College Republicans say the poor should not be allowed to vote

one idiot does not make a party

 

So, how much does an ID cost? I think I payed $16 to renew my DL and it's good for 6 years. Yep, very expensive indeed.

 

Nothing new really. Republicans or the elite have always tried to limit the vote of poor people through various techniques. They hate registration at the driver's license bureau, they want expensive ID's. They want poor people who have outstanding tickets to be arrested if they try to get an ID, so it literally can cost the hundreds of dollars to vote. They like depriving felons who got caught with mar1juana to be barred from voting unless they go through expensive legal proceedings. They would shi** if we proposed voting during a whole weekend when many more people could easily vote. They want college students to have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles home to vote etc.

The kids are just being a bit more honest.

 

Damn, one school's College Republicans speaks the voice of the whole party!!! No Democrats have ever said a stupid comment!

 

The costs of identification cards are part of the price we must each pay for a civilized society.

 

How much does an ID cost?

I certainly think you should need an ID to vote.

 

You fear that more than the people in the video clammoring for communism?

 

Many of my friends who grew up in Russia said that one of the common slogans they heard often was "If you don't work, you dont eat."


I would think Republicans would appreciate that sort of governance.

 

This video btw.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6742977&postcount=40

 

The Democrat plan is to make as many people possible poor so they can buy their vote with welfare.

 

So how exactly do you force someone to buy health insurance but then say forcing someone to purchase identification cards is outrageous?

 

Do you think the poor should have tha right to vote? How about those on government aid?

 

You should fear for a future where the takers outnumber the makers and can vote themselves everyone else's wealth.

Being poor should not disqualify one from voting, but if you are a net taker I could see losing one's voting privileges (temporarily). It would be like letting your children (dependents) have a say in your spending, they would run wild.

We already see this in Greece, voting themselves bennys until there is nothing left and people won't even lend to them.

Problem is determining whether someone is a net taker or not. Very difficult to quantify.

A better solution is a Balanced Budget Amendment that doesn't allow current takers to burden future citizens with debt. Then there is no need to take anyone's voting rights away since they can't take wealth from the unborn, just the rest of us working stiffs.

 

US Democracy: The voice of the people who are wealthy enough to speak.

 

The takers being the middle class and working class that TAKE the products they have built and give money to the upper class that MAKES the profits?

huh.

Taking natural resources from them and the environment should be cool though, they can live in perpetuity with the funny little inedible dollar bills we hand them, and the 101010110s for the ones we have on our oil-powered servers.

 

This statement doesn't make any sense. We are a civilized society because we pay for ID cards? It's very easy to figure out what is going on here: the Republicans are pretending to solve a problem that doesn't exist because they know that they will never get the lower class vote.

 

I don;t know what 'elite' is suppose to mean but the very rich are usually democrats.

 

By taker I mean those that take more taxpayer wealth than they generate. Basically anyone making a profit in the government wealth transfer equation.

What stops a taking majority from voting away all the wealth of a making minority?