I don't agree with this specific qualifier but I can see the argument. It's closer to the Starship Troopers approach. You should have some stake in the future of your country to make decisions, not just the here and now and what can the government give me. An example of the problems that causes is the Keynesian monetary system itself, based on creating debt that our children and grandchildren will be expected to pay off, unless they pass the buck down to their children and grandchildren.
However this wouldn't solve that. I'm not trying to do generational blaming here, but much of our societal decay and cultural ills were handed to us by the boomers (or earlier in case of the Federal Reserve) who simply wanted more economic prosperity, and sent their young offspring to go "find themselves" and be individuals in the world so they themselves could retire early in empty nests. Line go up. At the same time the vast majority of past generations were married and had children. So obviously that de-facto rule did nothing to prevent the eventual breakdown of the system.
But what would Republicans even be in that hellish timeline?
A common line I've heard is democracy is wolves and sheep voting on what's for lunch.
In this case, it'd be just the wolves. Those without kids or any other attachment to women would probably be treated as less than human and openly blocked from most areas of society.
A common line I've heard is democracy is wolves and sheep voting on what's for lunch.
You're a fool if you think Western countries are 'democracies'.
In this case, it'd be just the wolves. Those without kids or any other attachment to women would probably be treated as less than human and openly blocked from most areas of society.
Like most of human history, when society actually functioned properly?
Well, despite the fact everyone who is eligible to be voted for is the same pro-woman garbage...the fact you have a choice makes it democracy, just a flawed one.
That's the most disturbing thing you've ever said.
I don't see what could possibly go wrong with people who don't have kids and so have more time on their hands being barred from voting, I mean it's not like they would get angry at the government for such a decision right ? Or use that extra time to do something about such a restriction......right ?
Sounds like a good way to build resentment, especially if you keep up with female biased courts and so on.
It's less about the incels and the voters and more about the leaders.
Everywhere you look in the West the "leaders" are nihilist non-child-rearing weirdoes.
They're the lefty aunt who doesn't wanna have kids because of global warming. They are the creepy commie uncle who never has long term relationships because women ask for children and he doesn't like that the reds lost.
If the leaders are morose sad-sacks who hit the thumbs-up emoji at the former Georgia guidestones, how can they defend anything?
Why think of children? They want depopulation.
Why protect tradition? They want a year zero.
Why defend a nation? They believe the very idea to be harmful.
So yeah, limiting voting is not how I'd do it. I'd ban misanthropic old people from running in the first place.
From my experience a lot of people that don't have kids or a spouse are those that are working to be able to handle such a commitment in as stable of an environment as possible.
These people are usually motivated and trying to build a better life for themselves and to have the government say they then can't vote would likely not have that much an impact.....until time after time they get shafted by the government (as is already the case) and this time they have the added resentment of their voice being muted by those in power.
This view of Elon's smells of rich person who has forgotten/never knew that a lot of people in society are smart enough to put thought into having children and not financially well off enough to be able to give them a decent life.
And all this before we take into account the other half of the problem, that you need 2 to tango and currently men must tango with their legs broken by all manner of unfair rules that will end your life should you pick a bad tango partner
Well I mean, its the only reason to exist. Failure to reproduce is a fundamental failure at life and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that. It is winning a Darwin award as a non-participation trophy. Your futile struggles against the facts of human reproduction make you an unfit dead end. It is what it is.
Even though I don't have children I kinda agree. This is almost like an adaptation of the original suffrage, which was won by men who went to war. I.e., if you don't contribute to the nation's continued existence, you shouldn't have a say in directing it. The problem with this is that degenerates can still adopt other people's children and steal the right to vote that way.
If this were implemented, child trafficking would be dialed up to 11. We're talking cartels kidnapping and selling kids to castrated degenerates in the blue cities, CPA ""rescues"" targeting red households for misgendering (after the public schools groom them first), exposure to guns, lack of pride flags in the household, you name it. It would be an industry surrounding vote laundering in addition to sex trafficking.
Luckily, I have my trusty cattle prod if they get too close.
I notice you're silent on Kathleen Stock's recent reveal of her psychotic beliefs, then quick backtrack. That one was amusing.
She came out as a supporter of Julie Bindel's push to get female murderer amnesty, then it went down horribly and she dumped a very obvious piece of misdirection about how she wants to "help men" on Soros-funded UnHerd.
I said she was a piece of shit. Vindicated again.
You'll have to learn one day, TERFs are the snake from that poem pre-presidency Trump used to read.
There does need to be SOME kind of qualifier to be able to vote as the current open to all model is why the west is the basket case that it is.
But this isn't it.
I don't agree with this specific qualifier but I can see the argument. It's closer to the Starship Troopers approach. You should have some stake in the future of your country to make decisions, not just the here and now and what can the government give me. An example of the problems that causes is the Keynesian monetary system itself, based on creating debt that our children and grandchildren will be expected to pay off, unless they pass the buck down to their children and grandchildren.
However this wouldn't solve that. I'm not trying to do generational blaming here, but much of our societal decay and cultural ills were handed to us by the boomers (or earlier in case of the Federal Reserve) who simply wanted more economic prosperity, and sent their young offspring to go "find themselves" and be individuals in the world so they themselves could retire early in empty nests. Line go up. At the same time the vast majority of past generations were married and had children. So obviously that de-facto rule did nothing to prevent the eventual breakdown of the system.
It's the simple truth, when you don't work to earn something through some kind of self sacrifice, you take it for granted and you easily waste it.
you mean that lefty-pol ""dystopia"" movie about a fascist earth fighting alien bugs?
No fren, the unironically based novel describing a ""utopian"" future Earth where service guarantees citizenship. :)
(Verhoeven is an arrogant asshole and didn't even read the book.)
But what would Republicans even be in that hellish timeline?
A common line I've heard is democracy is wolves and sheep voting on what's for lunch.
In this case, it'd be just the wolves. Those without kids or any other attachment to women would probably be treated as less than human and openly blocked from most areas of society.
You're a fool if you think Western countries are 'democracies'.
Like most of human history, when society actually functioned properly?
Well, despite the fact everyone who is eligible to be voted for is the same pro-woman garbage...the fact you have a choice makes it democracy, just a flawed one.
That's the most disturbing thing you've ever said.
Wish your parents didn't belong to that hellish timeline
Edit: the Simpossible1 bot army just in time, guess that means I'm right (yes, I'm very smart)
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Harassment
Comment Approved: I think it's not aggressive enough to warrant 'harassment'
Or maybe even people here are sick of the random attacks on me.
Nobody should be forced to women's natalist crap
There needs to be skin in the game.
I don't see what could possibly go wrong with people who don't have kids and so have more time on their hands being barred from voting, I mean it's not like they would get angry at the government for such a decision right ? Or use that extra time to do something about such a restriction......right ?
Sounds like a good way to build resentment, especially if you keep up with female biased courts and so on.
It's less about the incels and the voters and more about the leaders. Everywhere you look in the West the "leaders" are nihilist non-child-rearing weirdoes.
They're the lefty aunt who doesn't wanna have kids because of global warming. They are the creepy commie uncle who never has long term relationships because women ask for children and he doesn't like that the reds lost.
If the leaders are morose sad-sacks who hit the thumbs-up emoji at the former Georgia guidestones, how can they defend anything?
Why think of children? They want depopulation.
Why protect tradition? They want a year zero.
Why defend a nation? They believe the very idea to be harmful.
So yeah, limiting voting is not how I'd do it. I'd ban misanthropic old people from running in the first place.
From my experience a lot of people that don't have kids or a spouse are those that are working to be able to handle such a commitment in as stable of an environment as possible.
These people are usually motivated and trying to build a better life for themselves and to have the government say they then can't vote would likely not have that much an impact.....until time after time they get shafted by the government (as is already the case) and this time they have the added resentment of their voice being muted by those in power.
This view of Elon's smells of rich person who has forgotten/never knew that a lot of people in society are smart enough to put thought into having children and not financially well off enough to be able to give them a decent life.
And all this before we take into account the other half of the problem, that you need 2 to tango and currently men must tango with their legs broken by all manner of unfair rules that will end your life should you pick a bad tango partner
They don't consider you human if you can't/don't want to be selected by a woman.
It's that simple. They will dress it up in claims that they're against childless women, but that's BS that nobody should fall for.
Well I mean, its the only reason to exist. Failure to reproduce is a fundamental failure at life and no amount of wishing otherwise will change that. It is winning a Darwin award as a non-participation trophy. Your futile struggles against the facts of human reproduction make you an unfit dead end. It is what it is.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who have kids who are still massive failures.
Women chase after ex-cons and more people in juvenile detention have had sex than MIT graduates.
Even though I don't have children I kinda agree. This is almost like an adaptation of the original suffrage, which was won by men who went to war. I.e., if you don't contribute to the nation's continued existence, you shouldn't have a say in directing it. The problem with this is that degenerates can still adopt other people's children and steal the right to vote that way.
If this were implemented, child trafficking would be dialed up to 11. We're talking cartels kidnapping and selling kids to castrated degenerates in the blue cities, CPA ""rescues"" targeting red households for misgendering (after the public schools groom them first), exposure to guns, lack of pride flags in the household, you name it. It would be an industry surrounding vote laundering in addition to sex trafficking.
Restricting it to anyone who pays taxes sounds much better than people with children.
So Elon is going for an Idiocracy-Speedrun?
Post Reported for: Rule 11 - Spam
Post Approved: No, but Imp, you have reached your 5 post maximum. So no more for today. You need 24 hours from your first post.
Can't believe nobody posted this.
Although I suppose it was a post that had my name written all over it.
We saved it just for you, along with the expired milk and rotten bananas.
Guess I have to go to the store for everyone. Let me just check which ones I'm not boycotting.
Maybe I'll go to Target to make the TERF simps mad.
As the forum's most vocal bachelor, you're not doing a good job of arguing why you should be trusted with political power.
I don't need to.
Any attempt to take our voting rights should be acknowledged as feminism's next step to genocide.
Also, I would argue the whole TERF thing is a great example of how men with daughters turn into the worst feminists.
How do you manage? You might encounter some females.
Imp supporting troonery is the least expected development ever.
Luckily, I have my trusty cattle prod if they get too close.
I notice you're silent on Kathleen Stock's recent reveal of her psychotic beliefs, then quick backtrack. That one was amusing.
She came out as a supporter of Julie Bindel's push to get female murderer amnesty, then it went down horribly and she dumped a very obvious piece of misdirection about how she wants to "help men" on Soros-funded UnHerd.
I said she was a piece of shit. Vindicated again.
You'll have to learn one day, TERFs are the snake from that poem pre-presidency Trump used to read.
I have no idea what you're even talking about.
Would be the first time, but no.
The fact that you would use 'trans-exclusionary' as some sort of insult says it all.
I truly don't believe that.
That's their title. You can't call them just radfems because the whole trans issue is a big part of their scam.
Well, you believe that 90% died from the vaccine, so...
Who decides what 'their title' is? Apparently the media.