Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

and reinstate land ownership requirements.

---

Blackrock already has enough power.

I would literally vote to end land ownership before I voted to only allow landowners to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Blackrock already has enough power.

I would literally vote to end land ownership before I voted to only allow landowners to vote.

---

Yeah, but for all the land they own, all of it, in total, they would only have one vote in one locality, total. Since a corporation is "a person" then they would get "a vote" under the one person one vote concept. That would seriously dilute their power, and since they can't sign a voter registration and you can't have a representative to sign for you, they could not be a registered voter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

Trump: Actually, now that you’re mentioning it, I think they should do a double 25th Amendment — just get ’em both out. Who’s third in line? Because it’s just terrible.

Shapiro: The speaker, Mike Johnson.

Pretty wild that a former American president doesn’t seem to know the line of succession — a concept so rudimentary that it’s taught in grade school. And it’s rich that this flub occurred as Trump was trying to question someone else’s mental abilities.

---

Does Biden even know he is President at this point?

And your girl can't even get through a puff interview without saying something monumentally stupid.

I'll take the guy who is in it to Save America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I’m cool with renters voting. I don’t wish to discriminate against anyone for their economic status, race, gender, religion, sexual preference, disability, or anything else but low intelligence & ignorance.

Our military has intelligence standards and can’t recruit people with an IQ lower than 83 (roughly translated to their own mental aptitude tests). That weeds out roughly 14% of the population. A person applying for citizenship must pass a civic test. We are in desperate need for some type of voting standard to keep the dumbest people from voting.

Now the left will point out that literacy tests were historically applied to keep oppressed racial minorities from voting, and they may be mostly correct. The answer is not to completely abandon retard discrimination though, but let’s collectively find a way to make such a test fairly applied to all voters. We have the technology and ability to do just that.

There is no shame and nothing immoral about low IQ. This is not intended to punish them. The reality is retards are incapable of making an independent informed decision on such matters as politics. The future of our country would benefit from excluding the dumbest of dumbasses from voting.

---

The problem you have is that there are so many retarded people that have an IQ high enough to go to colleges, run businesses and lead normal lives in the US that making folks do a literacy test wouldn't leave us any better off than we already are. Just because someone has a high enough IQ or can read doesn't mean they're smart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I 100% agree with Seran here. We need to bring back literacy test requirements for voter registration. Repeal the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In order to achieve a more prosperous & productive society, America must discriminate against retards. The ignorant should not have any influence on the governance of our great nation.

---

I was referring to the part where Seran basically described himself in one of his usual moments of having no self awareness. The last sentence in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

but any campaign relying on lies and conspiracy theories is pathetic. Those who fall for it, or who simply repeat the lies to further expose the message are far, far worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Yeah, but for all the land they own, all of it, in total, they would only have one vote in one locality, total. Since a corporation is "a person" then they would get "a vote" under the one person one vote concept. That would seriously dilute their power, and since they can't sign a voter registration and you can't have a representative to sign for you, they could not be a registered voter.

---

You do know that you don't actually own your land if you have a mortgage on said land?

I'll just assume you will be giving up your right to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I was referring to the part where Seran basically described himself in one of his usual moments of having no self awareness. The last sentence in particular.

---

Oh I got it and the irony of his post was not lost on me.

We should agree with him. People that just repeat the blatant lies of politicians and mainstream media without applying any of their own critical thinking truly are pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumpel

The problem you have is that there are so many retarded people that have an IQ high enough to go to colleges, run businesses and lead normal lives in the US that making folks do a literacy test wouldn't leave us any better off than we already are. Just because someone has a high enough IQ or can read doesn't mean they're smart.

---

I appreciate the concern and find it valid, but the bar for a literacy test should be really low. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine the lower 14th percentile / 83 IQ score is going to college or running a business. The army finds those people untrainable. I’d just focus there. We can discuss the details of the test itself and I’m open to input/suggestions, but the purpose would be to exclude the lowest IQ in our population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I appreciate the concern and find it valid, but the bar for a literacy test should be really low. I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine the lower 14th percentile / 83 IQ score is going to college or running a business. The army finds those people untrainable. I’d just focus there. We can discuss the details of the test itself and I’m open to input/suggestions, but the purpose would be to exclude the lowest IQ in our population.

---

That in itself doesn't mean those people are any less retarded than those that have that piece of paper from college or own a business or own land. As you can see from anything posted in the news lately, roughly 50% of the US population is fucking retarded and there is no way that that half of the population all have an IQ under 83.

Simply wanting to limit voting based on IQ won't change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumpel

That in itself doesn't mean those people are any less retarded than those that have that piece of paper from college or own a business or own land. As you can see from anything posted in the news lately, roughly 50% of the US population is fucking retarded and there is no way that that half of the population all have an IQ under 83.

Simply wanting to limit voting based on IQ won't change anything.

---

Ok. I’m not conceding but let’s explore.

I think America has an election problem. We have too many people that are completely uniformed & incapable of making rational independent decisions in voting for a candidate that will serve their own interests. This uneducated and low intellect problem is not concentrated to a single political party. A crude example, some people are voting for either Trump or Harris purely based on race & without any knowledge of their policies or plan for governance. These people are easily manipulated and allowing them to have a voice in our political process has net-negative consequences to America.

Do you first agree in this problem / issue with our modern society?

If so, how would you propose we solve that? We could also look towards better educating our population, but that is a much longer difficult road that our government has not been particularly successful at. I do think we should explore some time of barrier to entry for voting to discriminate only, fairly, and evenly against the lowest intelligence & ignorant of our population. I’m open to ideas and flexible on the details of how we achieve that without introducing other voter discrimination or undue consequences.