Sup Forums will defend this

Trump's chief adviser wants to restore property requirements to vote.

nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bannon-prefer-property-owners-vote-article-1.2889868

This is racist, and undemocratic - yet, I'm sure there will be people here who will defend it.

>It's racist to state that only people who have invested in the future of America, regardless of race, should be allowed to vote.
It's almost sad to watch how unhinged from reality the left has become.

>Bannon: Only shareholders in America should have a say in it's board leader

>Commies: Das raycis!

>only those who actually own pieces of america get to make decisions for america

I'm okay with this

Do stocks count as property? If I own part of a company that owns land can I vote?

>He thinks this is a problem
>He thinks people with no stake in society should decide its future.

No you retard

>95% of Sup Forums can no longer vote

I fail to see the problem

The problem I have with this is that college aged folks don't usually truly own property, at least not beyond a car. Even then it's likely in their parents name if they helped or mostly paid for it

>leftists crowdfund and buy a massive parcel of land
>give everyone who registers 1 square centimeter

>Even then it's likely in their parents name if they helped or mostly paid for it
So then they don't get a say in anything that they don't contribute to... that's fair.

I'm 23, graduated last May and under these rules I could vote, all you have to do is apply yourself.

I won't. Property is inherited, much like how wealth is. It creates a net of safety for those that gain it, and those people who do not need to know of the hardships associated with acquiring the property will grow soft and start voting democrat.

Nothing would change. What we need to base our voting rights on is military service/civic service (firefighters, cops, etc)

>chief advisors can make decisions

Honestly, is that a bad thing?

Why do we allow welfare leeching niggers with no input to vote?

>Sup Forumsack buys a Detroit house for 99c

Well I don't own any real estate. By choice. I used to have a house, but rental rates are cheap here, and my credit score is only about 570.

I'm old, have grown kids, lots of grandkids, (all white, none jew). Piad income, sales, school, road, gas taxes all my life.

I deserve to vote as much as anyone.

I'm not arguing fairness, I'm just saying a relatively large group of folks would be left out.

It's obvious I'm more concerned with it since it would affect me. I graduate in may, and I'm planning on taking a gap year to do missionary service or travel, followed by grad school.

If these rules were in place, I likely wouldn't be able to vote until I was 28 at the earliest. I take pride in voting, and looking back, I'd like to think I'd care if I didn't have that opportunity.

Falling for such obvious bait.............what a clueless fucking retard.

I'm down with it, founding fathers had that one right: the rental class usually votes with the gib me dat mentality

Property no, taxpaying requirement, yes.

It is racist to assume people of color can't own property

>Sup Forums will defend this
"Defend"? This is a position I've supported for years.

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free. - John Adams

ancient news. Bannon said this years back in an informal discussion. Bannon's a troll, lest you forget.

In a just system, people would have votes proportionate to the amount of money they contribute in taxes.

Would it be racist if only net tax contributors could vote?

Because that is definitely something I could get behind

I'd be happy if we had stricter voter laws that didn't let illegal immigrants vote along with dead people, people voting more then once and forging ballots.

Also people on welfare/food stamps/ free housing should not be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute to society and just take them you shouldn't vote.

Forgot picture related.

Also, >Shaun "Fake Minority" King

Single squatter comes, keeps moving from centimeter to centimeter so as not to trespass, seizes entire property within a few years.

>undemocratic
You realize this was the rule for the majority of the life of our nation right?

>allowing the Chinese to vote
>not allowing the majority of the U.S. military to vote

No thanks

>talcum X

you obviously wouldn't let foreign investors vote

people who reside here legally without citizenship can't even vote now

I love this response. So "to the point".

>allowing the Chinese to vote
Voting would still be limited to citizens.
>not allowing the majority of the U.S. military to vote
I strongly suspect the majority of people who have served own property, but you made the claim they do not. Let us see your proof.

>Realizes there's a $95k lien on it
>An heros

You're annoying as hell.

>The problem I have with this is that college aged folks don't usually truly own property, at least not beyond a car. Even then it's likely in their parents name if they helped or mostly paid for it

That it literally the best fucking part, college kids are children who have never run anything in their life, have little responsibility, and they have no idea how the world works.

We need experienced voters. I don't know if a property requirement is the best solution for that though.

I will take "Timocracy" for 1000 Alex.

Take the name off that and you'd hurt a lot of people's feelings

>be in political debate about how shitty the state of our nation is, crack halfjoke about how stupid people vote and only property owners should be able to vote

Oh man.... literally fucking shaking

Did not forget to sage

Another requirement should be to have children, since only they can be known to be invested in the future.

Valid rebuttal goes unnoticed. Civilization rises in jackboots and falls in silk slippers.
Even the rich should serve their countrymen.

The historical standard was owning a minimum area of land and residing on it.

Unless Ted Turner, George Soros, and co. want to buy and give every poor person a few thousand square feet of land, the poor would not get to vote. And if Turner, Soros, and co. wanted to voluntarily redistribute their wealth to the poor, all the more reason to celebrate, yes?

taxpaying is a better modern requirement for voting
too much is fucked up with real estate from speculators to regulations that property ownership isn't half as easy as it used to be for those who try

racist..... lol. Classic lefty projection at play here goys

this is a great idea. Property ownership is a very republican thing. Only the richest of liberals own property in the city while the poorest of republicans will put all their savings into getting a home in the country.

Although it would mean I can't vote I actually agree.
Only people with real stake in this country should be able to decide its future.
So, not just property owners, but military vets as well.

It says nothing about non U.S citizens that own property here can vote you mongoloid.

Fuck you today a trump supporter literally did do a hate crime to my step cousin

I'm a white fucking male but she is half Jewish and the Orangeman traffic conehead lover literally said he'd literally turn her kids into pizza literally

You fucking idiots. You're responding to smearing, further validating it. Bannon made this statement casually years ago. Opinions change.

Don't forget what you were like before Sup Forums, retards.

Obviously Bannon doesn't think only property owners should vote, he was just trolling.

I think military service earns you a vote regardless of property. It could be the way a poor fag could get a vote.

>When Jones offered the rebuttal that such a plan “would exclude a lot of African-Americans,” Bannon allegedly quipped back in return that “maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”

Wait, so the main problem with this proposition would be that it "would exclude a lot of African-Americans" ?

uh no

>basing voting rights on being employed by the government
the next step is you can only vote if you accept welfare

why is inheritance a problem? you still have to pay property taxes and contribute more than a nigger on welfare

>Implying democracy is good

I don't disagree.

>$95,000 lien on a house in detroit
is it a mansion? most municipalities immediately seize a house after one quarter of missed taxes

you can buy a basket of several dozen houses to do with what you please with next to nothing in property tax for $95k in detroit

this too, except only when you are no longer in military service

Many founding fathers were of this opinion, and they were correct.

Landless vagrants banding together to rob landed people via "wealth distribution" has been a disaster.

>prefer if only homeowners would vote
>implying the Left wouldn't find some way to exploit this and rig election
Like putting food in front of a hungry dog and expect it not to vote Democrat

My neighborhood is multiracial and has a lot of whites, African immigrants, Asians, and some Indians. We have a few well off Joses too that own companies. Seems like we've got the full gamut and would thus let every "different voice" be heard. How is it racist again in my case?

I bet you find it racist to require id to vote too when even India can afford to give their poor free voter ids

>Only people with who contribute to society can decide in which direction it should go.
This timeline keeps getting better and better.

>kids
>pizza
Illuminati Confirmed

Because when you join at the age of 18, the voting age, you do not own property unless you come from money. People who have served years don't own property because they move around, but they do rent.

hurrrrr racist

This issue was settled almost 2 centuries ago and confirmed through multiple amendments and court cases.

Citizenship really fucking blocked illegals from voting this year didn't it you mouth breathing retard. All this means is it would take away from illegals who don't own property with nothing stopping the chinese.

and now i respect him immensely

Sounds great.
People with mortgages don't count, btw

He's right you know.

Oh you mean the way it originally was in the constitution

Why do amerifats denounce big evil billionaire Soros for using money to manipulate elections and then praise the idea of buying/selling voting power through property ownership. You might as well castrate yourself and sell your country to the jews.

Pretty reasonable honestly. The general population is too stupid to vote.

Single soldiers live in the barracks, which they do not own. Married soldiers live in on post housing, which they do not own, or rent property off post. In the Army, you move every few years, with certain exceptions. It makes no sense to own property in the Army. I'm a Veteran who is renting while I attend school.

Also, I believe that if you took out a loan, the bank owns your home until you pay it off. Feel free to correct that as I wouldn't know.

Cool, I'll get rich buying acres of land in Arizona and selling it out by the square foot to anyone that wants to vote