Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[SuburbanFarmer]

Hmm.. our budget is broken, and we want to stop letting the MIC run wild over the 3rd-world...

I know!

Let's let federal issues be decided by 1% of the population in military service!

No, better...

Let's draft and enlist like, 50 million more people into the military, and THEN we'll only let them vote! This'll be awesome!

- MHF 2017, Year of Peak Stupidity

[Speaker to Animals]

The point is: if everybody wants the right to vote in national elections, then everybody should be willing to sacrifice their lives as a consequence of their votes. The alternative to that would be to limit enfranchisement only to people who were at least willing to enlist for four years, which isn't really even that big of a deal. But the fact that most Americans would just abandon enfranchisement rather than enlist for four years of their lives indicates to me that they should never have been voting in the first place..

The truly telling thing I have seen here is people accusing me of wanting to be an elitist. There is nothing elite about enlisting. But maybe they see it as elite because they can't imagine actually sacrificing their time and potentially their health? Seems suspect..

[SuburbanFarmer]

One can only decide issues of tax levies and mayoral races, if they have proven themselves willing to die in the Middle East.

-Speaketh Animalus, BC 2017

[Speaker to Animals]

One can only decide issues of tax levies and mayoral races, if they have proven themselves willing to die in the Middle East.

-Speaketh Animalus, BC 2017

Retard, I am talking about the federal government.

[nmoore63]

I call it an admission you know I am right and the only tactic you have left is to be an asshole.

Nah.
I mean maybe I didn’t have to say it quite that way, but the point is true.

I don’t believe if you were to say that women signing up for the selective service would end your resistance to them having the right to vote.

Yeah, it pretty well would. But in general, I would prefer enfranchisement to be had after completion of an enlistment. So once you put all women on the draft, and established real punitive consequences for trying to escape it, the next course of action would be to limit enfranchisement in the federal government only to veterans, but that wouldn't really have anything to do with gender.

I do like the idea of limiting enfranchisement at the state level to people who are net tax payers and enfranchisement at the local level to people who own property. It seems pretty clear that the problem here is widespread of people voting for other people to suffer for their benefit.

If you vote for war, then you should have to muster and fight the damned thing if you are eligible.

If you vote for some new social program, then you should have to pay for it out of your income taxes.

If you vote for more property taxes for something, then you should at least own property and pay property taxes.

I don't think these things should be controversial, but once you get to the part about drafting women, the cucks come out in force to protect that pedestal.

You talk out both sides of your mouth.

You post a video saying women shouldn’t have the right to vote because their brains work differently, then ramble on about equality.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nah.
I mean maybe I didn’t have to say it quite that way, but the point is true.

I don’t believe if you were to say that women signing up for the selective service would end your resistance to them having the right to vote.

Yeah, it pretty well would. But in general, I would prefer enfranchisement to be had after completion of an enlistment. So once you put all women on the draft, and established real punitive consequences for trying to escape it, the next course of action would be to limit enfranchisement in the federal government only to veterans, but that wouldn't really have anything to do with gender.

I do like the idea of limiting enfranchisement at the state level to people who are net tax payers and enfranchisement at the local level to people who own property. It seems pretty clear that the problem here is widespread of people voting for other people to suffer for their benefit.

If you vote for war, then you should have to muster and fight the damned thing if you are eligible.

If you vote for some new social program, then you should have to pay for it out of your income taxes.

If you vote for more property taxes for something, then you should at least own property and pay property taxes.

I don't think these things should be controversial, but once you get to the part about drafting women, the cucks come out in force to protect that pedestal.

You talk out both sides of your mouth.

You post a video saying women shouldn’t have the right to vote because their brains work differently, then ramble on about equality.

I am supposed to agree with every thing the guy says?

You are the one talking out of the both sides of your mouth.

You know I am right and these petty insults are all you can do instead of just admitting it.

[Fife]

The point is: if everybody wants the right to vote in national elections, then everybody should be willing to sacrifice their lives as a consequence of their votes. The alternative to that would be to limit enfranchisement only to people who were at least willing to enlist for four years, which isn't really even that big of a deal. But the fact that most Americans would just abandon enfranchisement rather than enlist for four years of their lives indicates to me that they should never have been voting in the first place..

The truly telling thing I have seen here is people accusing me of wanting to be an elitist. There is nothing elite about enlisting. But maybe they see it as elite because they can't imagine actually sacrificing their time and potentially their health? Seems suspect..

What about people who don't have an option regarding military enlistment?

What franchise would someone born with MS, or any kind of congenital disability, receive? What about someone who is independently wealthy and fully insured for life at age 17, who then becomes paralyzed from an accident before reaching voting age--does he get to vote?

Serious questions, I'm trying to figure out this model.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The point is: if everybody wants the right to vote in national elections, then everybody should be willing to sacrifice their lives as a consequence of their votes. The alternative to that would be to limit enfranchisement only to people who were at least willing to enlist for four years, which isn't really even that big of a deal. But the fact that most Americans would just abandon enfranchisement rather than enlist for four years of their lives indicates to me that they should never have been voting in the first place..

The truly telling thing I have seen here is people accusing me of wanting to be an elitist. There is nothing elite about enlisting. But maybe they see it as elite because they can't imagine actually sacrificing their time and potentially their health? Seems suspect..

What about people who don't have an option regarding military enlistment?

What franchise would someone born with MS, or any kind of congenital disability, receive? What about someone who is independently wealthy and fully insured for life at age 17, who then becomes paralyzed from an accident before reaching voting age--does he get to vote?

Serious questions, I'm trying to figure out this model.

That's where anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism always fall flat.

[Speaker to Animals]

The point is: if everybody wants the right to vote in national elections, then everybody should be willing to sacrifice their lives as a consequence of their votes. The alternative to that would be to limit enfranchisement only to people who were at least willing to enlist for four years, which isn't really even that big of a deal. But the fact that most Americans would just abandon enfranchisement rather than enlist for four years of their lives indicates to me that they should never have been voting in the first place..

The truly telling thing I have seen here is people accusing me of wanting to be an elitist. There is nothing elite about enlisting. But maybe they see it as elite because they can't imagine actually sacrificing their time and potentially their health? Seems suspect..

What about people who don't have an option regarding military enlistment?

What franchise would someone born with MS, or any kind of congenital disability, receive? What about someone who is independently wealthy and fully insured for life at age 17, who then becomes paralyzed from an accident before reaching voting age--does he get to vote?

Serious questions, I'm trying to figure out this model.

I think we could find something for most people to do. For those who cannot even do that.. I don't know. It's a small percentage of people whose disenfranchisement is not worse than the enfranchisemet of everybody.

Maybe exemptions wouldn't be bad if they cannot be abused. In general, nobody should be voting in national elections who are not willing to fight for the wars they vote for.

[Fife]

That's where anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism always fall flat.

WTF are you talking about? What is the "that's where?"