"The voice of woman is filthy nakedness" ~ Talmud. Your
linger: Pharisaic Mishnah thinking :listen: has brought you another gospel (Ga 1:6).
Should voting be mandatory?
- Thread starter shagster01
- Start date
linger: Pharisaic Mishnah thinking :listen: has brought you another gospel (Ga 1:6).
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If Eve never existed, Adam would have never made the mistake- he made it because he was a fool for Eve.
Eve remained silent, as to omit her guilt and leave Adam with the explaining- God made him accountable because he fell for Eve over His will.
But you don't acknowledge women's nature there, you dump the blame on Adam. You don't acknowledge why man is to be the head of women, you just say Adam reaps what he sows with rebellious females.
Your justification through that means to be by definition wicked. Mary was a vessel for Christ, not the redeemer- unless of course you're all of a sudden Catholic now, which I wouldn't be surprised because you all will throw anything under the bus for your dumb, reprobate, feminist nonsense even if Catholicism doesn't agree with your bias.
That's the insanity with yall- intellectual harlotry bouncing from one thing to whatever will defend your Jezebel inclinations
Serpentdove has been selling the idea that women are equal and saved man, and you all lap it up like a bunch of worldly idiots by cherry picked verses virtually theologians see otherwise.
Just drop your Bibles, dye your hair, and go protest something. Stop pretending to be Christian women :wave2:
Doesn't exactly say much for Adam one way or the other then does it?
:yawn:
Jesus didn't find one single woman to lead in his ministry, which was a radically liberal one in relevance to the Pharisees. The apostles never chose women to lead in ministry, and neither did those thereafter or those even after that.
Paul teaches that men are the head of women as God is the head of men- that is a heavy thing that you all take lightly at most, but usually as nothing. Instead, you sit here and try to point at Adam's sin to override Paul's teaching.
He even flat out literally justifies this with Eve having been deceived- and so when you join women like A4T or serpent dove, you are just feasting on that fruit
I don't need to defend what has been evident and practiced of Abrahamic belief for the past 3500 years- you all are categorically wrong and obnoxiously heretical by default :wave2:
Paul teaches that men are the head of women as God is the head of men- that is a heavy thing that you all take lightly at most, but usually as nothing. Instead, you sit here and try to point at Adam's sin to override Paul's teaching.
He even flat out literally justifies this with Eve having been deceived- and so when you join women like A4T or serpent dove, you are just feasting on that fruit
I don't need to defend what has been evident and practiced of Abrahamic belief for the past 3500 years- you all are categorically wrong and obnoxiously heretical by default :wave2:
Daniel1769
New member
Yes. Nothing says freedom like forcing people to do things.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
worth noting that half the population of america has an IQ less than 100
Daniel1769
New member
The sheep line up to vote for whichever two wolves they're told to. Voting isn't a virtue. Not voting would be much more effective than voting. The parties KNOW that their little voting blocks are pretty much guaranteed to show up no matter what choices they give you. For example, the so called "Evangelical vote" is going to the Republicans no matter who they nominate. They don't need to appease that voting block. This time they really showed it. They didn't even give you a nominee that claimed to be a good, conservative Christian. They don't need to deliver on restricting abortion. They don't need to deliver on anything that the voting block wants because they are going to vote anyway. If they just didn't show up to vote and let them get beaten badly in an election, they might decide to start delivering on the things that the voting block wants. That would be more effective than voting. Voting is just telling them that you're okay with what they're doing.
Tyrathca
New member
Maybe your country should do away with a solely two party system? Currently your system is biased against any new parties getting a foothold.
How? Not voting still ends up with people elected, the only difference being you didn't have a say about which out of a bad pair.
And if everyone voted the parties would not be able to rely on such small rusted voting blocks and be more at the mercy of the more numerous swinging voter.
Your problem isn't that people vote it is that they vote for the same person regardless of what they do or say. Convincing them not to vote at all is like trying to convince the sun not to rise, that voting pattern had already shown they're too stupid to reason with. The problem is really that it is easy to motivate an idiot not only to vote for you but to ALWAYS vote for you but it's much harder to motivate a smart person to vote at all.
All this would be solved by more people voting (all would be most efficient) and adjusting the system to allow minor parties to get a foothold and grow. That way if a party abandons a voting block they have to fear another party sweeping in and stealing them out from under them.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Daniel1769
New member
No, the problem isn't with who the options for president are. The problem is that people never question why we should have a dictator control 350 million people and police the rest of the world. I' not interested in voting for President. I don't care who the parties or nominees are. No one should be the dictator of this country.
Tyrathca
New member
Oh your the "it's all evil" type. She you tear down government with wishful thinking what system of government would you like to replace it?
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Since liberals have been whining about it as of late, It has drawn me to learn a lot about the Electoral College- and why it is so necessary- to the security of America's national interest.
'Mandatory voting' is not needed in a country which has such a mechanism in place- it is only necessary for countries that harp on about it. The Electoral College was crafted by the Founding Fathers to handicap 'tyranny of majority', and ultimately discourages ordinances on voting.
'Mandatory voting' is not needed in a country which has such a mechanism in place- it is only necessary for countries that harp on about it. The Electoral College was crafted by the Founding Fathers to handicap 'tyranny of majority', and ultimately discourages ordinances on voting.
Tyrathca
New member
The electoral college strikes me as a terrible mechanism. At best it is unreliable and at worst it is open to hide unrestricted corruption.
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
What nonsense. It's to prevent corruption- the Left became fanatical. If you win the popular vote and yet lose the electoral votes by such a monumental landslide, it means that you are not the best interest for the country- it means that you are only popular by dubious influence.
That is why it is put in place. America is not in the business of abandoning half it's people for rapid sensationalism. It addresses the child's play of deciding all by 1% margin- that's not really majority, it's a straight up divided country.
The founding Fathers considered many pitfalls of government- the only ones corrupted are you all for real, that's why you don't like it
musterion
Well-known member
Keep the current situation exactly the same except for switching the roles of Trump and Clinton. You would be saying the Electoral College is the greatest invention in history.
Tyrathca
New member
Ah no I wouldn't. I've thought the electoral college was a bad idea for a long time, before Trump was anything other than a rich businessman with a TV show.
The balance of votes is based on archaic politics that became obsolete during your civil war, the winner takes all approach to (most) states horribly unbalanced the value voters particularly in populous states and creates a concept that simply should not exist in my opinion ("safe" states which comprise very large populations), furthermore the idea that despite who voters pick on the ballot they are actually picking some faceless unnamed and unaccountable man picked by nepotism who can theoretically choose NOT to vote for who the voter picked on the ballot.
I wonder what you would think about the electoral college if they defy voters and decide to not pick Trump? Would that opinion if the situation were reversed and instead Clinton had won the election?
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
Tyrathca
New member
Oh that aspect I understand though the way it does it I think fails in part of its intent to balance regions. However the corruption I was talking of is that the electors could theoretically say "screw you voters" and pick someone other than was on the winning ballot and there would be no repercussions for them and nothing anyone could do.What nonsense. It's to prevent corruption- the Left became fanatical. If you win the popular vote and yet lose the electoral votes by such a monumental landslide, it means that you are not the best interest for the country- it means that you are only popular by dubious influence.
That is why it is put in place. America is not in the business of abandoning half it's people for rapid sensationalism. It addresses the child's play of deciding all by 1% margin- that's not really majority, it's a straight up divided country.
The founding Fathers considered many pitfalls of government- the only ones corrupted are you all for real, that's why you don't like it
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
Not really, if one recognizes that the people who make up the EC are anything but like minded or neutral people. They all comprise of people from different ends of the political spectrum, who were chosen by people we vote for.
musterion
Well-known member
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Someone from another nation might ask you the same thing.
These are at the top of your current thread list. I'm sure there's lots more.
- Dutch Muslim pol calls for ban on dogs
Started by musterion, March 7th, 2015 08:06 AM 1234567...12 - Socialist utopia of Venezuela
Started by musterion, December 16th, 2016 06:13 AM - 1,000 Mohammedans march in London, shut down traffic, demand caliphate
Started by musterion, December 15th, 2016 04:06 PM
So if you were consistent, I'm sure you'd be interested in a view from outside the country looking in.