how about just where you LIVE |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 12:43:32 Above $500k pay 38.3% of all taxes; effective rate average of 27.1% $200 - $500 pay 20.6% with effective rate of 19.4% $100 - $200 pay 21.7% with effective rate of 12.7% $50-100 pay 14.1% with rate of 9.2% $30 - 50K pay 4% with rate of 7.2 Less than 30k pay 1.4% with effective rate of 4.9% This is highly misleading. the people making over $500K HAVE MORE OF THE MONEY, so of COURSE THEY PAY MORE.... even if it was a flat rate they'd pay more, it's like when you say more white people are killed by cops than black people.... there are MORE WHITE PEOPLE... What's misleading? The claim was rich people don't pay their share. I said rich pay their share and then some. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 12:48:11 Corporations used to have consciences. Now, it's just free for all hoarding Are you a child or something. Corporations used to have consciences.... What does that even mean? Corporations spend an enormous amount of money on charity. You just don't know it. Do you have any idea the difference Don Tyson has made in his community? The people who own Enterprise Leasing here in St Louis have spent millions over the years.... you're an idiot. Stop talking. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 13:22:08 182A2D3C3B2A3D022E3D244F0 wrote:
Nice name calling. I guess that's all you've got. I'll never stop talking mark. no way you can ever stop me. Womp womp.. If you ever get your lips off trump's taint, let me know. :D Update/edit: Hey vers - I suppose mark calling me an idiot is somehow my fault, huh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 13:31:42 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
so, this includes ALL TAXES, not just income... right? and we have a progressive income tax systems which means that it's NOT A FLAT RATE, so yes they pay more, that's how the LAW is. the simple argument is equity vs equality http://www.publichealthnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Equality-Vs-Equity..final-edit-1.jpg now does that work the best in EVERYTHING, no, but it's not a bad starting point, is it? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 13:32:25 6C727D7C716C776A180 wrote:
Nice name calling. I guess that's all you've got. I'll never stop talking mark. no way you can ever stop me. Womp womp.. If you ever get your lips off trump's taint, let me know. :D Update/edit: Hey vers - I suppose mark calling me an idiot is somehow my fault, huh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] well as Eegore would say, you're half to blame for reading it.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 13:46:52 No lost. The simple argument is we take in enough money, plenty of money. It's not income that's the problem. It's spending. You just can't keep taking more money and expect to hit the magic formula. The rich pay plenty. Thinking you can solve problems by taxing the rich is fools gold. Stop chasing it. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 13:48:03 I'll never stop talking mark. no way you can ever stop me. Keep it up; everyone needs comic relief. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:09:39 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
LOL - yeah, and yet you're the one who's name calling... how about that? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:19:34 566463727564734C60736A010 wrote:
Well, it seemed to work pretty good in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. It's about burden mark, not amount. Like I said and like Lost's picture shows - the big guys don't need a step up. A person with $50 in their pocket will miss the $15 in tax far more than person with $1000 would miss their 300. But naw - you keep on supporting the very same people that keep you pushed down where you're at in your job. Keep supporting a corporate environment that puts profit above all else. Keep putting the oligarchs in charge. LOL - thankfully, that outdated mindset is dying - albeit a slow, agonizing death - at least it's dying. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 14:20:57 4C7E79686F7E69567A69701B0 wrote:
well you can't solve it by taxing the poor and giving to the rich either |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by verslagen1 on 03/12/19 at 14:30:10 486B77704576706D7770040 wrote:
well as Eegore would say, you're half to blame for reading it.... [/quote] lol |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 14:32:27 well you can't solve it by taxing the poor and giving to the rich either No one's doing that and no one's suggesting that. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 14:35:20 Keep supporting a corporate environment that puts profit above all else Truth is, as mentioned elsewhere, most company's don't do this. yes, they make as much as they can, but they also give enormous amounts away. but, our world exist in a far better state when corporations and people do pursue profit. capitalism has saved the world from abject poverty and misery. its your way, socialist, that will lead it back there. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 14:38:14 LostArtist wrote on Today at 3:31pm: http://www.publichealthnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Equality-Vs-Equit... it's not a bad starting point, is it? Well then just give those 3, a seat. No one in the ball park will mind. Especially the ones that, Paid, for their seats. Say that is a father and 2 sons. A cop comes and arrests them for not paying to see the game. All about, equality, right ! So in your world, all three go to jail. Not just the father. Because the mother was called to take the two boys home. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 14:38:21 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote:
YES THEY ARE! whenever ANY BILLIONAIRE COMPANY gets tax incentives to move in an area, those TAXES come from the UN-BILLIONAIRE PEOPLE living there. Trump's tax bill CUT the deductions average people could take so that they could CUT THE TAX RATE of the RICH AND CORPORATIONS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHAT YOUR PRESIDENT AND CONSERVATIVE STAND FOR AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. TRUMP'S NEW BUDGET CALLS TO CUT SS AND MEDICARE FOR THE OLD AND POOR SO THAT THE ALREADY RICH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CAN GET RICHER!! ARE YOU F"ING BLIND!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:40:32 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands in this (capitalistic) country file for bankruptcy because they cant pay their medical bills. Look up the word "Obtuse". |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 14:41:19 43605D7E7C6760690E0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:41:59 2C3F2829363B3D3F346B5A0 wrote:
well as Eegore would say, you're half to blame for reading it.... [/quote] lol[/quote] Glad you find your hypocrisy funny - I have to admit, it's pretty amusing. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 14:42:37 44677B7C497A7C617B7C080 wrote:
WOW, did you learn to talk that way from the tt ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:45:13 7B586546445F5851360 wrote:
WOW, did you learn to talk that way from the tt ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] You mean from the Tall Table? Or are you once again calling me an "it"? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 14:54:17 7E5D41467340465B4146320 wrote:
Hey, all I am asking for, is for tt to send me the Bobber. Not a new car ! |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 14:55:42 45665B787A61666F080 wrote:
Hey, all I am asking for, is for tt to send me the Bobber. Not a new car ! [/quote] Not even close to being the same thing. But you keep asking mn. It makes you look really smart! :D |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 15:01:09 293738393429322F5D0 wrote:
But Lost said I can. After all, I want to be, equal, also ! |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 15:07:09 496A5774766D6A63040 wrote:
But Lost said I can. After all, I want to be, equal, also ! [/quote] Looking really smart mn! Not childish at all! :D |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by verslagen1 on 03/12/19 at 15:10:00 3D232C2D203D263B490 wrote:
well as Eegore would say, you're half to blame for reading it.... [/quote] lol[/quote] Glad you find your hypocrisy funny - I have to admit, it's pretty amusing. [/quote] LOL as the troll spins. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/12/19 at 15:13:56 5E404F4E435E45582A0 wrote:
Aww-Gee tt, I just wanna be equal too ! Gimme, Gimme, a free seat tt ! Oh, WAIT, if you gave me a free seat, that would NOT, be equal, it would be BETTER, than the others. Who Paid for their seat. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 15:16:15 5A495E5F404D4B49421D2C0 wrote:
well as Eegore would say, you're half to blame for reading it.... [/quote] lol[/quote] Glad you find your hypocrisy funny - I have to admit, it's pretty amusing. [/quote] LOL as the troll spins.[/quote] Oh, I'm sorry vers. Have you met mn? mn - meet vers. LMAO!! |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by T And T Garage on 03/12/19 at 15:16:51 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
Aww-Gee tt, I just wanna be equal too ! Gimme, Gimme, a free seat tt ! Oh, WAIT, if you gave me a free seat, that would NOT, be equal, it would be BETTER, than the others. Who Paid for their seat. [/quote] Wow, smart and witty. Keep up the great work! |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 15:51:19 62417C5F5D4641482F0 wrote:
But Lost said I can. After all, I want to be, equal, also ! [/quote] no, no I didn't.... quit putting words in my mouth... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/12/19 at 16:17:11 I'm still wondering what the logic is regarding allowing anyone who geographically is in a location at the time of an election to take part. It's like saying if I move to Japan, illegally, do not obtain an official records of being a citizen there, that I get to vote. Even after breaking their laws, I get to vote on the outcome of a place I am an active criminal in. That's ok? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 16:23:39 19393B332E395C0 wrote:
it's not that you are "in a location" it's that you have residency there. As such, you have a vested interest in the quality of life and what's good for that community, because it DIRECTLY affects you cause YOU LIVE THERE. and I think I've heard that the average person breaks 3 laws a day without even knowing it, so chances are, you're a criminal where you are now. "Every day, the average American commits three felonies. So argues civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate in his new book “Three Felonies a Day,” the title of which refers to the number of crimes he estimates that Americans perpetrate each day because of vague and overly burdensome laws." |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/12/19 at 16:28:21 I'm still wondering what the logic is regarding allowing anyone who geographically lives in a location at the time of an election to take part. Regardless of legal citizenship? I can move to Japan and be a voting citizen just by choosing a location to stay at and call my residence? Should that be allowed? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/12/19 at 16:37:19 1B3B39312C3B5E0 wrote:
yes. if it's your primary residence, you only get to vote in/for/concerning one place |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/12/19 at 18:07:26 5675696E5B686E73696E1A0 wrote:
yes. if it's your primary residence, you only get to vote in/for/concerning one place[/quote] You can't be serious? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/12/19 at 19:25:59 "yes. if it's your primary residence, you only get to vote in/for/concerning one place" So this might be a discussion for an entirely different thread, but I am interested in how you expect countries to simply not take citizenship into account. I do believe you are the only person I've interacted with that thinks people should be able to take up residence anywhere they want/can and vote, given voting happens there. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 04:44:10 19393B332E395C0 wrote:
Eegore, if you think Lost is the only one who thinks that, you've not been keeping up with Democratic politics..... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 10:55:23 022220283522470 wrote:
when I moved from Pennsylvania to Texas, I had to establish residency in my local area, changed my driver's license, paid registration/taxes on my car, proved I lived someplace for 6 months or something, then I could vote there. so first, ask yourself, what's the point of voting? should only elites be allowed to vote? how do you define an elite? couldn't it be defined as citizen? so now you have a group of people living in an area, but only some of them can vote... is that fair to the rest that live there, to deny them a voice? Do you only want people who pay over 20% in income tax to pay as well? obviously they are more important than anyone else right? I don't think you understand democracy. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 10:58:45 isn't citizenship just a formal declaration of residency? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/13/19 at 11:05:00 5F7C60675261677A6067130 wrote:
A first-degree felony: murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, fraud. Second-degree felony: aggravated assault, felony assault, arson, manslaughter, possession of a controlled substance, child molestation. So the Author of that book, if he took into account the populations of the States that have legal Marijuana, (because it is still a Federal Crime), MAY be getting close. Yet I believe he is a LONG way away, from that statement being true. So back to the point, what would one call a person that wants, a ILLEGAL person to be able to VOTE. By just saying, 'I live here'. Is that like Minn, and other States where one only has to SAY, 'I am a Citizen', and not have to PROVE it ? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 11:36:26 so first, ask yourself, what's the point of voting? The point of voting is to have a voice in the governing of your community. should only elites be allowed to vote? how do you define an elite? couldn't it be defined as citizen? Not sure what the tie in to the word elite is. A citizen is a legal resident of a given area. Voters meet certain citizenship criteria before being allowed to have a voice in the community. Children are citizens but are not allowed to vote, mentally unstable, etc.. so now you have a group of people living in an area, but only some of them can vote... is that fair to the rest that live there, to deny them a voice? Yes its fair. Sorry, but I don't buy into the voting is an absolute right. I would describe voting as an earned privilege. Do you only want people who pay over 20% in income tax to pay as well? obviously they are more important than anyone else right? I want people to vote who have demonstrated and/or have a likelihood of demonstrating what we usually refer to as skin in the game. Illegal immigrants may have skin in the game in the sense they are living in a community but they are illegal. They 'broke into' this house and set up camp. I am aware we have illegals here who are more dedicated to this nation than many born and raised here. I get that, but you can't just break and enter into a country and have a say in how its run. If someone broke into your house, refused to leave, began participating in the order of the house and its family, does he get to have the same level of authority as you, the rightful owner of the house? He might be a swell guy, useful, contributing economically to the household, but does that mean he's the same as you? I don't think you understand democracy. I don't think you understand citizenship. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 11:45:29 092A1734362D2A23440 wrote:
A first-degree felony: murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, fraud. Second-degree felony: aggravated assault, felony assault, arson, manslaughter, possession of a controlled substance, child molestation. So the Author of that book, if he took into account the populations of the States that have legal Marijuana, (because it is still a Federal Crime), MAY be getting close. Yet I believe he is a LONG way away, from that statement being true. So back to the point, what would one call a person that wants, a ILLEGAL person to be able to VOTE. By just saying, 'I live here'. Is that like Minn, and other States where one only has to SAY, 'I am a Citizen', and not have to PROVE it ? [/quote] no, you'd have to prove residency via documentation, just like I had to in order to vote in Texas for Texas state and local things. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 11:47:49 I don't think you understand democracy. I don't think you understand citizenship.[/quote] they don't have anything to do with each other, we force that condition on democracy, it's not an innate part of democracy |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 11:57:39 Definition of democracy 1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 11:59:12 4B6B69617C6B0E0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by verslagen1 on 03/13/19 at 12:29:39 There is a path to citizenship and illegals have decided by their own choice not to follow it. Politicians are aware of this issue and have refused to address it. Why? to abuse them of their rights to fair employment. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 12:42:51 we force that condition on democracy, it's not an innate part of democracy I believe that it is. If I understand you correctly, you're making the point that someone who lives in a community, regardless of how he got there, his legal standing, his income, etc.. is in fact, part of that community so therefore has the right to vote. I say a very critical word in that definition is the word 'live'. What constitutes the definition of the word 'live' in this context. I travel for work a lot, but even if I'm in a city for a full week, I don't consider myself eligible to vote. There are some cities I go to often, so much so that I know my way around them as much as where I live. I read the local papers so I'm familiar with the local situations. So, could I claim the right to vote? My livelihood depends upon the competency of the government of that community so why shouldn't I be allowed to vote? You may say no because I'm just visiting. Okay, what if I was going to be there a full month? Three months? What's the timeframe for being allowed to vote? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 15:35:11 546661707766714E627168030 wrote:
you are arguing conditions of residency, that's what I'm doing.... I still consider Pennsylvania home.... but I live and vote in Texas... so debating a time period of living in a place that determines residency thats' fair... like when I went to college, I lived in the dorms, I never "resided" in that college town, even thoughI was there 8 of 12 months, 4 months a semester more or less, I never voted in that college town, I could only vote in my home town 3 hours away. so, if freedom of speech is expressed in a vote... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/13/19 at 15:38:26 6E7D6A6B74797F7D7629180 wrote:
The other night, 'News', on the Broadcast TV. I think it was Nigerians, who were going to be deported. Several interviews with some of them, and they all stated that they were here for 17/18/19 years, and considered themselves 'part' of the community. My question: Is 17+ Years, not enough time to study for the Citizenship Test ? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 15:54:36 2D0E331012090E07600 wrote:
The other night, 'News', on the Broadcast TV. I think it was Nigerians, who were going to be deported. Several interviews with some of them, and they all stated that they were here for 17/18/19 years, and considered themselves 'part' of the community. My question: Is 17+ Years, not enough time to study for the Citizenship Test ? [/quote] I actually agree with that, if you want to stay, under our current laws they shoulda done that, when I moved to Texas I changed all my stuff to Texas, driver's licence, car registration.. etc.... another person moved to Texas the same time I did, they never changed anything, everything said they were from Iowa still, they left a few years later to return to Iowa, they never voted in Texas, I did. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by verslagen1 on 03/13/19 at 16:07:22 0B2834330635332E3433470 wrote:
The other night, 'News', on the Broadcast TV. I think it was Nigerians, who were going to be deported. Several interviews with some of them, and they all stated that they were here for 17/18/19 years, and considered themselves 'part' of the community. My question: Is 17+ Years, not enough time to study for the Citizenship Test ? [/quote] I actually agree with that, if you want to stay, under our current laws they shoulda done that, when I moved to Texas I changed all my stuff to Texas, driver's licence, car registration.. etc.... another person moved to Texas the same time I did, they never changed anything, everything said they were from Iowa still, they left a few years later to return to Iowa, they never voted in Texas, I did. [/quote] If you agree to that then I don't understand why you think illegals should vote! As "There is a path to citizenship and illegals have decided by their own choice not to follow it." |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 16:50:35 445740415E5355575C03320 wrote:
The other night, 'News', on the Broadcast TV. I think it was Nigerians, who were going to be deported. Several interviews with some of them, and they all stated that they were here for 17/18/19 years, and considered themselves 'part' of the community. My question: Is 17+ Years, not enough time to study for the Citizenship Test ? [/quote] I actually agree with that, if you want to stay, under our current laws they shoulda done that, when I moved to Texas I changed all my stuff to Texas, driver's licence, car registration.. etc.... another person moved to Texas the same time I did, they never changed anything, everything said they were from Iowa still, they left a few years later to return to Iowa, they never voted in Texas, I did. [/quote] If you agree to that then I don't understand why you think illegals should vote! As "There is a path to citizenship and illegals have decided by their own choice not to follow it."[/quote] first, the Nigerians were probably here legally, as in they didn't cross the southern border to get here did they? they probably came over on some refugee program and intended to settle here or something, why they didn't take the legal steps available to them to become permanent residents and citizens, idk??? that's just be a prudent step if you don't plan on returning to your original country and have that legal means in front of you. Also notice I didn't say they shouldn't have been allowed to vote while they were living here... Just because I believe they missed (perhaps foolishly) an opportunity to confirm and solidify their legal stance doesn't mean that ideally, if you believe in democracy, that people that live in an area should vote concerning that area and participate in government. and let's get this straight, this "citizenship" thing, is as arbitrary as any other reason to restrict voting. You don't want input from everyone in your community, only those that fit YOUR specific arbitrary criteria for voting. so your arbitrary criteria is citizenship.... mine is living in the area under that area's rules of residency. There are MANY MANY MANY illegals in my area that make way more than I do, and contribute more to the community than I do, they are upstanding individuals who chose not to wait in a rigged line where if you wanted in this year, you'd have to have had applied in 1997.... Their life, and MY life, is better for them being here, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? "Right now, about 1.3 million Mexicans are waiting to learn whether they can get family-sponsored green cards, according to a federal government report. And that’s just those living outside the U.S. This is how far behind they are: The State Department is now processing visas for the Mexican married sons or daughters of U.S. citizens who have been waiting in line since May 1995. It’s slightly worse for Filipinos who have visa dates of March 1995 for the same family relationship." https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/08/29/dont-mexicans-just-apply-citizenship |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 17:50:37 If I understand you correctly, you're making the point that someone who lives in a community, regardless of how he got there, his legal standing, his income, etc.. is in fact, part of that community so therefore has the right to vote. some could argue that, doesn't every voice/opinion count? 1 person 1 vote right? As I said before, no, every voice does not count. so, if freedom of speech is expressed in a vote... Which it's not.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 17:57:59 You don't want input from everyone in your community, only those that fit YOUR specific arbitrary criteria for voting Exactly. It's not arbitrary however. (and it's not MY idea per se, its the consensus of the established community who gets to decide who votes and who doesn't. It's based on solid ideas that are more prone to deliver a safe and sound community. Here's an example. For work, I recently had to join a very technical committee that's beyond my historical working experience. I've been selected to take over for someone in our company whose retiring in a year or two. It will take that long to get up to speed with the knowledge needed to participate. Right now, I am not a voting member. I very well may not be a voting member for years because a vote from a person without the necessary knowledge could have a negative effective on the health of the public at large, yours included. If you knew the details, all of you would agree I should not be a voting member until I could demonstrate I met the committee's criteria. Our voting laws are the same. The community decides what criteria constitutes a valid basis for voting. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/13/19 at 17:59:32 In my mind and the mind of many others, illegal immigrants do not demonstrate the criteria for voting. They broke into the country illegally. There are consequences. Not voting is one of them. Subject to deportation is another. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 19:56:46 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
that's not how the Supreme Court sees it... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 20:02:52 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
the community that doesn't include everyone...... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/13/19 at 20:08:23 083A3D2C2B3A2D123E2D345F0 wrote:
and yet they pay taxes, sales tax and property tax and gas tax and this and that tax.... just LIKE YOU in Texas we don't have a state income tax... we use property tax to pay for our schools and stuff, so they contribute as much to that as anyone else in the state, the local governments run off of sales tax so they pay that... their children go to schools that those taxes help pay for... should they be taxed without representation? didn't we have a little thing about that 250 years ago or so.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/13/19 at 20:21:14 "and yet they pay taxes, sales tax and property tax and gas tax and this and that tax.... just LIKE YOU" What about people who aren't doing this? People living illegally, not paying taxes except for sales tax when they buy something with money they acquired without paying income tax as they are undocumented? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/14/19 at 07:03:00 5070727A6770150 wrote:
I DON"T DO THAT. there's NO income tax in Texas. I do pay federal income taxes though, so that's a bit of a difference I guess. And I know that there are citizens that work under the table. What about them? and some non-citizens do pay payroll taxes for SS and Medicare that they don't qualify for. And there are several citizens that don't pay income tax, spouses that don't work, 18 - 26 year olds that live at home and don't work enough to pay income taxes, poor Americans that don't make enough to pay income tax.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/14/19 at 16:11:18 So do illegal immigrants living in the US in taxable areas, where income, State, City or Federal taxes exist, that pay none of those taxes, should they be allowed to influence public process by voting? To clarify: State "or" Federal "or" City is meant to convey that one, both, or either may exist in any combination. "Illegal Immigrants" is meant to convey individuals of any age that have moved into the geographical location governed by US statute, City State or Federal, and now claim residence in one of those areas. "And I know that there are citizens that work under the table. What about them?" That's not in question. They as "LEGAL" US citizens can vote, if they are registered to do so. I am trying to ask a question specific to the definitions above as it is already law that "Legal" US citizens of legal age can vote. So that's not in question, that is already established. Homeless, non-tax paying "LEGAL" US citizens are already legally allowed to vote - given they register. But "ILLEGAL" immigrants, that are not "LEGAL" US Citizens are in question. That is my question, what about them? Should non-tax paying individuals be able to vote just by saying "I live here today"? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/14/19 at 16:36:11 78585A524F583D0 wrote:
but those homeless fit my definition of having residency. my point to all this is, citizenship is arbitrary, a mere accident of birthplace. So why are you all so die hard on making that the end all be all about who gets to vote and contribute to the governance of an area? every other quality you are fine with, but an accident of birthplace... that's what you're hanging your governance on? oh, and yeah, they broke the law.. it's a MISDEMEANOR "The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_entry people with misdemeanors can vote... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/14/19 at 16:40:58 2707050D1007620 wrote:
I see you changed that..... this "I live here today" isn't what I'm saying, I keep using this word RESIDENCY, there's a reason I use it. it's not a place you are visiting for a day, a week, 2 years....., it's a place you've decided to make your long term home... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/14/19 at 21:05:19 " don't believe that, how do they pay none of those taxes? " I already addressed this and you responded to it: "People living illegally, not paying taxes except for sales tax when they buy something with money they acquired without paying income tax as they are undocumented?" To clarify: Sales tax is meant to convey taxes, State, City, Private or Federal that is imposed as a percentage of the purchase of goods. "Except sales tax" is meant to convey undocumented immigrants contribute to sales tax but not to other taxes. So I will roll with the "accident of birthplace" as I refer to it as "Birthplace Lottery". The question I have is more specifically directed towards your statement here: "no, you'd have to prove residency via documentation, just like I had to in order to vote in Texas for Texas state and local things." This makes sense. The issue is that I am referring to what is literally called "Undocumented Immigrant". How does an "Undocumented" or what I have referred to as "Illegal" immigrant meet the standards of "residency via documentation" ? As far as I know we have a process for this. What the concern is, for me, is that people with no documentation can vote but without verification/registration. Or in other words: "it's not a place you are visiting for a day, a week, 2 years....., it's a place you've decided to make your long term home..." How would the voting booth know this if there's no documentation? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 00:05:30 19393B332E395C0 wrote:
again, there are other ways to prove your residency than your citizenship, I had to prove I was a TEXAN to vote in my local TEXAS election. California provides driver's licences to illegals... Rent receipts, utility receipts.... there is plenty of legal documentation that illegals can have to prove a long term residency. "Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter does not possess one of the forms of acceptable photo ID and cannot reasonably obtain one: copy or original of a government document that shows the voter’s name and an address, including the voter’s voter registration certificate; copy of or original current utility bill; copy of or original bank statement; copy of or original government check; copy of or original paycheck; or copy of or original of (a) a certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes the voter’s identity (which may include a foreign birth document). After presenting one of the forms of supporting ID listed above, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration." https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id.html also, I thought this was fairly obvious, but I'll spell it out for you, the citizenship question would be removed from voter registration forms so you'd have that too.... so, yes, there would be some changes as to what is accepted under law, some laws would have to change possibly..... but to embrace a truer, more inclusive and accurate form of democracy, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....." |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 00:21:30 Amendment 15 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Amendment 19 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Amendment 24 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. (For a history of why the 24th Amendment only applies to federal elections, see here). Amendment 26 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Notice how they all say, the right of citizens shall not be abridged or denied or something to that effect.... not that the PRIVILEGE as some have stated here.... or that aliens don't or can't have that right..... “Alien suffrage was quite common during the nineteenth century, coming to a peak in 1875 when twenty-two states and territories granted aliens the right to vote.”237 That ended in the 1920s, at which point all states required citizenship as a condition to voter eligibility.238 Today, every state prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.239 Federal law, too, prohibits aliens from voting in federal elections.240 (federal law... not the constitution... just as a point) There are, however, jurisdictions that allow,241 or seek to allow,242 noncitizens to vote in local elections. And as resident aliens have a significant interest in the locales where they reside, and are subject to other political obligations like taxation, there have been particularly strong arguments in favor of extending suffrage to at least a set of them.243" http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/05/09/does-the-u-s-constitution-allow-non-citizens-to-vote/ |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 00:29:43 and listen, this is all just a thought experiment on democracy.... which I know we don't live in anyway, we live in a representational republic, but representational is becoming more and more a joke, We the People is being replaced by We the Corporate donors... so a way to counter the ever decreasing effect voting actually has on our representatives, maybe we can try expanding our idea of democracy.. it's sad that so many think that their vote matter so little that they don't bother to vote anyway... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Matchless G11 on 03/15/19 at 04:14:27 Socialism ends up poorly. I think the better solution to slow or end big corporate donors is to uses the monopoly laws to break up big companies so they don't have so much power. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/15/19 at 06:55:29 "okay.. but there are places where all of their financing IS SALES TAX. so they are JUST AS IMPORTANT as other kinds of taxation" I never said any form of taxation is more or less valuable as they all hold a 1 to 1 ratio of income per USD monetary unit collected. To clarify: "People living illegally, not paying taxes except for sales tax, a taxation upon goods utilized in some cases as an exclusive form of taxable income and as such is interpreted here as an equally valuable taxation type as any and all other legally imposed taxes, when they buy something with money they acquired without paying income tax as they are undocumented? "Notice how they all say, the right of citizens shall not be abridged or denied or something to that effect.... " The right of citizens. Illegal immigrants are not citizens. Thus the term citizenship test. Are you indicating that if someone pays a utility bill for six months in a geographical location governed by the US that they are now a citizen? Or are they a "resident"? It seems to me an amendment saying it applies to citizens doesnt apply to non-citizens. When we took British prisoners that lived here, they were indeed residents, but not citizens. Should the right to vote have been extended to them? To clarify I am attempting to define things so we stop prolonging the conversation around semantics. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 08:05:36 2D343A3A6C6C2F3829383E366E69685D0 wrote:
an excellent idea... but not a trending one, more and more companies are being allowed to buy each other and consolidate power... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 08:35:20 The only point I"m making on this idea, is that citizenship is arbitrary, so why are we clinging to that as the end all be all factor to determining who votes? don't people who live in an area have a voice and responsibility to contribute to the governing of that area? isn't that the core idea behind democracy? and There is no longer a point in replying to this thread. Eegore apparently can't read and is being difficult so I refuse to engage in any more conversation about this with him, as everything he's asking has been explained in previous posts. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/15/19 at 08:36:27 Socialism ends up poorly. I think the better solution to slow or end big corporate donors is to uses the monopoly laws to break up big companies so they don't have so much power. I can get behind that idea to a point. For example, I believe I read InBev has 30%+ share of the US beer market. At what point does that become a problem? Not sure. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Matchless G11 on 03/15/19 at 10:37:57 Mark, in a way you hit the nail on the head with beer. microbrews! Now if we can get others to make items for sale, small business, farmer markets, shop locally, go to mom and pop places. There is hope. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 10:43:52 something we all agree on, we don't want a crony corporatist government, right? crony corporatist government - a government that's loyal only to corporations, of which the bigger company, the more power they have on the government right? or am I reaching too far? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/15/19 at 15:00:21 42617D7A4F7C7A677D7A0E0 wrote:
I’m thinking that, ‘Crooked’, people in government, who have been, and are, doing the, crony corporatist government. Are the people that WANT, and are striving for, the continuance of, the crony corporatist government. Wanting Non Citizens to vote. Wanting 16 year olds to vote. Wanting No Border control. Wanting, Government to control your life. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 15:42:21 40635E7D7F64636A0D0 wrote:
I’m thinking that, ‘Crooked’, people in government, who have been, and are, doing the, crony corporatist government. Are the people that WANT, and are striving for, the continuance of, the crony corporatist government. Wanting Non Citizens to vote. - how does this contribute to a government corrupted by corporations??? Wanting 16 year olds to vote. . - how does this contribute to a government corrupted by corporations??? Wanting No Border control. . - how does this contribute to a government corrupted by corporations??? Wanting, Government to control your life. . - is government, in America at least, supposed to be WE THE PEOPLE? so if WE THE PEOPLE aren't controlling our lives.... who do you want to to control your life? [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/15/19 at 16:22:52 notice how not once, did Eegore or anyone say something along the lines of: Citizenship is more than an arbitrary place of birth, it's close to a guarantee of at least exposure to a shared set of experiences (education, culture, community, whatever....) for 18 years... well, where only like 7 of that might you be even remotely aware of what the culture around you is doing, but at least you're getting some of that through osmosis of exposure via your parents, family, community, shopping, etc.... so, you are at least somewhat indoctrinated in American values... and that adds value to your voice to contribute to our governance as a nation..... After all, isn't that what citizenship classes and tests try to mimic in at least some way? Isn't that the point of requiring years of residency BEFORE taking the citizenship test? yet no mention of any of this in any of Eegore's rebutals to me, just asking the same questions again and again and again about what do I mean when I say resident... and the harassment he disguises and "clarification." come on y'all! that being said, I don't have a problem with undocumented immigrants who have proof of residency (however that is to be defined by a local government) being able to vote where they live in local elections. maybe even up to state level.... idk about national elections yet, but let's be clear, you all call them foreigners... I call them neighbors.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/15/19 at 17:33:16 0F2C30370231372A3037430 wrote:
I and Many others, do have a problem with, Non Citizens voting. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/15/19 at 21:01:13 notice how not once, did Eegore or anyone say something along the lines of: Citizenship is more than an arbitrary place of birth I would have no reason to say that as I do not think it is true. "just asking the same questions again and again and again about what do I mean when I say resident... " I wouldn't have to ask more than once if you would answer the first time. You outline Amendments that clearly indicate "citizen" attempting to apply it to people who aren't. You bring up sales taxes, after I already clarified that sales tax was included. Then you outline equal importance of sales tax even when I did not say it was less important. Those among others are responses that did not answer what you think a resident vs a citizen in the US is. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/16/19 at 19:40:28 0B281536342F2821460 wrote:
I and Many others, do have a problem with, Non Citizens voting. [/quote] cause??? again you see them as foreigners, while I see them as neighbors, what's the difference between an 18 year old kid and an undocumented immigrant who's been here 18 years and can pass a citizenship test ? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/16/19 at 19:53:55 6646444C5146230 wrote:
NOT AT ALL, all those amendment say what you CAN'T do to citizens of certain requirement, THEY DO NOT SAY WHAT YOU CAN ALLOW NON-CITIZENS TO DO. it's unconstitutional to require a citizen to take a literacy test, or pay a poll tax, etc... it is not unconstitutional to require a non-citizen to take a literacy test or even a citizenship test before they can vote. now it is illegal for non-citizens to vote, but not based on the constitution oh, and that law was passed in 1996... even though all states banned it since 1926 "Since enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, federal law has prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, punishing them by fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility and deportation.[3][4][5] Exempt from punishment is any noncitizen who "reasonably believed at the time of voting (...) that he or she was a citizen of the United States," had a parent who is or was a citizen and began permanently living in the United States before turning 16 years old.[3] The federal law does not prohibit noncitizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed noncitizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting in 1926.[6]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States and let's be clear, a citizen, as stated quite a few times in this thread, is someone born here by mere accident of their parents being here (you don't choose your relatives, etc...) and as recently expanded, "Citizenship is more than an arbitrary place of birth, it's close to a guarantee of at least exposure to a shared set of experiences (education, culture, community, whatever....)..." if you're confused about what 2 different words mean.... you have access to the internet and to dictionaries.... you're working awful hard to suppress democracy.... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/18/19 at 10:20:58 a thought: This thread took a tangent from talking about the differences in "socialism" to democracy and voting... and originally, arguing over who gets to vote seems fairly semantic. To me, I think the underlying idea of democracy is that people, the average person deserves some kind of say in how they are governed. And sure, you can argue about well, what conditions you want to put on those people, citizenship, property ownership, etc.... but isn't putting those conditions on voting, doesn't that lend itself more to what conservatives are so afraid of about "socialism?" This idea that only these people are qualified.... doesn't that sound like it leads to a path of limited involvement, less say... and the smaller a group of governing people, isn't that the path towards authoritarianism? the path towards Venezuela and Cuba.... towards dictatorship? ' and maybe that's why there are 2 different interpretations of "socialism." You'll notice Bernie and his progressive followers always say "Democratic Socialism." and Conservatives don't seem to hear that first part, the Democratic, part, cause they don't really like democracy.... as shown by this last few elections, they suppress the vote, want only people with skin in the game to vote, etc... so to them, yeah, if we start going down the "socialist" path, we'll end up like Venezuela, despite our many, many, many differences in almost every area..., While progressives, want to expand the vote, to give power to more and more people, to dillute the power of the rich at the top, yes, redistribute wealth... etc... well, thanks for participating in this thought experiment... and yes, some things are overstated... so let's not get too hung up on what anyone here actually believes in this thread, it's just some thoughts |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/18/19 at 14:36:12 70534F487D4E48554F483C0 wrote:
Could be a VAST difference between them. Or they could be very much alike. As far as voting, If your, ' can pass', means Not a Citizen. And '18 year old kid', means a Citizen. One, IS, a Citizen, the other is NOT a Citizen. If your, 'can pass', means that person DID take the citizenship test, and passed. Then, (as far as Voting) no difference. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/18/19 at 14:48:56 7D5E634042595E57300 wrote:
Could be a VAST difference between them. Or they could be very much alike. As far as voting, If your, ' can pass', means Not a Citizen. And '18 year old kid', means a Citizen. One, IS, a Citizen, the other is NOT a Citizen. If your, 'can pass', means that person DID take the citizenship test, and passed. Then, (as far as Voting) no difference. oh, and can pass, means they have the knowledge needed to pass, not that they qualify to even take the test legally... yeah, and if you think the accident of your birthplace makes you more qualified to have a voice or say in your governance, than you're a silly silly human being..... spelling all this out for you all is getting a bit tedious.... did anyone teach you all how to think critically??? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by MnSpring on 03/18/19 at 15:31:47 4A6975724774726F7572060 wrote:
Rather simple. Each country has established a criteria for being a citizen. Each country has established a criteria as to who can vote. A Person is a Citizen of a Country, or not. If one is not, each Country has a established way to become a Citizen. In the US, if a Person, SNEAKS in, that person is not a Citizen. The only, 'silly' I see, is a Person, Sneaking', in, and expecting to Vote. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/18/19 at 16:06:29 5C7F426163787F76110 wrote:
Rather simple. Each country has established a criteria for being a citizen. Each country has established a criteria as to who can vote. yes and I'd be open to looking at changing those criteria, that's all I'm saying here, this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT... do you comprehend????? A Person is a Citizen of a Country, or not. If one is not, each Country has a established way to become a Citizen. In the US, if a Person, SNEAKS in, that person is not a Citizen. The only, 'silly' I see, is a Person, Sneaking', in, and expecting to Vote. [/quote] well, no one is really doing, that, not really, do you understand "THOUGHT EXPERIMENT'???? do you understand that I don't think the accident of your birthplace, really means much?? if a non-citizen can pass a voting test then why not let them vote? if they also have established residency (and I'm open to making that a long term, 5 years, 8 years maybe... ) . this idea that you're special because your momma gave birth to you on American soil? why is that ACCIDENT so sacred to you? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/19/19 at 04:39:09 12312D2A1F2C2A372D2A5E0 wrote:
Thank you for the post and interesting responses Lost. Clearly we are on opposite ends here but it was a useful exchange at the end. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/19/19 at 08:19:31 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
Thank you for the post and interesting responses Lost. Clearly we are on opposite ends here but it was a useful exchange at the end. [/quote] |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/19/19 at 14:27:11 "16 year olds don't have enough life experiences to vote, non-citizens who broke in don't get to vote, felons who committed violent crimes, financial crimes etc.. give up that right. " I agree with this. I am still unclear as to if anyone who lives in a location and pays into the system, even if only by sales tax which is equally important as other taxes, should be considered a "Resident" based exclusively off of time spent in geographic location. That only being appropriate if a "Resident" is to be considered equal to a "Citizen" when talking about voting and only if verifiable documentation is submitted when voting. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/19/19 at 15:23:58 Okay, so if you're a citizen, you can vote, unless.... you aren't old enough you don't have enough life experience (based on some fantasy of the average childhood ideal??) you have a felony, even if it was when you were very young and you've paid the penalty you've committed financial crimes? like what exactly? But..... if you''ve never done anything productive in your life, sponged off your parents, got married and are now sponging off your spouse, couldn't tell the White House from a white picket fence, you're homeless, any kind of degenerate, a psychopath, have dementia, etc..... All that's okay to allow you to vote as long as you happened to be born on American soil..... or to American parents... so the criteria to vote has nothing to do with your actual knowledge of politics or your value to your local area, or your merits as "good" person, or your loyalty to this nation, or anything actually relevant to government.... ok then...... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/19/19 at 15:25:06 0D2D2F273A2D480 wrote:
can you try rewording this, I seriously don't understand what you are saying past "I agree with this." |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Trippah on 03/19/19 at 15:34:30 Resident and Citizen should never be considered the same; they are separate but partially overlapping sets. You might live in a country for years, work and pay taxes. This might garner you resident status - but you might still remain a citizens of another country. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/19/19 at 15:39:54 1A3C273E3E2F264E0 wrote:
but which privileges, rights do we extend to residents? is it their fault that our legal immigration is so messed up it takes 20 years to just get a green card? or that their parents moved them here? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by WebsterMark on 03/19/19 at 18:15:55 All that's okay to allow you to vote as long as you happened to be born on American soil..... or to American parents... Yep. That's how it works everywhere. And that's for a reason. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by verslagen1 on 03/20/19 at 06:59:02 50736F685D6E68756F681C0 wrote:
You left out you're a native american who lives on a reservation and even though it's a house or a trailer parked in the same spot for years, it doesn't have an standard address with a number and a street. |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/20/19 at 08:08:10 5A495E5F404D4B49421D2C0 wrote:
You left out you're a native american who lives on a reservation and even though it's a house or a trailer parked in the same spot for years, it doesn't have an standard address with a number and a street.[/quote] or happen to have a spelling of a name that the registration office got wrong cause... why would there be capital Q there..... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/20/19 at 08:08:19 0A383F2E29382F103C2F365D0 wrote:
and that reason is???? |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by LostArtist on 03/20/19 at 09:04:41 here's something: The Left’s Next Target: Noncitizen Voting https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/noncitizen-voting-the-lefts-next-target/ unfortunately the arguments presented are actually not logical even though the author says they are... First this from the article, just to prove my point that it is indeed, not unconstitutional to allow aliens to vote: "Noncitizen voting was actually the status quo for much of U.S. history. It wasn’t until 1926 that Arkansas became the last state to ban noncitizens from voting, and 1928 that the first federal election without enfranchised aliens occurred. Since Article I of the Constitution provides that those who can vote in elections for the most numerous house of their state legislature may vote in elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, many congresses in our history have seen members elected from constituencies with significant populations of alien voters. Initially after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress promoted alien voting, partly as an incentive for the settlement of new territories. Section eleven of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provided that ownership of 50 acres of land “and two years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative” regardless of citizenship status. Alien suffrage peaked in the years after the Civil War – at least 22 states and territories allowed noncitizen voting around 1875. In my home state of South Carolina, the post–Civil War constitution of 1865 joined those of a number of other southern states in allowing aliens who had declared their intent to become citizens to vote." and to the arguments: "They (the leftists) make three main arguments: that noncitizen voting is required by the social contract, that political outcomes will be biased against noncitizens without the franchise, and that noncitizen voting presents benefits to all voters in a given jurisdiction." ""Each of these is wrong in its own way." 1. "The social-contract argument boils down to “no taxation without representation.” In other words, aliens are required to pay taxes and potentially serve in the armed forces, and therefore they’re entitled to voting representation. But aliens are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to Americans. For instance, someone with a green card who commits a crime can be deported from the United States, a penalty that would not be available or fair for a naturalized citizen. Other rights not universally afforded to aliens in the United States are the right to serve on juries, run for public office, or access certain government jobs." This is kind of what I've been saying about the core idea behind democracy itself. The idea is that people have a right to have a voice in how they agree to live in an area together, taxation or not. How we agree to share things, trade for things, common values of things all of that is an social agreement among residents in an area. and okay, " aliens are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to Americans." but why exclude them from voting IF they also meet certain other criteria, criteria that may include a loyalty oath/test, them denouncing their previous citizenship, and passing a basic civics test and having documentation to prove long term residency... and perhaps more, so that unlike citizens who can't be forced to do any of that via the Constitution, the would... 2. "The second argument for noncitizen voting is that it is discriminatory to prevent illegal aliens from voting, and that as a result, the laws that are made will be biased against those who lack representation. This is the same argument that was made in favor of allowing 18-year-olds to vote – if someone were going to be sent to Vietnam, he should get to choose his elected leaders. There’s one key difference, however, between an 18-year-old getting drafted with no voting rights and an alien: the 18-year-old did not choose his condition. An alien voluntarily comes to the United States in search of a better life, hoping to work and to be part of the American experience, a process I support if it’s done legally. If they have concerns about what they believe to be discriminatory aspects of our laws, they are absolutely free not to come, and in the vast majority of cases retain full voting rights in their native countries. The 147 million people in the world who’d like to immigrate to the United States and the up-to-multi-decade green-card backlog suggests to me that the actual practical concerns about discriminatory public policy aren’t very serious. The aliens themselves certainly don’t think so." "The second argument for noncitizen voting is that it is discriminatory to prevent illegal aliens from voting, and that as a result, the laws that are made will be biased against those who lack representation." how has this not shown to be true? laws don't protect their working status, laws don't protect their right to have property, laws exclude them from many things... and, not all aliens chose their condition, like the DACA kids.... or those threaten with death seeking asylum.... "they are absolutely free not to come," and then do what? so you'd rather be discriminatory and refuse someone a chance at a better life than for them to come here to mow your lawn? "The aliens themselves certainly don’t think so." just because you put your name on a list doesn't mean you're happy about waiting 20 years to get a green card, you don't think they are lobbying their own government to get this immigration system worked out better or to improve their lives in their own nation as best they can.... it just means you too chickensh!t to even break the law at a misdemeanor level, this is America, aren't we supposed to reward risk takers.. we do it all the time on Wall Street.. 3. "Finally, there’s the mutual-benefit argument, which suggests that if aliens are allowed to vote, then they can make common cause with other marginalized groups in our society, and come together for the mutual improvement of our country. This is a classic example of how identity politics erases individuals. Who is to say that a single male alien from Honduras has the same interests as, for example, a female high-school principal who is an American citizen in a low-income community? It is just as likely that they have competing interests. The Honduran might be a construction worker, and therefore might benefit from reduced taxes on the construction industry, while the principal might benefit from increased spending on education. The history of immigration and assimilation is littered with these types of examples." um... yeah the mutual benefit in your example is MUTUALLY BENEFITTING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. so there ARE mutual benefits to having them move and vote here, this author's stereotypical identification of the Hondura's worker is just as much identity politics as any "leftist" Many, many, many central and south American immigrants are MUCH MUCH MUCH more conservative than mainstream democrats here. an maybe they make common cause with marginalized groups or maybe they just make common cause with their neighbors or the industry they work for or.... their cause gets to be their own. liberals aren't the ones denying anyone their voice in voting. the conclusion of this article.... "Part of the reason that none of the stated arguments put forward by leftists hold up to logic is that, even when advancing the radical policy of noncitizen voting, they can’t state their true view: that drawing a distinction between citizens and noncitizens of the United States is immoral. It’s the same principle that leads them to oppose both securing the border with a wall and enacting effective immigration enforcement measures. But, in the same way that a strong border is what protects the citizens of the United States from drug trafficking and terrorism, a strong border between who is and is not a voting member of our Republic based on citizenship protects and upholds the legitimacy of our institutions. " " that drawing a distinction between citizens and noncitizens of the United States is immoral." um, yes, it creates a 2 class population, which we currently have of course... it could be considered that citizens are just royalty by another name..... so if you support serfdom and a feudal system... then denying people their voice in voting is the way to go... "a strong border is what protects the citizens of the United States from drug trafficking and terrorism" you mean very poorly.... at least with the current proposals by the administration... terrorists come in via visas and airplanes, and drugs are coming over through the legal ports of entry, neither of those are even being addressed by the current administration who'd rather have a big ineffective symbol showing strength than actually being strong with modern technology and better intelligence. " upholds the legitimacy of our institutions." the legitimacy of our institutions should be based on how moral and effective they are, dontcha think? like the legitimacy that we support democracy over authoritarianism by promoting the expansion of democracy... |
|
Title: Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? Post by Eegore on 03/20/19 at 09:49:26 "can you try rewording this, I seriously don't understand what you are saying past "I agree with this." "Unclear" is meant to establish that I have no exact understanding, opinion, or statement as to the "Resident" definition at this time given the information provided, discussed, or theorized. By "Pay into the system" I mean a human of origin other than the United States contributes, legally, a monetary amount into the local or national infrastructure by means of taxation. I consider sales tax to be a legal form of taxation that has equal value as other forms of legal taxation as the payment is in USD thus containing a 1-1 ratio of contribution per unit of currency per denomination of currency. "time spent in geographic location" is meant to establish that a human of origin other than the United States that enters, and stays for a period of time, in any geographical location governed by the United States. So if a human of origin other than the United States spends a period of time in a specific geographical location governed by the United States legally or illegally, and pays legal taxes, even if it is local sales tax in exclusivity, is considered a "Resident" and is allowed to vote that person then has equal rights as a "Citizen" when it comes to the act of voting. If I am understanding this correctly the idea is that by being physically present in any area of the US, one gets the same voting rights as everyone else. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |