• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

I really think we should raise the voting age to 35.

I think it should go back to land owners.
I agree with the concept as it assures that voters have skin in the game. However, I’m not a land owner currently, but that’s not why I’m against it.

Some of you may remember the comic book ads where you could buy a “Texas mini ranch” for like $1. No other information was given in the ad, but I remember hearing it was like a legal deed to a quarter inch square or land in Texas.

Some lib or Jewish NGO would start doing that to ensure their people could vote and it would ruin the whole thing.
 
I agree with the concept as it assures that voters have skin in the game. However, I’m not a land owner currently, but that’s not why I’m against it.

Some of you may remember the comic book ads where you could buy a “Texas mini ranch” for like $1. No other information was given in the ad, but I remember hearing it was like a legal deed to a quarter inch square or land in Texas.

Some lib or Jewish NGO would start doing that to ensure their people could vote and it would ruin the whole thing.
The idea that only land owners "have skin in the game" s fundamentally bullshit, I don't see how anyone can support that idea and still think of it being a democracy, or republic. The very concept of land ownership being a requirement to govern is from feudalism. The elite land owners run the country with everyone else being vassals. The more laand you own, the closer to being king you were. As a concept it is un American.

Oh, and Christian orgs are already selling 3x6 plots of land, it's called a cemetery, and they are "land" ownership, and the Christians dominate the market.
 
Oh, and Christian orgs are already selling 3x6 plots of land, it's called a cemetery, and they are "land" ownership, and the Christians dominate the market.
But those are for the purpose of burying a body, not shitting up an election. Why are you being antigentile?

You do have a legit point though because I’d guess that at least half of Americans if not way more than that can’t afford to own land anymore. When the idea was originally proposed things were different. You could just ride into the frontier, find a nice spot and say “this is mine now.”
 
But those are for the purpose of burying a body, not shitting up an election. Why are you being antigentile?

You do have a legit point though because I’d guess that at least half of Americans if not way more than that can’t afford to own land anymore. When the idea was originally proposed things were different. You could just ride into the frontier, find a nice spot and say “this is mine now.”
you brought up religion, not me.
 
The idea that only land owners "have skin in the game" s fundamentally bullshit, I don't see how anyone can support that idea and still think of it being a democracy, or republic. The very concept of land ownership being a requirement to govern is from feudalism. The elite land owners run the country with everyone else being vassals. The more laand you own, the closer to being king you were. As a concept it is un American.

Oh, and Christian orgs are already selling 3x6 plots of land, it's called a cemetery, and they are "land" ownership, and the Christians dominate the market.

Hey, I'm totally for freedom, unless I can gain an edge by limiting hte freedom of others. Then it's FU to them.

Integrity is very very rare in this world. Like it's rarer than Adamantium.
 
But those are for the purpose of burying a body, not shitting up an election. Why are you being antigentile?

You do have a legit point though because I’d guess that at least half of Americans if not way more than that can’t afford to own land anymore. When the idea was originally proposed things were different. You could just ride into the frontier, find a nice spot and say “this is mine now.”
"Business owners" it is, then. Anyone can incorporate a side hustle, and in so doing contribute to the national wealth as well as put skin in the game...

... besides, I'm already there.
 
Heinlein in starship troopers - the book, not the movie - had a way better idea - citizenship is not a right, you have to earn it.
and you do earn it only if you are a veteran, if you have served and paid your dues to the society. then you do have a right to dictate to society of how it needs to operate.

but, well.
instead we live at times when hysterical bipolar women do tell grown up men of how those men need to tend for their balls, how to walk, how to talk, and how to live.
like, refer to cassidy photo above.
Too constrictive and discriminatory.

As just one example, a know a person who was born with severe physical disabilities, is highly intelligent, and is an amazing person overall.

They "serve" as a dispatcher in the public safety sector and from my personal experience with them, and by the comments from PDs, FDs, and EMS agencies, they do an outstanding job.

They should certainly be inclusive of citizenship.

There are probably millions of other examples of people who are not fit for military service, yet still merit citizenship.
 
Hey, I'm totally for freedom, unless I can gain an edge by limiting hte freedom of others. Then it's FU to them.

Integrity is very very rare in this world. Like it's rarer than Adamantium.
If you say you want freedom, but you don’t want the same freedoms for everyone, then what you really want is privilege.
 
LOL. It was sarcastic. I'll ride this freedom train right to the bottom of the ocean. I'd rather fail with principles than fail with compromise.
 
Too constrictive and discriminatory.

As just one example, a know a person who was born with severe physical disabilities, is highly intelligent, and is an amazing person overall.

They "serve" as a dispatcher in the public safety sector and from my personal experience with them, and by the comments from PDs, FDs, and EMS agencies, they do an outstanding job.

They should certainly be inclusive of citizenship.

There are probably millions of other examples of people who are not fit for military service, yet still merit citizenship.
With all due respect to this person, who I am sure is a decent American, would our hypothetical system survive without the votes of these kind of people?

Any system like we are discussing is going to be harsh and unfair to some people in certain groups and I would think the patriots in those groups that actually loved our country would understand that.

For example, I don’t think women should be allowed to vote. That would be a blanket rule if I was designing a country. That’s not to say that some women won’t be unfairly affected by this. Some of the ladies here probably know more about civics than I do, but it’s just not feasible to try to winnow out the few good ones. Same with some other groups. The exceptions will suffer because of the rule.
 
Too constrictive and discriminatory.

As just one example, a know a person who was born with severe physical disabilities, is highly intelligent, and is an amazing person overall.

They "serve" as a dispatcher in the public safety sector and from my personal experience with them, and by the comments from PDs, FDs, and EMS agencies, they do an outstanding job.

They should certainly be inclusive of citizenship.

There are probably millions of other examples of people who are not fit for military service, yet still merit citizenship.
whole idea was - it is not supposed to be fair or inclusive, quite opposite.
a highly restrictive model how to limit count of people allowed to make decisions of the fate of society - via personal sacrifice and service.

all complaints - pls - express to the Heinlein. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom