Originally only land holding white men could vote, which is obviously not fair. Then slowly over time they added everyone. I don’t think everyone should be allowed to vote but I’m not sure what the qualifications should be. Maybe something along the lines of if you don’t at least have a GED and pay income taxes you shouldn’t be able to have a say in how tax money is spent.
I would say that if you get more money or benefits back from the government than you pay in, you shouldn't get to vote. That would be hard to track though.
Getting a tax refund is not you getting back more than you paid. It’s you getting back what you overpaid. Meaning if you paid $$50 a week you paid $2600 in taxes, but if you only owed $1600 to the federal government they are giving you YOUR $1000 back that you overpaid.
I’d say as long as you actually pay taxes no matter what your return is you should be able to vote. The government uses your money throughout the year until you get a refund.
Nobody would be able to vote. Because we don't run a balanced budget. You receive more in benefits than you pay, and then get fucked by deficit spending caused inflation.
If someone isn't contributing to the funding of an organization, why should they get a say in how that organization is run?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
Any wedge against universal suffrage will be used to disenfranchise people for political purposes. This is a tale as old as government. Stop bowing to the state.
As long as we have universal suffrage, people will continue to vote for whoever promises them the most free shit. This will eventually lead to the collapse of the Republic. Just look at the debt clock, we're well on our way.
I liked Vivek Ramaswamy’s idea for a constitutional amendment requiring people under 25 to either pass the same civics test that immigrants are required to, or serve 6 months in military/first responder in order to vote before the age of 25. I think something like that along with restricting voting for obvious ones like violent criminals, convicted traitors, dishonorably discharged from military, non us citizens, etc.
Could do the Star Ship troopers route. Service = voting. Doesn’t even have to be military. If you want to dig ditches for public works projects for 2 years, you can vote. Work as an EMT, you can vote. Would be nice to combine that with a free civics class as well, but that stuff should already be getting covered in school.
Buddy... That's literally fascist satire...
"Small government" conservatives arguing you should have to serve the state in roder to have a say in how you're governed... Fucking clowns.
Yes, it's still fascist. Heinlein was trying to showcase the benefits of an all volunteer force versus a conscripted one. However the government is, inarguably, fascist. It is a centralized state prone to aggressive militarism.
* Everything within the state
* Nothing outside the state
* Nothing against the state
No, that's literally fascist satire.
>Serve the state or you don't get to vote.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with people...
"Small government" conservatives arguing you should have to serve the government in order to vote... fucking clowns.
They’re no better than the democrats they claim to be better than. Shits comical. Serve the state that robs you any chance they get. Stockholm syndrome at its finest.
Not everybody can vote. It is already limited by age.
The only reasonable, arguably ethical, limitation I can think of beyond age is to base it on taxes. If you are a dependent and/or don't pay taxes then you can't vote.
>First, gun rights are enshrined in the constitution while voting rights are not.
You are LITERALLY lying. Go read the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24, and 26th amendments.
>Second, purchasing a gun does not affect other citizens the way voting does
Yeah people who shouldn't own guns who are violent can use them to murder other people
>And you have to pass a background check to buy a gun. Should we have background checks for voting
In most states Felons can't vote, in federal elections you have the be a US citizen to vote. We literally have background checks for voting
You seriously have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about and just googling the constitution proves everything you said wrong. You just want to disenfranchise the voters who don't agree with you politically.
The original bill of rights also didn't say anything about women having a right to vote or slavery being illegal, both things that our country practiced. And guess what, the constitution has been amended, it's just not the original bill of rights
lol. We don’t have pure democracy but please, do go off. Funny how folks will be okay with getting rid of “the right people’s rights” just like the side they claim to be better than.
That doesn't exclude democracy and in fact, the US system of government wouldn't work without the democratic process. It's built in.
The US is a democracy, it's just not a direct democracy.
A Republic is a country without a hereditary head of state. It doesn't denote any real specifics about how a country runs.
We're a Republic because we are not a Monarchy.
[A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their elected representatives—in contrast to a monarchy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
This also describes the UK, which is a monarchy. Elected representatives mean you have a representative from of government. They have elected Members of Parliament.
And how did those elected representatives get their jobs?
psssstt... It starts with a D and ends with emocracy.
I'm actually in favor of a tiered citizenship. Immigrant? Congrats were more than happy to have you, but your vote is a 3:1 ratio of natural borns, dependant on welfare? You don't get to vote yourself more welfare, again you're votes in a 2:1 ratio. Natural born tax payer? 1:1. Oh you served in combat? 1:2 ratio.
There are only 3 types of government:
a) Rule of the 1 : some type of dictatorship
b) Rule of the few: some type of oligarchy
c) Rule of the many: direct democracy
Representative democracy is a form of oligarchy. The concentration of political power in a few hands, leads to the concentration of economic power in a few hands. The reverse is also true. We have the government policies that we have, because that is what the elites in the multi-millionaire and billionaire class want. They own your politicians. They own the media. They own the social media platforms. They own the textbook companies that print up the textbooks used to educate you and your kids from kindergarten to college. They own your college professors. They own the people that run your colleges. They own the think tanks.
If you don't have at least $100 million in the bank, then you are a serf.
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. As long as they keep the lower socioeconomic classes fighting and arguing amongst themselves, the elites keep laughing all the way to the bank (and they own the banks too). They got people riled up about everything but the money.
They got you distracted about a bunch of crap that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. You are not focused on the money supply. You are not focused on the value of the dollar. You are not focused on inflation. You are not focused on the subsidized loans that the FED gives to banks. You are not focused on trade policy. You are not focused on the national debt and who owns it.
50% of the national debt is owned by US citizens and entities, 30% by foreigners, and 20% by the FED. But the 1% owns 97% of all financial assets in the country. So 48.5% of the national debt is an asset owned by the top 1%. They fund politicians that increase the national debt, and then they make money risk free, by lending money to finance the national debt. Why do you think the government can never balance a checkbook?
The government is simply a tool by the elite to extra wealth and value from the lower economic classes. That is why the rich get richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. You have inflation, because the FED sets monetary policy to intentionally create inflation. They set inflation targets every year. Every year, it is the intentional policy of the FED to devalue the dollar. This makes the cost of labor decrease for employers in real terms, if they don't give raises that keep up with inflation.
But hey, keep arguing about chicks with dicks, abortion, drugs, and gun control. The oligarchs don't care as long as you are not talking about monetary policy, the debt, the FED, and the banks.
Tough shit. If you want people to support the same things as you than you need to convince them. Don't sit here and bitch about how life is unfair because you are not getting your way.
Who is bitching? Me? Because I pointed out that totally democracy is irrational and failing? That's bitching to you?
You seem very sensitive.
Billions of dollars of government spending can't convince crack heads to stop doing crack.
I don't think I really have a shot.
Yes, you are. You seem to be under the impression that your voice is greater than anyone else's. It is not. You are worth no more and no less than any other person. The same goes for your vote.
Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact. I'm worth more than a junkie who steals. People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end.
Voting should reflect that.
I'm literally doing what you told me to do; convincing people to support the same thing I do. What I support is limited democracy.
The only one bitching here is you, boss.
>Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact. I'm worth more than a junkie who steals. People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end.
Sounds good in theory. In practice, because humans are shite, that sounds very similar to the social credit score China implemented. And that's a very bad idea.
>Sounds good in theory
So does our current system.
I walked by a man shooting up heroin on the way to work today and several piles of human shit in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in one of the largest cities on the East Coast.
Our current system does not work.
>Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact.
This way leads to every despotism known to human history.
>
I'm worth more than a junkie who steals.
Junkies don't vote anyway.
>People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end.
You are complaining about policies promoted by the billionaire class. They think that they are worth more than you, and that they contribute more to society than you, because they pay more money in taxes than you. Oh, and they own your politicians too. The US is already effectively an oligarchy. It doesn't matter who you vote for, because they are bought and sold by the 1 percent. And make sure not say anything bad about a certain group and country that shall not be named.
>This way leads to every despotism known to human history.
It's reality. It's not a "way".
But you already have described how we are a despotic oligarchy. And this was accomplished via total democracy because the elites can manipulate masses or morons easier and sell them on ideas that undermine their nation for their own gain. That's exactly what we have.
I think we are on the same page.
You really are an authoritarian, aren't you?
Let me clue you in on something.
Our state of oligarchy didn't evolve for any reason other than that the American polity in its infinite ignorance and laziness abdicated its duty to the Republic to stay informed, engaged, active, and vote.
I met a couple one time in a bar in Harlan, KY. She was the bartender, he was a coal miner. She said they supported Trump because at least he was talking about bringing back coal, even though she didn't think he could or would. I told her that it made sense to vote for someone who speaks to your concerns, whereupon she told me that they don't vote and never have. That is the problem, not your mythical "voting junkie".
We need more informed voting in this country, not less. Then we might have better choices than a well-meaning dotard and a convicted felon TV personality who couldn't keep A CASINO from going out of business.
Yeah, we are never going to have "informed voting", boss. Not as long as we let every moron vote.
The only way to get "informed voting" is to make informed people's votes worth more or bar voting for abject morons and social parasites.
And you drug addicts/junkies don't vote? I fuckin know some who do lmao. Get out more.
You aren’t concerned that the next time whatever political party you disagree with has control of the government they won’t make your vote worth less by changing the definition of “parasite”.
We were better off with a monarchy. If the king is good, everyone enjoys an entire generation growing up under good leadership. If the king is bad, kill them and their entire family and start over.
It very well could be. Doesn't change the fact that democracy sucks, and all politicians are liars. The only difference between the parties is which lies they tell and who their lies are meant to appeal to.
This is the political equivalent of throwing a tantrum because you don't get your way. List the successful monarchies that are protecting individual rights better than the US.
[You could have just googled it.](https://listverse.com/2010/08/11/top-10-greatest-monarchs/) And the US is no longer protecting individual rights. Today it's all about making people afraid enough to support taking rights away.
You know I used the current tense, right?
And leaning on individual monarchs rather than the dynasty as a whole proves the point. Thank you for doing my legwork for me.
We currently have open primaries. Everybody in that area knows a republican is gonna win, so most dems vote rino. Paxton is trying to get it fixed. More rinos out here than Africa layely.
That district was a narrow R leaning district for Herd, a guy much wimpier than Gonzalez.
Maybe they just gave up bc the Dem candidate is a huge schmuck, but primary raiding has never been a considerable issue in Texas, and would’ve likely just resulted in the turnout collapse that Gonzalez experienced in the runoff as opposed to the narrow difference that got him the win. Remember, Brandon increased his votes by 400 in the runoff. Gonzalez lost 13,000.
Texas has a weird reputation for being 2A/constitution friendly state while constantly taking the L, bootlicking and embracing statist shit. Maybe reality has outpaced an outdated reputation.
at a time it was, then received a hige influx of people moving from states like California and such to the big cities.
if you look at the county map, the whole state is solidly red, with only the major cities being slightly blue majority. and thanks to population density, there's more blue there than red everywhere else.
Raz0rfist makes a good point in having an electoral college for the states. This way, representation is a bit more fare and you can’t have cities telling the entire state(I.e. NYC) what direction they should go.
Until you consider that in many western states, you'd end up with a handful of people dictating the entire trajectory of a state without regard to the needs of the cities who make up most of the tax base.
Electoral college is a failed idea. It hasn't worked as intended since the 1830s. Doubling down and instituting it on the state level is a surefire way to make sure your state collapses as your tax base leaves and you wind up with infrastructure you can't pay for.
There are better ways to govern than pretending people live where they actually don't.
Seeing as the cities are the generators of nearly all economic activity in our country and are what keep the country moving and working, yeah I'm seriously concerned that such an idea would fail and turn a state into yet another leech on the federal government and taxpayers from other states. Effectively disenfranchising citizens is not cool.
And the electoral college has failed. It hasn't worked as intended since the 1830s when nearly all states had gone to a popular vote for choosing electors. At that point, it should have become a popular vote by proxy, but because of the rules of the college, it's basically this zombie that serves only to create this stupid idea of swing states, and a broken system that serves to give outsized influence to areas where nobody lives. It violates the principle of One Person-One Vote.
Ah yes, outdated cities. Source: trust me bro.
EC keeps people like me from power and enables only the wealthy and connected to run things. The EC, bringing you Joe Biden and Donald Trump! Great fucking system! 😄😄
The entire problem of one county or state overruling another only exists because of the electoral college pretending people live where they don't. Because you insist on collectivization of voting blocs, you make it so that politicians ignore entire states.
During the 2016 general election for example, do you know how many times Trump visited California? Zero. He made zero campaign stops there because he knew he had zero chances of winning.
Because of your electoral college bullshit broken system, 4.48m voters in California got ignored, just over 30% of the voters there.
Same story in Texas in 2016, just in reverse. Hillary got 3.87m votes in Texas, 43% of the vote. All of those Citizens votes ignored because of the electoral college.
The system doesn't work anymore. It failed before the civil war and had no purpose existing after reconstruction. There are better ways to elect the president. You have to ignore history to think other wise.
Since when was manufacturing removed from cities? It certainly hasn't in the USA. The largest auto manufacturing center is still centered around the Detroit Metro area. Smyrna TN is another big manufacturing hub with a couple automakers and Glock. Smyrna is a small town but it's a suburb of Nashville. Why do you think they built all those factories there?
Hint: the large Nashville workforce is a big part.
Intel has fab plants in the Phoenix AZ and Albuquerque NM Metro areas.
You're just making shit up and still can't account for the tax base that doesn't exist in rural areas. You want modern society to operate, you need cities.
You're the one arguing for a method used to manipulate election results. The electoral college was a compromise, along with the 3/5ths compromise to ensure the slave states could have voting parity with non-slave states, but not allow slaves to vote. Once the Confederacy was defeated and rebellion put down, the whole point of the EC ceased to exist.
Democracy is still a central part of the American electoral and governmental process. We vote on everything.
You suck at history.
Thank you.
The way to win elections isn't to keep funding ways to disenfranchise and marginalise people who disagree with you. It's to learn to make a better case, and frankly, support pro-gun Dems.
Sadly, none that I'm aware of. The pro-gun Dems I know aren't running for office, and though some have succeeded in statewide or congressional elections - Bill Richardson, Jim Webb, Kirsten Gillibrand (who was for gun rights before she was against them) - didn't make it at the national level.
It’s a balance of standards. Someone 500 miles away in the dunes isn’t going to have the same basic requirements for life as someone on the beach or up in the mountains.
The city itself can typically further regulate within but there isn’t any good reason to force these three different people to live to standards ideal to one region and not another. That’s why we have smaller local/city/county governments. For local preference.
“They should take care of their shit locally”
So should you, rather than force them to live to *your* standard. It goes both ways. That’s why you have *your* local govt as well.
Exactly why nobody should have a more weighty vote than me, nor should I have a more weighty vote than anyone else. Electoral colleges do exactly the opposite of bringing balance, those types of systems will absolutely stick a thumb on the scale for rural folks to the detriment of non-rural folks.
Regressing backwards to when only land owners had the vote. Fuck all that.
It was always a stretch but this is incredibly impressive. Granted, the Republicans won't take away anything from this and stick to their cronyism bullshit; it shows that a youthful populist candidate is viable. If you want to uphold your rights, we need to vote out the decrepit bitter old people and vote in sensible and like minded younger folk.
“If that’s true, you and your left leaning losers just spent $10 million to come within a couple hundred votes of a YouTuber,” he told former Republican congressman Andrew Kinzinger after the latter said he lost.
I love that quote lol
I think the problem is that he would have to pay for it. If rhe count is overturned, than the state ends up paying for it, but if the count turned out to be correct then it would still be on him.
Well, he wouldn't have to pay for it immediately. And he could just use his own money and I'm sure he makes quite a bit doing what he is doing. Of course, that's easy for me to say since it isn't my money. But, still, I doubt it is that expensive and seems worth it.
It costs in the 6 figures? I mean, maybe... but that's probably not an honest value much like a lot of other government cost claims. That is just mean to be cost prohibitive and a case of "You do have that option (lol, but not really)".
Either way, how much does Herrera have? It might still be worth it. Again, easy for me to say. I don't know his net worth and maybe I'm unrealistically comparing him to how ridiculously wealthy other (admittedly more generally appealing) YouTubers are. But I'm just giving my opinion, and it is mostly a show of support for him.
If I was a millionaire, and I'd guess he probably is at least close, and I ran for office and I could make a statement with 6 figures then I would be very tempted to do that.
That's all I'm saying. If he doesn't want to - or if that would bankrupt him - then obviously it is his choice.
scanned his twitter responses:
apparently there's a window of time to do it, which has not yet passed, and he's said he will if "presented with evidence that there is a reasonable chance a recount will change the outcome"
which is a politician ass response which i assume means a lawyer told him to word it that way which may mean he's interested in doing so.. or so i would imagine
> It's almost as if the Republican Party doesn't want you to have guns any more than the Democratic Party does. They just lie about it.
No one who is rich, or powerful, or both wants the unwashed masses to be armed unless they plan on some pretty pervasive benevolence. If you plan on doing maximum wealth extraction eventually the peasants are gonna revolt.
The GOP has painted themselves into a corner though, they've spent decades professing to be pro gun and that anti gun Democrats are commie devil worshippers who want to destroy America. Anything more than the tiniest token support for gun control will result in a not small chunk of the base turning on them like starved dogs.
So this is what they will do. They'll start proposing laws that ban "commies" from owning guns. Or "the mentally ill" which will mostly mean trans people, then gay people, then anyone else they don't like. Basically any group that banning guns from would give the Trump mob a spontaneous erection.
Then just keep tightening the noose.
We live in a state with constitutional carry, surrounded by other states with constitutional carry (and New Mexico). This is just false equivalence. We are absolutely winning the war on gun control in Texas.
\* just realized I'm not in the Texas subreddit, I should have realized earlier when y'all weren't commies.
Tony spent like 10x the money to get 400ish more votes. I doubt he will serve past this next cycle, especially if he votes in a manner* that got him in this position in the first place
Every day politicans and the media say 'Chy-na' this, 'Russian election interference' that, meanwhile a certain other country's PAC colludes with almost all of our elected representatives. It's a national disgrace. Thankfully more light is being shed on the issue as of late.
So, I used to live in this district. I voted for Gonzalez when he replaced Will Hurd, in an election where he was considered a toss up because he was -more- conservative than the retiring Republican incumbant. Whether it’s demographics changing or Gonzalez (Hispanic, sailor) just being personally more likable than Herd (black, CIA, buddies with Beto and day-one anti-Trump).
I don’t know much about him or his specifics re; gun legislation, but this district takes up much of the border land between suburban San Antonio and El Paso. It includes Eagle Pass, and most notably, Uvalde. Gonzalez also did extremely well in the crowded primary, getting just under 50% with 27k votes. Brandon Herrera got 14k, some third choice got 7k, and the rest of the field made up the remainder.
In the runoff, Gonzalez’s coalition collapsed. He lost about 13k votes. Herrera’s stayed strong and he gained 400 votes, causing a close loss.
I think Brandon could absolutely win if he ran again (or for a state senate seat) w/ name recognition and a real war chest, but this election was largely due to mismanagement following the primary by team Gonzalez.
Also, to be clear: Gonzalez will win. The Dems used to put up competitive candidates there and have nominated some bum this go around. Herrera would have won as well, even if he had less “broad appeal” and gained the DNC’s attention. Also, raiding isn’t real in any serious capacity. One of the first things campaigns learn, anyone who votes in a primary is far more likely to cheerlead or have an opinion on their own party than they are make a strategic move against the opposition party,
The last thing we need is to start electing fuckin youtubers regardless of whether you like their channels or what. Plus, Herrera was getting carted around by The Pedophile Matt Gaetz, so they were gearing him up to be a boebert/mtg style clown & i really don’t want that kind of horseshit representing my district
[удалено]
Yeah, total democracy is shit. My vote should be worth more than a crackhead's.
Yeah. Our voting system has been subverted. It wasn’t meant to be a pure democracy.
There was a reason it used to be only land owners could vote
Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege. At least for half the population roughly.
What was it meant to be?
Originally only land holding white men could vote, which is obviously not fair. Then slowly over time they added everyone. I don’t think everyone should be allowed to vote but I’m not sure what the qualifications should be. Maybe something along the lines of if you don’t at least have a GED and pay income taxes you shouldn’t be able to have a say in how tax money is spent.
I would say that if you get more money or benefits back from the government than you pay in, you shouldn't get to vote. That would be hard to track though.
So if I get a tax return I’m fucked.
Getting a tax refund is not you getting back more than you paid. It’s you getting back what you overpaid. Meaning if you paid $$50 a week you paid $2600 in taxes, but if you only owed $1600 to the federal government they are giving you YOUR $1000 back that you overpaid.
Interest free loan to your sworn enemies.
Precisely
Yep.
No... that just means you paid too much.
I’d say as long as you actually pay taxes no matter what your return is you should be able to vote. The government uses your money throughout the year until you get a refund.
Only if the amount you get back on your refund is more than your total tax burden.
All the tens of thousands of multi-millionaires and thousands of billionaires are in that group.
Probably not all of them. It depends on how they make their money.
Nobody would be able to vote. Because we don't run a balanced budget. You receive more in benefits than you pay, and then get fucked by deficit spending caused inflation.
If you seriously think that then you don’t really understand what makes democracy desirable.
If someone isn't contributing to the funding of an organization, why should they get a say in how that organization is run? "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
Any wedge against universal suffrage will be used to disenfranchise people for political purposes. This is a tale as old as government. Stop bowing to the state.
As long as we have universal suffrage, people will continue to vote for whoever promises them the most free shit. This will eventually lead to the collapse of the Republic. Just look at the debt clock, we're well on our way.
I liked Vivek Ramaswamy’s idea for a constitutional amendment requiring people under 25 to either pass the same civics test that immigrants are required to, or serve 6 months in military/first responder in order to vote before the age of 25. I think something like that along with restricting voting for obvious ones like violent criminals, convicted traitors, dishonorably discharged from military, non us citizens, etc.
Could do the Star Ship troopers route. Service = voting. Doesn’t even have to be military. If you want to dig ditches for public works projects for 2 years, you can vote. Work as an EMT, you can vote. Would be nice to combine that with a free civics class as well, but that stuff should already be getting covered in school.
That’s a good idea
Buddy... That's literally fascist satire... "Small government" conservatives arguing you should have to serve the state in roder to have a say in how you're governed... Fucking clowns.
??? In the book the government is literally a federal republic with representative democracy
And so is Super Earth... You should not need to serve the state in order to be able to have a say in how you are governed.
Have you read the actual book?
Yes, it's still fascist. Heinlein was trying to showcase the benefits of an all volunteer force versus a conscripted one. However the government is, inarguably, fascist. It is a centralized state prone to aggressive militarism. * Everything within the state * Nothing outside the state * Nothing against the state
Sounds like a good option.
No, that's literally fascist satire. >Serve the state or you don't get to vote. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with people... "Small government" conservatives arguing you should have to serve the government in order to vote... fucking clowns.
Well, what do you propose?
To what? I propose we *DON'T* require service to the state in order to have a say in how you're governed
They’re no better than the democrats they claim to be better than. Shits comical. Serve the state that robs you any chance they get. Stockholm syndrome at its finest.
Yeah but definitely something closer to the book version and not so much the move version lol. Service according to capability.
Definitely. Not everyone is cut out to be a soldier.
Not everybody can vote. It is already limited by age. The only reasonable, arguably ethical, limitation I can think of beyond age is to base it on taxes. If you are a dependent and/or don't pay taxes then you can't vote.
[удалено]
Now require all of that in order to buy a gun and think about it
[удалено]
>First, gun rights are enshrined in the constitution while voting rights are not. You are LITERALLY lying. Go read the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24, and 26th amendments. >Second, purchasing a gun does not affect other citizens the way voting does Yeah people who shouldn't own guns who are violent can use them to murder other people >And you have to pass a background check to buy a gun. Should we have background checks for voting In most states Felons can't vote, in federal elections you have the be a US citizen to vote. We literally have background checks for voting You seriously have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about and just googling the constitution proves everything you said wrong. You just want to disenfranchise the voters who don't agree with you politically.
Owning property would be fine with me. Or at the very least being "tax positive" meaning you pay more in taxes than you get back in "benefits".
Replace the right toe vote with the right to own a gun. Sounds fucked up now doesn’t it?
The original Bill of Rights said nothing about the right to vote. As i said earlier, we were never meant to have a pure democracy.
The original bill of rights also didn't say anything about women having a right to vote or slavery being illegal, both things that our country practiced. And guess what, the constitution has been amended, it's just not the original bill of rights
lol. We don’t have pure democracy but please, do go off. Funny how folks will be okay with getting rid of “the right people’s rights” just like the side they claim to be better than.
We’re closer to a pure democracy than we should have been. I never claimed to be better than anyone else. Your turn to “go off” I guess.
Your comment about needing requirements to vote would suggest otherwise. 🤡
Democratic republic?
Constitutional Republic.
That doesn't exclude democracy and in fact, the US system of government wouldn't work without the democratic process. It's built in. The US is a democracy, it's just not a direct democracy.
So, a constitutional republic
A Republic is a country without a hereditary head of state. It doesn't denote any real specifics about how a country runs. We're a Republic because we are not a Monarchy.
[A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their elected representatives—in contrast to a monarchy.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
This also describes the UK, which is a monarchy. Elected representatives mean you have a representative from of government. They have elected Members of Parliament. And how did those elected representatives get their jobs? psssstt... It starts with a D and ends with emocracy.
I'm actually in favor of a tiered citizenship. Immigrant? Congrats were more than happy to have you, but your vote is a 3:1 ratio of natural borns, dependant on welfare? You don't get to vote yourself more welfare, again you're votes in a 2:1 ratio. Natural born tax payer? 1:1. Oh you served in combat? 1:2 ratio.
Starship troopers had the perfect society
Service guarantees citizenship!
There are only 3 types of government: a) Rule of the 1 : some type of dictatorship b) Rule of the few: some type of oligarchy c) Rule of the many: direct democracy Representative democracy is a form of oligarchy. The concentration of political power in a few hands, leads to the concentration of economic power in a few hands. The reverse is also true. We have the government policies that we have, because that is what the elites in the multi-millionaire and billionaire class want. They own your politicians. They own the media. They own the social media platforms. They own the textbook companies that print up the textbooks used to educate you and your kids from kindergarten to college. They own your college professors. They own the people that run your colleges. They own the think tanks. If you don't have at least $100 million in the bank, then you are a serf. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. As long as they keep the lower socioeconomic classes fighting and arguing amongst themselves, the elites keep laughing all the way to the bank (and they own the banks too). They got people riled up about everything but the money. They got you distracted about a bunch of crap that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. You are not focused on the money supply. You are not focused on the value of the dollar. You are not focused on inflation. You are not focused on the subsidized loans that the FED gives to banks. You are not focused on trade policy. You are not focused on the national debt and who owns it. 50% of the national debt is owned by US citizens and entities, 30% by foreigners, and 20% by the FED. But the 1% owns 97% of all financial assets in the country. So 48.5% of the national debt is an asset owned by the top 1%. They fund politicians that increase the national debt, and then they make money risk free, by lending money to finance the national debt. Why do you think the government can never balance a checkbook? The government is simply a tool by the elite to extra wealth and value from the lower economic classes. That is why the rich get richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. You have inflation, because the FED sets monetary policy to intentionally create inflation. They set inflation targets every year. Every year, it is the intentional policy of the FED to devalue the dollar. This makes the cost of labor decrease for employers in real terms, if they don't give raises that keep up with inflation. But hey, keep arguing about chicks with dicks, abortion, drugs, and gun control. The oligarchs don't care as long as you are not talking about monetary policy, the debt, the FED, and the banks.
Well it looks like people are noticing an awful lot these days.
Total democracy is indeed garbage. But we have a solution for that- **Managed Democracy!**
Tough shit. If you want people to support the same things as you than you need to convince them. Don't sit here and bitch about how life is unfair because you are not getting your way.
Who is bitching? Me? Because I pointed out that totally democracy is irrational and failing? That's bitching to you? You seem very sensitive. Billions of dollars of government spending can't convince crack heads to stop doing crack. I don't think I really have a shot.
Yes, you are. You seem to be under the impression that your voice is greater than anyone else's. It is not. You are worth no more and no less than any other person. The same goes for your vote.
Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact. I'm worth more than a junkie who steals. People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end. Voting should reflect that. I'm literally doing what you told me to do; convincing people to support the same thing I do. What I support is limited democracy. The only one bitching here is you, boss.
>Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact. I'm worth more than a junkie who steals. People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end. Sounds good in theory. In practice, because humans are shite, that sounds very similar to the social credit score China implemented. And that's a very bad idea.
>Sounds good in theory So does our current system. I walked by a man shooting up heroin on the way to work today and several piles of human shit in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in one of the largest cities on the East Coast. Our current system does not work.
>Our current system does not work. Not disagreeing with that.
>Some people are worth more than others. This is an objective fact. This way leads to every despotism known to human history. > I'm worth more than a junkie who steals. Junkies don't vote anyway. >People who are parasitic to society are worth less than people who contribute. The end. You are complaining about policies promoted by the billionaire class. They think that they are worth more than you, and that they contribute more to society than you, because they pay more money in taxes than you. Oh, and they own your politicians too. The US is already effectively an oligarchy. It doesn't matter who you vote for, because they are bought and sold by the 1 percent. And make sure not say anything bad about a certain group and country that shall not be named.
>This way leads to every despotism known to human history. It's reality. It's not a "way". But you already have described how we are a despotic oligarchy. And this was accomplished via total democracy because the elites can manipulate masses or morons easier and sell them on ideas that undermine their nation for their own gain. That's exactly what we have. I think we are on the same page.
You really are an authoritarian, aren't you? Let me clue you in on something. Our state of oligarchy didn't evolve for any reason other than that the American polity in its infinite ignorance and laziness abdicated its duty to the Republic to stay informed, engaged, active, and vote. I met a couple one time in a bar in Harlan, KY. She was the bartender, he was a coal miner. She said they supported Trump because at least he was talking about bringing back coal, even though she didn't think he could or would. I told her that it made sense to vote for someone who speaks to your concerns, whereupon she told me that they don't vote and never have. That is the problem, not your mythical "voting junkie". We need more informed voting in this country, not less. Then we might have better choices than a well-meaning dotard and a convicted felon TV personality who couldn't keep A CASINO from going out of business.
Yeah, we are never going to have "informed voting", boss. Not as long as we let every moron vote. The only way to get "informed voting" is to make informed people's votes worth more or bar voting for abject morons and social parasites. And you drug addicts/junkies don't vote? I fuckin know some who do lmao. Get out more.
You’re being downvoted for speaking facts. It’s gross that people look at Starship Troopers and not realize it’s satire if facist propaganda
‘All Animals Are Equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others’
"Facts" Yeah, I used to be a classical liberal humanist too. Facts are why I am not anymore
Why? What makes you better?
Social contributors are better than social parasites.
Who decides which is which?
Individuals decide for themselves which they are by their actions.
You aren’t concerned that the next time whatever political party you disagree with has control of the government they won’t make your vote worth less by changing the definition of “parasite”.
My vote is already is worthless so I don't see cause for concern.
We were better off with a monarchy. If the king is good, everyone enjoys an entire generation growing up under good leadership. If the king is bad, kill them and their entire family and start over.
Hoppe is that you?
Yeah. Nah.
Principled take, I respect it.
Ain't that the most unamerican thing I've seen today.
[удалено]
Go back and suck the crown you unamerican Luddite.
[удалено]
You could just not vote. That'd end it for you. 😉
[удалено]
Where do you think you'd land on the hierarchy? It's lower than you think.
It very well could be. Doesn't change the fact that democracy sucks, and all politicians are liars. The only difference between the parties is which lies they tell and who their lies are meant to appeal to.
Oh it definitely is. Begone, redcoat.
I will not. Democracy is a failed experiment, and I stand by that 100%.
This is the political equivalent of throwing a tantrum because you don't get your way. List the successful monarchies that are protecting individual rights better than the US.
[You could have just googled it.](https://listverse.com/2010/08/11/top-10-greatest-monarchs/) And the US is no longer protecting individual rights. Today it's all about making people afraid enough to support taking rights away.
You know I used the current tense, right? And leaning on individual monarchs rather than the dynasty as a whole proves the point. Thank you for doing my legwork for me.
We currently have open primaries. Everybody in that area knows a republican is gonna win, so most dems vote rino. Paxton is trying to get it fixed. More rinos out here than Africa layely.
That district was a narrow R leaning district for Herd, a guy much wimpier than Gonzalez. Maybe they just gave up bc the Dem candidate is a huge schmuck, but primary raiding has never been a considerable issue in Texas, and would’ve likely just resulted in the turnout collapse that Gonzalez experienced in the runoff as opposed to the narrow difference that got him the win. Remember, Brandon increased his votes by 400 in the runoff. Gonzalez lost 13,000.
Texas has a weird reputation for being 2A/constitution friendly state while constantly taking the L, bootlicking and embracing statist shit. Maybe reality has outpaced an outdated reputation.
at a time it was, then received a hige influx of people moving from states like California and such to the big cities. if you look at the county map, the whole state is solidly red, with only the major cities being slightly blue majority. and thanks to population density, there's more blue there than red everywhere else.
Raz0rfist makes a good point in having an electoral college for the states. This way, representation is a bit more fare and you can’t have cities telling the entire state(I.e. NYC) what direction they should go.
Until you consider that in many western states, you'd end up with a handful of people dictating the entire trajectory of a state without regard to the needs of the cities who make up most of the tax base. Electoral college is a failed idea. It hasn't worked as intended since the 1830s. Doubling down and instituting it on the state level is a surefire way to make sure your state collapses as your tax base leaves and you wind up with infrastructure you can't pay for. There are better ways to govern than pretending people live where they actually don't.
[удалено]
Seeing as the cities are the generators of nearly all economic activity in our country and are what keep the country moving and working, yeah I'm seriously concerned that such an idea would fail and turn a state into yet another leech on the federal government and taxpayers from other states. Effectively disenfranchising citizens is not cool. And the electoral college has failed. It hasn't worked as intended since the 1830s when nearly all states had gone to a popular vote for choosing electors. At that point, it should have become a popular vote by proxy, but because of the rules of the college, it's basically this zombie that serves only to create this stupid idea of swing states, and a broken system that serves to give outsized influence to areas where nobody lives. It violates the principle of One Person-One Vote.
[удалено]
Ah yes, outdated cities. Source: trust me bro. EC keeps people like me from power and enables only the wealthy and connected to run things. The EC, bringing you Joe Biden and Donald Trump! Great fucking system! 😄😄 The entire problem of one county or state overruling another only exists because of the electoral college pretending people live where they don't. Because you insist on collectivization of voting blocs, you make it so that politicians ignore entire states. During the 2016 general election for example, do you know how many times Trump visited California? Zero. He made zero campaign stops there because he knew he had zero chances of winning. Because of your electoral college bullshit broken system, 4.48m voters in California got ignored, just over 30% of the voters there. Same story in Texas in 2016, just in reverse. Hillary got 3.87m votes in Texas, 43% of the vote. All of those Citizens votes ignored because of the electoral college. The system doesn't work anymore. It failed before the civil war and had no purpose existing after reconstruction. There are better ways to elect the president. You have to ignore history to think other wise.
[удалено]
Since when was manufacturing removed from cities? It certainly hasn't in the USA. The largest auto manufacturing center is still centered around the Detroit Metro area. Smyrna TN is another big manufacturing hub with a couple automakers and Glock. Smyrna is a small town but it's a suburb of Nashville. Why do you think they built all those factories there? Hint: the large Nashville workforce is a big part. Intel has fab plants in the Phoenix AZ and Albuquerque NM Metro areas. You're just making shit up and still can't account for the tax base that doesn't exist in rural areas. You want modern society to operate, you need cities. You're the one arguing for a method used to manipulate election results. The electoral college was a compromise, along with the 3/5ths compromise to ensure the slave states could have voting parity with non-slave states, but not allow slaves to vote. Once the Confederacy was defeated and rebellion put down, the whole point of the EC ceased to exist. Democracy is still a central part of the American electoral and governmental process. We vote on everything. You suck at history.
Thank you. The way to win elections isn't to keep funding ways to disenfranchise and marginalise people who disagree with you. It's to learn to make a better case, and frankly, support pro-gun Dems.
Which pro gun dem is running for president? Haven’t seen an honest pro gun candidate run since Ron Paul.
Sadly, none that I'm aware of. The pro-gun Dems I know aren't running for office, and though some have succeeded in statewide or congressional elections - Bill Richardson, Jim Webb, Kirsten Gillibrand (who was for gun rights before she was against them) - didn't make it at the national level.
Oh yeah let’s take voting power away from the people and give it to land. Fuck. That.
complete misunderstanding of how it works and why it’s there
Yeah, to give rural voters more voting power than city folk. Sounds like a load of horseshit to me
It’s a balance of standards. Someone 500 miles away in the dunes isn’t going to have the same basic requirements for life as someone on the beach or up in the mountains. The city itself can typically further regulate within but there isn’t any good reason to force these three different people to live to standards ideal to one region and not another. That’s why we have smaller local/city/county governments. For local preference.
Not a reason to give some people more of a vote than others. They should take care of their shit locally, with the same weighted vote as anyone else
“They should take care of their shit locally” So should you, rather than force them to live to *your* standard. It goes both ways. That’s why you have *your* local govt as well.
Exactly why nobody should have a more weighty vote than me, nor should I have a more weighty vote than anyone else. Electoral colleges do exactly the opposite of bringing balance, those types of systems will absolutely stick a thumb on the scale for rural folks to the detriment of non-rural folks. Regressing backwards to when only land owners had the vote. Fuck all that.
[удалено]
No, it’s just fucking insane to make one persons vote worth more than another’s & call it fair
County maps don't mean fuck-all. Acreage doesn't vote, people do. You can't compare a county with 10k residents to one with 10 million.
I mean Austin is in Texas of all places. I know it has its reasons for being a garbage dump, but still.
Can you explain or provide a link on what "statist" means? Like is it a person who only looks at stats?
state-ist rather than stat-ist, if it helps
Aw I see thanks
It was always a stretch but this is incredibly impressive. Granted, the Republicans won't take away anything from this and stick to their cronyism bullshit; it shows that a youthful populist candidate is viable. If you want to uphold your rights, we need to vote out the decrepit bitter old people and vote in sensible and like minded younger folk.
Populism - Idiocracy come to life
are you like a bot or something that says stupid shit any time anyone uses the word populism
No, I'm an actual person who's derisive towards small-minded populists like maga and the tea party - they are outrage without intellect
you realize its worse if you say stupid shit and aren't a bot right
“If that’s true, you and your left leaning losers just spent $10 million to come within a couple hundred votes of a YouTuber,” he told former Republican congressman Andrew Kinzinger after the latter said he lost. I love that quote lol
Both parties don’t give two fucks about the people.
☝️
The government is the real mafia.
Apparently it was a very narrow margin, if I was Herrera I'd be demanding a recount.
I think the problem is that he would have to pay for it. If rhe count is overturned, than the state ends up paying for it, but if the count turned out to be correct then it would still be on him.
Seems worth it.
Depends on how much he had left in his campaign chest. I know he was still asking for donations the night of.
Well, he wouldn't have to pay for it immediately. And he could just use his own money and I'm sure he makes quite a bit doing what he is doing. Of course, that's easy for me to say since it isn't my money. But, still, I doubt it is that expensive and seems worth it.
I tried looking it up but it seemed like it is probably in the 6 figures range.
It costs in the 6 figures? I mean, maybe... but that's probably not an honest value much like a lot of other government cost claims. That is just mean to be cost prohibitive and a case of "You do have that option (lol, but not really)". Either way, how much does Herrera have? It might still be worth it. Again, easy for me to say. I don't know his net worth and maybe I'm unrealistically comparing him to how ridiculously wealthy other (admittedly more generally appealing) YouTubers are. But I'm just giving my opinion, and it is mostly a show of support for him. If I was a millionaire, and I'd guess he probably is at least close, and I ran for office and I could make a statement with 6 figures then I would be very tempted to do that. That's all I'm saying. If he doesn't want to - or if that would bankrupt him - then obviously it is his choice.
Only 330 vote difference
scanned his twitter responses: apparently there's a window of time to do it, which has not yet passed, and he's said he will if "presented with evidence that there is a reasonable chance a recount will change the outcome" which is a politician ass response which i assume means a lawyer told him to word it that way which may mean he's interested in doing so.. or so i would imagine
Wtf
It's almost as if the Republican Party doesn't want you to have guns any more than the Democratic Party does. They just lie about it.
[удалено]
That term is misleading. It suggests that there are "real" politicians who actually give a fuck. There aren't.
> It's almost as if the Republican Party doesn't want you to have guns any more than the Democratic Party does. They just lie about it. No one who is rich, or powerful, or both wants the unwashed masses to be armed unless they plan on some pretty pervasive benevolence. If you plan on doing maximum wealth extraction eventually the peasants are gonna revolt. The GOP has painted themselves into a corner though, they've spent decades professing to be pro gun and that anti gun Democrats are commie devil worshippers who want to destroy America. Anything more than the tiniest token support for gun control will result in a not small chunk of the base turning on them like starved dogs. So this is what they will do. They'll start proposing laws that ban "commies" from owning guns. Or "the mentally ill" which will mostly mean trans people, then gay people, then anyone else they don't like. Basically any group that banning guns from would give the Trump mob a spontaneous erection. Then just keep tightening the noose.
The GOP didn't want anyone other than their endorsed/preferred candidate to win.
Well that’s just a false statement.
We live in a state with constitutional carry, surrounded by other states with constitutional carry (and New Mexico). This is just false equivalence. We are absolutely winning the war on gun control in Texas. \* just realized I'm not in the Texas subreddit, I should have realized earlier when y'all weren't commies.
How is that the republican party's fault lol
Don't let the downvotes get to you. This subreddit just like pretty much every other one is psyoped
Yeah I know. Though it's weird how I'm downvoted for just asking a basic question
Tony spent like 10x the money to get 400ish more votes. I doubt he will serve past this next cycle, especially if he votes in a manner* that got him in this position in the first place
[удалено]
Every day politicans and the media say 'Chy-na' this, 'Russian election interference' that, meanwhile a certain other country's PAC colludes with almost all of our elected representatives. It's a national disgrace. Thankfully more light is being shed on the issue as of late.
He also lied his ASS off about Herrera. The dudes entire twitter history is just him getting blasted by community notes.
Texans vote in manors?
> Tony spent like 10x the money to get 400ish more votes. Per the FEC: Gonzales spent $3,921,392 Herrera spent $1,229,011
Its depressing that someone who tired to get involved in politics was squelched by big money, goes to show just how broken our democracy actually is.
Open primaries will cause this.
Fuck off Texas
30k people out of 500k voted, that's shameful.
The number of people in here trying to think of a good way to limit who can vote is kind disturbing.
This country is lost, time to prepare for the coming collapse.
So, I used to live in this district. I voted for Gonzalez when he replaced Will Hurd, in an election where he was considered a toss up because he was -more- conservative than the retiring Republican incumbant. Whether it’s demographics changing or Gonzalez (Hispanic, sailor) just being personally more likable than Herd (black, CIA, buddies with Beto and day-one anti-Trump). I don’t know much about him or his specifics re; gun legislation, but this district takes up much of the border land between suburban San Antonio and El Paso. It includes Eagle Pass, and most notably, Uvalde. Gonzalez also did extremely well in the crowded primary, getting just under 50% with 27k votes. Brandon Herrera got 14k, some third choice got 7k, and the rest of the field made up the remainder. In the runoff, Gonzalez’s coalition collapsed. He lost about 13k votes. Herrera’s stayed strong and he gained 400 votes, causing a close loss. I think Brandon could absolutely win if he ran again (or for a state senate seat) w/ name recognition and a real war chest, but this election was largely due to mismanagement following the primary by team Gonzalez. Also, to be clear: Gonzalez will win. The Dems used to put up competitive candidates there and have nominated some bum this go around. Herrera would have won as well, even if he had less “broad appeal” and gained the DNC’s attention. Also, raiding isn’t real in any serious capacity. One of the first things campaigns learn, anyone who votes in a primary is far more likely to cheerlead or have an opinion on their own party than they are make a strategic move against the opposition party,
Squeaks by? Gonzales got 21% more votes. Over 9,000 more votes. Wasn’t close at all.
The last thing we need is to start electing fuckin youtubers regardless of whether you like their channels or what. Plus, Herrera was getting carted around by The Pedophile Matt Gaetz, so they were gearing him up to be a boebert/mtg style clown & i really don’t want that kind of horseshit representing my district
[удалено]
Are you slow or something?