If only this amendment passed in 1916.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
The one from 1912 sounds interesting too.
That one should have passed.
Perfect.
Sorry, I meant "interesting" from a historical point of view. It just shows where America was in 1912 as opposed to today. I meant nothing more than that.
Come on bro you've been around long enough...no need to come here and try to bullshit us.
Probably a lot of folks in TN aren't too keen on race mixing, we get it. It's fine for the two people "in love", but I feel sorry for the kids...they'll bear the brunt of not fitting in with either group. They'll get abused by the black kids for being too white, and vice versa.
Oh yeah, I've seen that too, living in the South, as I do. I actually knew a few KKK members back in my small hometown, but that was long ago and they are all dead now. But no BS, I was commenting on the historical perspective of it.
One way to remedy the treatment of mixed race kids is to have there be more of them. even when I was a kid my group was mixed raced kids, ethnicly we had asian kids, white kids, mullatto kids and even a kid was american indian. He happened to be the whitest looking of all of us.
Anybody else get a "WTF?!" vibe from the two in 1893?
I like the first one lol
Got a feeling Trump would love that one too
We had kooks in office even back then. $5 says the those proposals were made by democrats.
It might have been Mitch McConnell.
He wasnt born yet. nancy might've though
Turtles have a long life span
So do demons
That whole list seems like bad ideas luckily not implemented.
The idea that anyone unable to register in the army should have no say in the safety of their country is laughable.
I do believe we need safeguards against forever wars - and that would happen automatically once the US re-establishes soverignty and cuts off foreign strings controlling it. Trump is doing this. Ending this war that started in 1979 when this regime declared death to US, is very much necessary regardless of who wants to vote yes or no.
Also we disband the Army and go back to the militia system.
Mighty hard to fight forever wars if you don't have a standing army.
What is the source document? This could be an interesting read!
You can find the list here: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/proposed-amendments/
Let’s just say this is an older history book. Remember what Q told us about the newer ones.
I'd be curious to know why the OP made this post. There's several extremely bad ideas on the above page, the highlighted amendment being one of them.
I don't think it's a particularly good idea to allow a full democratic process for any national issue given that we are a constitutional republic. Especially so when the subject of war/conflict is almost certainly going to have a number of elements that will be classified.
Given that most people 30 and over have professional lives and families, nearly every conflict would be avoided as the vast majority of the country would not be fit for war. While that would often be a good thing, the potential for necessary conflict being avoided to the country's detriment would be extremely high.
For 30 years I've been warning people about the forever wars that the Military/Intelligence/Industrial complex and the British empire craves. But this is an exceptionally bad idea. So again, I'd be very curious as to why the OP posted this. Are you trying to make a statement in regards to the actions in Iran and/or Venezuela?
There's a lot of young people today that are scared of being drafted and I've heard a few at work saying they would somehow try to dodge it. Venezuela and Iran should have been dealt with long ago and were necessary targets to weaken bigger fish. Imagine trying to get votes for those operations. Some of the ideas above sound great at first, but when thought through, (something liberals refuse to do) they quickly reveal plot holes or avenues for later abuse.
Look at the one right below that, holy crap
Must've been before the days of getting rich due to being in Congress!
Let's bring the 1876 back for a national vote!
LOL no
The word "war" suggests two sides going at it
This is one side, calmly and with absolute tactical supremacy, obliterating the bemohammed out of the military industrial capacity and slaughtering the leaders of the other in response to half a century of kidnapping and torture, murder and mayhem, and threats to kill us all
"We're not at war. We have no intention of being at war."
Speaker Mike Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9D3e32NBNM
We know it's tough for angry, anti-Trump and America-hating DEI toads to see the USA win, but there it is. The speaker explains the point eloquently.