Universal Suffrage
-
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Universal Suffrage:
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
All those poor unfortunate wealthy folk, and their total lack of additional political influence compared to the rest of us.
Speaking of uneducated, there's no stronger social causative relationship than that of income inequality and violent crime. And here we are, saying those damned unlanded miscreants shouldn't have a voice. We've already played this out in other places, bro. Taking more agency away from the lower classes to bolster the upper classes leads to beheadings, every time.
But hey you want that, be my guest.
Most poor people in this country are rich by many international standards.
Classic conservative argument. I'm sure explaining that to them will go ahead and fix things.
In all of human history we've never, ever figured this out. Most societies don't even stick around long enough to give it a go. But ours is, and we're going to have to deal with it very, very soon.
Your solution has been tried many times and always leads to rolling heads. The liberal solution sucks, too, so my money's on we flip the board over again.
Wrong.
The solution is opportunity.
Okay, tell me if income inequality has gone up or down in the past 300 years. Then we'll come back to this.
No society has ever, ever solved the Matthew principle. Aside from insurrection.
And you're wrong about why societies boil over. It's income inequality. Show me the numbers. Find me a stronger social correlation than what exists between income inequality and violent crime.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Universal Suffrage:
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
All those poor unfortunate wealthy folk, and their total lack of additional political influence compared to the rest of us.
Speaking of uneducated, there's no stronger social causative relationship than that of income inequality and violent crime. And here we are, saying those damned unlanded miscreants shouldn't have a voice. We've already played this out in other places, bro. Taking more agency away from the lower classes to bolster the upper classes leads to beheadings, every time.
But hey you want that, be my guest.
Most poor people in this country are rich by many international standards.
Classic conservative argument. I'm sure explaining that to them will go ahead and fix things.
In all of human history we've never, ever figured this out. Most societies don't even stick around long enough to give it a go. But ours is, and we're going to have to deal with it very, very soon.
Your solution has been tried many times and always leads to rolling heads. The liberal solution sucks, too, so my money's on we flip the board over again.
Wrong.
The solution is opportunity.
Okay, tell me if income inequality has gone up or down in the past 300 years. Then we'll come back to this.
No society has ever, ever solved the Matthew principle. Aside from insurrection.
Compare income inequality with actual poverty rates...
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2545610/Screen_Shot_2014-12-12_at_10.34.38_AM.0.png)
And while the middle class has shrunk over the last 50 years, more have moved into the upper class than the lower class.
And finally, poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
I generally don't think people are as worried about how much other people are making so long as they are doing okay. And more people are doing okay than any other time...
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Universal Suffrage:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Universal Suffrage:
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
All those poor unfortunate wealthy folk, and their total lack of additional political influence compared to the rest of us.
Speaking of uneducated, there's no stronger social causative relationship than that of income inequality and violent crime. And here we are, saying those damned unlanded miscreants shouldn't have a voice. We've already played this out in other places, bro. Taking more agency away from the lower classes to bolster the upper classes leads to beheadings, every time.
But hey you want that, be my guest.
Most poor people in this country are rich by many international standards.
Classic conservative argument. I'm sure explaining that to them will go ahead and fix things.
In all of human history we've never, ever figured this out. Most societies don't even stick around long enough to give it a go. But ours is, and we're going to have to deal with it very, very soon.
Your solution has been tried many times and always leads to rolling heads. The liberal solution sucks, too, so my money's on we flip the board over again.
Wrong.
The solution is opportunity.
Okay, tell me if income inequality has gone up or down in the past 300 years. Then we'll come back to this.
No society has ever, ever solved the Matthew principle. Aside from insurrection.
Compare income inequality with actual poverty rates...
And while the middle class has shrunk over the last 50 years, more have moved into the upper class than the lower class.
And finally, poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
I generally don't think people are as worried about how much other people are making so long as they are doing okay. And more people are doing okay than any other time...
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
Does "middle class?"
In 1971, did middle class mean owning 2 cars, owning your home, etc?
I don't know, just asking.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
There's no plausible end game for a peasant uprising these days. Riots and looting are as close as we'll get.
And that chart from Pew which states "middle class has decreased considerably" ignores that the upper income has increased by 33% and the lower has increased by only about 10%.
-
There's no plausible end game for a peasant uprising these days. Riots and looting are as close as we'll get.
And that chart from Pew which states "middle class has decreased considerably" ignores that the upper income has increased by 33% and the lower has increased by only about 10%.
@Horace said in Universal Suffrage:
There's no plausible end game for a peasant uprising these days. Riots and looting are as close as we'll get.
And that chart from Pew which states "middle class has decreased considerably" ignores that the upper income has increased by 33% and the lower has increased by only about 10%.
No, that chart specifically states that the Upper Class has grown at a higher rate than the Lower Class. It's kinda why I used it... It doesn't state the percentage of increase, but you can clearly see it.
-
@Horace said in Universal Suffrage:
There's no plausible end game for a peasant uprising these days. Riots and looting are as close as we'll get.
And that chart from Pew which states "middle class has decreased considerably" ignores that the upper income has increased by 33% and the lower has increased by only about 10%.
No, that chart specifically states that the Upper Class has grown at a higher rate than the Lower Class. It's kinda why I used it... It doesn't state the percentage of increase, but you can clearly see it.
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
@Horace said in Universal Suffrage:
There's no plausible end game for a peasant uprising these days. Riots and looting are as close as we'll get.
And that chart from Pew which states "middle class has decreased considerably" ignores that the upper income has increased by 33% and the lower has increased by only about 10%.
No, that chart specifically states that the Upper Class has grown at a higher rate than the Lower Class. It's kinda why I used it... It doesn't state the percentage of increase, but you can clearly see it.
I can only imagine that second paragraph in my post was added inadvertently by Jon as a mod. I didn’t write it.
-
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
Saw this posted by an attorney:
It might be amusing to debate whether the massive increase in the number of lawyers in the US has led to a net societal benefit or not, and whether lawyers should be given universal suffrage or possibly suffering.
-
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
Saw this posted by an attorney:
"The notion of universal suffrage is inherently defective.
Giving a degenerate drug addict dependent on societal largess the same vote as the person who builds a business that employs thousands of people is logically AND morally insensible."
I don’t think Hunter Biden’s vote should count as much either, but whatcha going to do?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
Does "middle class?"
In 1971, did middle class mean owning 2 cars, owning your home, etc?
I don't know, just asking.
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
Does "middle class?"
In 1971, did middle class mean owning 2 cars, owning your home, etc?
I don't know, just asking.
In 1971, I think it meant owning your own home, but maybe not two cars, multiple tv's, etc.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
Does "middle class?"
In 1971, did middle class mean owning 2 cars, owning your home, etc?
I don't know, just asking.
-
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
@LuFins-Dad said in Universal Suffrage:
poverty doesn't mean what it used to mean in the US.
Does "middle class?"
In 1971, did middle class mean owning 2 cars, owning your home, etc?
I don't know, just asking.
In 1971, I think it meant owning your own home, but maybe not two cars, multiple tv's, etc.
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
In 1971, I think it meant owning your own home, but maybe not two cars, multiple tv's, etc.
Looking it up, different sources have different definitions. All of them look at income as related to another measure. For some, it's a certain percentage above poverty level. For others, it's within a certain percentage of mean, or median, income of the population.
But yeah, I grew up in a pretty middle-class home, and we had one tv in 1971.
-
@Jolly said in Universal Suffrage:
In 1971, I think it meant owning your own home, but maybe not two cars, multiple tv's, etc.
Looking it up, different sources have different definitions. All of them look at income as related to another measure. For some, it's a certain percentage above poverty level. For others, it's within a certain percentage of mean, or median, income of the population.
But yeah, I grew up in a pretty middle-class home, and we had one tv in 1971.
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
But yeah, I grew up in a pretty middle-class home, and we had one tv in 1971.
A 21 inch color TV cost roughly $3300 in today's money in the early 70's.
Engineers, not politicians, have made your life better!
I was only joking
-
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
But yeah, I grew up in a pretty middle-class home, and we had one tv in 1971.
A 21 inch color TV cost roughly $3300 in today's money in the early 70's.
Engineers, not politicians, have made your life better!
@Doctor-Phibes yup. Wait till you see what I post next....
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/20940/vintage-tech-ads
-
@George-K said in Universal Suffrage:
But yeah, I grew up in a pretty middle-class home, and we had one tv in 1971.
A 21 inch color TV cost roughly $3300 in today's money in the early 70's.
Engineers, not politicians, have made your life better!
-
@Renauda said in Universal Suffrage:
Engineers, not politicians, have made your life better!
Technocracy Slide Rules!
FIFY.
-
@Renauda said in Universal Suffrage:
Engineers, not politicians, have made your life better!
Technocracy Slide Rules!
FIFY.
