01 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidYea Joe if it comes down to a single point referendum such as the example you cited, it’s called math son.
I think that democracy to you is that 51% of all inhabitants of a country, no matter who, can control the other 49%. If I am incorrect, tell us your definition?
01 Jul 22
@shallow-blue saidBut what is your definition...I asked first.
And Republicanism, to you, is that 1% of people can tell the other 99% how to live and die.
01 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidHey Kev.....then answer this analogy.
Example: A bunch of border crossers all end up living in a small town . They make up 52% of the populace. None pay taxes. The town plans a roller skate park that is iffy among the citizens. Some vote no. The 52% join up and vote on the park, it passes. The park is built. Hey....talk about No Skin In The Game!!
Suzianne: "Hey, you. got a point there, AvJoe. You are stupid, but gotta hand it to you. I'd be mad, I don't skate!!"
01 Jul 22
@kevcvs57 saidI think this is what you mean by 'having already answered th question,",,,,,,I don't see such an answer, sorry.
The skin in the game is that these effers get to run your life they can even tell you to be a parent regardless of your wishes, they can chuck a rifle in your hand and send you to die for something you do not give a 💩 about, they can poison the air you breath, the water you drink and the food you eat.
We all have skin in the game regardless of income tax returns.
01 Jul 22
@AverageJoe1
And I take issue with saying those asked (not forced) to fight are fighting for the freedoms of our country which they are enjoying ......without paying taxes, for god sakes.
01 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 saidNo I’m not dancing around anything your just not understanding your own question. In a referendum / single issue yes or no referendum 51% quite rightly carries the day.
You are dancing around with your clever comment, the son, and all, but do you think 51% should be able to prevail over the other 49%.
In a wider general election situation then the 51% do not get everything they want simply because they never all want the same thing anymore than the 49% do.
@averagejoe1 saidSomeone can have no income on account of unjust discrimination visited upon that individual by society at large and/or certain government policies. You propose someone so wronged should have no ability to vote in order to help effect a change in circumstances for the better. A poll tax. Revolting idea, and of course not even an original idea.
I was only throwing a little levity in when I said "Only owners of Real estate should vote!", I know y'all are still smartin' over the EPA ruling, among others.
But should not voters at least have some skin in the game? Be paying taxes? Yes, I know they pay tax when they buy a coke/hamburder, (Pepsi up north), to eat and drink to stay alive. But if someone wanders ...[text shortened]... , I would like to know them. Hurry up, I have coffee group at 9AM! Will spread the learned comments.
01 Jul 22
@jimm619 saidThe people in power receive a ton of money from wealthy people to run their elections. There's no political incentive to change the status quo.
But let's crack down on welfare moms....
10 MINUTE READ
https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files
Meanwhile welfare moms don't vote.
01 Jul 22
@kevcvs57 saidI speak of Presidential elections. You libs don't want an electoral college, which of course would mean 51% would prevail.
No I’m not dancing around anything your just not understanding your own question. In a referendum / single issue yes or no referendum 51% quite rightly carries the day.
In a wider general election situation then the 51% do not get everything they want simply because they never all want the same thing anymore than the 49% do.
So, again, do you think that 51% of the American population should prevail in a presidential election??
01 Jul 22
@soothfast saidSoothfast apparently thinks life should be perfect for everyone, maybe a society where everyone is equal. Me, I say the USA should totally cover support of destitute people in this country. The other folks have a lot of opportunities and can certainly find the 'income' you speak of, there are 11M jobs unfilled today. As to discrimination, I don't quite know what you mean about that in this thread. But as to circumstances in a typical town in the USA, what could you be speaking of. We have food pantries, jobs, city park, church,,,,,,I dont know what you mean.
Someone can have no income on account of unjust discrimination visited upon that individual by society at large and/or certain government policies. You propose someone so wronged should have no ability to vote in order to help effect a change in circumstances for the better. A poll tax. Revolting idea, and of course not even an original idea.
And, note my analogy of a bunch of folks that pay no taxes pulling 51% of a town vote to build a skating park. They get a park but pay no taxes. This is a really good analogy, I think. No one would answer it. Why not? Why don't libs answer questions?
01 Jul 22
@averagejoe1 said
Soothfast apparently thinks life should be perfect for everyone, maybe a society where everyone is equal. Me, I say the USA should totally cover support of destitute people in this country. The other folks have a lot of opportunities and can certainly find the 'income' you speak of, there are 11M jobs unfilled today. As to discrimination, I don't quite know what you mea ...[text shortened]... a really good analogy, I think. No one would answer it. Why not? Why don't libs answer questions?
Me, I say the USA should totally cover support of destitute people in this country.
Don't forget, you also say the USA should use tax dollars to cover support of extremely wealthy millionaires and billionaires who want to do things like build stadiums with their names on them. Those people have a lot more expensive taste than the destitute..
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
01 Jul 22
@wajoma saidThe ''Creepy Kiwi,'' has spoken.
I believe man should interact by consent, free from force and threats of force, you believe in forcing your own pet dream feelings on your fellow man, and while you might have the facial hair you don't have the balls to do it yourself so you hide behind goobermint thugs.
The god botherers have a saying: "Judge not lest ye be judged." Well I will judge and am happy to be judged because measured against you and shag doody I am a better person.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
01 Jul 22
@wildgrass saidYou don't know that....They sure don't make
The people in power receive a ton of money from wealthy people to run their elections. There's no political incentive to change the status quo.
Meanwhile welfare moms don't vote.
6 figure campaign contributions though, that's for sure.
@wildgrass saidI see it as creating jobs and expanding society. The co-founder of Home Depot gave $300M to Atlanta to build the 2nd largest aquarium in the world. I went there, and saw just average blue collar folks and their families everywhere. What a wonderful venue/. I love rich people, we need more of them. Do you work for a rich person? I think probably so. The majority of people indeed do. You gonna work for a poor person? If you or your son work at the stadium, you will learn about life and how to get rich! Jobs galore. That mean old rich guy who built it may be on his private yacht, though. Tell us what should be done about him. Tell us how the govt should make it so that rich people cannot get rich.Me, I say the USA should totally cover support of destitute people in this country.
Don't forget, you also say the USA should use tax dollars to cover support of extremely wealthy millionaires and billionaires who want to do things like build stadiums with their names on them. Those people have a lot more expensive taste than the destitute..
Where are you libs going with all this. I want to say..Are you serious???" Just what would be perfect for you, other than a perfect Marxist society. Will all of my family each still have their own car? A simple few questions here, Please don't Marauder-ize them, or Kev-ize them.