@amlam I'm not really sure that system works well, (i hate to put it like this), but that will be making a tier citizen system.

the rich could theoretically get even richer that way

oh, and @amlam, if those holes are above the waterline, they don't leak

You would have to have a government restricted for it to work. No special favors just deciding where the money goes

honestly we need to get all money out of politics...but that is a pipe dream

When politicians spend money, there will be money in politics

I don't really have a problem with money in politics.

For me it depends where the money comes from.

I find it hard to square the idea that a welfare recipient and a guy who paid 500 grand in taxes get exactly the same vote though. I don’t know what to do about it but that seems retarded

also, most people who would be net taxpayers also think about caring for their dependents so they won't be as cold blooded as feminists think the patriarchy is

I mean it also seems stupid that people with much higher IQs don’t get more of a vote but that’s racist of me to say

Well then, Cochella is just a GOP fundraiser https://www.spin.com/2019/01/coachella-owner-philip-anschutz-political-donations/

Actually, this gets brought up every year and there's always a new crop of kids to flake out on Twitter about it.

That’s fucking hilarious

Taking hippy money and giving it to The Man!

This is why I only eat chik-fil-a

And drink Yuengling

the dude is a multi-billionaire. it's not like it has to come from ticket sales

Tru

heh i know, was just playing

it will will of course trigger the shit out of hippies that don't understand how money works

the article said it's coming out of his personal money

@amlam - 1 vote per net taxpayer is enough or as mentioned elsewhere, votes get too skewed by the rich and powerful

@amlam So, its also kind of a retarded system that we have such poor people in our country with all the wealth we have (just making a point). The problem is how we go about changing these things, you can't just punish the rich for being successful, and reward all of the less fortunate as that will make everything worst. So our system is to give people as much freedom as we can allow (while "trying" to have limited safety systems for the worst off).

So to add this to voting, if you make a persons vote matter more because of their wealth or IQ, you are making an unequal system, which is always flawed as a persons life shouldn't just be valued on money and intelligence.
So what we have is a even playing field (not always), so everyone has an equal CHANCE at being heard. If you take that way, people on the bottom start to make the system unstable. And for the crazy leftist, who thinks this system is also flawed because it just give the rich more power, as they can spend more to be heard, its true. But they are still following the same rules we all do using their freedom. Just because someone has more money doesn't mean he gets to speak more or less (till they start to shut people out of this process).

I’m not opposed to 1-vote-per-net-taxpayer in theory but I feel it’s execution could potentially make things worse. Would you be presented a *voucher* to vote upon completion of your income taxes and/or expand the IRS to have agents at polling stations background checking potential voters. Also, there’s plenty of ‘net positive income taxpayers’ who don’t vote and all net ‘negative income taxpayers’ still pay taxes in one form or another. Would we have to implement a system that takes into account and tabulates ones sales tax, property tax, whatever-the-fuck tax? Do you really want the IRS or some other gov't agency involved in elections at all? Because that’s what we’d be asking for.

Well, people pay their taxes in April and vote in November, right? so yeah, it would get put in their voter registration files and 6-7 months is plenty of time. The alternative would be no votes at all for women

sales is a state tax thing and not all states have it

you can be a renter and be a net tax payer too

stupid college kids won't be able to vote unless their taxes are sufficient too

I've never been a fan of people who want to change something going: You have to agree with these new ideas (or even old ideas) we want, or we will take your vote away.

we'll all lose our vote anyway when the state collapses under it's own weight

Life/society is always at risk, doesn't make giving people poor options, making them better.

those are the only 2 options I can see that won't cause a societal collapse and how much would a vote in a communist state be worth

fair point

I see many more options, but that can always be argued.

then shoot. haven't really heard from you what alternatives there are

I could lay out many different things, but does that mean i know whats best? No.

What i do know, is that proposing people either agree with you, or lose their votes. Is not something enough people will agree with to get passed. It can't include taking away peoples vote, or making a tier voting system (outside of legal and illegal citizens).

Service Guarantees Citizenship = prime system tbh fam

It might be a good system, i'm not sure its the best tho.

I’m sure Shaun King will be updating the writing he has done on the story https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1081967885294006272?s=21

Maybe Mr. Black will identify as white?

https://www.faithwire.com/2019/01/04/the-extraordinary-story-of-a-radical-gay-activist-turned-christian-apologist/

That headline could have done without that quote. It should have just said, "Radical Gay Activist’s Dramatic Turn Towards Christ"

There was also a big story months ago about a lesbian LGBT activist who renounced her ways and became Christian as well. God can reach anyone

@Shadows what's wrong with it exactly?

https://twitter.com/Zhanrock/status/1082001809684684800

I couldn't defend my position, so I moved directly to insults

That guy has the big dumb

https://twitter.com/Zhanrock/status/1082009373038145538

good, good. Let the hate flow through you

Twitter is a waste of time and energy

^^^ we should just call it twatter. Lol

@Beemann While i do think most people should understand how important service is, very few of the total population would be able to do it. And its not the best to have free citizens (legal) with no vote for over its governance.
Also, there is a reason we don't just elect high ranking generals to president (rarely), as you don't just want people with just a military mind leading you, only thinking of how to win fights/wars. You need a balance of ideals, and not just people fit to fight holding more power over everyone else in the population without a say.

1. You don't vote while you're in the service, only once you're out
2. Service != military

Military is one of multiple options, but all are meant to be the individual serving the nation/public. The right of voting becomes the right to serve, for anyone of sound mind able to consent to the contract

Do you mean under your idea you can't vote? Because if your in the military now you can vote. And yes i know what you meant by after having served but making a tier system of citizens is not great for any society.

It's not my idea specifically. It's Heinlein
And the tiering is purely by choice. Citizenship is more attainable than wealth, so long as you're willing to endure service

And in the hypothetical society described, you can vote once you leave service

After serving the min required time

Also depending on the state, you already have a worse version of this system in the USA

Ya i know its not your idea, just what you were saying is the best.
And calling something you either join service or you have no vote as a citizen, isn't really what i would call a "choice".
And while i agree in some places it could be worst then citizenship or no vote, its still all apart of peoples freedom playing out.

Specifically in the US you can lose franchise if you don't register for SS by 26, depending on the state. As far as voting goes, how is it not a choice? A growing number of citizens in western nations are not voting, or are essentially voting blind. Given the immense power behind the vote, is this not irresponsible and destined to create a dysfunctional, non representative system?

Having the right to vote but not doing so, is still a choice, and a right. Having the right to vote poorly is still a right (as these are things that have happened for all of history, and we are not doing to bad as a species). Having a vote or not based on service is not a choice, as you are taking away free peoples rights (under our constitutions).

Voting is important, and people should learn more when doing so, but that does not change the persons right if they choice not to, or don't bother voting at all.

https://twitter.com/audikamm_/status/1082062089940815872

https://twitter.com/infuzi0n/status/1078698249324646400?s=19

you don't hate the (((whites)))? what are you, a racist?

Voting is important, but not important enough for it to come with any real consequences, @Shadows ? A vote is intent to push your idea above all others, utilizing government force. Why is that guaranteed just because you were born? It moves beyond the purview of the personal and well into the sphere of social and political control

That's what it means to be a US citizen..... You are born with immutable rights, free to engage them or not.

It does not change because some bad outcomes happen (even tho we try to take steps to limit that).

If there was a way to actually get people reconnected with a culture that promoted an understanding of rights that would seemingly help. But it seems like a pipe dream at this point.

you have rights specifically because of 2A. Nothing is ultimately immutable, else you would still have 2A, 4A and 10A entirely intact, for starters

I've already said before, principles are not easy to fight for, and they never will be. But that's what our founding fathers gave us, and i won't stop fighting for that ideal.

The constitution merely enumerates rights. It’s not the source of rights

^

@amlam Yep, but our constitution is one of the only places in the world (if not the only) that abide by a persons human rights.

the constitution only means anything insofar as the public enforces the rights enumerated within. The public has not enforced these rights

Of course. We’re unique in that way but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world isn’t having their innate human rights being violated

The constitution has certainly be encroached upon but it’s done remarkably well in holding up against the slow creep of tyranny

Pretty much better than anywhere or any time in history

How are we measuring the "slow creep of tyranny"?

With a ruler

Get it?

A ruler?

most of the constitutional encroachments have occurred within the past 100 years or so

Like the instrument and also the tyrant?

👌

But my point was only that while we have slowly lost some of our freedom over the past couple centuries we’ve lost a lot less than other nations that should be compared to us like the UK and Canada

Not relative to what you had, no

Canada's constitution popped up in the 70s and was basically swiss cheese. UK never had a constitution

from the early 1900s onward there has been a steady erosion of rights that the average American *did* have

Exactly. Maybe they’d be able to own butter knives if they had a constitution that protected that

"The constitution merely enumerates rights. It’s not the source of rights" - You, minutes ago

The only point that actually matters in the whole constitution is the existence of an armed populace. That has been and continues to be the only check against government overreach, and only when actually utilized

I’m in agreement with myself. You have rights that are constantly under threat. Our constitution enumerates them and says “government hands off” whereas other countries have constitutions that don’t go as far. They end up being violated while we hold onto more rights

The government hasnt been hands off though lol

It’s been more hands off than it otherwise would have been

Without the constitution as a road block we would’ve been Canada in 1777

Look at it this way. Canada set the bar almost at the floor, and basically nudged it slightly lower
America has set the bar high, and has been dropping year by year, in incredibly significant ways