It's based off of their obvious inability to be self-sufficient within society, without regard to their race or skin color.

We shouldn't let women vote, either.  They're too emotional.

Eh, ok, whatever floats your boat. My proposal is very narrow, yours seems pretty Broad...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Black people leaving CA for NV, AZ, and GA is what tipped the 2020 election to Biden.
At the national level, a Republican should want that exodus to slow down.

Georgia is doing just that by passing new legislation to restrict early voting and drop off ballots. 

Voter suppression is the most effective way to keep minorities from voting.

The first draft reduced early voting.
The version they actually passed expanded it.

---

The self sufficient and wealthy can buy lots of guns and ammo.
They can distribute these, if they wish, to people who aren't self sufficient, and make a militia.
When we solve problems at the ballot box, it makes people less likely to try to solve them on the battlefield. But we need everyone who could ever bear arms participating.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Georgia is doing just that by passing new legislation to restrict early voting and drop off ballots. 

Voter suppression is the most effective way to keep minorities from voting.

The first draft reduced early voting.
The version they actually passed expanded it.

---

The self sufficient and wealthy can buy lots of guns and ammo.
They can distribute these, if they wish, to people who aren't self sufficient, and make a militia.
When we solve problems at the ballot box, it makes people less likely to try to solve them on the battlefield.  But we need everyone who could ever bear arms participating.

When we permit the ballot box to be a means of income we promote and nurture a leech class that cannot survive without the largesse of their political masters.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Im confused by your first sentence, is it hyperbole for my prior response? 

When you say some people dont deserve to vote is it based off of your opinion or fact based?

It's based off of their obvious inability to be self-sufficient within society, without regard to their race or skin color.

Self suffice is a lifestyle and/or behavior choice that has no relevance to a person’s constitutional right to vote. If we were to go with your analogy then we would apply your response to prospective gun owners.

---

It's based off of their obvious inability to be self-sufficient within society, without regard to their race or skin color.

We shouldn't let women vote, either.  They're too emotional.

Excellent point!

---

Georgia is doing just that by passing new legislation to restrict early voting and drop off ballots. 

Voter suppression is the most effective way to keep minorities from voting.

The first draft reduced early voting.
The version they actually passed expanded it.

---

The self sufficient and wealthy can buy lots of guns and ammo.
They can distribute these, if they wish, to people who aren't self sufficient, and make a militia.
When we solve problems at the ballot box, it makes people less likely to try to solve them on the battlefield.  But we need everyone who could ever bear arms participating.

Thank you for the clarification, I sporadically been keeping up with this and seeing how other states are also trying to follow suit.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

It's based off of their obvious inability to be self-sufficient within society, without regard to their race or skin color.

Self suffice is a lifestyle and/or behavior choice that has no relevance to a person’s constitutional right to vote. If we were to go with your analogy then we would apply your response to prospective gun owners.

---

We shouldn't let women vote, either.  They're too emotional.

Excellent point!

---

The first draft reduced early voting.
The version they actually passed expanded it.

---

The self sufficient and wealthy can buy lots of guns and ammo.
They can distribute these, if they wish, to people who aren't self sufficient, and make a militia.
When we solve problems at the ballot box, it makes people less likely to try to solve them on the battlefield.  But we need everyone who could ever bear arms participating.

Thank you for the clarification, I sporadically been keeping up with this and seeing how other states are also trying to follow suit.

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It would be interesting to see if there are any studies that show that these 'guaranteed income' programs ever actually helped lift the recipients out of poverty so that they can function as a contributing member of society and not be an economic drain.  Of course, we all know that's not the goal here, but it should be.

From what I've read, there's convincing evidence that guaranteed income improves outcomes for children, so the next generation is more likely to become self sufficient, but they've had a harder time showing that the adult recipients, the parents, are more likely to become earners down the road.

Remains to be seen if the positive effects on the kids scale up when the number of parents getting the benefits scales up from "a few" to "almost all.". There may be an aspect where the success of young adults is a zero sum game, like grading on a curve, some have to fail for others to succeed. We all hope not, but...

The last 50 years called....

---

Black people leaving CA for NV, AZ, and GA is what tipped the 2020 election to Biden.
At the national level, a Republican should want that exodus to slow down.

Georgia is doing just that by passing new legislation to restrict early voting and drop off ballots. 

Voter suppression is the most effective way to keep minorities from voting.

Liar.

---

Self suffice is a lifestyle and/or behavior choice that has no relevance to a person’s constitutional right to vote. If we were to go with your analogy then we would apply your response to prospective gun owners.

---

Excellent point!

---

Thank you for the clarification, I sporadically been keeping up with this and seeing how other states are also trying to follow suit.

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

From what I've read, there's convincing evidence that guaranteed income improves outcomes for children, so the next generation is more likely to become self sufficient, but they've had a harder time showing that the adult recipients, the parents, are more likely to become earners down the road.

Remains to be seen if the positive effects on the kids scale up when the number of parents getting the benefits scales up from "a few" to "almost all.". There may be an aspect where the success of young adults is a zero sum game, like grading on a curve, some have to fail for others to succeed. We all hope not, but...

The last 50 years called....

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Self suffice is a lifestyle and/or behavior choice that has no relevance to a person’s constitutional right to vote. If we were to go with your analogy then we would apply your response to prospective gun owners.

---

Excellent point!

---

Thank you for the clarification, I sporadically been keeping up with this and seeing how other states are also trying to follow suit.

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I was surmising your response to an analogy but will be glad to explain.

Your previous responses from what I interpreted was if a voter was was poor life choices, they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Ie if someone is on welfare, homeless, financially broke then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. I then used what I interpreted from your responses and used it as an analogy to a prospective gun owner. My whole point was to say a person’s lifestyle or life choices has no relevance to their constitution rights.

---

From what I've read, there's convincing evidence that guaranteed income improves outcomes for children, so the next generation is more likely to become self sufficient, but they've had a harder time showing that the adult recipients, the parents, are more likely to become earners down the road.

Remains to be seen if the positive effects on the kids scale up when the number of parents getting the benefits scales up from "a few" to "almost all.". There may be an aspect where the success of young adults is a zero sum game, like grading on a curve, some have to fail for others to succeed. We all hope not, but...

The last 50 years called....

---

Georgia is doing just that by passing new legislation to restrict early voting and drop off ballots. 

Voter suppression is the most effective way to keep minorities from voting.

Liar.

So Georgia didnt pass new voting laws?

---

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

Yeah I thought I was clear in my response as well.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I was surmising your response to an analogy but will be glad to explain.

Your previous responses from what I interpreted was if a voter was making poor life choices, they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Ie if someone is on welfare, homeless, financially broke then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. I then used what I interpreted from your responses and used it as an analogy to a prospective gun owner. My whole point was to say a person’s lifestyle or life choices has no relevance to their constitution rights.

---

The last 50 years called....

---

Liar.

So Georgia didnt pass new voting laws?

---

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

Yeah I thought I was clear in my response as well.

---

Apologies for the double post.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

---

The last 50 years called....

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

Thank you for proving context to this article and whats being done. 

While I understand and agree with to a certain extent the point of doing a program like this to close the wealth gap or income disparity, I think a more targeted solution like reducing debt and or tax burdens would be more beneficial. 

This is a complex issue that if I have the energy will be able to discuss my thoughts on but this continues to promote government dependency. The main reason why minority communities are at poverty level because the majority of people have (as stated  previously) tax and other debt. People are living paycheck to paycheck not because they are living above their means but with the cost of food continuing to increase but wages are stangant tough decisions are being made in regards to put food on the table and keep lights on and live in a decent apartment. Or apply for government assistance. I wish this program would focus more on the systemic issues and process.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

The last 50 years called....

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

You do realize that there is no Constitutional right to vote that can't be rescinded for exactly the reason I gave, right? The right to be included in the decision making of this nation should not be given to wards of the state. So long as they are on the dole they need to be off the roll, else they risk a moral hazard in their voting.

---

I would love for you to explain the nonsense you wrote there. Would you be so kind? How does removing the voting privilege of a person while he is on the public dole equate to some blather about gun owners?

I was surmising your response to an analogy but will be glad to explain.

Your previous responses from what I interpreted was if a voter was was poor life choices, they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Ie if someone is on welfare, homeless, financially broke then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. I then used what I interpreted from your responses and used it as an analogy to a prospective gun owner. My whole point was to say a person’s lifestyle or life choices has no relevance to their constitution rights.

---

The last 50 years called....

---

Liar.

So Georgia didnt pass new voting laws?

---

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

Yeah I thought I was clear in my response as well.

Right, you made an analogy that made no sense. I understand.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

You do realize that there is no Constitutional right to vote that can't be rescinded for exactly the reason I gave, right? The right to be included in the decision making of this nation should not be given to wards of the state. So long as they are on the dole they need to be off the roll, else they risk a moral hazard in their voting.

---

The 15th amendment says that you only lose your right to vote on account of a felony conviction.

Doesn't say anything about economic status or welfare programs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I thought it was pretty clear.
he's saying if your voting right is tied to your economic status, so should your right to own guns.

---

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

You do realize that there is no Constitutional right to vote that can't be rescinded for exactly the reason I gave, right? The right to be included in the decision making of this nation should not be given to wards of the state. So long as they are on the dole they need to be off the roll, else they risk a moral hazard in their voting.

---

I was surmising your response to an analogy but will be glad to explain.

Your previous responses from what I interpreted was if a voter was was poor life choices, they shouldnt be allowed to vote. Ie if someone is on welfare, homeless, financially broke then they shouldnt be allowed to vote. I then used what I interpreted from your responses and used it as an analogy to a prospective gun owner. My whole point was to say a person’s lifestyle or life choices has no relevance to their constitution rights.

---

So Georgia didnt pass new voting laws?

---

Yeah I thought I was clear in my response as well.

Right, you made an analogy that made no sense. I understand.

 To you my opinion dosent make sense which is okay, but your opinion is not rooted in facts. It moreso comes across as illogical, unrealistic and unreasonable.

---

You do realize that there is no Constitutional right to vote that can't be rescinded for exactly the reason I gave, right? The right to be included in the decision making of this nation should not be given to wards of the state. So long as they are on the dole they need to be off the roll, else they risk a moral hazard in their voting.

---

The 15th amendment says that you only lose your right to vote on account of a felony conviction.

Doesn't say anything about economic status or welfare programs.

 
I was literally about to say the same thing until I saw your post.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Except that you're both wrong.

Quote:

"Section 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Nothing in there that validates your claims, better luck next time.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Except that you're both wrong.

Quote:

"Section 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Nothing in there that validates your claims, better luck next time.

Are you going to post a source that says States have a right to revoke someones voting rights because of their lifestyle and or social-economical status? I ask because I assume that is the basis of your argument in the first place?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

---

the welfare payments the last 50 years have been means tested, which has been demonstrated to promote divorce and fatherlessness. A mother might be better off divorcing her husband and collecting welfare than she is staying with him and enjoying the benefits of his wages.

The new benefit they just rolled out is basically universal, all parents get it, except for the very wealthiest parents.

Thank you for proving context to this article and whats being done. 

While I understand and agree with to a certain extent the point of doing a program like this to close the wealth gap or income disparity, I think a more targeted solution like reducing debt and or tax burdens would be more beneficial. 

This is a complex issue that if I have the energy will be able to discuss my thoughts on but this continues to promote government dependency. The main reason why minority communities are at poverty level because the majority of people have (as stated  previously) tax and other debt. People are living paycheck to paycheck not because they are living above their means but with the cost of food continuing to increase but wages are stangant tough decisions are being made in regards to put food on the table and keep lights on and live in a decent apartment. Or apply for government assistance. I wish this program would focus more on the systemic issues and process.

Flying spaghetti monsters

---

Except that you're both wrong.

Quote:

"Section 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Nothing in there that validates your claims, better luck next time.

Are you going to post a source that says States have a right to revoke someones voting rights because of their lifestyle and or social-economical status? I ask because I assume that is the basis of your argument in the first place?

I'm sure you'll post something that says they can't?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Thank you for proving context to this article and whats being done. 

While I understand and agree with to a certain extent the point of doing a program like this to close the wealth gap or income disparity, I think a more targeted solution like reducing debt and or tax burdens would be more beneficial. 

This is a complex issue that if I have the energy will be able to discuss my thoughts on but this continues to promote government dependency. The main reason why minority communities are at poverty level because the majority of people have (as stated  previously) tax and other debt. People are living paycheck to paycheck not because they are living above their means but with the cost of food continuing to increase but wages are stangant tough decisions are being made in regards to put food on the table and keep lights on and live in a decent apartment. Or apply for government assistance. I wish this program would focus more on the systemic issues and process.

Flying spaghetti monsters

I don’t understand this comment

---

Are you going to post a source that says States have a right to revoke someones voting rights because of their lifestyle and or social-economical status? I ask because I assume that is the basis of your argument in the first place?

I'm sure you'll post something that says they can't?

Im confused, my stance has been a person has a right to vote unless they are a convicted felon. Their social economic or welfare status has nothing to do with their right to vote. 

Are you saying if a person is poor, homeless, disabled, or depend on the government that they shouldnt be allowed to vote?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Flying spaghetti monsters

I don’t understand this comment

---

I'm sure you'll post something that says they can't?

Im confused, my stance has been a person has a right to vote unless they are a convicted felon. Their social economic or welfare status has nothing to do with their right to vote. 

Are you saying if a person is poor, homeless, disabled, or depend on the government that they shouldnt be allowed to vote?

Yes, so long as a person is on the public dole they should be removed from the voting roll. Their economic or welfare status should absolutely impact their right to vote. As long as they are a ward of the state they should have no say in its function, for allowing them to vote creates moral hazard. There is nothing that says this cannot be, and the original intent of the Constitution was to have a limited franchise elect a Republican form of government that disconnects the federal government from the people. I know this is hard to hear, but frankly a person who cannot manage his own household free of government aid should not be voting on how that government operates. To do so eventually means that people are only voting to keep the gravy train running regardless of the damage it does to the Country as we do today.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don’t understand this comment

---

Im confused, my stance has been a person has a right to vote unless they are a convicted felon. Their social economic or welfare status has nothing to do with their right to vote. 

Are you saying if a person is poor, homeless, disabled, or depend on the government that they shouldnt be allowed to vote?

Yes, so long as a person is on the public dole they should be removed from the voting roll. Their economic or welfare status should absolutely impact their right to vote. As long as they are a ward of the state they should have no say in its function, for allowing them to vote creates moral hazard. There is nothing that says this cannot be, and the original intent of the Constitution was to have a limited franchise elect a Republican form of government that disconnects the federal government from the people. I know this is hard to hear, but frankly a person who cannot manage his own household free of government aid should not be voting on how that government operates. To do so eventually means that people are only voting to keep the gravy train running regardless of the damage it does to the Country as we do today.

People on the public dole don't typically vote of their own accord. The democrats have figured out how to harvest them.

---