Definition of The Left

[C-Mag]

Since only 3 people listened to this before, I'll just drop it here:

THREE !


That's three times as many as usually listen to you, this make Martin Famous is really working

[Speaker to Animals]

My point is that, if women want the vote, then they should meet the obligations that men must meet for that same vote.

What obligations are those? You want them to register for selective service? I’m sure they can submit the paperwork, it that’s the huge dividing line between those who should have a say i their society and those who should not.

We’ll probably have to yank all the disabled people’s votes tho, since they can’t serve.
/shrug

To start with, your vote is an obligation to serve and die on the battlefield if the electorate chooses to do so. Only more than half the electorate does not and probably will not ever be required to do so. That's a huge problem. All women know they can opt out of combat. They all know it is optional.

To be equal, women should register for the draft. If they attempt to get out of the draft by becoming ineligible, even through pregnancy, then they should pay a cost. Personally, I think all draft dodgers should lose their vote and lose their ability to serve in public office for the rest of their lives. If a war happens and women attempt to dodge combat in any way, then they just lose the vote. I am not even about executing them like we did to men who attempted to escape the draft in the world wars.

There exists a memorial in Washington filled with the names of about fifty thousand men who died in Vietnam in exchange for their voting rights. Consider that. The women who's names are on that wall are my equals. The women who serve are my equals.

The women who own their shit like men do are my equals.

Milspecs and liberal women like her certainly are not the equals of any man in the United States. I would like for her to be. That's up to her, though.

[Speaker to Animals]

Since only 3 people listened to this before, I'll just drop it here:

THREE !


That's three times as many as usually listen to you, this make Martin Famous is really working

Two were Google and MSN bots, though.

Seriously: listening now. Hold on.

[brewster]

We’ll probably have to yank all the disabled people’s votes tho, since they can’t serve.
/shrug

Starship Troopers rules, anyone can serve, in any way they are fit to. Combat, Teach for Americastyle, or as a doorstop. Are there more R or D Boomer draftdodgers in Congress and the WH? Tough call.

[C-Mag]

We’ll probably have to yank all the disabled people’s votes tho, since they can’t serve.
/shrug

Starship Troopers rules, anyone can serve, in any way they are fit to. Combat, Teach for Americastyle, or as a doorstop. Are there more R or D Boomer draftdodgers in Congress and the WH? Tough call.

Mandatory Draft, Mandatory National Service from age 18 to 20, just two years, no waivers unless you are in a coma.

It's more government than I want, but necessary to save the Union.

[Speaker to Animals]

The deeper point here is the principle that nobody should have a so-called "vote" on something they do not pay for. You should not vote on a war if you were never willing to serve and if you are not the one paying for it. You should not vote on welfare if you are a recipient of welfare (including welfare for the wealthy).

It's deeper than just military service and individual tax payers. Consider the free traders that absolutely laid waste to the American economy since the 1990s. Most of the people leading that farce were merchant class types who didn't pay the cost of the policies. Their supporters don't pay the cost with their jobs (at least not at first). We made headway in destroying that nonsense precisely because the costs of so-called free trade (which really should just be called job offshoring treaties) became widespread enough to make a different in the 2016 presidential election. Now it looks like a good chance "free trade" will be emended because Trump's trade policies are reinvigorating the American economy and people want to keep their jobs.

But where it comes to war, none of those vagina voters who voted for Hillary would ever be required to fight Hillary's wars for her. The people who would die in those stupid wars were men, which those voters don't even see as fully human beings.

DB lives in a shithole city where the majority of the electorate are renters. Guess what happens? Property taxes skyrocket to pay for GIBS for the renters. He complains about that all the time, but does he consider the deeper principle being violated? I guess the answer is no.

This is the problem with democracy in all forms. It becomes a gang rape of sorts when a majority of the electorate does not pay the costs for something they are able to vote on. This is the destroyer of democracies throughout antiquity. It likely will be the end of our own as well.

[Speaker to Animals]

To DB's point, for as long as I remain on service-connected disability, I should not have a vote in how much we raise the compensation for disability as a result of military service. Having a vote on whether we go to war I should have a lock in for, as should Carlus and even DB. Because DB is a net tax payer, I assume, and a veteran, he should have the ability to vote on whether we go to war and how much we raise compensation for service-connected disability. How we reconcile this principle with the trainwreck that is representative democracy I have no idea. But the principle is sound, and the effects of violating it are manifest in our nation right now.

My point that DB ignores is that, if we adhered to this sound principle somehow (doesn't matter how), we all know most women would lose the ability to vote on most things. That's telling. It's really shocking when you think about it. Women as a group take more from taxes than they pay in. Women do not volunteer to serve in the armed force much, and when combat time comes around, many of them opt out with pregnancy, even though that is technically illegal.

[DBTrek]

... you have to track 300+ million people’s current status (disabled, pregnant, net tax payer, etc) and cross reference that with the issues being voted on before determining who can vote?

Sounds like an impossibly huge undertaking. We can’t even limit our voting to legal citizens under the current rules (aka almost every adult citizen can vote). Is an idea still good if it’s not possible to implement?

[brewster]

To DB's point, for as long as I remain on service-connected disability, I should not have a vote in how much we raise the compensation for disability as a result of military service. Having a vote on whether we go to war I should have a lock in for, as should Carlus and even DB. Because DB is a net tax payer, I assume, and a veteran, he should have the ability to vote on whether we go to war and how much we raise compensation for service-connected disability. How we reconcile this principle with the trainwreck that is representative democracy I have no idea.

It can't be reconciled. It's in the DNA of the system. Oligarchs vote themselves low taxes and low regulation, and the plebs vote themselves bread and circuses. The aristocratic founders never thought the plebs would be given the vote. As Winnie said it's the worst form of government except for all the others. Royal France & Spain didn't do much better, the aristocrats made sure they weren't taxed.

[Speaker to Animals]

To DB's point, for as long as I remain on service-connected disability, I should not have a vote in how much we raise the compensation for disability as a result of military service. Having a vote on whether we go to war I should have a lock in for, as should Carlus and even DB. Because DB is a net tax payer, I assume, and a veteran, he should have the ability to vote on whether we go to war and how much we raise compensation for service-connected disability. How we reconcile this principle with the trainwreck that is representative democracy I have no idea.

It can't be reconciled. It's in the DNA of the system. Oligarchs vote themselves low taxes and low regulation, and the plebs vote themselves bread and circuses. The aristocratic founders never thought the plebs would be given the vote. As Winnie said it's the worst form of government except for all the others. Royal France & Spain didn't do much better, the aristocrats made sure they weren't taxed.

I think it's not the worst form of government, but certainly not the least worst either.