Did America fuck up when they extended the right to vote to non-property owners?

Fags that don't own shit always vote for assholes that promise to take from those who do own shit. Prove me wrong. Pro tip: you can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_voter
youtu.be/fLJBzhcSWTk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Did America fuck up when they extended the right to vote to non-property owners?
Yes.

only allowing people who own property to vote seems kind of heavy-handed and discriminatory. I would say.. only allow those with a 4 year college education to vote.

Idk. I think the mechanism of democracy works better the more people vote. The weakness in it is more about how the skill set needed to succeed in a democracy doesn't necessarily correlate to good leadership skills.

finally I can put my non-binary gender studies degree to good use.

Thanks shareblue

Cut off all welfare dependents from the right to vote.

Watch the Democrat Party dissolve overnight.

Idk. I think violent mobs work better the more people are involved

Property owners have skin in the game and pay property taxes. They have a vested interest in the health of the country.

Non-property owners just vote for Obama phones.

Yes. Giving the vote to people who don't deserve to vote has destroyed democracy.

what kind of property? If I rent an apartment, but own a car, is that enough to vote?

As the US government's power actually became legitimate, it became the case that no one actually owned property because the government could just take it away. So no point in defining voting rights by that anymore.

you have a good point. This is why I believe a better determining factor would be a 4 year degree, or even more advanced degree. It would ensure that those who are voting are intelligent, and much less prone to being influenced by politicians who cater to the lowest common denominator.

yes

Only real estate or a business qualifies. Depreciable assets do not count as they do not contribute to the lasting wealth of an individual or community.

90% of americans don't own their homes.
having a mortgage means your bank owns your home.
all those blue collar people who voted for trump wouldn't get a vote.
you'd pretty much guarantee a democrat win.

I think you're under the illusion that more than 10% of college is something more than adult day care.

But dude, all you have to do to own property is to get married
Women are possessions

No. France had a similar system after Napoleon, giving the righ to vote only to people paying a certain tax (le cens) but it ended with revolts and two regime changes, ending for good any monarchy (even constitutional) in France.

You need universal vote so people accept to be controled.

this is not true. you own the home. the bank owns the loan. your house is listed as collateral usually, but you could list something else as collateral if you wanted, it doesnt mean you dont own it.

This won't work as politicians will then subsidize student loans and colleges. At that point, any dumbass could get a degree in feminist studies or some other bullshit line of studies.

It has to be tangible assets, appreciable assets. Smart folks generate lasting wealth and vote accordingly.

The nigger problem in america is very much bad.

That's fucking stupid though. I know brilliant and clever people whom have never atttended university and I know way too many people that have degrees that are dumb as bricks. You're implying that there is a distinct standard met by having a degree when each degree and each university giving them out have a common standard. They don't.
Pretty much no one but philosophy majors have taken a formal logic course (not just pointing out fallacies in some retard tier version, but bare bones logic, eg hypothetical syllogisms and shit).
Furthermore, how many people with degrees have been taught how to read a scientific paper and to actually understand and use set theory,
You want to set a genuine intellectual standard? You need that shit or your standard allows far too many retards.
So, what's an easier method of assuring that people are invested in the system and might be willing to invest in themselves to better manage it via their vote?
Making property ownership a prerequisite for voting.

You are right. Some people do not even care enough to Buy and care for something, but if you notice they generally have their hands out. Property ownership shows initiative in staked ownership.

Property owners still have the power, even without exclusive voting rights.

They own an asset that will only become more valuable.

Should renters vote? Ya probably. It's feudal to not let them.

Well back then women were basically private property as well. Not everyone is savvy enough to own land but if you managed to get a wife and have kids for the future of the white race I'd say you're qualified to vote. No niggers though, and no women. That's where we dun goofed.

Renting won't work. Politicians will just subsidize housing thus buying the votes of freeloaders.

i love the "4 year degree" meme. like it somehow takes 4 years to learn everything. if you want to learn engineering, its 4 years. if you want to learn gender studies, its 4 years. what a fucking scam.

Proved wrong

That's what they should be doing anyway.

I have the perfect house for them too. It's an Earthship - it's off-grid, low utilities, solar electric, heated basically by the sun, rain water collection on stainless steel roof.

Can easily be deployed by habitat-for-humanity or standing military w/ HESCO bastions. Low ongoing costs. It would solve a lot of problems.

Food + Water + Shelter

ha I know man... I was just trolling with all those 'college degree to vote' posts. I know it don't matter. College is such a waste of money these days for many majors.

wow huge land area states with small populations can't afford to fund federally mandated roads and highways on their own, what a surprise.

if property owners voted to bar up and coming property owners from the market somehow, then the value of their property would fall.

Everyone should be able to vote apart from prisoners, or major criminals until 5 years ater their last crime.

This just gives more power to ((((them))))

(((College Educated))) that is even more discriminatory.

youtube.com/watch?v=EBxgrr0wL8M
>“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

The land itself could still be generating value, if it was a farm. mine, hotel, etc

Actually that proves my point exactly. Assholes vote for politicians that transfer wealth from one group to another.

You seem to think advanced degrees indicate a good understanding of economics

i say owning property and/or military service gives you the right to vote. and if you have both, then you get two votes.

It's probably the fairest way of putting restrictions on voting. Still completely stupid though

>non-property
Exactly what kind of property are we talking about here?

I'd say more: weighted votes. The more property, the more your vote counts.
Nothing can go wrong.

anyone wana buy a couple acres in KY and start a rightwing compound?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_voter

Yes. It was the worst thing to happen in America.

Interesting thought, but that would result in monarchy. Nope, one vote per property owner.

Yes. We were meant to be a timocracy in that regard. I read somewhere or it could have just been leftist screeching but supposedly Bannon is in support of this view. Land shouldn't be handed out like lordships though it should be provided through incentives like child birth , public service, military service, purchase, etc.

additionally, for land owners, you must live on or be able to live on the land that you own. no buying a 1ft×1ft square to vote.

for military service, you cant just enlist and then immediately quit. you need a minimum 2 years of service.

In my heart, I like this idea as I am both a veteran and property owner. It won't work , though, as military personnel are dependent upon gov't and will vote for more benefits. Also the military does not contribute to the GDP of the country, so from a business aspect are considered a Liability instead of an Asset.

yes
the way to fix things now isnt to make a property requirement or a job requirement, but anyone that takes government handouts like foodstamps, wellfare, rent subsidies ect forfeits their right to vote

>you must live on or be able to live on the land that you own. no buying a 1ft×1ft square to vote

Checkmate Jews

Now we're talking!

I would agree with this, anyone who has been on welfare for 3 continuous years should not be allowed to vote.

>The lack of a secret ballot ensured that the "faggot" complied with the landowner's wishes. Prohibition of vote buying was difficult to enforce if the faggot was an employee of the landowner.

I sure hope OP will comply with his landlord's wishes.

This and I always say this too whenever the topic comes up. This is 100% the answer.

>the year is two thousand and five

:^)

I lean this way also, but I can see how it can be abused. Lets say a person goes on welfare but doesn't care about the right to vote. As long as the welfare doesn't end, there is no motivation to vote. If they go off welfare and regain the right to vote, they will vote for more welfare, then get back on the dole.

>all those blue collar trump voters
Who were much richer on average than dems? That's the problem with telling someone else about his country

>Only the most brainwashed lot should vote
Wew lad

its not to keep individuals from living off the state its to keep the state from buying votes

>let a bunch of debt slaves vote

They should've all been repatriated. That was the biggest fuck up of all.

OP, we messed up when we gave the vote to property.

Not as badly as women and blacks.

To be fair I own land but not a house, funny how that works.

The right to vote should only be given to those we know are invested in the genuine wellbeing of the country and its future

america did fuck up when it decided to even have a right to vote

Only white male property owners should get to vote.

only people who can trace their line back to the original settlers
who have given 2-3 years of service military
only who own land and pay more in to the system than they take out of it should maybe vote

Its a little of both. The state uses welfare to buy votes and welfare recipients sell their birtthrite for a plate of beans. In the meantime, though, taxpayers foot the bill for both the state and the welfare recipients with no tangible benefit for themselves.

It is like the old saying,"Two wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for dinner. What do you think the final vote was?".

You should be required to own property and also be married with children. Prove you have a stake in the future.
This also applies to politicians and judges, anyone without children should be kicked out of office worldwide.

I've been thinking that lately. I would say yes since non-property owners have relatively no skin in the game.

This, exceptions for those unable to have children or adopt as an alternative.

Bump

Yes.

that's like handing over the power to wiminz. No sane man goes to college in murrica anymore apart for the ones that are intelligent enough to do STEM. At least that's what I've heard.

Just face it we are at the end of a cycle that was intentionally known to follow.

Yes. BIG TIME.

Video relevant:

youtu.be/fLJBzhcSWTk

Fpbp /thread

Look at this and think of Spengler or the Yugas.

...

Wheat from the chaff time soon.

I definitely think that if you don't own property, you shouldn't get to vote on city/county matters. If you can just leave whenever the fuck you want and aren't forced to face any real consequence from your terrible ideas, you shouldn't get a say.

Every legal citizen should get to vote in the national election though.

Either property owners or one vote per household.

>it would ensure that those who are voting are brainwashed in the govt's political ideology of choice

FTFY

That seems foolish in this climate. Lets make things about merit first. Than those with merit will be the ones who have the things that allow people to vote.

stop paying rent to the gov on your land, see who really owns it

Excellent video!

An example of this is that folks actually are considering the Rock to run for President in 2020.

We are definitely in the 4th turning.

Why do liberals always focus on education level rather than income? Education level is meaningless, it's how much you make and therefore how much you pay into the system that matters.

Landlords are literal leeches. Fuck them.

Yeah....fuck those guys. Landlords do absolutely nothing except for own and maintain buildings for people to live in, work in, raise families, and store valuables. They offer nothing to society!

>4 year college
So what field is your degree?
>liberal arts

>Did America fuck up when they extended the right to vote to non-property owners?
Yes, among other things.

pretty much this

Uh, if only the people in universities voted, then affirmative action would be determining the voter base. That sounds extremely dumb.

Sure thing, pal. You totally didn't read my post and then realize you've studied none of the shit I mentioned, having it then dawn upon you that you're a fucking idiot with a shit formal education. Despite that fancy piece of paper I could wipe my ass with.
Break it down to it's foundations. Any fucking idea you have. So go and learn some fucking logic beyond "OMG IT FALLS INTO THIS FALLACY CATEGORY!!", Fallacies are mere examples of when the argument doesn't follow, that the argument is either invalid or unsound. Don't claim to know the field by it's outputs, but only through grasping both the inputs, outputs, and how all forms translate between them can you actually grasp shit.
You mathniggers need to study this shit too. Math is an abstract art form that is surely incredibly powerful and should be highly praised, but this is the verbal side of calculation.

That's not the proposition of OP.
That's a proposition of another poster which has been shown to be shit already.
The downside of property ownership requirements is that the super wealthy can then control who decides what by that particular factor.
So, if a 4 year degree is the requirement, the elite may then proceed to get a stranglehold on education and only offer it to certain groups which they deem acceptable. Of the same vein, properties would then inflate in value due to the added wealth of simple ownership.
This would be very positive in the beginning as it would likely cause a 'rural rush' so to speak of those with political drives that cannot afford to live in expensive large cities and purchase there. This means that cities would wane in power and the average politically motivated but not wealthy citizen would move to the rurals.
This would cause a shift in the culture of rural regions, but by in large the city folks would disperse rather evenly since too much to one area means too great an increase in property values due to simple supply and demand.
That means there would be an overall push to the right in terms of politics in the country, as well as a waning of the degenerate hotbeds that are major cities.
The long term potential issue is either due to to great a concentration of wealth allowing the elite to control who can and cannot purchase property (the USA is too large for this) or an overpopulation of the country over time by either immigration or birth rates that makes it too pricy once again. I would say the prior is far more likely than the latter if the potential immigration issue is kept in check. I believe taht modern birthrates of whites in response to quality of life increases supports this.

>if the potential immigration issue is kept in check
woops, meant 'unless' and not 'if'