Plan B Forum

Big RR wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:42 pm

No, just that I don't want to dilute that voice by permitting elected representatives to making the choice instead of a direct election. There's absolutely no reason to repeal the 17th amendment. At one time it might have made sense, a time where communication was limited and people couldn't easily be aware of the issues and debates, but that is not now. I'd rather have more participatory democracy than less, and see no reason to empower a group of people to act on my behalf and elect my representatives. But if you see that as a real "voice", then we can just agree to disagree.

OK...do you or do you not understand the concept of the House of Representatives?

OK, do you not understand the concept of election of representatives, including senators (as per the 17th amendment)? There is absolutely no reason to dilute the voters' voice by interposing someone else to vote on their behalf.

If you believe it would be better if fewer people vote, why not repeal the 15th, 19th, 22nd, and 26th Amendments too?

Or just allow each state to create its own oligarchy which can appoint all political leaders--why bother with elections at all?

Big RR wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:19 pm

Or just allow each state to create its own oligarchy which can appoint all political leaders--why bother with elections at all?

Sounds pretty much what the Georgia Republicans are trying to do... so long as THEY are the ones who get to pick the members of said oligarchy.  And they seem to want to go back to the 1790s, when the Constitution was first signed and only white guys who ⃥o⃥w⃥n⃥e⃥d⃥ ⃥p⃥r⃥o⃥p⃥e⃥r⃥t⃥y⃥  thought the 'right' way had the ⃥r⃥i⃥g⃥h⃥t⃥  privilege to be able to vote or hold public office.  Blacks, browns, yellows, or women need not apply.  And if you (as well as both your parents) weren't born here, you can fuhgeddaboudit too.

As for the amendments — yeah, let's forget all but the first ten; then we'll drop #1, move #2 up to its place, and then decide which ones of the other eight we can do without as well.

'MURiCA — the way it was S'POSED to be!!

-"BB"-

Bill — for a while I've been meaning to ask why you use the formatting " o⃥w⃥n⃥e⃥d⃥ ⃥p⃥r⃥o⃥p⃥e⃥r⃥t⃥y⃥  " and " ⃥r⃥i⃥g⃥h⃥t⃥  " (I'm not sure how you even do that!!) rather than "owned property" and "right" using the available BBCode "strikethrough" ([ s] + [/ s] —without the extra spaces, obviously). Is it a deliberate choice, or do you just not know about the "strikethrough" option?

Econoline wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:56 pm

Bill — for a while I've been meaning to ask why you use the formatting " o⃥w⃥n⃥e⃥d⃥ ⃥p⃥r⃥o⃥p⃥e⃥r⃥t⃥y⃥  " and " ⃥r⃥i⃥g⃥h⃥t⃥  " (I'm not sure how you even do that!!) rather than "owned property" and "right" using the available BBCode "strikethrough" ([ s] + [/ s] —without the extra spaces, obviously). Is it a deliberate choice, or do you just not know about the "strikethrough" option?

It is in fact a deliberate choice.  Not all sites I post at support the 'strikethrough' option like this one does, so I found this method that I use.  Works just about anywhere.  It's also a way of making my posts unique; you see that, you know who the poster is.

As for how I do it, you should know that a good magician never gives away his secrets.....  

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:27 am

It's also a way of making my posts unique

It's also a way of making your posts illegible, but ok.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:28 am

Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:27 am

It's also a way of making my posts unique

It's also a way of making your posts illegible, but ok.

Well, isn't that the purpose of a strike-through in the first place — negating / making something illegible?  It doesn't affect the rest of the post, and unless your eyes are even worse than mine you can still make out what has been struck out.

-"BB"-

This thing...

-"BB"-

Econoline wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:53 pm

If you believe it would be better if fewer people vote, why not repeal the 15th, 19th, 22nd, and 26th Amendments too?

The 26th Amendment should not have been passed.

I would no longer oppose returning voting to only property owners, or at least net taxpayers.

That would easily exclude a lot of seniors who worked their whole lives as well as many military members with families many qualify for the earned income credit). Doesn't really make sense, does it? Or would you prefer a mercenary force which has no say in the governance of the country they are defending?

Big RR wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:10 pm

That would easily exclude a lot of seniors who worked their whole lives as well as many military members with families many qualify for the earned income credit). Doesn't really make sense, does it? Or would you prefer a mercenary force which has no say in the governance of the country they are defending?

If they're not collecting welfare, they should still be net taxpayers. I would prefer a military a small fraction of its current size.

I'm glad I don't live in the elitist country you want.