Yes, I think you need to have "skin in the game" to be allowed to vote. I would even be ok with those that pay income tax (on real earned income, not welfare) being allowed the vote.. So, property ownership or income tax would be sufficient to rule out many of the feckless masses from having a say in things.

Or there will be a crisis or collapse (whether caused or allowed).. that will necessitate government stepping in for our own good. See "V for Vendetta".. One of my favorite movies and an all too possible future I'm afraid...

"the day we lost the republic was the day 'politician' became a career choice" - Alan Keyes. I believe this is the sentiment you are looking for. You're right we're in the bread and circuses stage. After that it was the barbarian hordes invading... Which I'm sorry to say in many ways is already beginning.

They virtually begged him to take the job.

I like Heinlein's proposal in For Us, The Living. A non-defensive war could only be started by a vote of the people -- and if you vote Yes, you're volunteering to go. The voting machine tells you where to report.

He's GOP establishment. Letting him in was a big mistake. I hope he has primary opposition next year.

And May all your Christmas's be bright as well.

Yea, it's ridiculous. The only two I would consider are Cruz and Rand. However, in the true spirit of our forefathers, (willing to risk one's fortune, one's sacred honor and one's very life if necessary.) the only one that just might buck the system of the kakistocracy is Ted Cruz.

The "Shadows" are more foreboding than we might even imagine.

Just my impressions at this time.

The question for me is, why would anyone with any true ability want to be a politician?

I recommend everyone watch the entire YouTube interview of Norman Dodd taped in 1987 shortly before he passed away. It explains a great deal about the actions of our so called leaders and who is pulling the strings of these puppets.

I have a similar assessment to yours, although I'm more positive. I say candidates are not special when it comes to ideas on government and policy. They go into it because they like popularity. They do whatever their supporters want without understanding the long-term ramifications. If they do that within the bounds of a constitution, it's really the worst system of gov't except for all others that have been tried.

I agree on Rand Paul. He actually seems to have a view on government beyond his own popularity. Paul isn't winning, but a an Paul-like figure could win one day. I don't think voters are too stupid.

I listened to part of the last debate, and I was disgusted by the candidates falling over one another to declare how scared $&*!less everyone is of extremist criminals, aggrandizing people who cause almost no harm compared to everyday perils like accidents and disease.

In some ways, Trump is to Republicans as Sanders is would be to the Democrats if he were winning. All things being equal I lean Democrat, so I guess it's a good development that their party is closer to nominating a nutjob than mine. I would much rather have someone like Paul winning, though, someone willing to say he's not mad at people who like spending like the drug war, childhood nutrition programs, subsidized healthcare, a global military empire, but a) we cannot afford it without raising taxes and b) it's very questionable how far we have to interpret the Constitution to say all this is legal.

Better o throw your vote away then to compromise your beliefs.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER is what they do.
Vote veteran someone that puts America before ANY party.
No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

How about a requirement for owning property and military service to be allowed to vote? That's likely to cut down on a lot of the chaff.

We'll never know, will we?
Look at Paul Ryan. He acted as if he didn't want the Speaker job. He's started out on the wrong foot and there's little indication the he'll get it right.

Years ago I came up with, "You can't make a cake from a pile of s&^$t."

I really want to lift people up. This means really educating them. I would agree that banning some people from voting isn't optimum...might even be a recipe for disaster.

I really want to lift people up.

Christmas is expensive.

I was trying to not be crude by using the word "mud" instead of "shit." I see you got my meaning, though.

I cannot disagree with anything you state.

I understand why it was only property owners voting and also why women were not included since most property owners were men during that era. Seems to me that 30 would be a good voting age but that would have the same issues as the 21 year old drinking age. Old enough to die for our country but not drink, or vote. Tough one to get through.

I think if we, at the local level did a better job of educating the next generation, we likely would not have the issues we have. Progressives run the education system and we need Objectivists to do it. But that is the hard part.

I'm not yet old enough to vote, and I won't be old enough in time for this election. But if things continue like they are: I won't be voting in the 2020 election.

It was done kinda like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zb1q...

Utah Phillops was a union organizer and I could not disagree with most of what he said or did much more than I do, but this song bit was applicable and really funny.

It illustrates the reason why we ate the pie rather well.

I agree. He s not a professional politician, and it shows. He is not the "picture" people have in their heads of what "presidential" means.
But I think he is a good and moral man, and support him. I'd rather see more like him, as citizen patriots in office, than the current professional politician class.

At the time of the declaration of independence it is estimated that only 1/3 supported separation. That was up to just under half when the revolutionary war started and increased only as it looked as though we may win.

With today's system of catering to the masses the declaration would be impossible to make happen. As a republic where voting has some qualification and is a privilege it would still be possible. As a democracy where voting is a right, I do not believe it is.

In order to have a successful society those that vote must have shown some form of success in there lives. Those that have not, that have lived off others do not know what is needed for success and therefor can only propitiate more failure by giving them a voice.

In order to propagate some form of success to others you must first be able to have that form of success yourself.

I do not understand how a person voting that is 18-209 years old, but has not yet owned a home, bought a stock, ran something successful and/or could not tell you one idea of how to solve an issue, or even what the issues of the time are can possible help the country if allowed to vote.

You still haven't?

Yes, John. They have a monopoly on force. That is a big issue.

Have a great Christmas, also!