Affirm or deny: Universal suffrage is detrimental to the survival of a republic.

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I’m not going to ascribe motivation on people.  I just believe that more is better when it comes to voting. Do I want voters to be serious? Of course. And everyone has a stake in the cost of the results whether they choose to vote or not; whether they’re eligible to vote, or not.

 

No, they unequivocally do not have a stake, universally; and that’s if one can even begin to justify the existence of the state.

[GG]

16 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I’ve been disagreeing with Tasker this whole thread and he’s treated me admirably. 

 

 

Nearly everyone here has had a row with TYTT over the years.  But few have called him a lying sack of ***** who revels in seeing social strife.

[snafu]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, they unequivocally do not have a stake, universally; and that’s if one can even begin to justify the existence of the state.

 

By “stake” I mean to say that the result of voting will have an inevitable impact on people’s lives — whether they vote or not.

The “state” is a compact and one may actively participate or opt not to.  At this point, it is universal and trying to remove it altogether is not an option.

 

 

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Nearly everyone here has had a row with TYTT over the years.  But few have called him a lying sack of ***** who revels in seeing social strife.

 

Ugh!   I’ve been saving that retort for future reference. Now I’ve got to come up with something original.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

OK, guys.  I don't want to come in here.
 

Per site TOS: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use TBD to post any material which is false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. "

 

Step away from the defamatory crap like calling each other pedophiles, pedophile lawyers, whatever. 

 

Just Don't, and say you Didn't.

 

It's not fair to the board or the board owner to pull it in to that kind of cesspool.

Thank you for your time.

 

[GG]

Somebody cried to mommy?

[Warcodered]

10 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Pay close attention to the wording.

 

I affirm this.

 

 

9 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Do you affirm or deny that the country was more stable politically, economically and socially when the vote was restricted to landowning men than it is now?

 

Eh I mean by your own logic those landowners voted in the politicians who turned the system into something you don't believe in.

 

I'd say personally I think their should be some form of mandatory service for citizens to go through to earn the right to vote.

 

But I'd say the biggest problems in our current system are money in the system though changing that means we'd probably need a system where the state(us) pays for the election more. Besides that term limits so we don't have the same ass holes in congress for decades.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, GG said:

Somebody cried to mommy?

 

Listen Up! 

 

This board is a service, privately run and financially supported by @SDS. 

 

Outright defamatory name calling and threats of harm are a bridge too far - if for no other reason than it exposes the board owner who supplies this little wading pool for your use to liability, which is a totally sucky return for the effort of keeping this forum here for your use.   Being able to roll around PPP calling each other libtards and idiots and snowflakes and communists and morons (and whatever else you come up with, provided it's not threatening or defamatory)  can't suffice you in PPP?  You need to dig a trench and crawl under a lower bar?

 

Turning this into "somebody cried to mommy" appears to indicate you intend to be willfully deaf to this point.  If that's the case, don't let the door hitcha where the Good Lord splitcha.  Let me know how I may serve you in that regard.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/guidelines/

 

That Is All. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reality Check]

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Listen Up! 

 

This board is a service, privately run and financially supported by @SDS. 

 

Outright defamatory name calling and threats of harm are a bridge too far - if for no other reason than it exposes the board owner who supplies this little wading pool for your use to liability, which is a totally sucky return for the effort of keeping this forum here for your use.   Being able to roll around PPP calling each other libtards and idiots and snowflakes and communists and morons (and whatever else you come up with, provided it's not threatening or defamatory)  can't suffice you in PPP?  You need to dig a trench and crawl under a lower bar?

 

Turning this into "somebody cried to mommy" appears to indicate you intend to be willfully deaf to this point.  If that's the case, don't let the door hitcha where the Good Lord splitcha.  Let me know how I may serve you in that regard.

 

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/guidelines/

 

That Is All. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that the use of that term was clarified as not to call that person a pedophile.

 

Of course it's totally fine for that individual poster to continue with incendiary posts and then cry to the authorities when his lies and support of more killings were called out.  

 

You also know that this forum has had a two decade history of pretty good self policing, and only started getting out of hand about 5 months ago with a deluge of "new" members who contribute nothing but throwing verbal bombs and then run away when their feathers are ruffled.  So appreciate the warning, but look at the true cause of the mess that you have to police.

 

Kind of like imitating of what's happening in the streets.  Ignore who sets the fires and breaks the windows, because that can't possibly be anything bad that could lead to something even worse.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

43 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I believe that the use of that term was clarified as not to call that person a pedophile.

 

Of course it's totally fine for that individual poster to continue with incendiary posts and then cry to the authorities when his lies and support of more killings were called out.  

 

You also know that this forum has had a two decade history of pretty good self policing, and only started getting out of hand about 5 months ago with a deluge of "new" members who contribute nothing but throwing verbal bombs and then run away when their feathers are ruffled.  So appreciate the warning, but look at the true cause of the mess that you have to police.

 

Kind of like imitating of what's happening in the streets.  Ignore who sets the fires and breaks the windows, because that can't possibly be anything bad that could lead to something even worse.

 

Whatever you do, don't post badly drawn cartoon images of frogs.

[IDBillzFan]

16 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Who voted the politicians in who created those policies?

 

Fair enough. But we both know how this works. From unions to ballot harvesting, it's not always the people who are voting.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Fair enough. But we both know how this works. From unions to ballot harvesting, it's not always the people who are voting.

Even more reason to restrict the vote.

[IDBillzFan]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Even more reason to restrict the vote.

 

You're not going to restrict the vote. You're not going to do anything. It's too late.  Both sides have full control. All we can do at this point is lay low, STFU, arm ourselves and spend a lot of time at a shooting range.

 

Sorry to be a defeatist, but it's over. We lost.

 

[3rdnlng]

Take heart people. The interlopers that arrived here when it looked like Biden had a chance and then multiplied when it looked like the virus was going to bring Trump down are fast approaching their own death throes. As usual, they'll not have the courage to stay here and post their George Soros nonsense. 

[IDBillzFan]

Funny. This popped up again on Twitter. This is what I imagine it's like when TYTT tries to have a discussion with liberals.

 

[Reality Check]

52 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

Funny. This popped up again on Twitter. This is what I imagine it's like when TYTT tries to have a discussion with liberals.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, GG said:

Of course it's totally fine for that individual poster to continue with incendiary posts and then cry to the authorities when his lies and support of more killings were called out.  

 

Why yes.  Yes it is allowed in PPP to make all kinds of incendiary posts, and as your comments make clear, you know it.  But there are lines.

 

I don't GAF about the fine distinction between calling someone a "pedophile" vs "pedophile lawyer".  The ambiguity as to whether "lawyer who defends pedophiles" or "pedophile who is a lawyer" is the intended meaning does not impress me.

 

You guys want to self police, Figure this out.  Because the alternative if you can't manage it, is not gonna be us mods come in here on a regular basis.  None of us want to. 

 

That is all.

 

 

 

[Reality Check]

 

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, Warcodered said:

 

Eh I mean by your own logic those landowners voted in the politicians who turned the system into something you don't believe in.

 

I'd say personally I think their should be some form of mandatory service for citizens to go through to earn the right to vote.

 

But I'd say the biggest problems in our current system are money in the system though changing that means we'd probably need a system where the state(us) pays for the election more. Besides that term limits so we don't have the same ass holes in congress for decades.

My problem with term limits (besides at the presidential level) is if you have a really successful politician who is good at his/her job then why would you want to replace them?  You can always vote them out.

[Taro T]

48 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

My problem with term limits (besides at the presidential level) is if you have a really successful politician who is good at his/her job then why would you want to replace them?  You can always vote them out.

 

While that's definitely a concern with term limits, a bigger concern IMHO is that if you are forcing the politician out of office after 6, 8, 12, or however many years but not limiting how long a staffer or lobbyist is there, then you are necessarily giving people with no direct oversight from the voters a leg up over those that actually do have oversight. 

 

There are additional issues with term limits, but again IMHO that's the big one.