12
Comments (52)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-5
TwistedSister [S] -5 points ago +1 / -6

I was very direct at what my point is. My point, again, is that you didn't win because you don't have enough votes. Period.

I don't mind if you want to alienate your allies, women voters. Just don't be shocked when you lose because you don't have enough votes.

5
UnemployedMarx 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maybe I'm bad at math but 49% > 48% thus, Trump wins if women don't vote? Also, I've seen it broken down at a precinct level and Trump wins without a doubt if women don't vote.

-5
TwistedSister [S] -5 points ago +1 / -6

If you want to hang your entire future on 1% winning, I won't stop you. Also, due to the fact that the male vote has been dwindling year after year while all other groups are increasing just ensures even more that you'll lose every time.

3
UnemployedMarx 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct, I don't think the solution is simply to stop women from voting. It doesn't go far enough. I do believe universal suffrage is a cancer. Personally, if I was designing a voting system it would be the following requirements:

  • Male
  • 30yo minimum
  • 4 years minimum of voluntary military service
  • Must pay net positive taxes
  • Must own land of a reasonable minimum value
  • Must be at least a 3rd generation citizen
  • Must have biological children

I wouldn't be able to vote either but I think if we let only these people vote, our outcomes would likely be better.

-2
TwistedSister [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3

You can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which happens first. I can't think of anything that's a bigger waste of time than to pine away endlessly about something that will never happen.