National Review Comes Out Against Democracy Explicitly

[Muzjhath]

If you aren't old enough to fight to defend your country, you shouldn't have the right to vote. Honestly, 18 is a fine age for people to start voting.

If you aren't old enough to drink alcohol you shouldn't be old enough to fight to defend your country in an organized manner. Don't put military, or potential military, service as any thing other than an hirarchical bullshit shtick.

[Krakan]

It seems like a lost cause to push this when non citizens are able to vote isn't it?

I'm unsure of how I feel. I can get that a democracy needs an educated populace in order to function but the old metric of land ownership might not be practical. I would say make it so you need valid identification to vote before pushing for more.

[Howel]

It seems like a lost cause to push this when non citizens are able to vote isn't it?

They'd follow the same rules, and likely not at all have any in the group they made viable to vote, so it should actually be the cause to strive for, for you.

[Sunseeker]

Jesus this thread.

[Lenonis]

What cracks me up is that if the right wing truly succeeded in getting non educated people who are easily swayed by rhetoric and misinformation to sit out voting they'd never win another election.

And no surprise our resident right wing posters are just full on embracing stripping the constitutional right to vote from others they deem lesser. Thanks for proving us all right. *highfive*

[minteK917]

Well. We are a republic, not a democracy. If registering to vote is too difficult, you don't deserve the right to vote. If you can't even register to vote, how are you going to understand the complexity of policy?

Republic has nothing to do with the electoral system lmao. Do you vote to elect officials, yes, then its democracy. It doesent matter how you cut the vote, eligible people voting for leadership is the definition of democracy. You could make a law where only people with one testicle and 4 toes can vote, it would still be a democratic election. Because the opposite of democratic election, is no democratic elections at all. Which brings me to the mistake of people here to begin with. No the National Review is not anti democratic, its anti representation. The pre-requisite of democracy is not how representative it is, its that people are elected by a body that is viewed as eligible. Now if you want a nicer place to live, you want that eligible group to also be representative. Then again some of them would prefer no elections altogether, as shown in this very thread, then yes those people are in fact anti democratic.

[Paranoid Android]

I guess as we were suppose to have respect the Republican Party back in the day, then the National Review was too I guess.

Through the Trump years, the National Review embraced fascism, bigotry and nationalism as any extremist.

So all I have to comment is 'Bleep them'. They (the NR) should not be given oxygen. Not talking about the threaf, more of the public at large.

[Jastall]

Jesus this thread.

Seriously now, it's like a kitchen sink of "what category of lesser beings shouldn't be allowed to vote, per poster X". Really going balls-out here.

It's still a bit funny that some right-wing thinkers want to weed out low-education and low-information voters when they form the core of the Republican's base. Either they didn't think this through or they know that sort of nonsense won't happen.

[Howel]

Seriously now, it's like a kitchen sink of "what category of lesser beings shouldn't be allowed to vote, per poster X". Really going balls-out here.

It's still a bit funny that some right-wing thinkers want to weed out low-education and low-information voters when they form the core of the Republican's base. Either they didn't think this through or they know that sort of nonsense won't happen.

It is sort the same pipe dream that if we split the working and entrepreneurial forces along party lines, it'd all be glorious right wingers leading a utopian libertarian paradise, and leftists would lead a hellish 100 % unemployed nightmare. Reality of course is that there is not really any noticeable difference in unemployment, low employment, income level etc. between the two, nor are entrepreneurs really hard leaners, albeit it is a bit more to the right, but not to the extend it would mean much.

It is the weird belief that if you vote a certain way, it means that you are a faithful believer and practitioner of its core tenets, to perfection; when reality as noted above is neglectable to the point of being almost no difference.

[Machismo]

Well. We are a republic, not a democracy. If registering to vote is too difficult, you don't deserve the right to vote. If you can't even register to vote, how are you going to understand the complexity of policy?

Hey, remember that time you claimed to be a libertarian?

I have some bad news for you, sport.

[Glorious Leader]

Nothing really new here to be honest. Hoppe had been calling for a return to monarchy like 2 decades ago.

[Blur4stuff]

Wind the clock back decades and these are the exact same people that would be arguing against the civil rights act, allowing women to vote, freeing the slaves, etc... Only now they have shows on FOX or youtube channels.

[Masark]

Do you have free elections, where citizens get to vote for representatives?

I'm pretty sure the actual answer to that question is "no".

[pathora44]

Wind the clock back decades and these are the exact same people that would be arguing against the civil rights act, allowing women to vote, freeing the slaves, etc... Only now they have shows on FOX or youtube channels.

For as much as they cry from the rooftops how much they love freedom and America, I can guarantee if they were back during the Revolutionary War they would be Tories calling the revolutionaries criminals and traitors to the crown. They would be calling for the heads of the Founding Fathers but in these days they wrap themselves in the U.S. flag while shitting over everything it supposedly stands for.

[unfilteredJW]

No problem, I'm a supporter of the other kind of Republicanism. Aristocracy. In a modern context that means something slightly different from what it did historically, of course. Academics, businessmen, financially successful people, the upper classes should be calling the shots, everybody else should be ruled, not rule.

Democracy is the rule of the fools, it's painfully obvious in modern American society. That's how you got Trump elected, after all.

Making it so you can’t vote is a weird flex.

[pathora44]

Making it so you can’t vote is a weird flex.

If rich sempai sees how much they like the boot maybe they will give them more.

[Milchshake]

Well the National Review has always been awful, has always made mealy mouth defense of segregation.

Also Kevin Williamson has always been an awful misogynist and segregationist.


Remember this thread? The sliming of Kevin Williamson

All those people spending pages in defense of Kevin Williamson and "proper debate". Ya'll really told on yourselves.


Good thing that thread is ancient history ..... aww fuck. Can people really change in 2 years?


Kevin Williamson clearly hasn't.

[Edge-]

Well the National Review has always been awful, has always made mealy mouth defense of segregation.

Also Kevin Williamson has always been an awful misogynist and segregationist.


Remember this thread? The sliming of Kevin Williamson

All those people spending pages in defense of Kevin Williamson and "proper debate". Ya'll really told on yourselves.


Good thing that thread is ancient history ..... aww fuck. Can people really change in 2 years?


Kevin Williamson clearly hasn't.

He's still sorry that you misinterpreted his desire to lock women up for life, or have them put to death, for having an abortion. Why can't you just listen and read what Williamson says/writes and stop injecting your judgement upon it? SO WHAT IF HE WANTS NEARLY ONE MILLION WOMEN A YEAR UP FOR LIFE, DIDN'T YOU HEAR TOM COTTON SAY WE HAVE AN UNDER-INCARCERATION PROBLEM!?

Seriously, it's astounding to see just how quickly previously "respectable" conservative outlets went full on brain worms and rot.

[downnola]

Well the National Review has always been awful, has always made mealy mouth defense of segregation.

Also Kevin Williamson has always been an awful misogynist and segregationist.


Remember this thread? The sliming of Kevin Williamson

All those people spending pages in defense of Kevin Williamson and "proper debate". Ya'll really told on yourselves.


Good thing that thread is ancient history ..... aww fuck. Can people really change in 2 years?


Kevin Williamson clearly hasn't.

That thread is embarrassingly cringe when I go back and read it. You can actually see me go "wait, am I the baddie?" in real time.