Democrats have always fascinated me in the respect that they always want laws, regulations, guidelines, and procedures that they have absoeffinlutely no intention of ever following themselves.
@2 – to be fair, I can’t think of a single law I want the government to enforce against me. Mostly because I hate the idea of getting strangled for something stupid, like selling legal items on a street corner.
@4 I rent, but having a more responsible electorate wouldn’t be bad. I wonder how much property ownership actually affects voting these days. Might not be sufficient.
@7 – all I can say is that transients shouldn’t have a hand in making permanent laws. I’d prefer not to live under a government that caters to vagabonds.
@7 We in Massachusetts have “Proposition two and a half” They can “only”raise property taxes 2.5% a year unless the town votes for an override. Needless to say, the rich liberals vote to raise their own taxes all the time. It’s sad. The people who do it, of course, just consider themselves and if THEY can afford it, screw everyone else who can’t. The reason they want to raise it are usually “important” things like “the 30 year old school has a leak in the roof, we need to tear it down and build a new one for $50 million”.
People who rent should be allowed to vote…as long as they’re the ones paying it.
Well that’s the ultimate problem with Democracy, the voters. Or, not so much the voters but the level of remove any individual vote gets from actually having a meaning within the voting cohort. IIRC there was a paper that argued this very point. A true Democracy can only truly flourish and work properly at the smaller ranges of participants. Once you get passed, I believe it was over 10,000, you get diminishing returns. Which is why, in a true Federal system most of the power should be maintained and operated at the local level and only some necessary power by exercised at any level higher if you want it to work properly/
@15: Hey, someone should found a country on that principle, and then strictly enumerate the few powers the central government has, and then not tear it down!
Sure she did, by whoever taught her to erase her hard drive. Doesn’t get any more secure than that.
Democrats have always fascinated me in the respect that they always want laws, regulations, guidelines, and procedures that they have absoeffinlutely no intention of ever following themselves.
@2 – to be fair, I can’t think of a single law I want the government to enforce against me. Mostly because I hate the idea of getting strangled for something stupid, like selling legal items on a street corner.
@3 True, but then you don’t actually make it part of your very soul to call for those laws to be promulgated in the first place.
@4 – Although I *was* very much in favor of having the franchise restricted to property-owners, and that started back when I lived in an apartment.
Let’s compromise, how about they strangle Hilary on a street corner for selling BS, that’s legal as far as she’s concerned.
@4 I rent, but having a more responsible electorate wouldn’t be bad. I wonder how much property ownership actually affects voting these days. Might not be sufficient.
@7 – all I can say is that transients shouldn’t have a hand in making permanent laws. I’d prefer not to live under a government that caters to vagabonds.
@7 We in Massachusetts have “Proposition two and a half” They can “only”raise property taxes 2.5% a year unless the town votes for an override. Needless to say, the rich liberals vote to raise their own taxes all the time. It’s sad. The people who do it, of course, just consider themselves and if THEY can afford it, screw everyone else who can’t. The reason they want to raise it are usually “important” things like “the 30 year old school has a leak in the roof, we need to tear it down and build a new one for $50 million”.
People who rent should be allowed to vote…as long as they’re the ones paying it.
Property owners who make 100% of their income from section 8 shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It goes both ways.
Hillary don’t need no stinkin’ IT security training!
@10 – if you take away the voting bloc of their 1000 slum-tenants, there aren’t enough section 8 landlords to have any significant voting strength.
Community disorganized!
well I guess home-schooling now covers both ends of the bell curve
They may not have much voting strength but they have lots and lots of money, just ask Hilary, they’ve given her millions.
Well that’s the ultimate problem with Democracy, the voters. Or, not so much the voters but the level of remove any individual vote gets from actually having a meaning within the voting cohort. IIRC there was a paper that argued this very point. A true Democracy can only truly flourish and work properly at the smaller ranges of participants. Once you get passed, I believe it was over 10,000, you get diminishing returns. Which is why, in a true Federal system most of the power should be maintained and operated at the local level and only some necessary power by exercised at any level higher if you want it to work properly/
@15: Hey, someone should found a country on that principle, and then strictly enumerate the few powers the central government has, and then not tear it down!