THE ERA OF TRUMP

[K@th]

No shit they hid their faces. Getting involved in Syria is a bad idea, but you don't get to decide foreign policy in the military. Fucking grow up. Where's my vomit bag??

How does this blend with your opinion that only those who served in the military should be able to vote?

You are entitled to zero opinion until out of service and then you have the only opinion that matters?

[Speaker to Animals]

No shit they hid their faces. Getting involved in Syria is a bad idea, but you don't get to decide foreign policy in the military. Fucking grow up. Where's my vomit bag??

How does this blend with your opinion that only those who served in the military should be able to vote?

You are entitled to zero opinion until out of service and then you have the only opinion that matters?

They do get to vote. When the votes are cast, and the consequences of that vote mean war, then you have to go fight it. That's the problem with giving the vote to people who literally can't fight. They don't actually pay the costs of their votes.

Sovereignty literally means the right to make war. If the Sovereign doesn't also participate in the wars, then you end up in a bad place, hence why we revolted and put ourselves in charge. By "we", I mean the men who were in the militia and would be required to fight no matter who is in charge, and not the people who cannot fight. Popular sovereignty should only include the people who are wiling to to fight (and will be required to do so if it comes to that).

These guys in that photo should get booted immediately.

[nmoore63]

No shit they hid their faces. Getting involved in Syria is a bad idea, but you don't get to decide foreign policy in the military. Fucking grow up. Where's my vomit bag??

How does this blend with your opinion that only those who served in the military should be able to vote?

You are entitled to zero opinion until out of service and then you have the only opinion that matters?

They do get to vote. When the votes are cast, and the consequences of that vote mean war, then you have to go fight it. That's the problem with giving the vote to people who literally can't fight. They don't actually pay the costs of their votes.

Sovereignty literally means the right to make war. If the Sovereign doesn't also participate in the wars, then you end up in a bad place, hence why we revolted and put ourselves in charge. By "we", I mean the men who were in the militia and would be required to fight no matter who is in charge, and not the people who cannot fight. Popular sovereignty should only include the people who are wiling to to fight (and will be required to do so if it comes to that).

These guys in that photo should get booted immediately.

So... Trump shouldn't be eligible?

[Speaker to Animals]

How does this blend with your opinion that only those who served in the military should be able to vote?

You are entitled to zero opinion until out of service and then you have the only opinion that matters?

They do get to vote. When the votes are cast, and the consequences of that vote mean war, then you have to go fight it. That's the problem with giving the vote to people who literally can't fight. They don't actually pay the costs of their votes.

Sovereignty literally means the right to make war. If the Sovereign doesn't also participate in the wars, then you end up in a bad place, hence why we revolted and put ourselves in charge. By "we", I mean the men who were in the militia and would be required to fight no matter who is in charge, and not the people who cannot fight. Popular sovereignty should only include the people who are wiling to to fight (and will be required to do so if it comes to that).

These guys in that photo should get booted immediately.

So... Trump shouldn't be eligible?

Nope. Not if we went to a system like I described. Federal offices would be only veterans. Likewise, state offices would only be people who pay income taxes, and local municipal positions only open to people who own property and pay property taxes. If you want to vote in all three levels of government, then I guess you could enlist for four years in your youth, go to college and get a decent job thereafter, purchase a house, and there you are.

Only actual stakeholders with skin in the game would be able to vote or hold office in any given level of government. Federal government would only be concerned with defense, diplomacy, and foreign policy, and probably could be funded just fine through tariffs and maybe direct contributions by states.

State governments should be where we do all this social and economic policy stuff, and they should be free to carry it out however they please. Hence why they are called states and not provinces.

[nmoore63]

At least you disavowing trump's voting rights is consistent.

I mean the idea that only military services gives you "skin in the game" is batshit looney land, but so it goes.

[Fife]

NNT's new book is really quite good, BTW. https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden ... 42528462X/

[Speaker to Animals]

At least you disavowing trump's voting rights is consistent.

I mean the idea that only military services gives you "skin in the game" is batshit looney land, but so it goes.

It's literally the primary skin in the game, and should be pretty much the only skin in the game at the federal level.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you look at all forms of democracy in history, including Athens and Rome, the electorate always begins as the men who also have to muster for war when the assembly or senate votes for war. Only later does the equivalent of a "left" begin to expand the voting rights to non-warriors for political gain and that precedes the decline and ruin of the democracy.

A sovereign is the one in society who possesses the special right of making war. When men overthrow a king and make themselves into a popular sovereignty of some kind, they collectively own the right to make war. That is the entire point of the fasces in Roman culture and government. It's the power of an elected or appointed official to make war, including upon the citizen in the form of prosecution.

But if most of the voters don't actually have to pay the costs of their votes, i.e. they don't actually have to muster and march to war as a consequence of their own vote, the army is eventually going to take over.

Every time.


When we initially limited enfranchisement to men of property, it wasn't because owning property was somehow a mark of distinction, but because male property owners were literally the militia.

[nmoore63]

At least you disavowing trump's voting rights is consistent.

I mean the idea that only military services gives you "skin in the game" is batshit looney land, but so it goes.

It's literally the primary skin in the game, and should be pretty much the only skin in the game at the federal level.

Nah.

Land ownship has been the primary skin in the game for most of western civ.

Carthaginians for example used mercs for year. Or the idea that some chick who is about to be raped when the siege of the city falls has no skin in the game, for example, is a pretty silly ascertion.

Soldiers being the only one's prepared for fight for a civilization is fantasy.

My blood for example has never volunteered for peace army, but volunteered for conscription when the call went out WW2/WW1/Civil/Revolutionary.

It wasn't the soldier who created the United States out of the frontier. The soldier was a tool in the box. Next to the plow and the ax.

The fight for what is America continues everyday, the soldier's role has been a small part in the play.

[nmoore63]

When we initially limited enfranchisement to men of property, it wasn't because owning property was somehow a mark of distinction, but because male property owners were literally the militia.

You are simply wrong.