Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. 
Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
You're right. We'd better lower the voting age to 14.
The thing the libtards can't seem to grasp is that there's nothing sacred or empirically superior to voting at 18, versus 21 (the way it was until 1971) or any other age or non-discriminatory standard. The hysteria over "poll tax" and slavery is pretty
.
It was a good idea, for example, to drop the voting age to 18 back when pretty much any eligible male was subject to the draft. We don't really have that in practice today, but it still makes perfect sense to allow people who enlist to possibly die for their country to vote. That same logic doesn't apply to the lazy (pot smoking) eternal adolescent playing video games in mom and dad's basement.
Democracy fails when a majority of the voting populous figures out (with the help of a certain political party) that it can vote itself largess from the treasury. The best way to fix this is to restrict voting to those who, as our current president is fond of saying but doesn't actually believe, have some "skin in the game" and have a certain level of experience in the real world. There's no perfect test for that, and some perfectly responsible people might be disenfranchised by any test, just as our current test likely disenfranchises some perfectly responsible people younger than 18. But in theory, you ought not be voting if you're taking from the government more than you've paid in. Politically and realistically this is impossible, but I thought we were talking wish list stuff.
