[Jean Valjean]

(02-10-2017 11:02 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

You mean to tell me that for 20+ years of like, he never thought to take the propper tests etc to get citizenship? what was he doing all of this time? He didnt have the money? really? he coudln`t save up enough money for this? was he working slave wages? if so, why werent his employers caught and jailed as well? This doesn`t make sense, you cant expect me to have sympathy for someone screwing up in such a manner, then try to convince me becuase of this guy`s fuck up we should change immigration laws for this guys mistake.

Im not buying it. In fact, it makes me forget the rest of what you said.

Its like we dont seem to have immigration laws in our country anymore. The people didn`t decide on letting refugess in the country? Are there no laws on immigration? Why arent they being followed if they are? Sure due process is important and I agree, but arent people who break the law jailed while they`re in due process awaiting trial? Should trump just go an jail all the refugees or others coming into the country without a passport?

Whats stopping the rest of the world from just taking boats and ending up on our shores and the U.S. not doing anything about it? isnt that called an invasion?

A lot of your arguments need some fine tuning. and Make sure you dont include some silly sob story anecdote about "a guy you know" I`m sorry, but no one really cares about a "guy you know/a friend/etc. . ." when it comes to the laws of the country.

Try again. . . or don`t.

I tried to word that in a way that would take a neutral stance on whether he should be allowed to stay, and just emphasize the arbitrary discrepancy between how he was treated and how a guy who was born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrant parents was treated, but perhaps I failed.

There may have been more to his story; for example, a lot of those who end up in federal prison for illegal reentry into the U.S. have a felony or even an aggravated felony on their record. They can get up to 20 years for that. Still, the guy born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants could get convicted of an aggravated felony, and be allowed to stay.

It becomes like a game of freeze tag or capture the flag. If a woman can cross the border into the U.S. before a baby pops out of her hoo-ha, then that kid gets to stay in the U.S. for life and run President; but if she can't make it over the border in time, then he's subject to deportation.

I don't know that there's a process for people who enter the U.S. illegally as babies to become citizens (unless you're talking about the DREAM Act, which hasn't passed yet). Are you aware of such a process?

Another beef I have with the 14th Amendment is that it punishes secessionists and those who lend money to their cause. The Constitution is a couple centuries old, a lot of its provisions haven't accomplished what the founders hoped (for example, grand juries are failing to serve as much of a safeguard), and it might not be such a bad idea for the union to split apart (or for states to at least have the ability to threaten to break away), so we can start from scratch and come up with a new Constitution, or one or more new Constitutions for different regions. We're at a point now where it's pretty hard "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" through the amendment process, as Trump acknowledged when he rejected the idea of trying to change the 14th Amendment; but it's hard for the U.S. to say that Americans can't secede, while supporting secessionists in places like Kosovo.

One of the interesting aspects about the Confederate States Constitution was that it included additional safeguards against federal encroachment on states' rights, based on lessons learned from almost fourscore and seven years of living under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution had likewise included safeguards (such as a very limited definition of treason) based on lessons learned from living under British rule. Maybe it's time for another iteration of this process.

[Samseau]

(02-11-2017 03:43 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Repealing the 19th will only be possible once the country is in shambles due to total economic collapse, Islamic terrorism gone wild (women wanting to stay home instead of go out, including to vote) or Civil War II/invasion by a much more masculine (read sexist!) culture that curtails female "rights". It may happen in our life time, but it would mean the country is utterly collapsed and rebuilding from the ashes at the point.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we can just convince enough men that universal democracy isn't the answer, and voting should be a privilege only afforded to those with skin in the game.

[John Michael Kane]

Convincing the men would require enforcement of limited suffrage by force. The average American man is nowhere near that mental space. People become more conservative when suffering forces hard choices. There isn't nearly enough suffering to support men making such a radical departure from the status quo. The real call for change is when there is widespread suffering. For instance, if men and women get drafted into an unpopular war, but the women don't show up. The men would have a good case to overthrow female suffrage then.

There must be an impetus for every action.

Trump won on jobs and securing the border. Revoking the vote from women will require some similar outrage that goes unaddressed. Keep in mind that men are made for suffering. We withstand A LOT before we finally snap.

[Samseau]

It would take very little force to enforce limited suffrage. What would women do, form an army and start taking over cities?

[Jean Valjean]

(02-13-2017 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It would take very little force to enforce limited suffrage. What would women do, form an army and start taking over cities?

I don't think it will be necessary to enforce it. I think women will vote to abolish their own suffrage once the benefits are explained to them, just like they vote for anti-feminists when they perceive that feminists aren't looking out for their best interests. Feminism, like other trade unions, tends to become corrupt, rendering relations between workers and management so dysfunctional, in order to enrich union leaders, that ultimately, competition from Asia takes the American workers' jobs away.

The workers' cooperative, said to be the ultimate form of worker empowerment, hasn't caught on, because workers don't really want to be bothered with governing the company. They just want to do their jobs, collect their paychecks, and go home, without having to waste time in meetings debating company strategy.

Similarly, a typical woman would probably rather sit in her cozy house sipping hot chocolate on a cold November morning, while her husband is the one to stand in line to vote. But because society told her, "It's your duty to vote," she feels the need to head to the polls, in order to conform to expectations. To vote to abolish women's suffrage would be to vote to relieve herself of this responsibility.

[John Michael Kane]

(02-13-2017 12:00 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It would take very little force to enforce limited suffrage. What would women do, form an army and start taking over cities?

I don't think it will be necessary to enforce it. I think women will vote to abolish their own suffrage once the benefits are explained to them, just like they vote for anti-feminists when they perceive that feminists aren't looking out for their best interests. Feminism, like other trade unions, tends to become corrupt, rendering relations between workers and management so dysfunctional, in order to enrich union leaders, that ultimately, competition from Asia takes the American workers' jobs away.

The workers' cooperative, said to be the ultimate form of worker empowerment, hasn't caught on, because workers don't really want to be bothered with governing the company. They just want to do their jobs, collect their paychecks, and go home, without having to waste time in meetings debating company strategy.

Similarly, a typical woman would probably rather sit in her cozy house sipping hot chocolate on a cold November morning, while her husband is the one to stand in line to vote. But because society told her, "It's your duty to vote," she feels the need to head to the polls, in order to conform to expectations. To vote to abolish women's suffrage would be to vote to relieve herself of this responsibility.

Men have a monopoly on force and willpower, but the breaking point before they exercise that willpower is EXTREMELY HIGH. Yes, men can easily enforce revoking the vote, but getting them to that mental space requires much more impetus. Systematically, we can restrict the vote very easily. Mentally, men aren't suffering enough to get them to take action against what would be such an unpopular choice. Keep in mind that no politician is going to stand for it in this era, because it is against their self-interest. What politician is going to limit his own voting base by half? There's simply no strategic argument against restricting the vote, unless things have already gone to hell so badly that we don't have rule of law, or we are on the brink of civil unrest or war. We need to be at the tipping point or past it before men will curtail women. A through read of history books will show you that women are put in their place after the men have finally woken from their stupor in giving the women too many civic responsibilities. As long as the water is flowing, the electricity is on and men aren't starving, there will be no revoking the 19th.

[Samseau]

(02-13-2017 06:54 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 12:00 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 11:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

It would take very little force to enforce limited suffrage. What would women do, form an army and start taking over cities?

I don't think it will be necessary to enforce it. I think women will vote to abolish their own suffrage once the benefits are explained to them, just like they vote for anti-feminists when they perceive that feminists aren't looking out for their best interests. Feminism, like other trade unions, tends to become corrupt, rendering relations between workers and management so dysfunctional, in order to enrich union leaders, that ultimately, competition from Asia takes the American workers' jobs away.

The workers' cooperative, said to be the ultimate form of worker empowerment, hasn't caught on, because workers don't really want to be bothered with governing the company. They just want to do their jobs, collect their paychecks, and go home, without having to waste time in meetings debating company strategy.

Similarly, a typical woman would probably rather sit in her cozy house sipping hot chocolate on a cold November morning, while her husband is the one to stand in line to vote. But because society told her, "It's your duty to vote," she feels the need to head to the polls, in order to conform to expectations. To vote to abolish women's suffrage would be to vote to relieve herself of this responsibility.

Men have a monopoly on force and willpower, but the breaking point before they exercise that willpower is EXTREMELY HIGH. Yes, men can easily enforce revoking the vote, but getting them to that mental space requires much more impetus. Systematically, we can restrict the vote very easily. Mentally, men aren't suffering enough to get them to take action against what would be such an unpopular choice. Keep in mind that no politician is going to stand for it in this era, because it is against their self-interest. What politician is going to limit his own voting base by half? There's simply no strategic argument against restricting the vote, unless things have already gone to hell so badly that we don't have rule of law, or we are on the brink of civil unrest or war. We need to be at the tipping point or past it before men will curtail women. A through read of history books will show you that women are put in their place after the men have finally woken from their stupor in giving the women too many civic responsibilities. As long as the water is flowing, the electricity is on and men aren't starving, there will be no revoking the 19th.

Of course we cannot predict when the idea of limited democracy comes into fruition, but we can certainly prepare the way. Just as many manosphere ideas have seeped into the mainstream there's no reason why people cannot question the inherent rights to vote. When the time arrives, whether from catastrophe or a great leader, the idea will be ready for use.

Remember, the founding fathers built the US Government based on teachings from thousands of years ago. Jefferson and Madison knew their Aristotle in Greek if I'm not mistaken.

Do you think Aristotle cared if his ideas were implemented in his lifetime, let alone his culture? Think like Aristotle.

[John Michael Kane]

I agree with preparing the mindset and leaking ideas to the broader public. We will just need a series of events to come into fruition before they can be enacted in force. The next several years will be planting seeds for a later harvest.