Apustajan apustaja
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
You should need to be properly day-drunk to vote. I've met the best people voting, drunk. You don't deserve democracy if you don't celebrate it.
What restrictions should there be on voting
- Thread starter Rand /pol/
- Start date
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
Observation, data, the scientific method, considering the reputation and track recore of claimaints
Do you retarded ppl literally not know how education works? You're such an npc you think basic human mental functions come from somewhere? That's like asking "where do you get breathing"....yiure just on retard logic
Your question says it all. You people need to get education and ideas from somewhere lol
What do you think education is, and before you answer, consider the accomplishments of humanity and consider how long the department of education in the US has existed
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They're just getting back the money they paid in in the first place. Or some of it.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
That is all stuff that comes from a university education. You still didn't tell me where one could obtain an education. Let me guess, you think it's from listening to Fox News and reading the bible
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Getting Tard Comed Jr
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
If you can't read or recieve money from the goverment you shouldn't be able to vote. Any type of money.
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
no it doesn't. Evidence does not support this. Universities spread conspiracy theories and falsehood
You dont obtain education. Its a natural instinctive skill like socializing. It's inate
The ability for things like critical thinking is in your brain fron birth, it gets removed by chemicals in your food and water and vaccines. Thats why they put you in public schools, which are run to form you into a slave
You literally cannot follow a conversation. Education is as I said before observation and the spread of truth. Since the bible is proven and backed as true by natural sciences, sociology and archeology, it is truth.
Fox News are your people, not mine
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
No they don't unless you're one of those simpletons who believes whatever conspiracy he reads about on the internet.
Jesus christ you're a retard
You do know that studies have shown a high correlation to believing baseless conspiracy theories and being intellectually impaired, right? Congrats on telling us all about your intellectual disability
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
im literally saying im the exact opposite and denouncing internet conspiracy theories
see? you just favor conspiracies and advertisements over science. this doesnt phase me, but what do you think you'll get in return for this devotion?
i am aware. thats what im saying as well. you believe in conspiracy theories and thus ar eintellectually impaired. ive been saying this over multiple posts now, you cannot follow a conversation
youre the Qanon, fox news guy, not me
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
Literally no one can see what you're responding to, you window licking retard.
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
PipTheAlchemist
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
Does buying nuggies from my local McDicks count as contributing to my country's economy?
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
DiscoRodeo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2020
I think that the founding fathers had one aspect largely right:
You should be a landowner because you have invested in the system in a personal way, and youre not just going to be shallow, superfluous, or casual in your political rights- because you could directly lose out on your investment.
I don't believe landowner or lord should be the defining feature of that currently though.
Many people have tried to change the criteria of investment historically. You can see examples of this in "only those who have served in the military should vote" or "only people of a certain financial means".
I genuinely believe that everyone should have a voice in how they are governed though, as you deserve a chance to vote in the person who will represent you and dictate your fate both internationally and nationally.
In my opinion, this is why we have both an upper house, and a lower house, and why the upper house was supposed to be more aristocratic in theory.
I think that we should have a senate that is split along these lines.
In my opinion, senators should only be decided by those who have invested in the system. These can be landowners, those who have served in the military, those above a certain tax bracket, or those deemed by individual states to have contributed to the state at large in a way to be defined in the future.
Congressmen/the lower house should be open to all people.
I think that issues of national security and the federal level of government should have its own checks and balances within voting as well. For this, I would argue that we shouldn't limit things to landowners, etc- but have a scheme where you do have to take a civic test of some kind. Id be lax to add any additional requirements, because I think that because of the representative nature of the presidency, every person should have the opportunity to have a say in who represents them. This is less about governance, and more about representation- the power comes from the people, and its not meant to be placed upon them from above. You just want to ensure that all have the opportunity to have a say, and that people think about who they vote into power because the people can be manipulated by demagogues.
I think that the voting in of governors should be similar, but perhaps with individual states being able to add their own further criteria- and certainly people should have to live in that individual state for some period like 5, 10, etc years.
I think that supreme court justices shouldn't be appointed/suggested by the president, but instead an equal amount should be approved by both the house/the senate (each house, the lower and upper have their own set of appointees), and the appointee-candidates should be proposed by the judicial branch of government themselves- based upon skills, experience, and objectivity. If you wanted, you could have it so the president had the ultimate approval of the appointees after both houses of congress approve of their candidates, but thats more a formality. Other than that, I think that the expansion of the supreme court should be entirely dependent upon and relative to population size.
Id also obviously add age limits, I don't want geriatric politicians holding onto power because theyre lax to hand over the reigns to someone younger.
But thats how I'd place the voting criteria
You should be a landowner because you have invested in the system in a personal way, and youre not just going to be shallow, superfluous, or casual in your political rights- because you could directly lose out on your investment.
I don't believe landowner or lord should be the defining feature of that currently though.
Many people have tried to change the criteria of investment historically. You can see examples of this in "only those who have served in the military should vote" or "only people of a certain financial means".
I genuinely believe that everyone should have a voice in how they are governed though, as you deserve a chance to vote in the person who will represent you and dictate your fate both internationally and nationally.
In my opinion, this is why we have both an upper house, and a lower house, and why the upper house was supposed to be more aristocratic in theory.
I think that we should have a senate that is split along these lines.
In my opinion, senators should only be decided by those who have invested in the system. These can be landowners, those who have served in the military, those above a certain tax bracket, or those deemed by individual states to have contributed to the state at large in a way to be defined in the future.
Congressmen/the lower house should be open to all people.
I think that issues of national security and the federal level of government should have its own checks and balances within voting as well. For this, I would argue that we shouldn't limit things to landowners, etc- but have a scheme where you do have to take a civic test of some kind. Id be lax to add any additional requirements, because I think that because of the representative nature of the presidency, every person should have the opportunity to have a say in who represents them. This is less about governance, and more about representation- the power comes from the people, and its not meant to be placed upon them from above. You just want to ensure that all have the opportunity to have a say, and that people think about who they vote into power because the people can be manipulated by demagogues.
I think that the voting in of governors should be similar, but perhaps with individual states being able to add their own further criteria- and certainly people should have to live in that individual state for some period like 5, 10, etc years.
I think that supreme court justices shouldn't be appointed/suggested by the president, but instead an equal amount should be approved by both the house/the senate (each house, the lower and upper have their own set of appointees), and the appointee-candidates should be proposed by the judicial branch of government themselves- based upon skills, experience, and objectivity. If you wanted, you could have it so the president had the ultimate approval of the appointees after both houses of congress approve of their candidates, but thats more a formality. Other than that, I think that the expansion of the supreme court should be entirely dependent upon and relative to population size.
Id also obviously add age limits, I don't want geriatric politicians holding onto power because theyre lax to hand over the reigns to someone younger.
But thats how I'd place the voting criteria
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Even non-landowners are just as invested in the system. Everyone pays taxes. For example, someone who makes $250k in NYC that lives in an apartment pays way more in taxes than Cletus who makes $40k a year but owns a house in Alabama and is thus more invested in the system
DiscoRodeo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2020
Yeah thats why I said I don't believe it should be the defining feature currently and that for the senatorial branch, we should include being above a certain tax bracket, serving in the military, or to be defined criteria,
and that for the house and presidency, they should be open for everyone, with the only criteria for the presidency being an IQ test
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I'm not sure how well that would work. Jimmy Carter probably has one of the highest IQs of any President and was also one of the most ineffectual Presidents, possibly even BECAUSE of that. In many situations, you want a President capable of decisive action WITHOUT spending too long thinking about it. A lot of times, it's more important that something be done immediately to maintain public confidence than that that something be the perfect thing.