Well that doesn’t make any sense either. I can buy 5 acres within 1 mile of where I live for less than $100,000 so I still wouldn’t qualify under your arbitrary rules. On the other hand one can’t buy an acre in Malibu for less than $20M so once again you definition of tangible is a moving target. Try again.

Abrignac wrote:

Don't take a job doing mind reading and please, read my post again, with highlight and bold added:




Property is anything (items or attributes/tangible or intangible) that can be owned by a person or entity. Property is the most complete right to something; the owner can possess, use, transfer or dispose of it.

I can conclude from your post that voters should only come from military vets and LEOs.

Gene363 wrote:

I made a stupid post that showed I put little thought into the reality of what I said, then I got called on it and was unable to make sense of it so I punted.

Gene363 wrote:

Never said that about service members or LEO’s. I was just pointing out the fact that you would withhold the right to vote from a servicemen or LEO who pledged to give his life in defense of his country if he didn’t own what you deem a qualifying piece of property. Personally I think that’s a shitty character flaw for someone to feel that way but once again that’s just my opinion.

Abrignac wrote:

FIFY

Abrignac wrote:

Personally I think that’s a shitty character flaw for someone to feel that way but once again that’s just my opinion.

I didn't fuck up anything, you just didn't like my idea.

As it would need to be a Constitutional amendment, that would need to be determined, probably something north of $100k OTOH, the democrats will probably want an possession of EBT card or what ever an illegal carries across the border, which ever is less.

Gene363 wrote:

That would concentrate electoral rights and power to less than 50% of the population.

rfenst wrote:

You brought it up, not me, by doing so you imply that service members or LEO’s. have more of a right than others, it's really a simple deduction from your post.

Gene363 wrote:

Probably.


Found this interesting....


The U.S. Presidents who have signed the most executive orders are:

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3,721 executive orders
Woodrow Wilson - 1,803 executive orders
Calvin Coolidge - 1,203 executive orders
Theodore Roosevelt - 1,081 executive orders
Herbert Hoover - 968 executive orders

8trackdisco wrote:

And that would be a bad thing? [sarcasm]

Gene363 wrote:

plu·toc·ra·cy/plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/

noun

Government by the wealthy.

"the attack on the Bank of England was a gesture against the very symbol of plutocracy"
a country or society governed by the wealthy.
plural noun: plutocracies

"no one can accept public policies which turn a democracy into a plutocracy"
an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
"officials were drawn from the new plutocracy"

Oxford languages

rfenst wrote:

To wit: The Federal Reserve Bank.

Gene363 wrote:

Are you sure you want to go down the path of personal attacks? I’m happy that I’m nothing like but I seriously doubt you want me bringing it up.

Abrignac wrote:

So CNN has tapped Jake Tapper, Mr. Russiagate, as one of the moderators. This should be interesting.

If Tapper’s past behavior is any indication of the future he’ll come out with both barrels firing against Trump and give Biden a pass.

Abrignac wrote:

How about we all get back to the topic of this thread?
I love the irony that we have been arguing in a thread about a debate that hasn't even occurred yet! LOL.

rfenst wrote:

STFU

DrMaddVibe wrote:

A bunch of damned paper waving Yankees 😝

[sarcasm]

jeebling wrote:

Sure tough guy. But remember I’m not a women. So pack a lunch.

Abrignac wrote: