Has democracy largely failed in the US? There should be an actual Fascist party.

[Anonymous]

I think I would support a Fascist party if there was a viable one. Democracy is wonderful in concept, but in practice it leads to dysfunctional, frozen government and President Camacho. Particularly with the current White House resident, tell me exactly why an enlightened fascist would not do a better job?

[Anonymous]

The GOP meets the rest.

[Anonymous]

WTF is an “enlightened fascist”? If you disobey you get a stern scolding, insrptead of being executed?

[Anonymous]

I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

[Anonymous]

I’m thinking that the US just isn’t a great fit for you.

[Anonymous]

When is the GOP going to ditch the elephant and get one of those hip, black-and-red fash'y logos?

They really ought to have an online design contest - it will really get the attention of that cool, creative Millennial demographic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

Multiple millennia of history has shown that the elevation of military leaders to political leaders has usually led to millions of dead bodies, entrenched rentiers, and enslaved women (and enemies). F#ck that noise; military leaders have had many chances to create a "citizen led" society and all they do is screw it up. Glorification of the The Generals always leads to over-extension and collapse. Their hubris knows no bounds, which

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m thinking that the US just isn’t a great fit for you.

My people were here long before there was a US. And we've fought to create it, again to keep it, again to hold it together, against Spain, against the Germans twice, the Japanese once, Koreans and Chinese, Vietnamese, dozens of non-war wars, Iraq twice, Taliban, and ISIS. Some member of my family going all the way back to the mid 1600's has had a part in one or more of these, including two for me.

The US isn't a good fit? There wouldn't BE a US were it not for people like my ancestors and me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

Multiple millennia of history has shown that the elevation of military leaders to political leaders has usually led to millions of dead bodies, entrenched rentiers, and enslaved women (and enemies). F#ck that noise; military leaders have had many chances to create a "citizen led" society and all they do is screw it up. Glorification of the The Generals always leads to over-extension and collapse. Their hubris knows no bounds, which

Multiple millennia of history has also shown that the default condition of humanity is slavery and servitude.

99% of all the humans who have ever lived on earth lived as chattel. As the property of a king or other autocrat.

Fuck that noise, too. Your idea is worse than mine. At least I let people vote if they serve. You just want a return to slavery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

Multiple millennia of history has shown that the elevation of military leaders to political leaders has usually led to millions of dead bodies, entrenched rentiers, and enslaved women (and enemies). F#ck that noise; military leaders have had many chances to create a "citizen led" society and all they do is screw it up. Glorification of the The Generals always leads to over-extension and collapse. Their hubris knows no bounds, which

I liked Ike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

Multiple millennia of history has shown that the elevation of military leaders to political leaders has usually led to millions of dead bodies, entrenched rentiers, and enslaved women (and enemies). F#ck that noise; military leaders have had many chances to create a "citizen led" society and all they do is screw it up. Glorification of the The Generals always leads to over-extension and collapse. Their hubris knows no bounds, which

I liked Ike

To be fair, I should have caveated Ike. Then again, lets look at his outgoing speech that so presciently predicted the future. He fully recognized that he was an anomaly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with novelist Robert Heinlein's model of society depicted in the book "Starship Troopers" (wayyyy better and much different than the movie, BTW)

Essentially, society was composed of two groups of people: Citizens and Civillans.

Each had the same basic human rights, educational access, occupations, etc. the only difference was the area of politics and the franchise of voting.

Only Citizens could vote and hold office.

How did one become a Citizen?

Military service. And for those unable to serve militarily due to physical limitations or ethical objections, there was an alternative called "federal service", which was no less grueling, dangerous and demanding.

The point was that the privilege of voting, without being earned, men's nothing. People will simply vote in their own interest rather than the good of the state, and will elect those who promise them free stuff.

By requiring a term of potentially dangerous service, it demonstrates that a person has skin in the game, and has earned a vote, rather than it simply being given to them by virtue of them simply existing.


Alternatively, I'd also support a system where a person could accumulate multiple votes. So every person would have one vote. If a person paid taxes on income or investments, they get another vote. If they own property, they get a third vote. If they served in the military, they get a fourth vote. Such a system incentivizes people to make the most of themselves, and rewards those who try harder with having more of a say in how things run than those who do nothing.



Either system would be preferable to what we have now.

Multiple millennia of history has shown that the elevation of military leaders to political leaders has usually led to millions of dead bodies, entrenched rentiers, and enslaved women (and enemies). F#ck that noise; military leaders have had many chances to create a "citizen led" society and all they do is screw it up. Glorification of the The Generals always leads to over-extension and collapse. Their hubris knows no bounds, which

Multiple millennia of history has also shown that the default condition of humanity is slavery and servitude.

99% of all the humans who have ever lived on earth lived as chattel. As the property of a king or other autocrat.

Fuck that noise, too. Your idea is worse than mine. At least I let people vote if they serve. You just want a return to slavery

As Bellicheck says: "Do. Your. Job." I knows it chaps your ass raw that we all recognize who the biggest Takers are. It's why DoD and officers are so quick to rip on everyone else in the government; the insecurity is barely palpable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m thinking that the US just isn’t a great fit for you.

My people were here long before there was a US. And we've fought to create it, again to keep it, again to hold it together, against Spain, against the Germans twice, the Japanese once, Koreans and Chinese, Vietnamese, dozens of non-war wars, Iraq twice, Taliban, and ISIS. Some member of my family going all the way back to the mid 1600's has had a part in one or more of these, including two for me.

The US isn't a good fit? There wouldn't BE a US were it not for people like my ancestors and me.

Yeah you and thousands of others. And me.

No really though, you’re forgetting the principals the founding fathers based the US government on.

I feel like these threads are attempts to lean us all in toward fascism. Like putting a frog in cool water, and gradually heating him up.

You’re getting pushback buddy. Because it’s idiotic and unpatriotic. You sound like a Nazi (“the Germans twice” lol). What did your people fight against if you are falling for fascism so easily?

[Anonymous]

If we were living in a democracy, we wouldn't be paying so much for drugs.

[Anonymous]

What we currently have is the beginnings of fascism.

Which you claim not to like.

So your call for more makes no sense.