Should Only Veterans Be Able To Vote?

[emeraldsaphire]

It appears that many conservatives are against universal suffrage. "Women shouldn't vote." "You should be married to vote" etc

I think this is all stupid, but I could see an argument that only people who have served in the military and put their ass on the line should be able to vote. It seems silly that people with no military service, like Trump, Biden, and Obama, are sending young men to die when they have never risked anything.

Only Vets Can Vote

Everyone Should Vote

Only Vets Should Serve In Public Office. (that's JFK)

[OneViewpoint]

I'm career military (Army). It is neither practical to hold people to that standard. We could never get 340 million people run through the military 100% of the time. There are simply not enough jobs in the military. Nor is it desirable for society to exclude 97% of the population from having a voice.

It would be better to do what is already a requirement of our Constitution and have Congress vote on every war. Or better yet, put the question on a ballot in a special election every time and let voters decide if they want to piss away the lives of their sons and daughters along with a crap ton of tax dollars on any given war.

[emeraldsaphire]

That makes sense!

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

"Women shouldn't vote" doesn't seem to be conservative to me lol, taking back universal suffrage would be like celebrating monarchy, it's far beyond being conservative, on the spectrum

[Hardon-Collider]

"Trump, Biden, and Obama are deciding..." no they don't. They all have owners who tell them what to do. ㅤ

[emeraldsaphire]

Well that's true; most people think they do.

[Master_Debator]

I would say Trump less that the other two... he has his own money. He's not getting money to make certain choices like the other two were. Thus the better disposition for the citizens that work.

[Hardon-Collider]

@Master_Debator kotel kissers aren't humans

[Master_Debator]

ugh... got me. Can't really argue against this Isriel first agenda that seems to be all their underlying agendas. I mean one could try, but the actions speak louder than words already. For some reason, they all suck on star of David for whatever benefit that brings... and I mean all. There is pictures of all of them doing the same thing all the way back to the Bush realm.

[Master_Debator]

I would dial it back a little to include other Americans, and I am a vetern by the way. I would say tax payers should get the right to vote. This would automatically remove the EBT doctors and future astronauts, the in college retards that think they know it all because they have a masters in under water basket weaving, the ilegals, and all the other that don't have a real job and just protest everything. It would shapeshift the Democratic party because their votes wouldn't come from those places anymore... I mean I'm talking about people living off social security or veterns benefits as well... if they're not paying taxes from a job, why are they voting? I know some states make them pay taxes on those benefits, that's another problem I'm not addressing here, but will if asked, I think it's wrong to cut that conversation short.

So working tax payers... they're the ones paying the government to exist ang giving it the money to do anything at all... the rest can go fuck off. Working tax payers should be the only ones voting. I can argue my points and reasons why if anyone really wants to challenge my position.

[emeraldsaphire]

I've seen a lot of people say this too, and it makes sene

[OneViewpoint]

The next step in your warped juvenile world would be to weight a taxpayer's vote based on the amount of tax paid. No more one person one vote. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates get 10 million votes to your one. See where that would lead? That's basically what you are arguing for when you call for disenfranchising stay at home moms, college age kids eligible to be drafted to serve in wars, retired people, and disabled people living on public support.

You seem more like a masturbator than a master debater.

[Master_Debator]

@OneViewpoint The Bezoses of the world already buy votes like that. That reality already exists. Pretty much every industry you named is a major scam session as is currently in session. Since you want to write off all that as juvinile... your big brained take is what? More of the same?

I mean democracy don't work in mental institutions, but you seem to think so for some reason... so why should the blood suckers of society get a say? They're just going to vote for what benifits them, which means the political class will promise a bunch of free shit to get those votes. Explain your logic.

[OneViewpoint]

No, if you want to make a meaningful impact to the voting process, do what Bernie Sanders has been screaming from the rooftops for 30 years. Get Bezos, Gates, the Heritage Foundation, Corporations, and corrupt Wealth Ministry dark money out of politics. Overturn the Supremely Corrupted Court's Citizens United treason with legislation that shuts down dark money across the board and limits special interest money severely. The problem is not Joe Average. The problem is that the 1% has literally bought elected Republicans and Democrats and the courts. Let's start with correcting the biggest flaw first. And that's the 1% stealing the wealth and power of this nation.

[Master_Debator]

@OneViewpoint I agree. Making it illegal for the political class to accept money wouldn't fix the problem in my opinion, but it would hinder it. That and putting term limits on these endless positions would be something I'd like to see happen within my lifetime.

Still though... I fail to see why we should continue to accept the say of people that have no stake in the system outside of more to gain. They clearly will vote to tax workers more just to make their own life more comphy, which reminds me a lot of these rich people and political class that we've drifted into talking about. You know what I'm talking about right? these welfare queens and other do-nothings getting a vote. They don't attribute, so why? It's kind of along with the sentiments of veterns only being able to vote except not as hardcore as that.

Put it in a real world scenario...10 of you are supposed to work, 3 of you decide to just do nothing... they lay around in the dirt and scratch their ass. You really feel those 3 should get an equal say in what is the next best step? ... they don't even do anything. They're obviously just going to vote for lounge chairs while they do nothing so that they're not in the dirt.

[OneViewpoint]

So you're worried about the welfare queens gittin free stuff. How many welfare queens are there? How much are they stealing from taxpayers? Once again you're focused on the shit that doesn't matter while you're getting robbed blind.

What's the biggest line item in the federal budget? The Department Of Defense. They are currently sucking up just under $1 Trillion annually. You pay for that Military Industrial Complex welfare.

Why are corporate tax rates lower than individual tax rates? The top rate for individuals in 2025 was 37%. For a C-Corp it's a flat 21%. You pay for that corporate welfare.

Why does unearned passive income from Capital Gains (stocks and bonds) get taxed at a favorable 0%, 15%, or 20%? Who overwhelmingly benefits from a favorable capital gains tax rate. Billionaires and the rest of the 1%. A mechanic or retail worker probably isn't even investing in the equities and debt markets. You're paying for that billionaire welfare too.

Why do private equity hedge and fund windfall profit called Carried Interest get taxed at a favorable top rate of 23.8%? You can't invest directly in private equity funds or hedge funds. The capital requirements are set high enough to keep the riff raff out. So who benefits? Billionaires and the 1% again. You're paying for rich people welfare again!

You can't buy a stock when it becomes listed under and IPO or initial public offering. Buying an IPO is generally limited to institutional investors (funds, banks) and high-net-worth individuals. You only get a chance to buy after the 1% has already captured all of the initial value creation. The general public is intentionally frozen out of that transaction. More welfare for rich people.

Congratulations, you are following the misdirection of the 1% again and totally oblivious to the real thieves. You are going after your culture war bullshit with elections and the tax structure while the 1% rob you and everyone else blind.

[Master_Debator]

@OneViewpoint On Welfare Fraud vs. Larger Issues: While big-ticket items like defense matter, welfare fraud isn't negligible—it costs taxpayers billions annually through improper payments (e. g., estimates from government audits put it at $100-200 billion across programs like Medicaid and SNAP). Focusing on it isn't misdirection; it's about accountability in all spending. Plus, ignoring fraud erodes trust in social programs that help the truly needy. Like, I'm including these leering centers and fake healthcare programs in MN or the fake homeless housing programs in CA as well. I bet it adds up.

Defense Spending: The DoD budget isn't just "welfare"—it's essential for national security, deterring threats like China or Russia, and maintaining global stability that enables U. S. trade and prosperity. It also drives innovation (e. g., GPS, internet origins) and creates millions of jobs in manufacturing and tech. Cutting it could weaken America, leading to higher costs from conflicts or lost economic edge.

[Master_Debator]

@OneViewpoint Corporate Tax Rates: Lower corporate taxes (post-2017 reform) aren't handouts; they make the U. S. competitive globally, attracting investment and boosting job growth. High individual rates hit small business owners too (many file as pass-throughs). Evidence shows the reform increased wages and repatriated trillions in overseas profits—benefits trickle down, not just up.
Capital Gains Taxes: Preferential rates encourage risk-taking and investment, fueling economic growth that creates jobs for everyone, including mechanics and retail workers (via 401(k) s or pensions). It's not "billionaire welfare"—capital gains are often from assets already taxed at the corporate level (double taxation avoidance). Raising them could stifle markets, hurting retirement savings for the middle class.
Carried Interest: This isn't a loophole for the rich; it's a performance-based incentive that aligns fund managers with investors, promoting efficient capital allocation. Taxing it as ordinary income could discourage venture capital, slowing innovation in startups and tech. Many funds benefit pensions and endowments, indirectly helping average people.

[Master_Debator]

@OneViewpoint IPO Access: Restrictions on IPOs protect retail investors from high-risk, volatile early-stage investments—regulations like accredited investor rules prevent losses for those who can't afford them. The public still participates via mutual funds or post-IPO markets, and broader access could lead to more scams or bubbles (e. g., like some meme stocks).
Overall System and Misdirection: The top 1% already pay ~40% of federal income taxes, subsidizing programs for the bottom 50% who pay little to none. The "real thieves" aren't the rich—they're wealth creators whose innovations (e. g., via stocks, funds) lift living standards. Culture wars aside, focusing on envy-driven redistribution ignores how free markets reduce poverty globally. If anything, government overreach and regulations create the cronyism you're complaining about—advocate for flatter taxes and less intervention instead.

[OneViewpoint]

You are too far down the rabbit hole of propaganda from the 1%. You've bought into their lies. You're blind to the manipulation you've become a part of. You are an apologist for your own butt raping.

[ohsheeT]

I mean that would be cool , but at the same time if I pay taxes , I want my say

To be honest , I didn't see your age , but you have probably voted ten times ten big elections

And if you haven't noticed just because they b**** , in moon about cheating each other

We're the ones.\nGetting cheated because who they project themselves to be and who they end up turning , to be , are two different things

It's the puppet masters that pay for their elections. Because they want them to do what they want them to do when they want them to do it, just like everything that's going on in the world right now are politicians or just puppets, and they do it because they're making $250000 a year, and they want to get re-elected, again. Not only $250000 a year, but everything that they're not supposed to be doing to the market, they're doing or through corporations that are paying them big money to do what they want them to do. So the ones getting screwed already doesn't matter what happens. We lose

[SixFootSexy]

Universal suffrage was a huge mistake.

Women are terrible judges of men's character. As soon as TV was broadcasting presidential debates, it became a beauty/tone competition.

Women will always vote for the candidate who uses rhetoric of safety, security and socialism because they would rather depend on a nanny State than a husband. Which in turn destroys family and the working class. Women could stop working today and the country would go on. If men stopped working the entire modern world would shut down overnight.

100+ years of history for you, summarized.

[AviatorTom]

Remember that, for the first 130 years, only men could vote in the US. Many countries had, and some still have, the limitation that only property owners can vote.

One of the weaknesses of a true democracy is that anyone can vote, including those who really have no idea who they are voting for.

I would be more in favor of ensuring a more intelligent electorate, one that does their homework before coming to the polls, so that they vote for who they believe is the best candidate.

One way to do that is to only show names on the ballot, no party affiliation or whether they are the incumbent. That would force people to learn who they want to vote for before coming to the polls.

[loveslongnails]

EVERYONE of whatever age you deem to be an adult whose life is affected by the decisions of government, should have the right to vote.

I think what you're suggesting, that only those who have served or fought should have the power to decide whether the US sends other men to fight in wars of be in harms, is impractical to fit in the US form of government.

What could be done is to take away the Executive branches power to send the military into conflicts or life threatening situations without the full approval of Congress. That would be better than having one person who is Commander in Chief being able to issue orders that would normally constitute war crimes.

[NaultD]

Full question reversal. At 18 you have to do some kind of selective service. Army boot camp would be a respectable option. I'm open to other boot camps but have to be as pressuring. Still for the public good.

Can't take away rights but you can shove it down people's throats.

[Anonymous]

i'm republican. i don't agree with that at all. every legal American citizen should be able to vote. i get what you're saying, vets fought in wars, but the American's the veterans protected should also get a say in how they want their country run. it is what makes america, america. because we have freedom of speech and who we vote for and what we vote for.

[msc545]

No, that is a very old and very parochial idea. That is completely anti-democratic. Veterans have fought in our wars so that everyone can vote and it would be horrible to take that away from some people just because you don't like the way they might vote.

[Amur8711]

You could say the same about any woman in congress. It used to be only individuals that owned land could vote, then it became land owners and all men but you were required to be registered for the draft. Now women can vote but not required to be registered for the draft.

[purplepoppy]

No. Why should someone who only joined the army because he failed everything at school and couldn't get a job have a say while I don't.

[emeraldsaphire]

You have a relatively low view of veterans, lol. The difference is they risked their lives for what they believed in, and you probably didn't. There is a lot of nuance here and I don't fully agree with it 100% but I at least think you shouldn't be the commander-in-chief if you've never seen combat.

[NathanDavis]

you don't think that first responders have served and risked enough?

in this country, and for this country...

[MisterWack]

Everyone should vote, Veterans deserve benefits for their service.
They keep this country free, so this country should have their backs.

[Dargil]

Only people that own property should vote. People that do not own property do not have a vested interest in the security and prosperity of the United states.

[worldscolide]

Yeah, no I'm not for taking the vote from anyone. As long as they are US citizens they should be able to vote. I am also against forcing men to sign up for the selective services to be able to vote.

[exitseven]

none of the above. Only American citizens should be able to vote.

[CuriousMufuxka]

There's a gigantic difference between ability to vote and running for office. Albeit certain guidelines have been in place since before our parents were born. Including the woman vote.

[888theGreat]

You are weighing only war decisions , the US is more about economy and infrastructure which Vterrans would no little about. Now should people that vote have jobs , that is more relevant.

[Mike_Hum]

I think only people who put into the system should get to vote. But women are showing they're not capable of handling the responsibility of voting.

[Kelly6]

@emeraldsaphire Or maybe only who are in epstien list should vote, 😂

[Jerre]

ANYONE of age and a U. S. citizen (for Federal Elections) shud be allowed to vote

[CrystalPeak]

Do cops risk their lives?

[emeraldsaphire]

For the most part no

[CrystalPeak]

Do firemen risk their lives going into that burning building?

[CrystalPeak]

My stepbrother is in the army. He’s risking his life teaching volleyball at the West Point training Academy in New York.

[emeraldsaphire]

lol that is true, not everyone in the military risks their lives. Firefighters risk their lives for sure, so do Ice road truckers and those crane operators. My point is that You are voting for people who will send people to die in wars. And it's a little weird to me that people who have never served in combat can do that so easily.

[CrystalPeak]

Let’s put it this way..
I admire your sentiment and I think you’re a sharp cookie. Wouldn’t it be a shame if you weren’t allowed to vote against the stupid Warhawks that would gladly send you to your death?

[emeraldsaphire]

lol I'm a women, but yeah, I don't think universal suffrage should end, but I'm just sick of the guys on here being like, "Repeal the 19th" So I'm saying they shouldn't vote either.

[CrystalPeak]

I was more referring to your idea of only military people being able to vote. Do you remember “Rosie the Riveter”? She didn’t carry a gun during the war, but she worked in the factory to make the bullets. Bullets don’t grow on trees! 😉

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I think their votes should be worth more.

[Anonymous]

no, since all they do is KILL in the name of FREEDOM! Fuck that!

[FunkyMonkee]

And, what happens if we no longer have any?

[beefcakebradybatson]

H**L to the NO, as much as I respect them.

[shortster]

It should be limited to people who pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

@mike_hum

Wdym?

[AgentG111]

What?