Donate!
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register :: View Members
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print
Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations? (Read 525 times)
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 7965

Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #105 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #106 - 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......  


Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #107 - 03/19/19 at 15:25:06
 
Eegore wrote 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.



can you try rewording this, I seriously don't understand what you are saying past "I agree with this."
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Trippah
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

I ride, therefore I
am.

Posts: 2517
central Mass
Gender: male
Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #108 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #109 - 03/19/19 at 15:39:54
 
Trippah wrote 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.


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?
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 12809

Gender: male
Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #110 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
verslagen1
YaBB Moderator
ModSquad
*****
Offline

Where there's a
will, I want to be
in it.

Posts: 28733
L.A. California
Gender: male
Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #111 - 03/20/19 at 06:59:02
 
LostArtist wrote 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......  



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.
Back to top
 
 
WWW   IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #112 - 03/20/19 at 08:08:10
 
verslagen1 wrote on 03/20/19 at 06:59:02:
LostArtist wrote 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......  



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.


or happen to have a spelling of a name that the registration office got wrong cause... why would there be capital Q there.....  


Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #113 - 03/20/19 at 08:08:19
 
WebsterMark wrote 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.


and that reason is????
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
LostArtist
Ex Member




Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #114 - 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...


Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 7965

Re: Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?
Reply #115 - 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.


 
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print


« Home

 
« Home
SuzukiSavage.com
03/28/24 at 19:02:51



General CategoryPolitics, Religion (Tall Table) › Socialism.... Why 2 different interpretations?


SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2!
YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.