People Who Should Never be Allowed to Vote or Hold Office

[Waffles731]

Oh boy this is going to piss a whole hell of a lot of people off.

1. Anyone 70 or over

I honestly think that after hitting 70 you should be allowed to vote anymore. Here is why,

The average life expectancy in the U.S is 78.74 years so the fact is that they won't be feeling most of the repercussions of the person they vote for. They aren't voting for their own future they are voting for the younger generations future so why should they have any say in that. Furthermore as you get to that age your mind and memory isn't what it used to be. So the fact is that I believe that the elderly should not be allowed to vote.

2. Sociopaths

I would go even further to say that sociopaths should not be allowed to have anything to do with the policy of a company. If a person has no conscience they won't be considering how their vote effects others. If someone truly doesn't give a shit about other people then why should society let them have any say in how society works.

3. People with an IQ of under 100

The fact is that anyone who has a below average IQ should not be allowed to vote. The fact is that dumb people generally make dumb decisions. So why let them help make the decisions for the entire country.

4. People who let their religious beliefs dictate how they vote.

Look you think Gay Marriage is a sin that is fine with me just don't get married to someone of the same sex. The fact is that we don't live in a theocracy we live in a country that has separation of church and state. That is the best option, I believe in god, but if you are christian I believe in a VERY different deity than you.

I'm spiritual but not religious and I believe in a god or goddess (With the latter being more likely in my opinion) not described by any book and one that judges people based on their actions and their hearts not whether they worshiped him or her. However I don't get to use my religious beliefs as a way to dictate other peoples lives. The fact is that no one should be able to do that.

5. People who want religion banned

The fact is that most atheists don't act like this. In fact I'd imagine that most atheists think about people who would like to make religion illegal the same way most Christians think about the westboro baptist church.

Seriously Atheism is literally just as much of a complete mind-fuck as religion and here is why

Pick an origin theory. Either way you're left assuming something has always existed, unchanged, with no beginning or end.

Atheism/Naturalism: constant = matter + force
Alternately: The universe mathed itself into existence, because why the hell not.
Creation (Biblical): constant = God
Theist Evolution: constant = all of the above or God first then creating matter and force for the heck of it
Pantheism: constant = God + matter + force, all of which are one and the same
Panentheism : Uhhh...

The fact is that all of humanity whether they are religious or not should realize this quotes applicability

I have zero idea how everything got here. I would personally say that, if I had to make a list of possibles, God would be pretty far down. But if I were to make a list of people that know what the fuck they are talking about, I would be really far down."

-Louis C.K

Thats pretty much all of humanity whether they are talking about being religious or an atheist. That your thoughts are just as outlandish as the other sides.

The fact is that the only people who can say they are sure are the people who claim to be agnostic because the fact is that the only thing an agnostic claims to be sure of is that they just don't fucking know.

6. Believing any of these things.

A. That Global Warming is a hoax

B. The Earth is six thousand years old

C. That White/Black/Asian/ect people are the superior race

Seriously anyone who actually believes any of that shit is missing a few marbles.

#Sorrynotsorry

[vishna]

I resonate with this take like it's a rant and you're fed up-if we're talking about being fed up and loosing faith in our fellow citizens, 4 and 6, really stuck out to me. You would not believe the level of crazy and delusional I met at college. It's crazy that these are the people who will be on top of the world in the next 10-20 years.

[vishna]

thank you again for mho!

[Mayamoon02]

I don't agree with ANY of them.
I have seen my generation recentely share this view (especially your first point) and find it ridiculous.

Firstly, the most important point of all; the world is led by Sociopaths.
If you visit any 'third world country' that the west profits from through various industries (from farming to clothing etc) then you will realise we are ALL sociopaths because we don't give a damn that the people who make our clothes can barely afford a tooth brush or medicine.
Slave labour is what is allowing us to indulge so much.

Its so sad we have lost so much touch and sense of community - that we would rather take away the voices of the 'undesirables' or 'nearly dead' instead of listening to their issues.
My grandparents are so much smarter than anyone I have met in my generation.
I go to them for advice all the time - its their purporse as our elders.
Believe it or not; its thanks to them that us Millenials are so open minded.
They are about to die, so they don't have passion when voting in the same manner.
That is how we are supposed to make decisions - with reason and experience.

And to their other side of the scale; we have the men and women who hold far right views or religious extremism. They are suffering. Taking away their rights would only make them scream louder and become more extreme.

[Mayamoon02]

Voting for your own personal future is fruitless since society has to work together to succeed.
You need to keep in mind how to please everyone to achieve personal goals.
Make sacrifices to set the rails for future generations.

[Mayamoon02]

*the other side of the scale

[Laura_Marx]

This is eugenicist propaganda and completely unacceptable. Your propagation of myths about those with ASPD, who you refer to with the ableist slur "sociopaths" and promote apartheid of, and your reproduction of the white supremacist mythology about IQ, which only exists to deny autonomy to disabled, mentally ill, black and brown people, not to mention your ridiculous comments about the elderly, could easily be located in a 19th century text on phrenology and racist scientism.

What the fuck, Waffles?

[Laura_Marx]

I'm really shocked at you for this honestly.

[Waffles731]

I used the dictionary definition of sociopath,
Did you know that most corporate leaders are sociopaths,
I mean it literally in the sense of a complete lack of empathy

[Waffles731]

"which only exists to deny autonomy to disabled, mentally ill, black and brown people,"
That is not my intention, See all these people voting for trump,
I'd wager that the reason they'd vote for someone who is racist is because of that

[Waffles731]

Honestly, my goal is to prevent people who care only about money and well racists from voting.
Maybe IQ isn't the way to put it but I can't think of any other way

[Waffles731]

But every time I see a trump supporter the only way I think they could support someone that openly racist is either not caring or being stupid

[Laura_Marx]

Waffles shut the fuck up. Will you just think about what the fuck you're saying before you say it? For once in your fucking life?

You're literally quoting out of the Bell Curve down there, an actual real deal white supremacist book, and you're trying to say you want to stop racists. Racism ISN'T the uneducated rural poor, it's a systematic infrastructure that targets the lives of people of colour and secures their immigration. One of its PRIMARY ways of doing this is via eugenics, ie ACTUAL GENOCIDE, ie forced sterilisation almost always propped up by IQ, intelligence and ability. Read about the forced sterilisation of black, native American and Puerto Rican women sometime. Read about how, and why, native and aboriginal children are stolen in enormous quantities from their families and forced into foster homes and orphanages.

It's because of the shit you're writing here.

And sociopath is a SLUR Waffles, for antisocial, it's as bad as retard. You're posting typical ableist shit

[Laura_Marx]

*immiseration not immigration I hate autocorrect

[Waffles731]

Then how do we stop racism if we still allow racism to have a voice

[Waffles731]

"And sociopath is a SLUR Waffles, for antisocial, it's as bad as retard. You're posting typical ableist shit"
You do realize that I've got ASD and ADHD and major deppresive disorder right

[Laura_Marx]

RACISM HAS A VOICE ALMOST 100% OVER AN IQ OF 100

YOU 'REALLY STILL BEING ABLEIST TOWARDS PEOPLE WITH ASPD

[Laura_Marx]

Waffles I never talk to anyone like this. Ever. I'm full on tumblr mad here. Because I am so sick of this. I believed in you and I cannot believe in you anymore

[Waffles731]

Then how do we take away the voice that racism has.
If this doesn't work I'm honestly out of ideas

[Jeeevan]

Laura, you should take advice out of your own book "would you think about what you say before you fucking say it" since you hate men you should take that advice :)

[cth96190]

So you want to get rid of people older than 70, in terms of disenfranchising them.
You want to remove from the picture the people who have the greatest life experience, so are best equipped to make good decisions.
That is breathtakingly stupid.
I have an alternative suggestion: adopt the system that the British had until 1918.
Voting would be restricted to males who were older than 21 and owned a certain minimum amount of real estate.
That would remove the welfare set and eliminate all socialists overnight.
As things stand now, any drooling-at-the-mouth retard who is of age can vote. Having worked on polling booths many times, I can say with absolute conviction that at least half the population are mentally incompetent.
The fatal flaw in democracy is that it is based on an assumption that the participants are intelligent, educated, engaged and will always vote for the greater good, rather than narrow self interest.
That expectation is self-evidently absurd.
Requiring ownership of a minimum amount of property would cut out the mouth breathers who think that islands might capsize.
I would go further, in that I would also require that people who were able to cast a vote must also have had military service.
As the line from Starship Troopers said: "Service brings citizenship."

[AleDeEurope]

About the elders: So they built this great country for you, and you wanna stop them from voting? That's so disrespectful. Imagine how a WW2 vet would feel after he's told his voice doesn't matter to this country. He fought so that you could have what you have today, and you still wanna treat him like that? That's low.

Everyone except a criminal should be allowed to vote. This is their country, they pay the same taxes as you, so they have the same rights to vote. Not allowing everyone to vote is fascism, which is what many liberals want (ironically), but that's not how things should work.
Sure, you may be dumb, but you still live in this country, you work, you pay taxes, you spend money on it... you should be allowed to vote.

[QuestionMan]

Criminals should be allowed to vote too.
They are citizens of the country and as citizens are entitled to the right to vote as anyone else.

[AleDeEurope]

@QuestionMan Not if they're in prison though. They did wrong to the country, part of their punishment should be not to be allowed to vote. They lost their freedom when they committed the crime.

[QuestionMan]

Unless their crime had to do with voter fraud I don't see why they should be denied the fundamental right to vote.
Plus they can vote by special ballot inside in the prison.
We have a system for that in Canada :)

[Mayamoon02]

Most criminals become so due to circumstance. I would rather listen to someone who steals to provide for his family about what needs to be changed than someone wealthy who benefits from the current system.

[AleDeEurope]

@Mayamoon02 Most criminals aren't in jail cause they stole to provide for their families.
So you're ok with having rapists and murderers have a voice in who rules the country? You're ok with a man that raped 20 women at gunpoint, voting in the elections? You're ok with a woman that tortured men and then killed them, voting in the elections?

[Mayamoon02]

Many are. Or at least because lack of opportunity and the wrong crowd got them into crime.
Yes. It's democracy. I never vote with passion but with reason.
Id prefer we would find a way to stop so many rapes and murders; than focus on further punishing those. As we know.. punishment doesn't stop rapists.

[mermaidrocketship]

There are a lot of people who are too ignorant to vote, but banning people with certain beliefs is wrong. As a Christian, I view morality through my religion and use it to come to a decision, just like everyone else with a set of morals. It's unfair to expect people to separate their beliefs from the question, Should x be legal, because often legalizing x is a matter of morality (think: recreational marijuana, death penalty). That's not the same thing as Isis members murdering/kidnapping anyone who disagrees with them. And as much as anti-religion extremists irritate me, they have as much a right as me to voice their opinion. That's what happens in democracy. I don't have to like it, but I have no right to ban them from voting.

[Waffles731]

When someone's personal beliefs start influencing others whether they think religion should be banner or that everyone should have to abide by their religious laws

[ObscuredBeyond]

The religion one seems to fall for the fallacy that all faiths are equal. The evidence all too often speaks to the contrary. Do governments abuse the names of faiths to enact government policies that are immoral? Yes, all the time. But what do the books of those faiths actually teach?

This is specifically why human government needs to be subservient to religious freedom, not the other way around.

Under a Christian republic, the government's primary job is to handle those who cannot self-govern in accordance. Sociopaths, for example.

Under the abomination Secularist entity America has become, it is largely anti-Christian while still borrowing the robes of what it pretends to still be. And the fruits of that show for themselves.

There is no such thing as a true Islamic republic. But in Islamic countries - especially particularly fundamental ones - the government is to carry out all details of worship life in addition to the local mosque.

In healthy Christendom, there is the Heavenly Governance and the Earthly Governance. As long as the former is not being violated, the latter is expected to be obeyed. But then, the latter must be kept it check so it never gets big enough to think it may violate the former.

In Islam, there is no separation. There is only submission. Or death. Or mutilation.

Only someone crowing at the chance to sink their teeth into a Bible they hate and tear it up would say that Jesus and Muhammad are "equal."

[Waffles731]

"Under the abomination Secularist entity America has become, "
This has NEVER been a christian nation and we have always had tge separation of church and state.

[ObscuredBeyond]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

[Waffles731]

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. -Jefferson

[ObscuredBeyond]

Moreover... carbon dating epic fails have shown that Uniformitarianism is the ideology about ages that is missing a few marbles - and transitional forms. And other things.

The man who INVENTED the concept of global warming has gone back on his own words!

And there are CULTURES that are better than other ones, but all colors have the same mtDNA source - Noah's wife.

[Rob-97]

I agree with some things you say, but have to disagree with some as well.

Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you are going to vote for the best person/party. Plenty of intelligent people are just as selfish as the rest of us and would be just as likely to vote for their own selfish and short term benefit.

Also, just because you are over 70 doesn't mean you do not have peoples long term best interests at heart. After all, a lot of people that age have kids and grand kids who they would want to give the best long term future to. And if they are already secure for the rest of their lives, are less likely to vote for short term gain over long term solutions.

I just think people should vote by putting in the 3 policies they care about most and then a computer can pick out the candidate that best represents them. That way people won't vote based on personality and politicians would have to tell you their policies rather than just slander each other.

You could also void anyones vote if they could not think of 3 policies that matter to them. Because they obviously don't care enough to educate themselves before voting, and it would get rid of the dumb, angry vote.

[Dred1614]

Taking away the vote from the elderly is ridiculous. Many of them are vets and served their country and you repay them and the others who helped build the country by taking away their freedom once they turn 70? The argument could also be made that people under 25 aren't wise or experienced enough to decide the future of the country. It's a slippery slope to take away freedoms from people simply for their beliefs and is basically unconstitutional. What's next? Taking away the right to vote from anyone that believes in God? It's the same principle.

[Redstang88]

Thank you! I was starting to think I was the only one here with any good sense.

[Waffles731]

Again, The fact is that many of them didn't.
And considering its not their future and we don't let people under 18 vote, we don't let people under 30 serve in congress nor the senate, and we don't let people under 35 become president, why should we have people voting once they are starting to go downhill upstairs

[Dred1614]

You can't say that all people over 70 go downhill in their mind. You can't condemn a whole group of people for the actions of a few.

[Waffles731]

Its not their fault, I'm not condemning them, but cognitive decline really does hit hard around that time.

[Dred1614]

Still, it's ridiculous to thank them for working hard to better the country by giving them the finger and stripping them of their rights. Imagine making a huge contribution to a company you work for over several decades and being thanked by being fired.

[Waffles731]

If someone is mentally losing it, then they aren't cognitively capable of making an informed decision

[Dred1614]

What I'm trying to say is that not all people above 70 are mentally losing it. You can't generalize an entire group of people because some are not all there. It's like calling all young black men thugs because young black men commit more crime.

[Waffles731]

We can actually, its the reason we don't allow anyone under thirty to serve in the house or senate and we don't allow anyone under 35 to serve as president.
I don't see any reason to not implement similar laws on the elderly

[Dred1614]

If we can condemn all elderly folks because they statistically begin to lose it after 70, then we can condemn all Muslims because they commit 99% of terror acts and we can condemn all black men because they statistically commit more crime. It's a slippery slope. You can't take away their freedoms because it makes it easier to take away freedoms from more people, for even more ridiculous reasons.

[Waffles731]

"we can condemn all Muslims because they commit 99% of terror acts"
Not even close,
There have been more people killed by kkk and associate groups than jihadis in the U. S
Then you have people like the Lord's resistance army and shit in Africa, all christians,
How about the Buddhist terorists in southeast asia
How about the Basques in france and spain
How about the bombings that still happen on occasion in northern Ireland
How about the jewish terrorists that you can find

[Dred1614]

Really? Muslims have killed more than 3,000 US citizens at home and around the world. That's only US citizens. They kill Jews and even each other. The KKK can't touch that number. Look how many ISIS killed in 2 years and compare that to how many people the KKK killed over the course of a century.
www.nbcnews.com/.../isis-death-toll-18-800-killed-iraq-2-years-u-n499426

[Waffles731]

Not at home, 3000 in the middle east

[Waffles731]

My parents are vets and very opposed to the current wars

[Dred1614]

9/11 killed almost 3000 US citizens here. Then there's the US citizens that have died abroad. Muslims have done far more damage than the KKK and the KKK is now irrelevant. BLM is more dangerous than the KKK now.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

Is there anyone left? - I have to believe in Democracy and the candidates have some mandate - Ok this take is inspired by US presidential election where both major candidates have unfavourable ratings of over 50% - Donald Trump and the leading anti Trump candidate Hillary Clinton (Let's not hide, this is the true contest For/Against Trump) whoever wins both candidates will garner approx. 50 million plus votes. If you rig the rules (sound familiar) you create a class of people who feel left behind and a clever politician can tap that niche or more frightening a dangerous person that is what helped Hitler to power in Germany.
All personal views aside all candidates have a right to be in the election, keeping them out feeds the disillusioned pushing them towards the extreme which unfortunately often ends in terrorism.

[QuestionMan]

This goes against the very definition of democracy.
Democracy is the voice of the people. All people.
Young and old, smart and stupid, criminal and law abiding citizen.
www.ignitedquotes.com/.../...n_churchill%20(6).jpg

So even if Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, Turks in Turkey support Erdogan, Canadians in Canada support Trudeau, and Americans in the US support Trump, as bad as all of them are they represent the will of the people.

[QuestionMan]

To deny any group of individuals over the age of majority the right to vote is to go against the very foundations of democracy.

[PancakeFury]

The U. S. isn't a democracy... It's a republic...

[Regulatus]

@PancakeFury --Actually, a democratic constitutional republic.

[QuestionMan]

@PancakeFury That is correct it is a representative democracy.
A true democracy would have daily referendums but no one has time for that.

[JRICHARDS1996]

If we are going to bar people over the age of 70 from voting, then I strongly believe that people under the age of 30 should not be allowed to vote as well because they are still too idealistic and/or ignorant about the way the world truly works to make an informed decision. Hence virtually every college liberal that has ever lived. Furthermore, just as I do not like the elderly dictating my future, I do not like ignorant morons who are younger than me dictating it either. There needs to be a balance.

[Waffles731]

You can't vote till you are 18

[JRICHARDS1996]

I would add that atheism is a mindfuck not only for the reasons you mentioned, but for trying to affirm metaphysical realities like morality when their position is metaphysically bankrupt by its very nature. There is no room for good and evil in a naturalistic worldview where humans are no different from animals. Yet most atheists will deny this truth. I don't believe in Divine Command Theory for obvious reasons, but the moral argument is still a valid issue that atheism cannot grapple with. At least Dr. Peter Singer is consistent with the ethical implications of his atheism.

[Waffles731]

Don't mention peter singer, there are just some people Australia should not have knighted

[JRICHARDS1996]

I know, and I believe that it should be 30.

At least Dr. Peter Singer is consistent and honest. I have more respect for him than someone like Dawkins who cannot take a single night at his own university to debate arguably the most important Christian apologist of the past 50 years but will travel halfway across the world to debate no-name televangelists.

[howzit2015]

You do know that the tests used to assess if one is a sociopath is very flawed, right? One test is a written one, and another form of testing is using ct or mi scans. All of which are completely flawed and subject to huge amounts of criticism, and only work if the subject answers truthfully. CT/MRI scans are hit and miss as well. Next the average IQ is 100 +or - 15. Meaning people are deemed as average who have an iq of 90. People over 70 can be impacted by the president, because their pensions and way of living, which is so fragile, can be affected by that presidents actions. Lastly, you opinions on ideologies, political or religious, almost seems fascist, totalitarian, and very discriminatory against people who don't get in line with what you perceive as correct. This way of governing a state, and method of determining who gets to vote would be the death of democracy as we know it.

[howzit2015]

people over 70 can be impacted by the actions of the president* is what I meant to say

[howzit2015]

so they should get a vote

[helloitsmethere]

You forgot:
People who believe the Moon landing was fake -_-
People who believe that Bush did 9/11 -_-
People who believe that the Illuminati is in EVERYTHING -_-
Basically, anyone who believes in far fetched conspiracy theories. :/

[Dipsy]

You list 3 things. One of them includes the numbers 9 and 11.
You have both 3 upvotes and 3 downvotes as of right now.
Let's do the math: 3 + 9 + 11 + 3 + 3 - random 26 = 3.

A triangle has 3 sides. Illuminati is a triangle. @helloitsmethere = illuminati confirmed.

[Spermdumster666]

Sounds like you want to impose a police state, tell people how they should vote, who they can vote for and impose some sort politically correct thought police.

[Jager66]

I'd agree with this, especially 2, 3, 4. I wouldn't agree with 1 though.

I think the "can't vote with an IQ less than 100" is probably the best idea of all though. It would be hard to implement because some ethnic groups, like blacks, very few people would get to vote.

[Anonymous]

Some thoughts:

-Universal suffrage is an essential part of any democracy. Without it certain sections of society (you suggest bellow average iq people) won't be represented. This could and probably would lead to problems for them
-old people have experiance. Prehaps more invested than a student whos never held a job or looked after a family
-Religious views completely should dictate how you vote. If the population was entirely Christian/muslim or whatever you would expect the government in question to reflect this. Obviously everyones voting paterns are determined by the beliefs they hold so why shouldn't it be the same for religous views
-The reasoning for an iq threshold is completely unfounded. There is no evidence to back suggest that people with higher iqs vote more wisely. No such study could even be conducted.

I now pose a question to you: have you ever had an iq test? The median iq is most likely to be lower than 100 as there are many high outliers.

[Waffles731]

Yes, I had to have an IQ test every three years as part of a psych eval,

My IQ is 133

[GeordieWhyAye]

Nice, mines 143! :)

[Editor]

I know this is just for funsies, but any kind of litmus test for voting very quickly turns into tyranny.

Items 4 and 5 would disqualify everyone. 5 is a specific subset of 4.

Item #6 is just a cherrypicked list of pet peeves.

Item #3 was actually used in the past to disenfranchise blacks.

[Anpu23]

Part of democracy is allowing everyone a voice. It used to be that only rich white male landholders were allowed to vote, that changed with the draft, if you could be forced into combat then you should have a voice in who sends you to that hell. Then came women, with a set of terrorist acts, they forced themselves there own voice, etc etc... Now you want to legislate other laws limiting other people from that voice. Your arguments are not compelling enough to limit these votes as each of these people are a small percentage of the population.

[Laura_Marx]

Terrorist acts!

[Waffles731]

@Laura_Marx
I wasn't even going to touch that one because there was no way this ends in anything but an argument

[Laura_Marx]

Lol, anpu is usually very sound though. The rest of his post is completely right (it's not even that long ago that only bourgeois landowners could vote, either - maybe 150 years), maybe he just knows something I don't.

[Anpu23]

@Laura_Marx blowing up train stations is an act of terrorism. www.historytoday.com/.../weaker-sex-violence-and-suffragette-movement

[Laura_Marx]

oh my God <3_<3

[Anpu23]

@Laura_Marx another interesting fact is that the suffragetts started their campaign BEFORE the average man could vote, so the order very well could have been reversed.

[Gommers]

People with an IQ under 110. Only people with an advanced level of intelligence should be able to dictate the future of the average.

[Waffles731]

Lol, you don't become over high average till you are 115,
I've got a 133 iq myself

[Gommers]

Lol, it's a bellcurve son, anything over 100 is advanced IQ by definition even 101.

I'm 146.

[helloitsmethere]

No... an IQ of 100 is average.
Since everyone is sharing their IQ points: Mine is between 120-135.

[Waffles731]

@helloitsmethere the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less

[Waffles731]

the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less

[Gommers]

christ, average is average son. There is no margin of error.

[Waffles731]

No, but there is a range of averageness
"christ, average is average son. "
Please stop calling me son,
You five years older than me and that is awkward

[Gommers]

Too bad son

[Waffles731]

Stop calling that, you are creeping me out.

[Gommers]

Get a thicker skin son

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

This thread is fucking hilarious 😂. Also, I just wanna say I got a 143... And I fudged like 3 sections to make it lower 😝

[Waffles731]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau
I got it tested every three years as part of my mandatory psych eval

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Cool. I got mine tested by my high school psychologist person!

[Mustachekitteh]

I never vote since I have no idea who is better and political stuff confuses me. XD

[funny_strange_man]

I say those who do not vote or water a vote has no say