UJRefugees.net

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 6:02 pm have we really missed his posting?

stonedmegman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 5:48 pm <blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="" data-video-id="7597208344847273228" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@pov_fromarctic" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@pov_fromarctic? ... marctic</a> Greenland x USA <a title="usa" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/usa?refer=embed">#usa</a> <a title="greenland" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/greenland?re ... eenland</a> <a title="culture" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/culture?refe ... culture</a> <a title="fyp" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/fyp?refer=embed">#fyp</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater Revival" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/Fortunate- ... r=embed">♬ Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater Revival</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>

Homebrew wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 7:39 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 6:02 pm have we really missed his posting?

Give him a break, he was probably three edibles deep when he posted that.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 5:08 pm man that really pissed me off hearing Newsome coaching the EU leaders to stand up to Trump, etc. Its one thing to disagree, but its an entirely different ballgame when you attempt tactics that can hurt the country in the process. I'm reminded of that scene in Godfather when Sonny speaks up during the meeting with Sollozo and the Godfather shuts him up and later apologizes for his son speaking. After the meeting Godfather tells him to never reveal family business and letting him know that no one outside the family can know any division within the family.

Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:23 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 5:08 pm man that really pissed me off hearing Newsome coaching the EU leaders to stand up to Trump, etc. Its one thing to disagree, but its an entirely different ballgame when you attempt tactics that can hurt the country in the process. I'm reminded of that scene in Godfather when Sonny speaks up during the meeting with Sollozo and the Godfather shuts him up and later apologizes for his son speaking. After the meeting Godfather tells him to never reveal family business and letting him know that no one outside the family can know any division within the family.

You mean, like tariffs?

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:13 pm

Homebrew wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 7:39 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 6:02 pm have we really missed his posting?

Give him a break, he was probably three edibles deep when he posted that.

i checked the logs. he edited that post 3 times and that was the end result.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:27 pm

Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:23 pm

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 5:08 pm man that really pissed me off hearing Newsome coaching the EU leaders to stand up to Trump, etc. Its one thing to disagree, but its an entirely different ballgame when you attempt tactics that can hurt the country in the process. I'm reminded of that scene in Godfather when Sonny speaks up during the meeting with Sollozo and the Godfather shuts him up and later apologizes for his son speaking. After the meeting Godfather tells him to never reveal family business and letting him know that no one outside the family can know any division within the family.

You mean, like tariffs?

yeah, actually. but my beef with tariffs wouldn't lead me to try to get other countries to retaliate against ours.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:27 amA useful chart

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 5:22 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:27 amA useful chart

And I haven't forgotten that a fair number on this board work at being constitutional originalists about voting, who feel that voting should only be extended to the population that could vote when the US Constitution was signed. Let's see: that was rich, white male property owners. No one else got to vote, or it was made unaccountably difficult.

Animal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 21, 2026 6:02 pm have we really missed his posting?

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 10:58 pm

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 5:22 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:27 amA useful chart

And I haven't forgotten that a fair number on this board work at being constitutional originalists about voting, who feel that voting should only be extended to the population that could vote when the US Constitution was signed. Let's see: that was rich, white male property owners. No one else got to vote, or it was made unaccountably difficult.

Count me as one of them. If you dont own anything, dont contribute to society, then what stake do you have in the outcome of elections? Voting for a living shouldnt be a thing

Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 23, 2026 3:46 am

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 10:58 pm

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 5:22 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:27 amA useful chart

And I haven't forgotten that a fair number on this board work at being constitutional originalists about voting, who feel that voting should only be extended to the population that could vote when the US Constitution was signed. Let's see: that was rich, white male property owners. No one else got to vote, or it was made unaccountably difficult.

Count me as one of them. If you dont own anything, dont contribute to society, then what stake do you have in the outcome of elections? Voting for a living shouldnt be a thing

Does everything politians have power over have to do with owning something? Why would it matter for their elections?
We know you are a retired housemom ( with a dick) with tons of assets.

Why does that make you more important than an 18 year old that was raised by drug addicted parents?

Be specific...

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 10:58 pm Count me as one of them. If you dont own anything, dont contribute to society, then what stake do you have in the outcome of elections? Voting for a living shouldnt be a thing

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:32 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 10:58 pm Count me as one of them. If you dont own anything, dont contribute to society, then what stake do you have in the outcome of elections? Voting for a living shouldnt be a thing

What exactly do you mean by property ownership, then, this "skin in the game"? Some single piece of property somewhere? Does it need to have a structure on it? A usable structure? Developed or raw property? Can there be multiple owners, and does each owner on the deed now get a vote? How about property owned by a trust or receivership? How much property? An acre, a half acre, a postage stamp sized piece? How about a property bank with many owners of tiny little pieces just to claim the right to vote? Investment property? Will a private condo qualify? Does property owned by a corporate entity entitle it to a vote, if even just local? [Barring Citizens United like cases] Property ownership gives a right to vote in all electoral levels, or just a lower or higher level?

And why does a stake in property equal a vote? There were up to the VRA of '65 a number of kinds of American citizens who owned property who weren't given the right to vote, or who had various mechanisms in place to prevent them from voting. How does property ownership amount to contributing to society? By how much?

When this topic came up at the old UJ/Pol, I asked these questions and others, and not one single time did I ever get an answer to anything. I imagine it's just an open subject to folks who take such a general position, but have never considered all the ramifications of trying to tie the right to vote on property ownership in a more modern conception, at least in that it might not disenfranchise the "wrong" people.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 25, 2026 2:31 am

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:32 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 22, 2026 10:58 pm Count me as one of them. If you dont own anything, dont contribute to society, then what stake do you have in the outcome of elections? Voting for a living shouldnt be a thing

What exactly do you mean by property ownership, then, this "skin in the game"? Some single piece of property somewhere? Does it need to have a structure on it? A usable structure? Developed or raw property? Can there be multiple owners, and does each owner on the deed now get a vote? How about property owned by a trust or receivership? How much property? An acre, a half acre, a postage stamp sized piece? How about a property bank with many owners of tiny little pieces just to claim the right to vote? Investment property? Will a private condo qualify? Does property owned by a corporate entity entitle it to a vote, if even just local? [Barring Citizens United like cases] Property ownership gives a right to vote in all electoral levels, or just a lower or higher level?

And why does a stake in property equal a vote? There were up to the VRA of '65 a number of kinds of American citizens who owned property who weren't given the right to vote, or who had various mechanisms in place to prevent them from voting. How does property ownership amount to contributing to society? By how much?

When this topic came up at the old UJ/Pol, I asked these questions and others, and not one single time did I ever get an answer to anything. I imagine it's just an open subject to folks who take such a general position, but have never considered all the ramifications of trying to tie the right to vote on property ownership in a more modern conception, at least in that it might not disenfranchise the "wrong" people.

Not sure why you are being overbearingly nitpicky...

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 25, 2026 2:31 am

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:32 pm When this topic came up at the old UJ/Pol, I asked these questions and others, and not one single time did I ever get an answer to anything. I imagine it's just an open subject to folks who take such a general position, but have never considered all the ramifications of trying to tie the right to vote on property ownership in a more modern conception, at least in that it might not disenfranchise the "wrong" people.

Not sure why you are being overbearingly nitpicky...

Iirc, under the original system you had to "own land", and with that you got two things: the obligation to pay property taxes and vote.

If this were to be implemented today, I imagine the same rules would apply... if you own land, no matter the size, which ever jurisdictions that tax goes to you have a say in the outcome of that spending via your vote.

Now that said, within your long list of what-ifs there is one that needs to be addressed: Legal fiction should never get to vote, but unless lobbing was outlawed on the same day the an 'originalist' tax-vote plan was implemented, they too would get a vote. Which would be bullshit.

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 25, 2026 7:28 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sun Jan 25, 2026 2:31 am

QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:32 pm When this topic came up at the old UJ/Pol, I asked these questions and others, and not one single time did I ever get an answer to anything. I imagine it's just an open subject to folks who take such a general position, but have never considered all the ramifications of trying to tie the right to vote on property ownership in a more modern conception, at least in that it might not disenfranchise the "wrong" people.

Not sure why you are being overbearingly nitpicky...

Iirc, under the original system you had to "own land", and with that you got two things: the obligation to pay property taxes and vote.

If this were to be implemented today, I imagine the same rules would apply... if you own land, no matter the size, which ever jurisdictions that tax goes to you have a say in the outcome of that spending via your vote.

Now that said, within your long list of what-ifs there is one that needs to be addressed: Legal fiction should never get to vote, but unless lobbing was outlawed on the same day the an 'originalist' tax-vote plan was implemented, they too would get a vote. Which would be bullshit.

Sure it's being nit-picky. It's why we have so many damn lawyers who run all levels of government, or directly influence those who do run it. But the basic question is, are we the same country we were 250 years ago. That's a quarter of a millennium, no tiny chunk of human time. A lot has changed not only in our country but around the world. We are no longer the essentially agrarian society we were when the founding fathers signed the US Constitution. We don't have a lot of the simplistic arrangements in our life, society, and the government we had then. So why would you think it would be so simple, without nitpicks? The nitpicks are there because there is no simple solution to any legal and governmental aspect of our body of law. There is always some kind of "but what about...?" that gets nitpicked before laws and regulations are put into place. Lawyers look them over, make changes, then have to make more changes as they are put into action. It's why we're supposed to have a viable court system to help review such legislation in light of the founding documents; sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't.

I like the idea of a voter's land bank, as I own several acres of empty land around my neighborhood, and I pay not an insignificant amount of county property tax for them. Want to vote? I can sell you a one-foot by one-foot parcel in one of those plots, make you legal half owner of that plot, with the legal stipulation that you cannot sell or subdivide it in any way [nit-picky!]. And you have to assist with the cost on the yearly ad-valorem [nit-picky!] One acre is 43560 ft², so that means I can make 43560 people of any kind of non-property owning status a voter, if they pay the price I ask. One acre I own is valued at $250K, and I paid $2K in property tax last year on it, not including non ad-valorem taxes and fees. And of course I have to profit off this scheme, and if I'm a heartless capitalist I can squeeze this way past what the basic numbers crunch up to. Win-Win!, and a bunch of new voters have their card for the polling station!

This is all assuming that the law-makers, lawyer or not, allow for such a scheme [nit-picky!], or regulates it without gutting the profit motive out of the scheme [nit-picky!].