We just have to convert the country. No, that won't
happen any time in the next 30 seconds. Possibly not even in the next 30 minutes. The way to bring about a just society is not simply to find a way to deny the vote to people who are likely to vote wrongly (or differently from how you do). The closest legitimate approach might be to be careful about allowing foreign people to become citizens too easily.
I know that that is not easy. Easiness is not something that can be expected; and is not something Ayn Rand ever promised, except maybe in one case where she said something about when (or if) businessmen [would] "declare
war on altruism." And that is not quickly forth-
coming. Look how many of them (respectable
small businessmen) are "respectable" churchgoers, and wouldn't dare stand up and declare that they have the right to live their own lives for themselves. Look how people who try to defend individual rights cringe, and evade, when they are accused of being "selfish".
And I think that sometimes when you try to get them to defend themselves, if they see that you are an unbeliever in supernatural religion (like me, for instance), they regard you as subversive, and maybe an enemy.
Ayn Rand said, "It will be a long battle. It is earlier than you think."

Who said anything about eating assets?

My point is that the 99% may have rational reason to "eat" the assets of the 1% if those assets were stolen/looted from the 99%. So, yes, it does matter.
Not only those on welfare are using government to loot.

Does any of that matter to the hungry?

Are the 1% looters of the 99% or are they productive without using government laws (passed as payment to those donating to politicians) to suppress competition by the 99%?

And here I thought if enough of the self labeled 99% were hungry enough, they could vote to eat the 1%

How does that happen with the existing voter assemblage?

The government should simply not offer voters an
opportunity to steal from their productive neighbors using the government as a front. Such measures as the laws of the New Deal should be prohibited in the Constitution.

I am firmly for voting by educated rational people who understand that the free market and individual liberty are the reasons America was successful. Those who steal from their productive neighbors using the government as a front should not be able to vote or to lobby government. That includes people taking welfare and corporations having government contracts.

I believe they will too if they find the right mentors in business. I never give up hope. The Wet Nurse had Hank Readon.

I am for the vote, but I do not think all things should be subject to a vote. I believe in a Consti-
tutional republic, in which individuals rights would be guaranteed, and government limited to its proper functions: to protect man from force (including fraud) and violence, and punish same.

I do understand your objection but there can be no intelligence in government if the voters are as dumb as a stump.
I can see how well universal suffrage works. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
I think Robert Heinlein understood the problem...
"I had better quote Jubal Harshaw, who lived through it. He said to me, "the America of my time line is a laboratory example
of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies
throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may
vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the
wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other
citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote
in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own
self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses.'
" 'Bread and Circuses' is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.
Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm
body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the
plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive
members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its
weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
Jubal shrugged and looked sad. "Mine was a lovely world--until the parasites took over."

and

"there seems to have been an actual decline in rational thinking. The United States had
become a place where entertainers and professional athletes were mistaken for people of
importance. They were idolized and treated as leaders; their opinions were sought on everything and
they took themselves just as seriously--after all, if an athlete is paid a million or more a year, he
knows he is important...so his opinions of foreign affairs and domestic policies must be important,
too, even though he proves himself to be both ignorant and subliterate every time he opens his
mouth. (Most of his fans were just as ignorant and unlettered; the disease was spreading.)
Consider these:
1) "Bread and Circuses";
2) The abolition of the pauper's oath in Franklin Roosevelt's first term;
3) "Peer group" promotion in public school.
These three conditions heterodyne each other. The abolition of the pauper's oath as a condition
for public charity insured that habitual failures, incompetents of every sort, people who can't support
themselves and people who won't, each of these would have the same voice in ruling the country, in
assessing taxes and spending them, as (for example) Thomas Edison or Thomas Jefferson, Andrew
Carnegie or Andrew Jackson. Peer group promotion insured that the franchise would be exercised
by ignorant incompetents. And "Bread and Circuses" is what invariably happens to a democracy that
goes that route: unlimited spending on "social" programs ends in national bankruptcy, which
historically is always followed by dictatorship."
(from To Sail Beyond the Sunset)

Well, I just watched the video. The question seemed to be mainly about whether there should be separate restrooms. I am not for rigid adherence to
artificial, made-up differences (such as the notion that my parents tried--unsuccessfully--to put on me,that a woman ought to walk on a line, one foot in front of the other, twitching her butt back and forth, like some whore trying to pick up a customer--which unnatural walk my mother called "ladylike"), but for recognizing actual, physical, biological, natural differences.
(My parents gave the afore-mentioned campaign up as a bad job, and after I showed them an article in Good Housekeeping magazine in which a doctor said that that kind of walk was "strictly put-on", and had no origin in
physiology, neither one of them ever mentioned it to me again).
But real differences do exist. I do not approve of either pornographic magazines or pornographic movies (which display public nudity), but I imagine that in these times young people look at a lot of those, and that should show them that real differences do exist.
Certain hormonal differences exist; differences in brute physical strength;etc. But it seems to me that young people, especially in college, have been educated to deny the real, physical world, perceptible to the senses.
(Which denial may also be involved in their ignoring Aristotle's "world of particulars", where individual human entities exist, and believing in Plato's mystical world, where all are one, and believing in a collectivist political system, rather than in individual rights, the rights of entities which literally exist).

The government should not be allowed to try to prescribe its voters, such as financial success, pas-
sing a "test on law, history, and current events"; whose notions on 'law, history, and current events"? Then we'd get the rigged, and (fortunately) long-outlawed "literacy tests" of the old, lily-white South.
And how do you know the leftists wouldn't get in charge of making those tests, or if the shoe would get on the other foot?

The difference is, the Wet Nurse actually started to
try to find the truth.

I read something recently that I believe explains most of human history. Even the lust for wealth and power is based in this fundamental and it depends upon the fact that there is a difference in men and women. The statement was that men trade love to get py and women trade py to get love. All the other stuff is to obtain advantages at better bargaining tables. As in all high risk games, there will be those that are afraid to play, are confused about the rules and aren't able to compete. It is a shame that we are enforcing so many protective helmets, seat belts and precautionary rules that the race is in danger.

Well after successfully placing the 10 Marxist planks in America, this was a logical leftist step, using their anti-logical means.

Ah, the social constructs of communism is alive and well. Create diversity and confusion. Create conflict between cultures and applaud anything that challenges the basic core of our country. Divided we fall - and like a rising phoenix from the ashes of our civilization communism will be the perceived salvation. I get the agenda. Marxism controls out educational system and to date they are winning. Remember (I do) when Nikita Khrushchev told Richard Nixon his grand kids would be living under communism? He wasn't far off.

These young people are either full of bull hockey or they are insane.

Let alone making the assumption that she might want to go out with me. That was stressful enough when I was young I can't imagine adding all these new layers to the equation.

Let's see here. Males have XY chromosomes, and females have XX. This is true for every cell of the body. So, even if the physical body is altered (ain't that a nice way to say castrated?) from "male" to "female" all the remaining cells are still XY. Does this point to a psychological"issue those :females" who claim they are trapped in a "male" body? Perhaps the feminization of the population is working.

Of course doing that might offended her if she is not into the PC dimension of identity politics

I am glad this wasn't happening while I was in college!! I could have been very confused about who to ask on a date. I guess my first query would be "Although you look like a woman are you really a man? Neutral? Could be either? Please be certain that although you apparently have breasts, a high pitched voice I have made no assumptions!"

I think the first purpose of life is to stay alive. Making more life is secondary. That said, it’s not really clear why there ARE MEN AND WOMEN in the first place. But there are two sexes which must mate

I am so glad that a majority of individuals will still find this painful to watch. It is a gauge of social sanity.