649
Comments (61)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
27
strictly1957 27 points ago +29 / -2

Women's suffrage... that moment shit went wonky!

20
Lobo 20 points ago +20 / -0

Allow a large amount of the population with no skin in the game to vote? What could ever possibly go wrong?

11
blurryface 11 points ago +12 / -1

Womens Suffrage is what went wrong after they made the decision you described.

Universal MALE suffrage was the beginning of the problem.

Leaders lead. Women aren't leaders.

We were led here by men.

10
Swift_phoenix 10 points ago +11 / -1

The right to vote should be male AND you pay taxes AND you never get a refund from the fucking FEDs or State assholes. If you are on welfare no right to vote until you have paid taxes without getting refund for 5 years. That would solve a lot of BS

4
Watermelons 4 points ago +4 / -0

Assuming that no refund means no net positive wealth transfer from you to the government, I agree. I don't agree with the female sentiment.

1
blurryface 1 point ago +1 / -0

Annnndd....you own property.

4
strictly1957 4 points ago +4 / -0

Perfectly stated Fren. Absolutely perfectly said!!!

10
blurryface 10 points ago +11 / -1

They should have kept it land owners only.

Guarantee it wasn't those men who voted for suffrage.

7
Watermelons 7 points ago +8 / -1

The founders didn't because it would've led to an aristocracy similar to what it was in feudal England. If that were the case nearly everyone would not own land. The only people who would own land would be robber barons.

1
blurryface 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just curious.

Do you own property?

Property owners vote to make it easier to own property. Especially small ones, like local family farms. There are (or used to be) many more of them than people wealthy enough to own lots of property.

The idea you're saying is actually the reality we live in because of the liberal politics we have succumbed to. Not because of the conservative policies I'm suggesting.

It's counterintuitive because of all the BS they feed us. But it's true. There are more obstacles to property ownership NOW than there were when landowners were the only voters.

1
Watermelons 1 point ago +1 / -0

While what you propose may appear to be a good idea, I don't believe it is.

This notion has persisted since Athens. Eventually it leads down a bad road. The alternative, (what we have now), also leads down a bad road if unchecked. We're seeing it today. Basically a democrat vote is bought with handouts.

This is the argument given in the anti-federalist papers. Freeholders failed 7-1.

Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal and universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Government and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake namely that of property and persons both, should be deprived of half their share in the Government; than, that those having the lesser interest, that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole

I believe this was Madison.

You can read the whole thing here:

https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/qualifications-of-suffrage-(august-7-10).php

-4
deleted -4 points ago +1 / -5
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
4
VoidWanderer 4 points ago +4 / -0

Pushed by communists over a hundred years ago. (the bolsheviks) Gee, I wonder why people that have an interest in destroying western society to replace it with communism would push for something like that.

It's a scooby doo mystery...

1
strictly1957 1 point ago +1 / -0

A mystery I tells ya!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
strictly1957 3 points ago +3 / -0

And its a been shit show ever since...

3
sjriver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Fact