Pretty Americentric line of thought considering us dirty gaters have international "membership", but this also applies to the West in general.
Call it China or the Globalists -- 'and' is probably more appropriate, but there's been a deliberate decades long attack on our educational institutions, our government, our economy, the Christian religion, our borders, Communist infiltration of key positions in government and industry, etc. etc. etc.
And it's been so effective, I just don't see a reversal of course. Even if the moderate collective pulled the wool from their eyes and took action, we're still due for an economic implosion as the debt bubble eventually pops, and we'd have to deal with the indoctrinated masses who would violently resist being jacked out of the Matrix.
Personally, by this point I'm not even thinking about saving the republic, but rather what actions will need to be taken to build something better from its ruins.
No, and I don't want it too.
The second the constitution was interpreted to grant franchise to everyone without regard to civic duty (ie, when women were given the vote without considering that it is ALWAYS and RIGHTLY men that get drafted to fight), the country was done. If our leaders at the time had been worth spit they would have burned the constitution right there and come up with a new document that wouldn't have led to the same conclusion.
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP
Would you like to know more?
id say the country was done the moment the Federal Reserve was created.
That's another good one. There's a lot to be angry at Wilson over.
The policies of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Lyndon Johnson have destroyed America.
Truly the three worst U.S. presidents due to the severity of the negative impact they had on the country.
Lincoln as well. Destroyed the notion that it's a union of sovereign states. Secession needs to always be available as an option to avoid political warfare.
all democrats
Wilson was just a bad person in general
The country was improved significantly when he had a stroke.
I try to tell people about the Fed and their eyes glaze over sadly.
I can believe that.
The average normie wants to be fed nice sounding lies not any harsh truth.
Mine used to do the same hearing snippets of ol' Ron Paul.
To the average person, thinking is not only difficult, but painful.
The average person does not want to be free, he wants to be safe.
I would say it was with Andrew Jackson's push to remove property requirements for voting.
I would prefer a woman business owner be allowed to vote and an indigent man not.
For married couples if one doesn't work the other should get two votes. If both work then each should get a vote.
I used to think I was sexist and racist but now I realize I'm just classist.
You do realize that the lower classes are a bulwark against wokeness and the hatred for your country?
If anything, the wealthier segments have far too much influence on politics, which is why we see so much focus on BLM, climate change and other stuff that affects no one's life.
I remember reading some two-bit sci-fi dime novel about a President who deliberately nukes the biggest cities in the country to deliberately get rid of the uber-liberal city folk, and force a more agrarian lifestyle to return. I seem to recall the end of it describing a farmer with his donkey cart in the aftermath. Can't remember what it was called, though.
If that happened some globalist would buy a patch of land and sell tiny chunks to an army of wokelings to get around that.
We need to make sure everyone is fully aware of problems, not take away their ability to vote.
An interesting way of looking at it- I would say what you described is more like meritocracy than classism. But then when you look at the groups that most consistently reach the top in a meritocratic system, it tends to somewhat validate the racism/sexism viewpoint. But then there's the argument that it would be wrong to disenfranchise a legitimately gifted individual from a group that was on average poor performing. I guess that's a really long winded way of saying that I mostly agree.
Not only do we need some level of sacrifice to obtain citizenship, but we also need greater disparity between the citizen and the noncitizen. It's not just citizenship as a birthright or prize of marriage that devalues it, it's also the lack of incentive. Noncitizens should not be able to own land or businesses, or benefit from social programs and citizen protections. As terrible as this comes off, maybe we should have had distinct rights for noncitizens that created greater desire to be a citizen.
it's not women's suffrage, it's universal suffrage.
the founding fathers had set up a system of no representation without taxation as the federal government at the time could only collect property taxes and only land owners could vote.
Of course common law at the time made husbands the property owner, so almost all women couldn't vote, but the feminists forget that many men couldn't vote either and that a few single women were property owners and could vote.
I say bring it back, in some form, if you aren't a net tax payer, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Bring back no representation without taxation.
I put the blame on Hart cellar and the radicalization of education in the 60s.