This is a thread dedicated to: - Mending the problems of American Republic - Appreciating and spreading the ideas of the founders - Discourse on the constitution and its intrinsic value to the US - Dispelling myths about the American system (i.e. "Dur Hurr Electorial College is for uneducated populations!") - Helping Americans better understand the founders amazing vision and helping non-Americans learn to implement it into their own Sources: >Constitution: archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Opinion: Only people who own land should be allowed to vote on State Representatives.
Debate.
Landon Rivera
If you had to delete any part of the constitution, what would it be?
Sebastian Miller
Expel the marxists Revere the founders
Josiah Bennett
No. Legal citizens have a right to vote. We should put restrictions on what kind of laws the federal government can pass, though. Most laws should be handled on a more local level. If retards want retarded laws, that's fine, but they should keep it where they live, and not force it down everyone else's throats.
Gavin Phillips
16th amendment
Isaiah Lewis
Tories did nothing wrong
Nathan Thomas
Surely though it's necessary for maintaining a strong state which can support American interests globally.
Ryder Gutierrez
Meant for
Nolan White
Wrong. The Rothschild FED and the 16th Amendment were created for each other. Taxation is theft.
Isaac Bailey
KILL ALL THE KIKES AND THEN WE CAN TALK!!!
Christian Young
Too limiting and removes all lower socioeconomic working people who live in apartments. Legal Citizenship is the law for a reason so that land accumulation and domestic servitude does not tip the power too much towards the wealth or terrain advantageous individuals.
God Bless America.
An interesting notion. The income tax is an aggitating notion to individual liberty, but it does help to accommodate matters of the state with the expansion of the American Empire. As to whether it is wholly necessary or revisable to a more conducive or less compelled version would be interesting.
Too right. But there is grounds for some funding of our Country's military muscle.
1776 >1488. Fuck off son of Germany, your nihilistic or frankfurt school of thought and influence is not welcome here.
Jonathan King
...
Hunter Allen
TFW when you'd rather be laughed and as an American than be from any other shithole country. (All other countries are shitholes)
James Rogers
You have nothing on me nigger. I will hang you pedo kikes from the rafters.
Christopher Brown
>No parliament jacking your shit with 33% of the vote >No EU forcing 90 levels of bureaucracy on your toothpaste exchange or forcing immigration reform on you outside your country's autonomy >Rights given to you by your creator and not the government, eternally upheld and shall not be infringed >GOD, GUTS, GUNS, GLORY Better to spend a day as an American than a lifetime in the marxist lie of everywhere else
You have the right to your opinion friend, but I would advise you not advocate for ideologies or leaders who's fringe ideas run counter to the enlightened and noble intentions of the founders dream for our republic.
Brandon Lopez
>No. Legal citizens have a right to vote.
Absolutely not. The founders and drafters of the constitution never intended for the majority of the population to be able to vote. Democracy is destructive and universal suffrage is far-left egalitarian radicalism. No society can survive women voting.
Nathan Robinson
I do no consent to be ruled by pedophiles and psychopaths. I reserve all rights and represent myself before God.
Carter Turner
Bump
Ryder Gutierrez
>You have the right to your opinion friend, but I would advise you not advocate for ideologies or leaders who's fringe ideas run counter to the enlightened and noble intentions of the founders dream for our republic.
It is worth mentioning that the founders of the US were far more ethnonationalists and less egalitarian than National Socialist Germany. There were numerous non-white citizens of Germany, whereas none were eligible for American citizenship in the laws established by the founders. And the national socialists, although they didn't believe all people were equal, did promote a view that all GERMANS were equal, whereas the US heavily restricted political power only to elite classes, intending to form an aristocratic republic.
Elijah Lopez
The United States of America must maintain his spread of hegemonic power to dominate the revisionist powers - Russia and China.
We must have absolute military dominance and, at all time, be prepared to eradicate enemies with the most sophisticated of weaponry.
We will exterminate all foes. AMERICA FIRST!
Dylan Gray
Reminder that the founders of the US made it illegal for any non-white people to become citizens. It wasn't until 1952 that race stopped being a legal factor in immigration/naturalization, and it wasn't until 1965 that policies which heavily restricted any non-white immigration were replaced.
"our real Disease ... is Democracy, the poison of which by a subdivision will only be the more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent."
"true liberty is not found in the extremes of Democracy"
-Alexander Hamilton
If you believe in universal suffrage, you are un-American.
Blake Miller
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"
-Thomas Jefferson
Austin Foster
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"
-Benjamin Franklin
Nathaniel Murphy
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
-John Adams
Robert Baker
hence why we are not a direct democracy. We have a bicameral legislature for our representation in whom we vote for and use the electoral college to help acclimate against mob rule in the factor of executive elections.
Federalist papers outline this fairly clear. All legal citizens are to vote. Civic egalitarianism is a strong notion put forward in the constitution, however actually compensating for competence in the factor of suffrage is an nigh-insurmountable challenge. While a handful of women are not competent to vote, so would be a cut of uninformed and ignorant men as well. Therefore the notion of public discourse, debate, and free speech are the only viable ways to curb notion fairly without throwing the competent but unaverage individual under the bus. You paint in broad strokes and plaster your jewish obsession as higher than upholding the values of the founders. While the international banking cabal you speak of is quite the formidable foe and possibly even a challenge to those founding ideas, we can not forgo the ideas and compromise the constitution or its implications for the sake of shortcutting to the quick victory you seek.
There were freemen, French, and Spaniards all given citizenship on the state level in the infancy of the republic, and issues as such were delegated to the state level. But the original designation that the founders put of "white landowning men" was a 2 pronged action to satiation the South's economy for the sanctity of the union (something many founders regretted but saw as a necessary evil) and also to continue the notion of segregated economic and slave casts to keep Bacon's Rebellion from happening again in a number of locations where slaves could outnumber, so serfs and white slaves just were converted into poor white with autonomy to keep the balance of power.
Many people who hold the isolationist policies of our founders would disagree with you.
Nolan Howard
>All legal citizens are to vote
If you believe this, have the dignity to come up with a fitting name for your far-left egalitarian radicalism. Don't you dare claim to be representing the "intrinsic values of America", you subversive little rat.
>There were freemen, French, and Spaniards all given citizen
The original 1790 immigration and naturalization law, passed by the very first congress, spells out the vision for this country held by the founders and men who bled to create it in plain language: applying for citizenship was 100% limited only to "free white persons of good character". Freemen were already in the country, and thus didn't need to immigrate, but they certainly did not receive rights of full citizens. Frenchmen and Spaniards are white Europeans; immigration laws promoted Northern European immigration for generations and did often have quotas restricting southern and eastern immigration, but there was no point that these people were barred from citizenship.
You don't believe in traditional American values. You believe in a post 1965 multiculturalist, egalitarian revision of Americanism. You aren't promoting Americanism; you're dressing up in a coat made of its flayed, bloody skin.
Wyatt Davis
Hey Jew. Kill yourself.
Kevin Gomez
The roman empire lasted 800 years, we're unlikely to make it 400 the way were going. Victims of our own success perhaps??
Anthony Long
>Getting this triggered that the other user is telling the truth Fuck you
Jordan Mitchell
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Brody Miller
The constitution says nothing about being White.
Wyatt Williams
>ignoring supplementary material and context surrounding the creation of the constitution like the federalist papers. FUCK. YOU.
Jayden Rodriguez
Stop being Jewish.
Colton Powell
>everything I don't agree with is jewish >I will accuse you of being Jewish while I advocate for full egalitarian democracy sage this shit thread
James Lewis
>I can't make this about identitfy politics so that means everyone needs to abandon this thread. You're a sad, sad fool.
Ethan Robinson
I didn't mention the constitution. But now that you've brought it up, the constitution said that black people were farm equipment worth 3/5ths of a person.
When the US was created, only landowning white males could vote. air wasn't until 1828 that the property-owning requirement was dropped- and even after that, only white makes could vote.
Here is a link to the original 1790 immigration and naturalization law, passed by the very first congress under George Washington. No non-white people were allowed to apply for citizenship. It's not long, you can read it yourself.
I know you didn't bring up the constitution. That's because the constitution shits all over your Jewish talking point.
Camden Wood
>unironic civic nationalism Go back to plebbit, or spend more time lurking
Daniel Smith
See. You're proving that you're a Jew. Do you understand that you will never be able to convince people to not be American Nationalists? Do you realize that your race baiting bullshit is the epitome of jewish subversion and everyone knows it?
Jacob Russell
I am an American Nationalist, what you're selling is not American Nationalism.
Nicholas Lopez
You're a Jew making everything about race. You know why? Because if people weren't constantly thinking about race, then being a Jew wouldn't mean anything. Without everyone constantly arguing over racial bullshit Jews wouldn't be able to claim their chosen race title. It's all to maintain the jewish identity.
Fuck off.
Michael James
Are you suggesting that the majority of Jewish elites oppose multiculturalism in traditionally white nations, and want homogenous, nationalistic white nations?
What a strange thing to say.
>indentity politics
I have a question for you:
The United Arab Emirates, home to Dubai, has no politics. At least, not for 99.999% of the population- the Emir and his royal family rule the country by royal fiat. It is an absolute monarchy with no political participation.
The UAE has a citizenry that is almost completely homogenously Arab (similar to the US citizenry which was 99% white when the country was founded, and remained 90% white until the 1965 immigration act).
Imagine that you walked up to an Arab man on the street in the UAE and told him that starting tomorrow, you would begin the mass importation of Africans, Mestizos, Europeans, and Asians so that in 50 years, ethnically Arab people would be a minority in the United Arab Emirates.
Imagine he listened to you and responded, "no thanks."
What would you call that? Is it "indentity politics"? Remember, this is an absolute monarchy- there are no politics.
Is it possible that there can be a desire to not see your people turned into a minority in their own homeland which goes above politics?
Landon Parker
>subversive little rat I am simply stating that their notions were egalitarian to all men, and of the time period it was rare by both culture and circumstance for a woman to be seen as competent and therefore viable and trustworthy of being capable of voting. And while there are grounds to which I understand where you are coming from on the matter of the bell curve for competence it doesn't mean you can make blanket statements when a good number of women can break the average and are competent, and would therefore be seen as viable for the vote by the changes that the founders left open in the option for ratification.
>1790 immigration and naturalization law Again, much of which was based on placating to the South's economy for compromise (see Jefferson and Madison's post constitutional convention writing), on the need to keep their population for being overrun or subverted with incompatible cultures (back there even the lines between spanish and English culture were seen through their eyes as wide gaps) and finally to reinforce the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 that were reactionary to Bacon's Rebellion in reinforcing classist notions for the reinforcement of the slave economy that was a major compromise of the founders values for the sake of keeping the union together and wealthy.
>Freemen were already in the country, and thus didn't need to immigrate Who said anything about immigration? >but they certainly did not receive rights of full citizens Why? They were born citizens, followed the laws of their respective states in question (if they were in georgia they were instaslaved, but if they were in Maine they could own land as a man).
You are trying for broad federal notions on the entire nation based on compromised that left loopholes for economic necessities of the union.
Also no American or Brit of the time thought most French or any Spanish to be wholesome of their enlightenment cultures.
Dominic Wood
No, you fuck off Kike. What you want is something that is already too late to create; Maybe if America was 90% white it could still be possible, but that ship as sailed. As for you last point, kikes have always been kikes before anyone cared about race in the sense of today.
Now let me guess, you are going to project and call me a jew again?
Adam Powell
Who wrote the 1965 Immigrarion act which opened the floodgates for non-white immigration and reduced the US from 90% white to 58% white in 50 years?
Easton Reyes
>1965 Oh shit! That was right after JFK got assasinated and the zionists took over the USA.
IMAGINE MY SHOCK!!!!
Nolan Bennett
Listen- no one is saying you need to leave the country, even if we could somehow make the US 90% white again that would still leave room for tens of millions of people like yourself.
But you need to stop this ridiculousness. The US was the most racially conscious nation to ever exist- the first and only explicitly white nation in all of history. The constitution said that blacks were a form of property that counted as 3/5ths of a person. Only white men were allowed to vote. Zero non-white people were allowed to apply for citizenship.
Egalitarian multiculturalists may control pop culture, academia, even the government- but one thing they don't control is history, no matter how much certain people may attempt to "torture the text" in the Talmudic tradition. The US citizenry was over 99% white at founding, and even after the slaves were freed remained 90% white until 1965. All immigration laws prior to 1965 were explicitly put in place to preserve racial homogeneity.
If you can accept that, then welcome. But so long as you try to replace actual american history with this leftist, revisionist perversion that was created out of dust in the latter half of the 20th century, expect to be called out for the liar and manipulator that you are.
Ryder Reed
Redpill me about American culture outside of huge patriotism and Christianity
Adrian Russell
1776 get
Isaiah Brown
Fuck off with that Nazi inspired imagery
Alexander Long
>It is worth mentioning that the founders of the US were far more ethnonationalists and less egalitarian than National Socialist Germany.
Imagine being this stupid
Juan Nguyen
It's a simple and obvious fact. Germans allowed Reich citizenship for all "Aryans", which included much of the caucasian world, even some South Asians. The US founders only allowed white people to become citizens.
National Socialist Germany promotes a much more egalitarian view within Germany than the Monarchy had- after all, the leader of the country has been simply a low-ranking member of the army with no aristocratic background. Under fascism the nation was everything, and all members of the nation- whether laborers, wealthy industrialists, or those of noble birth- shared in that, and shared the same German blood. Compare to that the US, where a sizeable portion of the population was owned as farm equipment and political power was only allowed to a relatively small upper crust o society that were white male landowners.
Luke Davis
>"torture the text" in the Talmudic tradition I mean you could retort instead of calling me a Jew for just putting contention out there.
1787 it was stated that it was at the states discretion to choose who can and can not vote. Naturalization act didn't supercede that, similar to the marijuana debate today contesting between federal and state law as the mandate. hence the Free Blacks and Spanish in the North and Florida.
But nevertheless I will cede your point that the US had a euro-centric immigration and naturalization policy on the federal level until 1870. However I think it wrong to think that this puts forward that the euro-centric genetic makeup factor of the early policies were less a matter of circumstance and necessity (it 1700s, pretty much all non-european countries are academically inferior as not going through enlightenment, had much more radically incompatible cultures due to globalism not really existing outside of some empire overflow shit, and as always, the US only wanted the best of the best for the republic) and more best the founders thought one race was superior to another.
My intention in this thread is to focus on the core tenants and vision of the founders to keep the American Republic strong and forever safe in their values and intentions. Not to start race wars and jew hunts.
If we focus on the constitution, the strong (but weak) government foundation that the founders laid out for us, and their image for how our country should be and prosper, then we can regain those lost lectures and voices for the re-invigoration of the greatest country in the world.
Mason Rogers
I second this motion. Remove the FED and taxaition created to pay for the debt it creates. At least change the eighth power among other parts of the act passed by Woodrow Wilson and the 63rd Congress.
Only people who own land and have served in the military should be extended citizenship.
Owen White
What do you want to know?
Christopher Jones
I didn't call you a Jew, I said you tortured the text in the Talmudic tradition, which refers to a very specific practice and is a fitting and accurate description of your tactic.
>the US had a euro-centric immigration and naturalization policy on the federal level until 1870
Until 1965, actually. The 1924 immigration act largely governed policies until it was replaced by the later act- and that 1924 act specifically and explicitly states that its intention was to preserve the homogeneity of the US. It was not by accident that the US remained 90% white until 1965 (if not for the slave-descended population, it would have been 99% white). The concept of a racially pluralistic Americais brand new- there are cars on the road older than it.
It's also worth noting that the Coolidge administration ethnically cleansed many mestizos from the US in the 20s. Not only illegal immigrants- they forcefully deported full-on legal American citizen mestizos.
As for the progressive dogma- I am not a progressive, I do not believe society is wiser now than it was in the 18th century, and I don't ascribe to the tenants of the progressive narrative of history.
>My intention in this thread is to focus on the core tenants and vision of the founders to keep the American Republic strong and forever safe in their values and intentions.
Then you should be honest about the fact that the US was founded as a nearly 100% white-citizenry nation where not one single non-white person could immigrate and apply for citizenship; where democracy was feared and fervently. opposed; where black people were farm equipment worth 3/5ths of a person, and where the overwhelming majority of the population was not allowed to vote.
A nation is its people, not its paper; Liberia has a constitution quite identical to the US. When the US has the demographics of Brazil, it will have the civic cohesion, social trust, crime rates, and standard of living of Brazil.
Xavier Morgan
1775 > 1776 I care abound shooting bongs that tried to take our guns than some fedora faggot writing some enlightenment faggotry
Joseph Green
I'm honestly surprised there's been no muttposting ITT yet
Easton Fisher
On the topic of America, what does Sup Forums think of the Sherman tank?
Nolan Lee
user , whats the story behind that pic??
Gabriel Rivera
I guess it was a reenactment event and they were showing off a tank?
Jayden Flores
It kicks fuckin ass...
Jason Wood
that's an m10 wolverine tank destroyer, isn't it?
Oliver Cooper
I want a Sherman so I can drive it along the beach now.
Julian Richardson
'tis
Dylan Cooper
Black here.
Blacks ate incompatible with socialism and communism. Which is why racist leftist implement it in order to ruin the entire race while hiding behind the disguise of high morals.
What can be done to get are black brothers to realize this and further unify Americans in making this country more great?
Samuel Young
Whoops thought I had the OP.
Aaron Walker
I'm down for a good ole convo. So one thing that has concerned me is the extent of social services. In the federalist papers the need for a federal power was explicitly outlined. However, what was the precise scope and context of how much power the Federal was expected to have? How much was then dedicated to the peopleor enumerated? It seems that this is a key balance of American politics. Or rather that it is supposed to be. With that in mind, how much of that is actually properly going on today?
These are half musings but also me questioning my own assumptions and also bouncing them off other sources to see if I'm not fundamentally missing something even now.
Asher Ward
>- Discourse on the constitution and its intrinsic value to the US worthless.
Offended? You should be its long, drawn out. What we build next must be as clear and concise as the 10 commandments themselves.
