Should Women be allowed to vote?

You don't think gender plays a role at all in how people vote?

Small business owner detected. Why don't you get a real job instead of being a middleman leech, kike?

Anyone who contributes to society yes, but also this
I'm in between.

implying voting matters

Morally I believe women should be entitled to vote, but it can not be denied that this has done serious damage.

fuck off

No. Women think with emotions instead of logic. They have no business voting because they will always vote for some shit that appeals to emotions in the short term (eg. pro-sodomy or pro-refugees), never mind that you can use facts and evidence to show how extremely destructive that is in the long term (eg. appeasing sodomites leads to pervert men in the women's change rooms, and helping those poor refugees leads to mass rapes, ethnic violence, native displacement, stagnant economy, etc.)

No. If it were up to me, I would give voting rights only to married couples with children; one vote per family. Only those with a stake in the future should have a voice in it.

This.
/Thread

that only leaves older men, young white males need to participate

women always vote fucking left.
87% of women or something stupid like that voted for the leftist party in the australian president vote

Who could deny that girl a vote?

OK, y'all can brain fart all over this to your heart's content, but seriously? You really think there's the remotest chance of taking away voting rights from women now?

leave

Why do you talk like a nigger ?

youtube.com/watch?v=OMjiY-5BdBE

I don't know how to embed because I am a retard so fuck off.

This woman explains perfectly 3 main reasons why women should not vote. And yes, I know not trusting women to vote yet linking a video where I trust a woman speaking about it. She knows her shit, I highly suggest a watch

Women should be allowed to vote, but not on fiscal decisions. They also shouldn't be allowed to hold elected office, but they can be appointed.

It's something to talk about that could lead to interesting points or new questions.

People without children probably shouldn't be allowed into higher political positions. Look at fucking Merkel. The only way to think it's a good idea to let in millions of rapists into your country is if nobody you care about has to face the consequences.

Women are biologically programmed to only give a shit ever about themselves, their husbands and their children. They do not experience the same concepts of loyalty and honour we do. It is an effective survival mechanism but it also means that women are the first traitors in every society. It already happened in WW2 japan and it is also happening in Europe today.

So get them the fuck away from politics.

Nice D&C.

This

Fuck that, for each young white male that is politically literate there are at least 4 neets or same level of retard who would vote for more autismbux, DUDE WEED LMAO and free virtual reality waifus instead of caring about the future.

no

he talked like a nigger and tried to derail the whole thread. if anything he's the D&C shill shithead

they'd still need to own property too. But no reason they should have a family as well to vote.

Whoever lives in an area affected by the policy being voted on should be allowed to vote. Except niggers.

So if the objection is "derail attempt" (which I agree with, btw), say so.

Y'all is a Southern white term, niggers stole it like everything else. Why should we change and validate the theft?

On topic, said it best.

There are a shit ton of useless fucks who don't give no shit about the future who still manage to own property. You know those who have a job yet waste their weekends on banging dumb sluts and wasting their lives on parties? The family is like a collateral, he makes dumb decisions, his kids get fucked. Those who have no family usuallydoes not even gives a rat's ass about others' kids.

Assblasted welfarecuck confirmed.

Die

I think you're failing to realize that our current pozzed society is not unique. This sort of shit has happened before. Hell, it's happened fairly recently. What is socially acceptable varies wildly throughout history. It's actually not that unbelievable to think that there's a possibility that at some point in the future women might not be allowed to vote, and they would be ok with it.

My personal take is that as inept as women are, they're still self aware, and it would still be nice to treat them as such. But then again, "nice" is why we're in this mess in the first place. I'm personally in favor of no vote for women, but there are some cases where I could see myself being alright with it. A woman married to a man who has earned his right to vote (Either through land ownership, civil service, or federal service), and has produced at least one child. No votes for divorcees or widows, though, and no vote ever for adulterers. Makes sure women have incentive to keep their shit together, get and stay married, and raise children. Also creates a system where men are incentivized to serve their country/communities, since it makes them more desirable.

I also could be agreeable with allowing exceptional women to vote (At least on a local/state level) if they've done some sort of great service to their community/the country, or have performed outstandingly in some form or another (Having successfully raised notable children, a teacher who's students genuinely and consistently perform well, stuff like that)

Property is expensive and finite, though. Basing it solely on property can cause all sorts of corruption, too. People parceling out tiny chunks of land to prospective voters at outrageous prices, rendering the ownership of land moot and leaving large swaths of divvied up, undeveloped property, and that's just one hypothetical. Prospective voters should have some other option open to them. Federal service is good, but civil service means you have an huge and constant pool of willing young men to maintain the countries infrastructure/utility services etc.

I talk - and write - like a Southern white man.

Thanks, user.

sage for off topic.

fair enough user

so i'd get a vote for each wife i have a child with?

No.

Property in it's current state I'd agree with you, but property in the nation means ties and investment to that nation. If someone builds and finances a home in a nation, he's going to feel a lot more attached to it's well being and safety.

He'll in turn need to care about the well being of his nation to secure his property, which is one factor. Obviously culture, white values etc need to be included as well to secure loyalty.

Yes. But they must earn that right just like everyone else.

Service to the White race and having a minimum of three White children.

Men would have to earn theirs through service to the White race and protecting the White race in the military.

Polygamy is illegal fam.

Completely agree. Same applies to service, too (I'm assuming you've read Starship Troopers, the same justification is given) which is why I think they should both be factors.

actually no I've never read starship troopers? Is that a good redpilled book? I like sci fi but a lot of is pozzed

sage for off topic

Yes, your ignorance is wildly off-topic.

Voting should be returned to how the Founders set it up. One vote per land-owning family, because they 1) have stakes in the game and 2) are likely more responsible than dumbass kids or lazy bastards in someone else's house.

that's where you're wrong. you see i'm british and here in my country polygamy is allowed in certain circumstances.

why would young whites ever care about politics if only old whites can vote?

...

That still leaves the banks in control
almost no one owns their own land or property anymore

I'm not sure yet.

If women ALWAYS vote liberal, even in the face of hardcore, ubiquitous conservatism, then no, they should not be able to vote, as their votes destroy the country.

If women vote according to prevailing political atmosphere (as they're very impressionable), then in a properly conservative country they should be able to vote.

However, I think it's more a problem with the system than women themselves. Children will be children. You can't expect the child not to take the candy you set in front of them, even if you tell them not to or that it's poisoned. Same with women. I don't necessarily think they should have their vote revoked, simply they shouldn't have any disgustingly liberal, progressive options available to vote for in the first place.

If all the men of a country knew and understood that liberalism is cancer and did what they could to prevent it, it would make no difference whatsoever what women wanted or did, end of story.

You know perfectly well how to embed, you're just avoiding it in an effort to increase click shekels. Fucking kike.

It's fucking great. Might be a bit dry if you've never served though. Your justification of "having skin in the game", so to speak, with property is applied to federal service in it.

What's funny is that it's often sold in tandem with "Stranger in a Strange Land", which Heinlein also wrote, and is on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum (The two together are pretty much literally Fascism vs Communism). He was pretty talented and liked to experiment and see what he could successfully write outside of his comfort zone.

Under sharia law? ;^)

That's not the case though.

Once you give women the vote, it becomes easy to use "free speech" propaganda to manipulate the voting trends into slowly pozzing you again.

Women suffrage is the reason for the end of the West.
It was the first major step the kikes used to subvert us.

Well, second major. First it was convincing us we needed voting at all. But baby steps I suppose.

Women shouldn't vote, but a married man should cast 2 votes.

tne first way kikes pozzed us was with the enlightment idea of everyone is equal

no, britain allows polygamy provided the polygamous marriage was performed in a country where it was legal. so i couldn't get a second, etc marriage in britain but after getting it abroad it is valid.

whether that country has shariah or not is irrelevant.

Well that lead to voting.

The enlightenment, the enlightened despots it spawned, and the latter Jacobin revolutions truly were the source of all this chaos.

Hm. Thank you user, I learned something today. I was just being a cheeky cunt anyway. Good luck with the Brexit vote.

No, no and NO!

I've been hanging out with "far-right" crowd a lot lately and even though the chicks in there are pretty redpilled they are still simply too stupid to really make important decisions.

Only 1 out of 10 is "wise" or maybe emotional enough is better word that she wants all the muslims in my country dead, DEAD or atleast forced out of the country at gunpoint while the rest are just "oh well m-m-maybe we can get them leave peacefully :)))" and such bullshit and these are fucking "redpilled" women.

No. Women did not build civilization and they are not interested in preserving it. Their biological imperative is simply to pass on their genes and they don't care about anything that goes above and beyond that. They vote pro immigrant despite immigrants raping them and taking away their rights which proves they WANT to be controlled. We just need to start doing it again.

They are a resource to be aquired by the victor. Nothing more.

thank you. the european union is a vile, racist organisation that forces us to have open borders with nearby ethnically white nations while leading to us having far stricter immigration policies against our true kin in the commonwealth.

No. Women squandered their voting privilege

This.

women think with empathy rather than reason. that's just how they evolved. you can try to reason with women as much as possible, but it's not going to do much if you have someone crying about an injustice or promising to give an oppressed minority lots of money.

for example, girl in my uni was going on about the gender pay gap.

tl;dr women make emotional decisions rather than logical ones.

No.

1 family 1 vote.

That's precisely how it is.

On our gatherings when we talk about relevant issues, Holla Forumsitics etc it's relatively "tame" when the girls are around but once they're gone it's full on gas the kikes and degenerates without being just hatred but realisation that if we want their filth and corruption gone we need to take drastic measures as anything less wont do it.

This is actually spot on.

Our society and culture is failing because this is the largest issue we face as a country, it's also why niggers are back to being niggers, all the gentrified blacks have a nuclear family, the niggs are raised in the streets (literally in the millions).

You could argue that more women joining the workforce is the problem, but the other issue is wages not keeping up with inflation and outsourcing.

(unlike back when a husband could support the nuclear family of 4 with a simple entry level position)

If women were moms again, if men were men again, and if careers were careers again, we would be living on a stable Mars at this point.

But no, the Jew knows of our plans and don't want a National Martian Army, so they subverted American power via our wallets and education.

Holy shit kill yourself.

No. Women are too emotional and too focused on acquiring resources without trading for them. They are incapable of seeing the bigger picture, which is why there are so few women in business, but so many in feel-good employments.

Of course not. Women are short-sighted and emotional.

Also a man should be required to be of the ethnicity of his country to gain citizenship, and the right to enter office only if he has at least three generations of family (with some kind of record to prove it,) that have lived in that country. Loyalty and common bonds make a strong nation.

If you meant Australia:
1) we don't have a president
2) that number is false
If you meant Austria:
1) that number is false
It was 60% females and 40% males for the green candidate, and 60% male and 40% female for the right wing candidate.

It's funny. My local is always going on about how diverse we are.

It used to be father/son or some other close familial relation. No women. And we were the stronger and the better for it.

I pointed out (and got told I was racist) that diverse is pretty close to divided, which is something a union shouldn't be.

...

theres no point. their husbands and fathers vote in their interests. women are only a group to be subverted, because their emotion trumps their logic.

show me a good government that ever ran on emotion…

There is no evidence of this. You are basing your assumptions off of political writing from Classical Antiquity.

A modern American home owner in a country with 350 million other people who has never been exposed to any danger or the prospect of danger in real life, who has never experienced war of any variety and the thought of losing his home for any reason other than his financial mismanagement doesn't necessarily have any more investment in the nation than a random bum.

In reality of North America were conquered by just about any other group on the planet most people wouldn't lose their homes. The sheer scale of society inculcates a sense of herd immunity in people. Westerners are turning into Chinese in their decadence and teeming numbers. The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away. What does it matter who rules?

Repeating canned 'wisdom' won't get us anywhere.

Nice meme

They don't. It's a complex thesis, but to put it in a short format, women are like toddlers. Toddlers are wired to basically be suicidal. They lack most fear responses, and it is a matter of brain development and chemistry not lack of knowledge. The threshold for genetic success of a group is the ability to raise children to adulthood, and so children push against the limits of that threshold by testing the fitness of the parents. The threshold for having a successful society is more complex but women will push against it to test the fitness of the men. Women develop views in order for them to be discounted by the strong that will prosper, or accepted by the weak who will be replaced by stronger men.

Heinlein was a nutjob. Stranger in a Strange land wasn't out of his comfort zone. He was a feminist, nudist who liked older women, polyamory and fantasized about sex with his mother. A theme he incorporated into many of his books.

He married a very man-minded woman that was a right-wing engineer. So it's likely Starship Troopers was developed according to her political views as he viewed women as superior and just took her views as his own. Stranger in a Strange Land was written much later and was probably Heinlein returning to form or after he had pozzed his wife with his nascent hippyism.

How Women DESTROY NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS (PART II)

youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0

...

Explain it in simple terms you fucktard.

If I earn $10 an hour and you earn $10 an hour, but I work 2 hours more than you do, I will have $20 more. The way they do these studies is they compare this exact situation and because women prefer flexible working hours and do less over time men have larger pay checks.

You went full autism you fuck

Wages didn't keep up because of women. It's basic economics.

If I have 50 workers and there are 51 jobs then they have to compete on price to get the workers. If there are 100 workers and 51 jobs then they can lower the wages and people will still take it as it's better than nothing. We doubled the supply of workers in many fields.

This is on top of the fact that women want perks over high wages. They want to leave early to pick up their kids, so they will take a couple of less bucks on a job that allows them to do that. Apply this universally and you will understand why wages sunk even before you deal with globalism.

No

Women aren't suicidal, they're not not in danger. Women are the ultimate resource for humanity, without them you simply fail to exist and lose a lot of pleasure. As such women opening the gates to strong men is in their favour as the strong men won't kill them, maybe rough them up at worse but they will have better off spring for it.

As such women aren't suicidal, they're playing on God mode.

This is the problem. We lied about the nature of reality to generations of men. They think women actually care about anything but themselves and their offspring and they don't. They will happily throw everything under a bus if it gives them a stronger mate because he is needed to defend against wild animals not other humans.

no

Kill yourself

sage

Should children be allowed to vote OP?
There's your answer.

No they shouldn't. There are smart women out there of course. As a collective they are incapable though. Guys aren't doing too well lately either. This why I can't stand the faggots who specify THIRD WAVE FEMINISM IS BAD! NO! ALL FEMINISM IS BAD. I don't hate women or even think of them as lesser. I simply view them as different and incapable of certain things.

Let the women in other countries vote, but no, I don't want them voting in my country.

Think of it this way.

Absolute suffrage is a mistake. You want restrict the vote to people won't destroy the culture or economy. Anyone who isn't part of a family unit or self-sufficient shouldn't be given the vote. And self-sufficiency once welfare is gone will actually take effort.

Now look at these two options for women. If they are part of a family unit, they should be following the ideology of the patriarch, i.e. their male caregiver or husband. If they aren't, you are looking at some serious trouble. If they are self-sufficient, which will probably be rare, I doubt they could afford to be liberal.

Täysin samaa mieltä - I completely agree. You can't reason with a death cult like islam is.

However, the problem with multiple votes per family is that ideologically motivated parents would be encouraged to pop out tons of kids just to create more voters. I'm not sure how to solve this though, as I believe that a larger family has more at stake and may need more voting power.

Feminism has systematically removed the bargaining tools that men had to keep women in line.

We need women for sex and children. They will always have that bargaining chip, there's really no way around it.

We used to have the power to keep a woman in line physically. If they pushed the boundaries and continued doing so, light physical force was warranted. That was taken away by lobbying the state.

We used to have the power of money and wealth over women. When women had children and married they were expected to leave the workforce. They needed us to bring home the bacon. Now the state just gives women money or the women herself can go to work while the state subsidises childcare.

We used to have some sexual power over women. If they wanted sex they were expected to marry and have children. Contraception was not as easy to get and abortion was illegal. The state made contraception easier to get and abortion legal.

When these sources of power are taken away from men, there is essentially full sexual liberalism. Women systematically have voted and acted to decrease our bargaining power while maintaining their own. This has resulted in a situation where women are beholden to no one except men of the highest sexual market value.

No

1 vote per white land-owning household

NO

Of course not.

Both of these allow kikes to disenfranchise a large percentage of white men. White males over 21 is fine.

Nope. Women, who are hypergamous by nature, think they are entitled to men's money and thus will vote for whichever candidate promises to transfer the most amount of wealth from men to women. Hence the reason why young and unmarried women overwhelmingly vote for leftist parties (>65%).

Of course not.

Women overwhelming vote left-wing and are generally more altruistic towards foreigners because they never actually built anything.

Six months ago I would laugh at the thought of even debating an idea like this.

And then I watched as the vast majority of them voted their countries into chaos, willingly welcomed savages into their midst because of pro-refugee propaganda, and worse still, continue to resist any chance of fixing the problem through democratic means.

nigger, equality in the enlightenment sense does not mean we are all equal. this type of equality is no different than the equality pronounced in the bible. before X we are all equal. so the enlightenment was before the law we're all equal which came from the christian before god we're all equal. this doesn't mean we are literally equal beings on earth and should be treated that way. only retards take it to mean that.

"Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature, that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level. I have never read reasoning more absurd, sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athanasian creed, or transubstantiation, than the subtle labors of Helvetius and Rousseau to demostrate the natural equality of mankind. Jus cuique, the golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality than can be supported or defended by reason or common sense." - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 13th, 1813

If you like the current state of deteriorating affairs then you support females voting. If you want a healthy functioning civilization then no.

False.

Gee, I wonder why so many threads gets spammed with this?

Just for a start, Woodrow Wilson, elected twice w/ 100% male voters.

It sure as heck didn´t start with feminism.

No, that was true. The statement doesn't preclude the fact that certain men are also incapable of making the right decision. Some men are on par with women, but no woman is on par with the kind of men who have always run society. More and more often men of lower and lower standards are entering the political system, and with them women. Shitty men and women (who are by default shitty at politics) do not need to be making decisions that will have long-lasting impacts on the rest of society, they cannot see far enough into the future. The farther you can see into the future the more fit you are to rule.

No. No. No.

Fuck no. This has already been settled. You don't want half your population voting left.

Women have no place in society besides popping out and raising kids, period. None. Whatsoever.

Not in the workforce. Not in church. Not in the military. Not in science. Not anywhere but family.

This shit has already been settled. I'm actually trying to tame a raven, let's get back to that shit.

Ann Coulter, Melania or Lana Lokteff? Of course, definitely.
Anita Sarkeesian and Lena Dunham? Hell no!

Hence why the shills always insists on their women shouldn´t vote meme.

They claim it is because women are responsible for the Downfall, that they vote in block for it but in truth they only seek to turn women away from nationalism, ignore shekelberg, SJWs etc.

Even if I was a butthurt fat fuck that agreed that women shouldn´t vote period, I would still put kikes, niggers, SJWs and trannies first. Hovewer, they do not and that is not a coincidence, they are trying to trick us (or been tricked) into following an anti-White agenda similar in purpose to feminism.
Even right now, if 50% of the White population was against the System then it wouldn´t last very long, I would love that to be true but it isn´t.

Wrong question, OP.

Only confirmed right-wingers, passing IQ and fitness test (not fat, no neckbeard, no race-mixing etc) should be allowed to vote. -D

If you are trying to appeal to women you have already lost. It's like Trump said: women want strength.

I think there are four things that have had (and continue to have) a significant amount of influence on job loss and wage stagnation in the West:

1. Women entering the workforce en masse in the 1960s and '70s (women's liberation)

2. The offshoring of companies to the Global South (globalisation)

3. The replacement of blue-collar work by machines (automation)

4. The replacement of blue-collar workers by migrants, whether legal or illegal (mass immigration)

Why debate this, there is simply no way that rights like this will be repealed regardless once established unless there is literally like an extremist islamic takeover, which seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, you're going to have to convince women to do the right thing somehow.

Taxpayers should be entitled to vote, I don't care if you're a 10 year old with a lemonade stand, if the government takes your money, then the government should have to listen to you.

If you're on benefits or derive your income solely from being a government employee, you don't get to vote because beggars can't be choosers.

Not sure about veterans and pensioners though. I suggest that veterans have earned the right to vote, even if they are a welfare queen.

That's why people who don't vote don't pay taxes. Why do you think people allowed women to vote in the first place? So they could be taxed.

No. The smallest social unit is the family, not the individual. The political process will pander to the lowest common denominator by defination. If that lowest common denominator is made to be the individual, then the political process will naturally divide us, and it has in fact done so. How many of your neighbors do you know? Do you talk to? We are divided even within our own communities because of the individualistic culture promoted by politics and the media, which has it's roots in giving everyone the right to vote no matter what.

If the smallest common denominator is the family, then the political process will have no choice but to pander to the family instead of the individual. This on it's own would fix many of the problems that plague our society.

So there should be one vote per family, no per person. Who then of the family should vote? The children are automatically disqualified: they aren't competent enough to decide realistically. So it comes down to the husband versus the wife. The husband should get the right to vote for three major reasons:

1.) The husband is the breadwinner of the family in the overwhelming majority of all familial units. Husbands collectively earn the right to vote by supporting their families.

2.) The husband is the one who will be drafted in the event of a war. This means they have the most skin in the game in terms of the political process, which means they deserve the right to vote more. They have the most to gain or lose from serious political decisions regarding the economy or foreign policy.

3.) Mommy's Baby, Daddy's Maybe. A woman knows for certain that any child she has belongs to her. A man must take his wife's word that the child is his. He must trust her. He has to take it on faith. If women want to be taken seriously by men, they need to show men that they are worth being trusted. Much of that trust has been destroyed by social justice courts and progressive divorce laws, which allows many women to become full time ex-wives and use the state to extract paychecks from men who were foolish enough to get into a relationship with them. One step towards regaining that trust and repairing the family unit is women willingly abdicating their right to vote and giving it to their husbands.

To conclude: the requirement to vote (in general terms) should be:

Just for the US, only men voting lead to Woodrow Wilson and Federal Reserve.
He won a legit re-election too, he did not cheat like Obama did in 2012.

Hypergamy? Haha, bullshit!

I dunno if Roosh V and his ilk are knowingly pushing an anti-White agenda, reverse-feminism, or not but if they did, it sure would make sense.
Not saying that all the grievances they adress are BS but female hypergamy and other stuff like that? Snake-oil aimed at dudes not getting any.
"Women are getting sex every day while you get nothing, isn´t that unfair?
I might not be white but I am on your side, I hate White women too. Plz buy my books!"

Here lays the heart of the problem, both 3rd-wave feminism and "patriarchy" tells us that men needs to make money, to "bring home the bacon".
While we have our duties if we want a functional society, neither cares about that, they only want to fuck over men for the shekels.
In both cases, men are workbeasts and are distracted away from fighting for the White race.

In truth, duty of both White men and women goes to the White race first, Everything that goes against that is invalid.
Neither non-racist men or women should be allowed to vote, if feasible.

I am clear enough?

Men are more red-pilled because we are the ones feeling the heat, we are the ones getting shat on far more than women.

women were taxed before they could vote

the only prerequisite to taxation was the ability to earn an income

all I am suggesting is that the right to vote be restricted to those who contribute, either through paying tax or fighting for the nation

...

No, and it's just one of those ugly truths that nobody wants to confront or talk about.

Women will almost always vote left and vote for what sounds nice rather than what actually works. They don't vote for the betterment of the country or for the society that depends on them, but to appeal to social norms and attitudes. In my experience, too many women say they want freedom to make choices when it comes to things like abortions and contraceptives, but are more than happy at the idea to have the government pay for these things without thinking of the consequences for them.

There are biological reasons as to why women are the way they are, as well as Marxist media shifting around the social norms and edging them on to support destructive policies, but personally, I also think it's because, at least in the US, there is no social standard for what a woman should be and what her role in society is.

You just can't say that kind of shit to a Western woman because she'll go full apeshit on you. Having an actual standard to live up to and being expected to perform one's societal duties for the sake of one's people and nation instead of being allowed to be a lazy, uneducated cunt with a worthless degree sounds fantastic to me, but that will never happen because the average Western woman would rather live her life through sheer, almost stupidly contrarian individualism, and to hell with making good decisions for the betterment of your country and the lives of your countrymen.

They didn't build society, they don't have to shed blood for it, and they don't have to sweat for it. They're housed, protected, and paid for by it.

NO

Voting doesn't matter, there's no such thing as democracy you morons.

What they taught you about DDR, is the exatly same thing that's going on all around the western world.

They own the majority of the player-figures in the political game. They own the media where they can trash and set up the cultural and etiquette rules of the game. And they completely own the financial part of the game.

So why even care about who's playing it? What we need is to really play the real game, by shooting these kike's heads off.

I'm talking about the poll tax. Women aren't designed for politics anyways. You would know this if you had any experience with women.

Democracy exists, it just does so to the advantage of those who can manipulate the masses.

Yep, they should not bet the vote cuz they don´t get pressured into having any sort of good standards and responsabilities.

Let´s take away their vote. Do away the problems that made their votes a liability? Nope, just as I expected.

Hell, I would love that to be true that half of the White voters does that.

But they don´t, normies right now doesn´t care enough about that and when they do, they are easily fooled.

the fact that he has to dumb it down and explain it in simple terms is more proof that women are unqualified to vote.

I did not say women exclusively vote for nation-destroying policies. I said that women always do. Sometimes men do it too. In the case of Wilson though, he campaigned on the opposite of what he ended up doing. No sane man would have elected him if he were open about his intents to go into WWI, enact the Federal Reserve, and attempt to start a one-world government.

Just one thing. It isn´t enough to own the majority of the player figures in the political game, that they own the medias etc.

The "majority" has to be apathetic, naive and uninformed enough for that to work.
The "majority" has to look at the truth and reject it for that to work.

If even 10% of the population was fully willing to accept the truth and fight the system,
that would be one hell of a shift compared to today.

This argument falls apart when you consider the fact that women account for the majority of the electorate, receive the lion share of social benefits but only pay about 25-30% of all income taxes to the state. Simply not allowing women to vote would be a much easier solution.

No you fucking faggot. Women ruin all good societies with their emotional weakness all but a few should be made on sound reasoning.

The only ones who should vote are those who volunteer for military, police, fire, or medical services etc. The people who have made a contribution and therefore have a stake in this nation. civil service should determine who has a say.

Before you say it no, shitskins should have no say regardless of how they serve. They are never more than temporary guests.

Everyone else is subservient and should be thankful for what they get

sorry all but a few argument should be made on sound reasoning.

Men deal with external problems and how to assure most of society should run.

Women deal with the frivolous shit that makes us feel good.

Sometimes? This is precisely why I don´t fall for the women shouldn´t vote meme, because that sometimes isn´t just sometimes, sadly.

It isn´t just a few White men that would look at Pol and think "we" shouldn´t vote.

Hence, why I return the favor, anyone who are okay w/ kill/rape/detain/doxing Natsocs shouldn´t vote and anyone who are against kill/rape/detain/doxing toward Natsocs should not be automatically excluded from voting.
If the latter has White women, it won´t fully counterweight but it still makes the balance less tiped against us.

Good enuff by my book.

Woodrow Wilson pushed for the fed in 1913 BTW, a while before his re-election.
We wouldn´t support Trump anymore f he suddenly backtracked on pretty much everything either.

In all, the Downfall of the White race began a while earlier than the 1960s and it wasn´t feminists that started WW1 or even caused the war against the Russian Empire on the side of the Ottomans.

I sure don´t want to forget that.
I don´t forget the traitors in 1911 and I don´t forget that the normies today didn´t care that much about White survival until it started ruining their lives big time.

Encouraging more women to stay at home instead of going into the workforce would certainly solve a lot of problems:

1. White birth rates would go up

2. Fatherlessness and single motherhood would go down

3. Public spending, especially on welfare queens and their illegitimate offspring, would go down significantly

4. Various professions and fields of study would become less feminised, such as education and psychology

5. Male unemployment rates would go down, whereas their wages would go up

Same here. The cost of 'women's liberation' is simply too big. The feminisation of men, falling birth rates and the breakdown of the nuclear family are exactly what preceded the fall of Rome, and probably many other civilisations throughout history as well.

I like Anne Coulter

One of my sisters runs a business with her husband. She has her head screwed on. He works whenever he feels like it and goes to the pub whenever he feels like it. She runs the business. Whenever productivity falls, she kicks her husbands ass. They're a team, she's the brains and he is the talent, so it works for them.

My other sisters are not as smart, but their husbands are tradesmen and they take care of the books for them.

My mother ran her own business and funded her own retirement. She occasionally needs to hit my father up for money, but they have separate incomes and bank accounts despite being together for nearly 50 years.

If the women you're used to are shit tier, then you're probably not white. I don't give a fuck about your nigger issues.

It's not a meme faggot. If you let women vote it will only fuck you over. 2,000 years of democracy and no one let women vote, there is a reason for that.

NO! The abilty to vote shpould be stripped from them and anyone who does not own property. Infact I would remove voting entirely.

Women are emotional and will vote emotionally.

Men use reason when voting ( assuming non-retarded, white, employed, property owning person). This is why men are the dominate sex we have to protect women from themselves!

Therefore women must be removed from all positions of authority immediately.

Are you living under a rock or something? Women don't wear dresses anymore, they aren't modest anymore, feminism is a fucking thing. Women only give a fuck about what is front of them, and if that's money for shopping then they'll put in some hours. Most women don't work as hard as men, and most women aren't fucking Anne Coulter. You talk about white women as if we were in the 19th century.

If a woman can't manage household finances, how the fuck is she going to manage raising children?

If you're not a nigger, you certainly think like one. It's probably for the best you can't find a worthy mate.

It's called a patriarch. If I'm a nigger then you're a cuck in the making.

Women voting is not the cause of the world going to hell, it's an effect or a symptom of a problem that was already there before female suffrage. The enlightenment jump-started all this bullshit about equality and utopian schemes.Take the example of Germany from c1870. The most popular political party was the Social Democratic Party (SPD) who were Marxists. They were the antifa and SJW's of their day. They flourished in an era when only men could vote.
The banning of the party by the authorities and imprisonment of
it's leaders made no difference to the parties popularity.
Now German women were only given the vote in November 1918. This was followed immediately by the Wiemar Republic. Yet women didn't cause the Wiemar Republic, rather it was that the
Wiemar Republic and women's suffrage were a symptom or effect of an earlier problem, the Marxism of the Social Democratic Party of the 1870s-80s. The Wiemar Republic was simply the putting into effect at last of ideas that had been formulated 40 years before by the all-male SPD Marxists.
Women, like everyone else, simply follow the establishment propaganda.
Women believed in the 1950s that motherhood was precious and that
abortion was a terrible crime, because that is what they were told. Abortionists were put in jail and
women who used their services were considered on a par with whores.
A mere few years later, and women were clamoring to commit infanticide
and it was a sign of empowerment to chop your baby up and throw it's parts
into a dumpster in an alleyway.
Give Holla Forums control of the media for six months, and women would soon be
demanding the torpedoing of refugee boats and the machine gunning of the survivors, and indeed cheering it on.

Exactly! More diversity Now! More multiculturalism Now! More Whites in Africa Now!

Way to go on a tangent and not answer the question directly. The answer is either no or yes, and any person who is stupid enough to say yes is a part of the problem.

Having things like welfare makes women care very little about family stability.

I don't infantilize my wife. I have enough kids to take care of already.

Not a bad idea for the future, the best defense is a good offense but I doubt there is enough of a dedicated force capable enough to that nowadays. Besides the merchants would be funding the natives, as well as probably convincing some European militaries to help save the poor savages. ultimate cucking

The main task is establishing real power in our home countries. The majority of women able to vote will always try to take us down, say we are "mean". Unable to understand the consequences, that is why we need a dictatorship, so nobody votes.

But that's hard to pull off, how would we know its not controlled opposition using the power of the white man, again…

Women are easily manipulated seems to be the jist of what he typed. So no women shouldn't be allowed to vote ever.

a proper colonization fo Africa and the rest of the non-white world should commence once Europe is retaken.

He started with saying it is not the real problem and even said
Come on, guys.

...

First we clean out the trash in Europe, Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, then we can work on saving the white populations of various Latin American countries, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

The problem you're talking about is the nature of all government. If political power is there, everyone will be tempted to use it to live at the expense of everybody else. Type of government doesn't matter. Whether it's a few oligarchs feuding for legislation in their favor, or a few patriarchs, or every head of a household, or literally everyone doesn't matter. State influence grows, slowly at first, relieving its people of this or that responsibility, always in a clumsy fashion, but we can fix that! After a while a tipping point is reached where everyone has their lives regulated, subsidized, in some way shape or form dependant on whatever power structure happens to be at hand, what is then realized is that what we really need is the good old pioneer spirit before we became comfortable sucking on the governments tits.

However, this realization always comes too late. I can't give up my slice of the pie, but you should totally give up your slice of the pie. Women's suffrage is what happens at the end of empires because, as Glubb in 'Fate of Empires' argues, the realization that a tipping point is past always coincides with society being too craven and decadent to reinvigorate itself, so the only course is to deny there was a tipping point to begin with. That's when all kinds of pipe dreams are conjured up. If only we had direct democracy like the Swiss, that would save us!. No, science will save us! We'll construct artificial wombs and live on Mars! Or in Holla Forums's case: Trump will fix it! or Fascism will save us!

In the next civilization that men build though, better that women aren't given the vote.

Ok

None of this changes the fact that women think with their emotions and feelings instead of with logic and evidence. This makes them incapable of voting.

They shouldn't be able to vote.

But they should have driving privileges taken away first.

No.

Women are naturally born socialists, so no.

Fags like you deserve the firing squad.

Make that women without children, not 'people'. You politically correct vagina.

said Isaac Silverstein while he rubbed his hands in excitement as 0.3 shekels were added to his Paypal account by the JIDF

Men already revolted once for being sent to war without having any say in the nation's affairs.

You're a fucking teenager.

People forget the anti abortion voting bloc (and the conservative voting bloc) is powered by women.

Ultimately I think voting should rest not on gender, but on race and military service.

It's not a meme and it's because you're a pussy-worshiping cuck. If you actually cared enough then you would be heavily opposed to it because their well-being is at stake too.

What OP said. I would drop the property requirement for now though, as majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of she shekel rubbers, but focus on giving voting rights to those who completed some form of national service and bring back conscription.

The military standards for women would eventually be lowered to allow more of them to vote anyway. Best to make voting laws gender-specific.

Women are naturally born socialists, look at the fall of any great empire/nation/kingdom and you will see voting rights for women not long before the decline and subsequent inevitable crash.

It's tantamount to suicide.

Camille Paglia calls it the "age of decadence"

Neither common men or women should have the vote.

no, they shouldn't. universal suffrage was never about equality in the first place. men only got the right to vote because they were being sent to die by the millions in the trenches. women, on the other hand, just had to bitch and moan about it. it's not equality if you're selling your shit to someone at a steep price but giving it away for free to the other person.

universal suffrage is bullshit anyway. useless faggots shouldn't get the right to vote, it completely erodes the responsibility that comes with it.

why? old people have no stake in the future. young men without property have no stake in the present.

Speaking of which, this guy uploaded a part 2 on how women destroy nations.

youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0

Couldn't embed because it's already posted.

No, before the sciences were perverted by political correctness it was terribly easy to cite proof that a female's analytical brain function was equivalent to that of a child, regardless of their age. Of course, this applies only in a general sense. Thus, if we make a decision applied to females as a whole, the rational answer is a sternly delivered "no fucking way". There are always exceptions in the generalization, so I believe women should be able to achieve the right to vote, but the implementation is probably something very difficult to agree upon.

*I ended up buying the Civic for myself after she bought the Kia. It was too good of a deal to pass up.

Her friend tries that strong independent single mom routine despite herself. If she would humble herself once in awhile things wouldn't be so difficult for her (or her fatherless child).

It's always the men that will have to go to war or pick up the pieces when it's all fucked, so going by that: no, no voting rights for women. Period.

I'll probably be picking her up when she's broken down on the side of the road ,in the car that she should've bought

Don't you use that god forsaken word here. Always Rhodesia.

I don't have to convince any one to do shit, I can just wait until everything falls apart, survive the collapse and go "Want to live? suck my dick"

This. Women are very sensitive to Jewish propaganda because of their emotions

I don't care as long as they serve and get training.

The point isn't to have women be invading other countries, that's retarded. The point is to get them to experience sweat and pain for their country, get them to think about the country in a defensive way, and get them trained enough to actually resist in some insurgent way should the country be invaded.

Same goes for public service, and paying taxes.

If you want to vote in my imaginary nation:
1. Be white, meaning unmixed European heritage.
2. Get basic military training/service.
3. Do 48 hours of public service.
4. Pay taxes (flat rate not progressive).
5. Have children.
If you don't fulfill this entire list you don't get to vote, own business or property in my country. Why? Because you've got no stake in the past, present or future of the nation.

Fucking gets rid of the Jewish influence overnight. Do you think Soros could fulfill a single tick on that list?

I don't believe it's a sensible idea to allow them to vote, but what I think people miss about this is that it could only work in a society in which men clearly have bigger responsibilities. Current men (or most of them) are too weak for that and what's even worse, they're not respected enough to lead. The way some people talk about keeping women out of voting sounds like it would be something negotiable. No, it would be an imposition. So we can complain about how they vote in favor of destructive policies or the ways in which they can be manipulated but that isn't going to do anything to make it change.

Women voting will cause the collapse of democracy, and inevitably the loss of their own voting rights. This collapse cannot be prevented, because women will never vote against their own right to vote. Women voting is a pandora's box that cannot be closed. The second women have the right to vote, democracy's days are numbered. What can we do right now? Nothing. We're just waiting for women voters to fuck things up enough for it all to crash down.

Women are natural born socialists though. Women did not evolve as the bread winner, they evolved as the person given stuff someone else worked for. To cut a long story short, if you're the one taking you don't care how much is being taken.

My suggestions would be:

Why? Military veteran is a way to weed out the feminine without specifically targeting women; not only is it the right thing to do in general, but it provides a way forward for limiting the franchise (first restrict it to people who are signed up for the selective service, with women only have an opt-out option; then limit to people actually in reserves; then limit to those who have served).

IQ 130 is pretty simple, that is about 5% of the population (right? 2SDs or so) and only that sliver of the population can actually understand enough statistics and calculus to make sensible decisions about policy. But hell, IQ 100 would be a huge improvement over what we've got.

Age 25 is because male intelligence peaks at 25 and men typically have wacky leaps left and right in terms of their politics as they go through their teens and early twenties.

Kids is because if you don't have a stake in the next generation, you shouldn't have a voice in policy.

High IQ wouldn't work well because when your IQ gets too high you lose contact with reality. Take the chess grand masters or the mensa people, they're all r9k tier autistic.

If you must have the public voting then you do it based on public or military service and only at the completion of the term of service to prevent women signing up, getting pregnant and dropping out.

I would still argue that monarchy is better but your system is flawed because it doesn't take into account the way intelligent people start to have flaws. i.e. how many intelligent people think sports are just meat head things? Sports are vital to channeling male war time energy for use during peace time and help bring together tribes.

Respected? Or Respectable?

Women have no business voting. It's been a total disaster. Dumb men and other races have no business voting. It's also been a total disaster.

They should all be excluded, and we need to have a Fuehrer come out of the vote of our men who have proven themselves worthy. An excellent measure of that worth would be owning property, passing an intelligence test, and having gone to war.

I am surprised this whole thread full of cucks hasn't posted that you're not a man until you've killed someone, but you're not.

If I was the king, I could line this out, also.

Study how a bellcurve works. The chess GMs (who are not all like Bobby Fisher, by the way) are not 2SDs above the mean, they are 3-5SDs above the mean. As a result they are only an insignificant fraction of the group that would qualify.

Also, many very intelligent people very intelligently don't waste time learning about issues they can't influence; which would no longer be an issue if they were a larger share in the electorate.

Not many, smart people (a) tend to be super-disciplined so they get the value of exercise and (b) also tend to be very, very competitive.

Or are you talking about watching sports? Smart people tend not to go in for spectator sports, true

The people you're talking about IQ wise are the autistic people. Have you never spent time around actual intelligent people? Any time you're above like 110 they start to have bigger and bigger social flaws. You need that social grounding to govern a social group.

Smart people don't show more motivation or competitiveness actually. We have a lot of smart people in the world today who have zero motivation because they're so smart. If I breeze through everything in life for twenty years then I never learn to struggle, I never learn to appreciate conflict.

Of course they should .

I would like you to remember that blaming women is not the answer , but remembering that many women are victim of cultural marxism .

The very idea that white women for example of abandoned white men is absolutely completely and utterly ridiculous , seeing how white women are actually the least likely to race mix . In fact , the biggest race mixer is according to all stats polls etc … Is White men .

We must acknowledge our failures and save them . Nothing can be saved without them . DO not fall for divide tactics .

Are you sure that disenfranchising the vast majority of men in a society is a good idea?

How the fuck do you confuse 'of' and 'have'?
Bullshit. White men are #2 when it comes to being the least likely to race-mix, right after white women.

Ofc not. Nor granted any other special privileges.

The success of the Women's Movement and the commensurate, associated explosion of degeneracy of all types are what will be the downfall of the West. Feminism is the single greatest evil our culture has ever faced.

No, in fact men shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they are land owners.

Can you stop being such a little white knighting faggot?

If you don't hold women accountable for their actions then you're not doing your job properly. Absolving them of blame is the exact problem we have now where we don't blame women for the problems they cause so they keep causing them.

This. "Patriarchy" is something forced on women, it's the social innovation that makes civilization possible.

What women are working to recreate are the social conditions of the stone age pre-civilization.

...

I agree with this, and only people born in the united states.
taking away a womans right to vote would cause way too much uproar from the left, that would be the only way it could happen.

That's why you don't frame it that way. Instead of losing your right, you're just sharing it with your family. You're voting for everyone now, that's more important than one vote!

No.

i would lol. ive realized that out of every woman i know, even the apolitical ones, they all think trump is an evil racist. id rather lose my right to vote than have more obamas and clintons.
most women i know, especially feminists, also think its fine to be a slut, fine to fuck a nigger, and every white mother i know is single, or has multiple baby daddys, so i dont care if their voting rights are taken away.

it would probably cause outrage if it didnt include "gay families" so it would have to include all married couples with children at first, then later remove faggots from it and women wouldnt be able to do much about it

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD YOU FUCKING NORMIE!!!!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

And learn English you retarded whore.

(checked)

There should be a test about things true Americans would know that one has to pass to be eligible to vote. I swear like a third of the population believes we fought the UK in the Civil War. Those mouth-breathers shouldn't be voting.

The questions can be simple short answer and only administered in English.

You're fucking retarded, take your dildo out of your cunt and get off your little perch princess.

Gays are an easier target to restrict stuff from than women are. Firstly because everything in our society is built around protecting the baby production system, which is women. Doing shit to harm women is HARD.

Secondly, the vast majority of gay people are male and gay women don't exist beyond political lesbians or girls saying they're bi because they saw some girl with a nice pair of tits and feel envious. As such, it's as easy to take shit away from men as it is now. Just have to point out that the majority of gays are men.

White Nationalists…hate WHITE Christians, Women, Gays, Southern Europeans, Slavs, Finns, Irish and now Germans and Sweds.

The genius plan to "save the White Race".

Women cost FPÖs Hofer the election.
Well, that and the 'magical letter votings' that flew in for his opponent later.

tbh fam

Fuck off, retard.

Is it no wonder WN's can only get Asian girlfriends?

To make "White babies" of course.

No. Even Ann Coulter thinks it's retarded to let women vote.

Only people who should be able to vote are men over the age of 22.

why anyone would make hapas willingly is still beyond me.

Fun fact: Jews voted more liberal than Hispanics did in 2012 by a 4% margin.

I'd go further. Only homeowners should be allowed to vote.

...

This. IIRC this was the case for a long while back in the day.

lol Good luck on your quest for creating a never ending boomer society, you rat cretin.

Men, married or not, are the workhorse of society and it's primary defender. You try to degrade them just liek the leftists.

Nah. There are many reasons why that idea is stupid.

bump

LOL aspie mgtow detected

no its built around the money production system retard.
so are you implying that not voting would harm women? lol
i was talking about faggots who are married AND have kids, and they make up less than 3% of the population.
most males dont like gay guys, and would probably vote to take away their marriage rights.

lol

nice dubs

If she owns land and is an American Citizen.

If she's married, the family get one vote. If she still owns business property, she is only allowed one vote in the businesses local area and only for zoning/business regulations.

checked

White males, gotta have a good genetic test for it. Land and businesses are a tough one, jews have proven able to fuck that system in the past by owning all the land.

Better for me is the franchise for veterans, make the army hard as fucking hell and mandatory for two years, if you puss out then you are beta male tier with no vote.

I like the natural born but support a very strict citizenship path for male whites, like 10 years residence, plus oaths of loyalty to us, breaking ties with prior country.

Still no vote for them unless they did four years here plus two year army for us, then another four years to male the ten years, then they can vote. Otherwise fuck em be happy just being here.

Should all men be allowed to vote? We should instead have a system where in order to be allowed to vote, you have to

1. Have a job
2. Pass a test to determine if you should be allowed to vote (if you're not nationalistic enough then you don't get to vote)

Then it won't matter how many of the voters are men or women, because the end result is the same, nationalists in power. And women won't be whining about not having a vote.

sage

meant to bump

NO, voting is virtue signalling for women, women should be seen but not heard.
/thread

No. They also should not be allowed to own property, to go out in public without a male escort, to be literate, or to disobey her husband or closest male relative.

Should women be allowed to uncover their hair and faces?

Mudslimes detected.

...

There's no point in women having a separate vote.
It only serves to provide a fracture point between spouses.
1 Family, 1 Vote.

Basically the respect a relationship between a man and a woman has gotten thrown out of the window, because a woman gains more by splitting up with said man.

No, you're seeing it from the wrong perspective user.

They control the figure-heads, they own the lobby-groups. You don't have a political career unless you sign up for them basically, go with the party-line, which is in turn decided by said lobby-groups and the mainstream-media who can wreck peoples careers.

No. Not just no, obviously not. Hell we thought, hey, maybe it won't be so bad! First thing they do is vote in prohibition and second is vote in socialism. Women have shown themselves to be completely incapable of voting intelligently.

Nobody should be allowed to vote, honestly.
Just look up Edward Bernays or the Iron Law of oligarchy. All voting gives people is the delusion that they are participating.

Serious question for you guys. Not d/c, I am genuinely curious, and pretty new to this.

Do you really think that every single woman is like this? Do you really think that not a single woman out there is not only conscious of her own nature, but actually on the intellectual level of a smart man?

Because you are only weakly heterosexual.

this.

anyone who is a net tax contributor gets a vote. Solves the problem of parasitic women and men.

It would be like a corporation where shareholders vote on company matters. Instead of what we have at the moment which is like the customers, employees and suppliers voting in their interests instead of the corporations.

Politicians only care about getting votes, and this forces them to look after the contributors to society and not the parasites.

I've never really found a place for women that they really belonged in. I find it degrading to human life in general to associate a single life towards housekeeping. Although motherhood is a definite thing they should practice, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't vote.

I'd say "We should have a way to educate them"

But education is nothing more than a form of propaganda. So as long as we have democracy, it needs to be blind with respect to its citizens.

No.

nope

no way

Nope. You don't let children vote either, and for a good reason.

you are fucking retarded. the reason men were allowed to vote in the first place was because they are a part of the draft.

Women are not a part of it, so they must not vote.

No, neither should men who think women should be allowed to vote

men can be as parasitic as women. Less so on average but still letting the scum men vote over a quality woman is retarded.

Being in the draft is a shit prerequisite for a vote. Especially now with specialised, small armies and nuclear deterrents.

Bitter NEETS

Only those who have a stake in the country should be allowed to vote, and not for a party but for a policy.

This includes:
- Medium-to-big Landowners, preferably those who are over 25, regardless of sex
- Soldiers, for putting their lives down the line for the country
- Members who contribute to society in meaningful ways and with high-grade jobs, such as researchers, medics and scientists

It's not that women should not be allowed to vote, it's that unless they're actually meaningful to society and the country as a whole then their position is no better than that of an outsider. Never forget that when questioned on political matters they'll often cite their feelings rather than addressing the issues.

You don't sound too experienced with women yourself m8. You're probably adept at bringing out the cuntiness in girls, which makes sense as you yourself argue like a weak cunt. If you even talk to girls, but that's probably beneath you.

The guy you were replying to has an argument that shits all over you and you've not got a single valid refutation so far.

How do you decide which people are productive or not? All researchers arnt productive. You need an objective way of determining who is and isn't productive. The best way to do that is who lives off of other people and who doesn't. People who live off the taxes of other people are not productive. Only people who pay net tax should vote.

If your criteria is subjective to what you feel is productive then all kinds of retards will get a vote, look at what gender feminists feel is productive.

Soldiers shouldn't automatically get a vote either.

Restrict voting to white men only. No dual citizens can vote. The right to vote must be earned with 1 year of military service.

By definition, state-sponsored researchers work for the improvement of the country as a whole, whereas a profession such as that of a teacher works for the improvement of a restricted bunch of individuals, with politics getting in the way of learning as well.
That gives the vote even to people who have no stake in the country.
They defend your land. They risk their lives so your sorry bottom doesn't. Soldier shouldn't get paid per se, but they should have a number of benefits that grants them a good and productive life post tour.

women aren't analytical enough to handle the responsibility of the vote
they are too easily swayed by any emotional appeal, the favorite trick of the demagogue
this is why women vote for left wing groups by such wide margins
voting should be limited to one vote for each family
the head of household should cast the vote on his families behalf
only a male can be head of household
women and single men should not vote
women for the reasons specified, and single men because they have not taken on any real responsibility and can't yet be trusted to make responsible decisions

Ok, so they will just vote to give themselves the right to vote on all issues. Voter enfranchisement is a social issue, not a fiscal one.

Or they will just vote for more immigration, and let the foreign males vote how they want.

How can this even be a question?

Look around you, see the state Western countries are in and find your goddamn obvious answer.

Then they should also not serve in the military, you can have all those 'fathers' fight their own fucking wars then.

Women only belong to the Kitchen.
Niggers only belong to Africa.
Sandniggers only belong to the Desert.

What the FUCK did you people not understand when GOD said:

"He who fucks up the world, will get fucked in the butt!"

Amen.

State sponsored researchers don't though. All the researchers currently are state sponsored in my country, and they include everyone from gene research to diversity researchers.

You have an ideal in your head which doesn't fit with reality.

People who pay taxes have a must greater stake in their country then any people paid by those taxes. The professions you've listed don't have a stake in their nation, they have a stake in the government giving them more money, just like welfare leeches

Tumblr-tier shaming tactics don't work here, newfriend.

I wish I don't have to vote but it is mandatory to vote in Australia so there is nothing I can do so I just vote the minority parties to the top while vote the majority parties to the bottom, just to despite them. I think this is known as the donkey vote, am I correct?

Jews push for woman suffrage in any 'liberated' country. You don´t want to be a Jew, do you?

It's suppose to be "Women only belong to house" because they don't spend the whole day in the kitchen.

I designed perfect voting system, nobody will get offended with it, yet women's vote will get more silenced by it. Family has only one vote for everyone inside of it. If you are still unmarried you aren't allowed to vote, your parents vote instead of you.

Both wife and husband must decide who they vote for and cast a single vote for one candidate.

Perfect system. One vote for entire family. I think Macedonia practiced this kind of voting system.

Feminists were outraged by it:
ndi.org/files/Consolidated Response_Prevention of Family Voting.pdf

Why are they so anti-family?

This is a great idea. Only those who want the best for their children will get to vote instead of spiteful single 50 year olds.
However I like the idea of 1 vote per family. And family has to be 2 married people and at least 1 child. The head of the household gets the vote and send it to whomever.

Feminist hate it when they're reminded that women are female. They hate that women have children and become more submissive and conservative. They also hate it because deep down they know only conservative women breed and successfully raise their offspring.

ONE HOUSE ONE VOTE

No. In fact, women should not have any rights as citizens, and should be treated as property. Men can do every single thing a woman can do and better - EXCEPT for ONE single thing, shitting out more future work and defense force to keep the country alive. They are simply objects for the purpose to breed, and have no other value. Men are better in every other way.

...

Holy fuck is that real? Biggest red pill.

Feminism need to be destroyed as it is not a safe ideology for everyone.

N O

O

Women are emotionally charged and vote for dumb shit. White, land-owning, church-attending(?), educated males should decide.

kek I just inherited a mint condition civic today

thanks for the car user

interesting premise and play, but whoever made that infographic and added in the red lines is an autistic loon and ruined it.

Are you trying to recruit mongoloids? why are you repeating every line as simply as possible?

I see spot. spot dog. see spot run.

fucking retard

No, unless they vote in favour of what I like. In which case they are allowed.

lel I've read that play, best part is that they give up they're anti-war bullshit because they get really horny and give up. Moral of the play is that when men stop giving them the dick the shut the fuck up real quick. Only problem with the modern version of that is niggers.

It would be better if they are educated, married and have 6 kids but the problem is there are too many white parents having fewer children so it is not a good idea at this moment. Other solution is autocracy.

Some OC.

Are these just views or the like/dislike ratio?

Europoors are mostly socialists. Some of them are great people, but can't trust them to run the country

yeah, you fucked it up right there.