Idc if you think voting is rigged or fake or gay or whatever. If you dont vote then jews win. Hes the ONLY motherfucker that doesnt take their money and they are trying to buy his seat.
The doomer shills will cry "its all rigged dont even participate!" But guess what, your lack of participation makes it that much easier for them to ruin good white men. It takes nothing to at least try.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 day ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> There are several states where citizens can directly change the constitution.
That’s every state. It requires guns to do. Pieces of paper can’t do it.
> I think you can when you have a two party majority. If the two parties collude, as they have, then it's a simple race to the bottom where you get most of the electorate to not participate.
But then what? So they don’t participate (that’s several recent elections already). And then… the people in power are supposed to just magically give up power? Why? Because the masses who didn’t care enough to vote are definitely going to… still do nothing to make them give up power?
>I think if you leave it open the consequences of an empty chair…
Ah, but *what* consequences?
>If the people could actually lock the entire body out by eliminating the ability
Okay, how do they do that? By wishing really hard?
>If you want to give them a concession then they have one month to arrange a new election and try to win that again.
This is what they do in Europe already. “Whoops, no one got a majority; we’re just going to re-run the thing and force you to keep voting until we get the outcome we want!”
>I think there'd be good sense in limiting campaigning to a single month anyways.
That makes sense from the get-go, not just in the second runoff. But, uh… how are you going to do the limiting?
>We have a right to a speedy trial
Well, no. A piece of paper says that, but we keep inmates on death row on the white taxpayer’s dime until they die of old age. And *before* the trial? ***[IT HAS BEEN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed)
>If they waste $2B putting two shitheel candidates up, that's on them, and they will suffer for it.
By raising our taxes to pay for it.
>Instead of intentionally creating the least worst losing team they'd have no choice but to create a winning one.
Like in Europe, where anyone who wants to obey the law and serve the people is ganged up on by every other party, which set aside their “differences” merely so that they don’t get to be in the second run-off election!
>It's either a conspiracy against you personally or it's just obvious to most people by default.
Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
>Unless, you know, you like organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively though some leadership mechanism, I don't see how this works in practice.
I don’t see how voting works in practice. I think we should organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively instead.
>Your reasoning on this is apparent but, in light of this, it seems either incomplete or circular.
In light of what, the fact that voting doesn’t exist and everything I’ve said gets proven right?
> The recognized solution cannot be fabian attrition tactics.
I was thinking more “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you, you win by default and eventually they run out of lackeys.
> That’s every state. It requires guns to do. Pieces of paper can’t do it.
You should really study state law a little more. What I'm literally telling you is pieces of paper _can_. It's actually baked into the state constitution that you can referendum new law into it entirely bypassing the legislature.
> By raising our taxes to pay for it.
You can't spend tax money on campaigns.
> Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
Okay, you're just too black pilled to have an actual conversation with, so once again I have to wonder why you even waste your breath.
Or are you the paid shill? Paid to generate despair and to push people away from actual working solutions in favor of blind and hopeless violence?
> “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you
Hmmm... this _is_ exactly what that kind of shill would say. Selling the nigger level short sighted solution. This is all starting to become a bit clearer.
That’s every state. It requires guns to do. Pieces of paper can’t do it.
> I think you can when you have a two party majority. If the two parties collude, as they have, then it's a simple race to the bottom where you get most of the electorate to not participate.
But then what? So they don’t participate (that’s several recent elections already). And then… the people in power are supposed to just magically give up power? Why? Because the masses who didn’t care enough to vote are definitely going to… still do nothing to make them give up power?
>I think if you leave it open the consequences of an empty chair…
Ah, but *what* consequences?
>If the people could actually lock the entire body out by eliminating the ability
Okay, how do they do that? By wishing really hard?
>If you want to give them a concession then they have one month to arrange a new election and try to win that again.
This is what they do in Europe already. “Whoops, no one got a majority; we’re just going to re-run the thing and force you to keep voting until we get the outcome we want!”
>I think there'd be good sense in limiting campaigning to a single month anyways.
That makes sense from the get-go, not just in the second runoff. But, uh… how are you going to do the limiting?
>We have a right to a speedy trial
Well, no. A piece of paper says that, but we keep inmates on death row on the white taxpayer’s dime until they die of old age. And *before* the trial? ***[IT HAS BEEN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed)
>If they waste $2B putting two shitheel candidates up, that's on them, and they will suffer for it.
By raising our taxes to pay for it.
>Instead of intentionally creating the least worst losing team they'd have no choice but to create a winning one.
Like in Europe, where anyone who wants to obey the law and serve the people is ganged up on by every other party, which set aside their “differences” merely so that they don’t get to be in the second run-off election!
>It's either a conspiracy against you personally or it's just obvious to most people by default.
Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
>Unless, you know, you like organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively though some leadership mechanism, I don't see how this works in practice.
I don’t see how voting works in practice. I think we should organize a group of people into some kind of body and then act collectively instead.
>Your reasoning on this is apparent but, in light of this, it seems either incomplete or circular.
In light of what, the fact that voting doesn’t exist and everything I’ve said gets proven right?
> The recognized solution cannot be fabian attrition tactics.
I was thinking more “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you, you win by default and eventually they run out of lackeys.
You should really study state law a little more. What I'm literally telling you is pieces of paper _can_. It's actually baked into the state constitution that you can referendum new law into it entirely bypassing the legislature.
> By raising our taxes to pay for it.
You can't spend tax money on campaigns.
> Or it’s only paid shills that say it, since voting has demonstrably done nothing in the last 80 years.
Okay, you're just too black pilled to have an actual conversation with, so once again I have to wonder why you even waste your breath.
Or are you the paid shill? Paid to generate despair and to push people away from actual working solutions in favor of blind and hopeless violence?
> “shooting the people who try to arrest you for not breaking the law,” because as long as you get more than one of them before they get you
Hmmm... this _is_ exactly what that kind of shill would say. Selling the nigger level short sighted solution. This is all starting to become a bit clearer.
So it will magically fly up into the arid and decapitate anyone who violates the words on it? Amazing. Show me footage.
> You can't spend tax money on campaigns.
Why do I get the feeling that another piece of paper told you that.
> Okay, you're just too black pilled to have an actual conversation with
* “Prove your claim.”
* “NOOOOOOO MUH FEE FEES SAY SO THEREFORE IT TRUUUUUUUUE”
* “So there’s no proof of your claim, then.”
* “U BLACKPILL I WIN NOW”
Neat. Your magic spells don’t work anymore. No one cares about your leftist claptrap.
>Paid to generate despair
Thanks for admitting you have never read anything I wrote.
>and to push people away from actual working solutions
You haven’t posted one. Kill yourself, retard.
>in favor of blind and hopeless violence?
“OY VEY GOYIM YOU CAN’T KILL US BECAUSE THEN YOU WILL LOSE IF YOU KILL US YOU HAVE TO LET US KILL YOU BECAUSE THEN YOU WIN”
Paid shill confirmed. Blow your brains out. No one here will ever vote again.