We Must Destroy The Constitution To Save Our Democracy!
(media.communities.win)
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Not an expert but isn't democracy fundamentally flawed. The tyranny of the majority is something that used to be considered a bug of the system, now it is a desirable feature?
Democracy only works in a racially and culturally homogeneous nation, and necessitates that the vote is tied to land ownership and to an individual family.
That is the circumstance under which the founders saw potential.
Over the years every single piece of what the founders set up as checks on the corruption of democracy were removed and cast aside.
Now a foreign invader with 80iq has the same theoretical political power as a generational native with an iq of 120.
Is that justice? Does that lead to a positive future? It very obviously does not.
Don't worry by 2024 the USA will be broken up and pretty good chance we'll go kinetic clearing out all the communist waste that built up in the bowels of Uncle Sam.
Move to a deep red state and wait and see if that night mare scenario takes place, if so defend your State and basic freedoms from men who would happily enslave you and your family.
Well, to that point, in a homogenous state a native with an iq of 120 has the same power as a native with an iq of 50. Is that justice?
Your stupid thought experiment inadvertently touched upon a critical concept: IQ thresholds. The quality of your society does not scale linearly with the IQ of your citizens. There exists a clear threshold beyond which functional and prosperous civilization is possible - and below which it is basically impossible to sustain such a nation.
Look at Asian nations. Are they proportionally “better” than white nations because Asians have an higher average IQ? No. But every nation with an average IQ of 90 is guaranteed to be a shithole.
So why did you include IQ in your original point if it's irrelevant to the quality of society?
It wasn’t my original point. You are responding to my first post in this thread.
IQ absolutely does matter to a point. That’s what a threshold is. That was the entire point of my post. Retard.
Sorry, two people responding in the same thread got me mixed up. No biggie.
Would the 50iq monkey own land and have a family?
Your original point only focused on IQ, so that's where I was building from.
But for this exercise we'll say yes, since we'll have everyone on the same playing field.
Did you even read my post?
Obviously not.
Then you're a liar. 50iq is braindead. Almost cannot exist.
A more realistic would be 70iq, which for a white is pretty much downes syndrome.
Let's go back to 1776.
That individual cannot take care of themselves. There is no way they're taking care of a property and working to support themselves, and especially not another person.
On top of that, what woman would date a retard and what father would allow their daughter to marry said retard? They wouldn't.
It is only in this modern society where the retard and their wrangler would ever be able to survive alone and only as glorified wards of the state. Already this breaches the original purpose and setup of democracy by the founders.
I did read your post. I was responding to the point that addressed IQ.
But if 50iq is braindead and thus makes my argument nonsense, why would you use those figures for your original talking point?
You don't understand my argument because that's not my argument. Read it again.
You absolutely did not read my post. Read it again.
Same as number 2. Read the goddamn post. You obviously read neither fully.
None of the founding father’s wanted a democracy and the constitution was written specifically to prevent democratic rule.
Exactly. That's why we have a Constitutional Republic.
Only when the party in power is the same one as yours. Otherwise they flip their shit and pitch a bitch about not being properly represented. Hence why the left lost their shit when Trump took power because "Muh Popular Vote".
Democracy, as the founders intended with only land-owning white male Christians of good moral character voting, could have worked. Every expansion of "voting rights" made it worse with the final nail in the coffin being womens' vote.
After the 19th the collapse became inevitable.
Both men and women, including black men and women, could vote in some states as early as 1776. Voting was generally tied to owning property. Women who owned property in New Jersey, for example, could vote. The same goes for free black men and women who owned property.
The problem wasn't giving women or black people the right to vote, the problem was allowing people with no stake in society the right to vote.
IMHO detaching the right to vote from land ownership may have been a good move, but only if it could have been replaced by something else that indicates your stake in society. For starters, only people who pay more to the government in taxes than they receive in benefits should be allowed to vote. That would cut out half of the population right there.
The fatal flaw is giving people who contribute nothing to society the ability -- via voting -- to take from those who do contribute to society.
you need to separate the idea of exceptional individuals from the concept of democracy
In practice women and blacks, as a demographic, only vote against individual rights and for bigger and more intrusive government. They always vote against the interests of whites, men, and productive individuals. Those property owning blacks and women would be better off if all blacks and women couldnt vote.
You can verify this by checking the voting results.
What advantage is there for the nation to including them in the voting process?
We might as well ban non-Christians from voting too, while we’re at it.
In fact, we should only allow Protestant Christian men to vote. They are, after all, the only group in the world that consistently votes for liberal values.
——
You see, your racist and sexist “solution” isn’t really a solution because it’s built on gross generalizations that don’t actually get to the bottom of the matter. The better solution would be to actually understand why these voting patterns are harmful and make sure preventative measures are codified into law. Property ownership was one such measure that we sadly did away with. Replacing it with anti-liberal policies isn’t going to solve anything for a multitude of reasons.
Your terms are acceptable
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
9 out of 10 participants in the gang rape had a great time! That is a 90% approval rating!
Remember when he openly crowed about the intelligence community declaring war on a sitting elected president?
Changing the filibuster would come back to bite them in the ass. Kinda funny they're doing this right before midterms when republicans are expected to retake both the House and Senate.
VOTING
IS
A
STATE
ISSUE
sit the fuck down, schumer.
“Abuse the filibuster” I believe you mean use as intended
Article Here
We don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic.
It never stops...
Schumer
The OP is IGNORANT as hell. The filibuster is NOT a Constitutional principle, it is not mentioned, enumerated or even hinted at. Ant "originalist" is a dishonest idiot to claim otherwise. It is IN NO WAY A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE, the post title is just DUMB AS FUCK! I Laughably STUPID!
You’re clearly the dumbest fuck alive. The abuse of state powers by the federal government is what the piece was about. You see filibuster and screech because like most retards you can’t be bothered to read a whole paragraph. Federal imposition on state voting is a constitutional violation.
No, awsshole treasonous STUPID MOTHERFUCKER, you are THE DUMBEST MOTHERFUCKER ALIVE: I QUOTE STUPID! " Article I Section 4, ": The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations." Typical IGNORANT DUMBSHIT!
For senators and representatives of US Congress, a dumb fuck like you clearly can’t even read basic legal text. This does not give congress the right to dictate voting rights across the board for each state. Which has been shown repeatedly in case law.
LOL READ THE DAMN CONSTITUTION IMBECILE, READ IT.IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE STUPID,m IT'S A DIRECTV QUOTE> YOU KNOW NOTJHING HICKS ARE HILARIOUS!V NOEW GO WAS YER CHIVVY TRUCK AND SLOP THEM HOGS GOMER! LOL
Clearly you didn’t even read what you posted, it must be hard being such a sad troll.
LOL You are a laughable idiot, like all ignorant, stupid "conservatives" that are too dumb to know their own ASS from a hole in the ground. LOL Poor stupid hillbilly.
The filibuster has nothing to do with the constitution though
The tenth amendment and federal suppression of state powers is
I don’t really give a fuck about politics, as I see it entirely as an arena of bread and circuses, but I’m pretty sure that voting laws have been a federal jurisdiction for a long ass time
Then you would be wrong because each state handles their election laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
This has nothing to do with the process of voting. Only the civil rights of those involved. States can conduct elections as they see fit within their purview under the 10th amendment.
Well, they can’t make you take a test to vote, so obviously there are regulations set by the feds.
Some, but usually only so far as to guarantee constitutional rights (ie, citizens have the right to vote). Beyond that, the Federal Government is limited in what it can assert as the voting process due to the 10th. Checks n' balances and all that. As most matters of law go for the particulars, the truth is complicated and nuanced.
And? That’s a law that really does no more than reiterate the 14th and 15th amendments which states can not legally violate in the first place.
How ballots are written, tabulated, collected, distributed, how voting locations are chosen, and if ID is necessary, etc. is all handled at the state level
Well...until the feds say it isn’t... I wonder which way the Supreme Court would rule in favor of?
They would most likely punt it down the line and refuse to hear the case.
“But what if something that has not happened proved me right” is not a winning argument
Then you would be just as retarded as the average leftists.