TakeYouToTasker

Many of these ideas are not nearly as popular as you seem to think they are. "If you vote for us we promise to enslave others to give you a bunch of free stuff," is wholly unappealing to anyone with morals and dignity.

So... Democrats: "Republicans are attempting to undermine our sacred institutions." Also Democrats: "The Electoral College is illegitimate, the US Senate is illegitimate, the Supreme Court is illegitimate, and the Vice-President of the United States is illegitimate; also Presidential appointments following the process of established Constitutional law are illegitimate." Stop for a second and listen to yourselves.

That's... That's not how this works at all. It is the proper job of the person making the positive assertion that must prove his case.

You think it's debatable that the Russians would have to be firing for the Ukrainians to veer into the line of fire? Go back and think that through please.

I don't have any time to compete in sports today, Jeff.

You're advocating entrusting the state with absolute unaccountable authority to crush political opposition without due process. Yes, you're a leftist.

Better in my mind to fight against anyone advocating brutal leftist oppressors, be their name Jack Dorsey or Joe in Winslow.

You're legitimizing their argument and tactics, Joe. You're literally advocating for brutal dictatorship, Joe; and you're legitimizing the prosecution of thought crimes, and somehow even worse, advocating entrusting that power to government without even so much as due process. That's not recipe for anything other than brutal oppression. Maybe they'll name a gulag after you?

I did, and I find the authors ideas horrifying. I find them equally horrifying when expressed by you. Bad ideas are bad ideas, Joe.

Talk about projecting... They're literally accusing the President of all the crimes they themselves are guilty of. This is a stupid post. Staggeringly so.

Republicans are too cowardly to seize or destroy the property of private citizens they disagree with, and begin to prosecute thought crimes? Thank God.

Because it's unethical and predatory.

Right. Because it's no big deal when news outlets serve to misinform or keep people ignorant. You're a cancer, Gary.

Wow...

100% this. When I was younger and working for an hourly wage, I had a personal policy of "once I hit 40 hours, work as many hours as they'll let me". I once had a manger ask me why I was willing to work so much, and I replied "Because while I'm here earning it, I'm not out there spending it, and you haven't bounced a check to me yet." He laughed, at the time, but later told me I was his most reliable employee. I thought that was a good time to ask him for more money, and more responsibility. He agreed. Employers tend to value a strong work ethic. Demonstrate one and more often than not you'll find yourself getting ahead.

You're doubling down on it? Incredibly stupid argument. In a free society constructed on the foundation of natural rights philosophy, the right to self-determination is paramount. There is no acceptable amount of rights violations. Full stop.

I'm aware. The response wasn't so much for him as it was to slap that argument in general. Some other moron is bound to pick up that sword, so I wanted to preemptively slap it.

Did you really just assert that there are acceptable levels of election fraud? That's an incredibly stupid argument to make.

Total compensation is the combined value of salary, bonuses, employer 401k contributions, and employer health care contributions.

... Are you ignorant of what a "total compensation package" is?

I have a close friend, now in his 40s, who never went to college. He's currently working at the second job he's ever had, the first being a job at Burger King he started while we were in high school. He currently works as an assistant manger at Lowes, where he started as a regular hourly associate. He's been there for about 15 years, and has a total compensation package that's worth around $80k/year.

No, it doesn't mean that only those with means can vote. Military service is open to all, and even if you have property or a business you're still required to pass a civics test, be required to be a resident for 10 years, and still required to be a net federal tax payer. No other requirements would be necessary (I'm open to arguments about age restrictions and criminals). Only those with a direct stake in the size, scope, and role of government should have a say in how it's run.

Every American (save minors and convicted felons) has the "right" to vote, but that certainly doesn't mean that those who are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, or have no stake in the size and scope of government should be encouraged to inflict their stupidity/ignorance/apathy on the rest of us. You didn't answer my question: what's the merit of those types of individuals voting? It's important to draw distinctions between what is, and what I believe would be a better system. The above (all Americans enjoying the franchise) is what currently exists, and I support the prosecution of anyone violating the law by disenfranchising others who have enjoy the privilege of voting under our laws. I believe a better system would be an absolute meritocracy in which there was no birthright citizenship for anyone, and the franchise was a privilege which one has to earn. Citizenship would guarantee the right to vote, and no person would be denied the right to become a citizen. Citizenship would require military service (accommodations made for the physically disabled), or those whom have owned property or a business for more than 10 years and are net federal tax payers; both would then be required to pass a test on US civics.

Explain the merits of votes being cast by individuals whom are uneducated, uninformed, generally disinterested, and in some cases who have no stake in the size or scope of government?