Did you read the parenthetical? Say, for example, you dad breaks his hip and has to stay with you for an extended period such that he gets jewed out of his vast estate. Now he lives with you. On your land. Who gives up their vote? You?
You're already cuckiing the US for your cuck-to-jews fetish? There would be no "jewing out of" in a future with a contitutional convention of this variety.
Right, because a person who is physically unable to manage there land is going to keep an able bodied man from stepping in. Even a life without jew usury needs income. The hours of the day are finite. Are you going to manage your affairs as well as your fathers/brothers/friends?
He's a property owner, you're a property owner and you're both male. Nothing changes. Your example doesn't show what you want as... "White, Male property owner" is enough.
A "White, Male property owner" is just the guy who got your dad's farm for a good value because he can't work it and he knows that. He's still sharp. He just can't do the work and the farm doesn't bring in enough to pay another hand or two to cover the 16 hours a day he was putting in. He lives with you now. He sold the land. Maybe he sold it to you. He's White, not a land owner but has good control of his mind. Who votes? You? Him?
Right, because a person who is physically unable to manage there land is going to keep an able bodied man from stepping in. Even a life without jew usury needs income. The hours of the day are finite. Are you going to manage your affairs as well as your fathers/brothers/friends? even life without jew usury needs income
No. Paltry savings will do.
A "White, Male property owner" is just the guy who got your dad's farm for a good value because he can't work it and he knows that. He's still sharp. He just can't do the work and the farm doesn't bring in enough to pay another hand or two to cover the 16 hours a day he was putting in. He lives with you now. He sold the land. Maybe he sold it to you. He's White, not a land owner but has good control of his mind. Who votes? You? Him?
White male land-owner
I don't get why the heck this is so confusing to you. I don't understand why you think corner cases are relevant. I'm done dude. You're nitpicking for some stupid AF reason.
I want the US to be the US. I want voting to be by White, male land-owners. I want the idea of (((democracy))) to be killed. I want banks, bankers and their proponents to be killed. I want international trade to be killed. I want borders to be enforced with deadly force.
You want otherwise while claiming not. e; kek after writing this it dawned on me. You aren't smart enough to figure out why the "land-owner" bit is meaningful and a requirement. That's the point you keep jewing around about. You don't understand why which is funny, sad but funny.
land-owner is a req because it's the smallest meaningfully measurable trait of a (single, 1, one) citizen that the government should care about and would bring about some form of beneficial growth, obvious or not. That guy who owns the land but doesn't work it? His vote matters more than the guy who doesn't own it but works it, so he gets a vote and the other doesn't. To argue otherwise is to agree with predditors who bitch, moan, and cry about landlords and ... PROPERTY OWNERS. They take their frustration out on single house property owners because of their reasonable frustrations on wholly government subsidized, jewish property "owners" because they can't snap out of their (((medicine))) induced NPC life of ideals. You're the same.
I wasn't jewing around anything. I was exploring a thought about how to determine voting rights. I thought I had presented a cogent theory to you and you went all "dope head commie vaxtard jew" on me. I'll try again.
If you are a land owner and have the right to vote. Then for some reason out of your control you have no choice but to sell your land, putting you in the position of living on the land of another land owning voter, who gives up their vote?
If you are a land owner and have the right to vote. Then for some reason out of your control you have no choice but to sell your land, putting you in the position of living on the land of another land owning voter, who gives up their vote?
This can't be a real question. You're not longer a land owner. Also voting isn't a right.
e; Also I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that would lead to someone NEEDING to sell their land. Wouldn't happen. Medical bills don't exist. In a White society that has high trust, high morals, zero violence, excellent health etc. Socialized healthcare is a thing as is socialized "insurance" for property etc. (due to natural disasters, ALA what FEMA should be)
ee; Also my apologies I suppose you might reply in the seconds before I edit to where 1) you don't see my edit and 2) I don't see your reply which causes confusion. I don't multipreply, I edit to keep a smoother conversational flow going rather than branching off.
Oh no, I'm with you. I'm in favor of live fire exercises on the border to denture entry. I know that jewish and wanna be jew banksters have stolen the wealth of this nation and deserve to be hung for it.
What I thought we were talking about here is how to define what a household is as it pertains to the allocation of voting rights particularly in edge cases because I wouldn't want to pen a theory that robbed me or you or your father of their vote.
What I thought we were talking about here is how to define what a household is as it pertains to the allocation of voting rights particularly in edge cases because I wouldn't want to pen a theory that robbed me or you or your father of their vote.
Okay. So you're going to strawman and move the goalposts on what I wrote in my comment while ignoring the meaning. Awesome. That is what we were talking about. And it still was until you walked it back and just fucked about.
allocation of voting rights
White Male Land owner
IT IS NOT COMPLICATED. Each of your corner cases expressly requires jews to be in power still. Why would I want to solve for such a corner case? Why?
(post is archived)