(08-14-2024 04:25 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

Tom would be mad when they wouldn't let him vote.

How would we tell?

(08-14-2024 04:29 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:25 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

Tom would be mad when they wouldn't let him vote.

Eh, I don't know. Tom might be able to hit 100. Honestly, he's the brightest Dem on the board. #tallestmidget

As much as I hate to hand it to any of them I think the OP holds that distinction. This is actually one of very few threads any of the lefties have started that asks serious questions about a legitimate issue.

(08-14-2024 05:32 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:29 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:25 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

Tom would be mad when they wouldn't let him vote.

Eh, I don't know. Tom might be able to hit 100. Honestly, he's the brightest Dem on the board. #tallestmidget

As much as I hate to hand it to any of them I think the OP holds that distinction. This is actually one of very few threads any of the lefties have started that asks serious questions about a legitimate issue.

Not only does it ask a good question---it also reveals an area where I suspect the rank and file membership of BOTH parties would find large areas of agreement (but I doubt their elected Congressional officials view things the same as the membership they theoretically represent).