Dating is a series of interviews until you both decide to enter an agreement essentially.

That sucks. I hate interviews.

Most people hate dating, too lol

They're advocating taking the right to vote away from everyone who isn't a married man. One family one vote, and we know who runs the family in their world.

Yes. It prohibits the disenfranchisement of any citizen based on sex. At the time that really only had impact on women, but the amendment doesn't specifically grant voting rights to women.

The post is clearly a joke because they start by appearing to advocate for an awful thing, and then turning it around at the last second by advocating for the awful thing for the people who most often actually advocate for the first bit.

It's not super funny or poignant, but it's obviously a joke.

Yeah, I dread job interviews. They trigger my anxiety something fierce, and if I don't get the job, I get depressed because I feel rejected. First dates are like that, but even worse! Unfortunately, I need a job in order to pay rent, but there isn't anything forcing me to date, so I don't do it.

More importantly, incels can't vote 😂

Families having more influence is based. Voting ages should be removed.

Agreed, men could spend more time at the gym if they didn't have to consider any sort of political implications. It would be better for them.

Unfortunately, it's rarely obvious anymore if you don't know the person posting it.

the constitution does not “give” rights, it only takes them,

The Sixth Amendment?

Yeah that's not how it would work.

Anyway, we already have taxation without representation for everyone who lives in DC

that outlines rights a gov “pinky promises” not to interfere with. it can “easily” be overridden with a later amendment. see the 18th and 21st amendments.

yes the joke is that you expect that to be the point but they subvert it by targeting an even more vulnerable group instead (/s since we need that here apparently)

No one is confused about it being a joke. What we’re saying is that it loses its humor once you realize repealing the 19th amendment is a real possibility.

lol

It is. A few far right morons are starting to tout the whole, "Women dont vote right we should repeal the 19th" out loud instead of just thinking it privately. This is pretty clearly mocking that.

That being said, fuck it, no one gets to vote. Were going ancient athens and just doing it by lotto. You can do your year and go home and face the repercussions without security and pension for a life.

I mean... Would that be so bad?

Then you'd better give me back every single fucking penny I've paid in tax you fucking nazi

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig proposed a Jury-like system for passing legislation. The idea is that regardless of someone's stated political party, people will vote for individual laws that benefit them on a case by case basis before following hard party lines and it would be too costly and complicated for malicious groups to bribe individual citizens the same way they give "campaign contributions."

Explain how that works

"Got mine Fuck you"?

Doesn’t it make sense to have voters that are invested in the long term future?

yes, but that's a cultural issue not one of reproduction.

i mean i want to say the rights are guaranteed when they're made explicit and the powers to protect those rights are delegated from the citizenry to the government, and if that doesn't make it clear i'm a bit of an idealist i don't know what else will. like, you don't get to choose where you're born so you don't get to choose what you "voluntarily delegate" to the government, and emigration is rarely easy so your options when society chooses opposite you are limited.

hooray.

Today I learned that people without families are entirely unaffected by their governments and so shouldn't have a say. Also that individualism and "selfishness" are incompatible with Capitalist American ideals...

Obligatory Man Show bit on ending women's suffrage.

or when society votes in some nazis that amend those rights and now you are a non human.

the theme is: all govs are pieces of shit.

He's being sarcastic, right?

Right???

I would argue that lowering the age would make sense, but removing it altogether would not.

It might be.

This could have been posted by someone in a different country, or even an LLM. Blind is anonymous and therefore useless. It’s been a joke in tech for over a decade now. You can sometimes get real information but it’s not often.

This post trying to shift the language. Words matter.

Words do matter. This post is garbage spewed by no one. It could even be a fake screenshot.

Sources matter just as much as words do. You’re giving a screenshot far too much power when it has no source.

It’s alarming how many people upvoted this meaningless Blind post, because people get caught up in the drama instead of realizing what they’re responding to.

We already covered single men.

I know. I’m perverting their intended message like a bored genie because it’s fun.

Take away all men's rights to vote, we don't deserve it. Women need to make all major decisions from now on.

What you are describing is supposed to be the role of the parliament in a well functioning democracy: you should be able to vote for the person representing your values, not choose the least bad option amongst two.

Why not?

A parliament is still an additional layer. What I'm describing is a Jury system for passing laws.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_an_die_Macht_(Lied)

I mean… it’s a White House account. What do you expect?

It’s not. “White House & Policy” is just the forum topic

Ehh. What do I know. I have never once opened a LinkedIn page on any divining my life.

Below a certain age, a person would literally be incompetent to place a vote. They would, at best, be voting as a proxy to a parent and wouldn't be able to reason well enough to represent their own self interest.

Plenty of room for arguments to be had about what age that is though.

We could argue that it could be whenever they can independently present their ID, pick up their ballot paper, mark it, and submit it in a ballot box (this is the procedure in the UK)

be voting as a proxy to a parent and wouldn't be able to reason well enough to represent their own self interest.

This already happens in the UK with the voting age at 18 (16 for local and devolved elections in Scotland). Provided they still have a right for an anonymous and independent vote, I don't really see much issue with this. Parents generally do have rights over their kids. While I don't believe a parent should be able to literally submit a ballot on behalf of their child without consent, it is quite standard that children follow their parent's beliefs if/until they know otherwise. The vote is still representing a living, breathing, human. A citizen/voter of or residing in said nation. It's just that they are under their parent's domain and purview until a variable age. A parent can just as easily convince a somewhat disinterested or disengaged 24 year old child to vote for a poor candidate as they can convince a disengaged 14 year old to vote for a good candidate. Or the 14 year old could be more politically engaged and informed than many 24 year olds (I believe this actually is the case) and they would want to vote for a candidate, while a disengaged 24 year old is just voting for who their parents told them to vote for.

I genuinely don't think it's a bad idea. I think the only restrictions there really should be on voting is citizenship and residency (in the UK, voting is restricted to Commonwealth, Irish, or EU citizens who settled before Brexit and are residing and registered to vote in the Kingdom at the time of the election)

I actually like that idea. Provided the law is ensured to have been read and the juries remain anonymous. Maybe multiple batches with no way of knowing who will be assigned to judge what law?

Ill definitely have to read more about that, thanks for telling me.

I don't think this system was meant to be perfect. It's just more resistance to bribes, coercion, and having you're values twisted by establishment political relationships.

Corporate lobbying groups would still exist, but they would be forced to make their case in the open, in front of the jury, not while kicking back some drinks or a wink and a nudge along with a campaign check. Also, not all lobbying groups are evil. To name a few, the EFF, ACLU, and FFR all have lobbying aspects their orgs. This would level the playing field between the good ones and the ones with deep corporate pockets.