Is a single parent raising children considered a family?
Does it matter how the parent became single? As in: never married, divorced, widowed.
I didnāt mean does it matter in the big picture sense but does it matter to them. Look at Kamala, what has she done to make anyone believe she is the best person out of all the people in this country to be present? More importantly, what makes her think that? And I donāt mean to diminish or belittle anything she has accomplished but how does she look in the mirror and tell herself sheās the one? If those who will vote for her are honest, most would say they donāt think sheās the best person for the job and itās all about the team winning. So she really hasnāt convinced anyone about her qualifications or abilities but, she has convinced herself. We end up voting for those who want the job rather than who we want.
1 Like
I believe the answer is, āShe was sired by a Black man.ā
Someone might want to tell him that.
1 Like
I honestly think we should give a long hard look at an oligarchy.
1 Like
Are there supporting arguments for the idea? I canāt think of a reason why limiting individual rights would be a good idea.
3 Likes
Does the federal government need our money more than we need the federal government?
If weāre going to fundamentally change voting rights I would like to see a Starship Troopers model, where only citizens can vote and only people who clear a hurdle of interest and commitment can become citizens.
As a teenager I was also enamored with Verhoevenās futuristic vision of coed showers that were somehow left out by Heinlein when he wrote the book, but society isnāt ready for those yet apparently.
1 Like
Itās been mentioned by myself and another poster: the father votes on behalf of his family. Iām for it. No stake in the future (children), no vote. Itās a nice fantasy.
That any childless putz who has simply existed for eighteen years can cancel my vote is one of the reasons why I donāt vote and consider mass, liberal democracy harmful to society.
1 Like
The USA is such a cool place! In some areas of the country the ability to cancel out the votes of putzes is the best thing about liberal democracy.
2 Likes
Happiest citizenry of a non-democratic country? Kuwaitis at #13. Second place goes to the citizens of the UAE at #22.
I should have said such a personās vote carries as much weight as mine.
1 Like
Well, first thing weāre going to need is a bureaucracy to validate or invalidate a persons status and eligibility or changes thereof.
Like any bureaucracy, it should lack oversight and its primary purpose is to protect and grow its budget. Regional voter eligibility offices will oversee a given area, and staffing will be determined by population. Internal structure of employees/managers ratios can follow previously established guidelines but may be subject to budgetary fluctuations.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Yeah, itās fun to live in a theocracy powered by what is basically slave labor. Then you can afford a leisure class of native citizens that do not pay any income tax and can freely abuse their numerous Filipino servants.
From Wiki
Foreign nationals make up 60% of the population and 78% of the labor force in Kuwait.[2]
1 Like
Proof that money does, in fact, buy happiness.
And slaves.
Bingo. Sadly I feel that is exactly how politics have now devolved in our countryā¦to hell with what is best for the ENTIRE country, or who has the most/best experience in certain areas (economics, foreign affairs, border security, budgetary prowess, improving and repairing infrastructure, social security, the national debt spiraling out of control, etc) and could help move the country forward in a positive manner. No, it is and will be, for the foreseeable future, all about beating the other party. Itās on both sides: we are the smart, enlightened ones and the other guys are all awful and terrible and evil.
How does the country move off of that? Thatās the million dollar question. Or will we just ping pong back and forth from one party to the next, if one royally screws something up, then the other takes a shot? And what if we get to the point of one party continually screwing up, but because they have the votes, the backing of the media and celebrities who can control the media narrative, have an entrenched voting foothold in the most populous cities and states to stay in power and the other party and its supporters constantly are ignored and held on the sidelines? That seems like a recipe for disaster, for both/either side. *note, I kept saying only party, for it could be either one and I am presenting it as such.
Does anyone see where the country can go from here? I cannot predict it but something in my gut tells me that it will not be goodā¦
Yep. Iāve been to Dubai and the people doing the vast majority of the labor are not native.
What happened to no taxation without representation? Or is according to this scenario female employment haram?
Much like adherents of reincarnation who claim to have been Caesar or Shakespeare in their past lives and never a slave nor a peasant, proponent of restrictive franchises tend to believe that they (and their political beliefs) wouldnāt end up on the wrong side of such a move.
Also applies for those clamoring for civil wars and stuff.
Reducing the franchise is never a good thing.
Literally almost everyone. Itās even worse in Qatar and KSA. At least in feudal times (Europe, Japan) the idle rent-seeking class living off forced labor fought in wars and tinkered with science out of boredom.
These guys just spend their money of super dumb stuff (I mean beside hookers and coke) - gold super cars, plastic surgery for camels and fresh steaks flown in from France every day for optimum nourishment of their falcons.
It used to be Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, there were Whigs, I believe one president was elected as a member of the Anti-Freemasonic Party. John Quincy Adams iirc, such a gangsta sounding name and his picture looked like this crazy guy with crazy hair that really had the secret knowledgeā¦ If only he was alive today (and black)ā¦ but I digress
The meanings attached to the labels of Democrats and Republicans have shifted a lot over the past 150 years, which could happen again. But currently the labels are so shallow while the pockets are so deep, I put more hope in those names dying.
Libertarians vs Communists doesnāt seem compelling enough
Humanists vs Anti-Cyborgs, teh Humanists will want teh govt to pay for the brain chip implants and hydraulic limb replacements in order to make things fair for everyone while the Anti-Cyborgs will want to make it all completely illegal. Nah, thatās too ridiculous. Plus, we need something sooner
AI could do it. Thereās an argument for property rights and whoever builds it gets the benefits. But there is an argument that the risks and power are too great, that AI should be not only highly regulated but instead publicly owned. That tension could become compelling enough very quickly
I thought your question was worth some brainstorming, thanks for asking