Restrict voting rights to property owners. It's based on merit and biased against communism. On top of that, a woman with her own property is every bit as deserving her vote as a man.
If we did that, the ruling class could buy up a bunch of land and it would be very hard to disrupt.
The most troubling issue is age. 18 is too low, and they want to go lower. My thinking is this - just match it to requirements for office. You have to be 35 and a citizen of the USA to be President, so that should be your requirements for voting as well. If you can't hold the office, why should you be able to decide who's in the office?
Exemption for military, of course. If you're willing to serve, you get to vote earlier.
I guess thats one way to put it. Really its that women tend to let their emotions rule over them, they vote and think in line with their emotions. Crying kids, mean words, social pressure can all easily sway their mindsets.
Instead of critically thinking about what is best, they let their feelings guide them.
At the end of the day though i lay blame at the feet of weak men who have allowed women to walk all over them and think through emotion aswell.
Conservative women with conservative men in their lives are better off.
Agreed, but it goes deeper than emotion. They are philosophical zombies with a tint of solipsism. Their mental process (which includes political ideas) consists of the conjectural question "how would I behave if other people besides me actually existed?"
This mental process is excellent for social nesting and raising their children (an extension of themselves). It is positively miserable for maintaining a cogent civilization.
That doesnt seem like a problem at all. Empathy is part of why western civilization is so much better than robotic civilizations like china or barbaric ones like african states. That question sounds like the age old "treat others as i would like to be treated."
Empathy and altruism, which stem from emotion, is only bad if it passes into pathological territory like it has for the west. Disregarding statistical facts and trying to treat everyone as if they are inherently nice and good. That a hug will bring world peace.
I'm gonna give you some facts that may or may not shock you:
Women control 56% of the vote. Women are a little over 52% of the adult population and the rest of the difference is due to disenfranchised felons.
From 1776 to 1920, the Federal government ran on ~2% of GDP sans wartime. We're pushing 40% of GDP now.
Every State that allowed women's suffrage prior to the 19th immediately started growing at near exponential levels. The States which didn't ratify the 19th but were beholden to it also increased at the State level once it was enacted. In short, the USA was a near-perfect natural experiment to isolate the cause of government expansion to be women's suffrage.
One of the major reasons government has increased significantly is because men pay 75% of taxes while women receive 80% of government welfare.
Currently, the USA government transfers $2T/yr from men to women.
I don't have the exact numbers for other countries, but the UK, France, and even Switzerland (which allowed women's suffrage in the 1970s) have all followed similar trends in the increase of government (intrusion and taxes) after women's suffrage.
That's the cost of women's suffrage. What does it grant which offsets the cost?
Most conservative women would also support a gun ban if it was worded correctly. Carly Fiorina (GOP Presidential candidate 2012). Was asked about gun rights and clammed up while putting out a boiler plate Republican lip service response. Ended up saying her husband has guns but not her.
They support mass surveillance after a "terrorist attack" as well. Tell them there are a freaks online and the internet would become China lite overnight. They would also try to get media, and hobbies restricted or banned because their husbands were spending time with those instead of them. Prohibition was heavily pushed by women for example.
You must know different conservative women than I do. We really aren't stupid... I don't know anyone who would support any kind of gun ban, no matter how it is worded.
And that would be the liberal "cancel culture" trying to get things banned to keep their husbands away from it. Most marriages I've seen where both are conservative have been relatively happy. Conservative women as a whole seem happier. We rely on our husbands, support them and submit to them... But that doesn't mean that we're doormats that have to go behind his back to get him to spend more time with us.
I mean this is a grey area thing. The real problem isn't that women can vote. It's that retards can vote.
But women are politically retarded.
Restrict voting rights to property owners. It's based on merit and biased against communism. On top of that, a woman with her own property is every bit as deserving her vote as a man.
If we did that, the ruling class could buy up a bunch of land and it would be very hard to disrupt.
The most troubling issue is age. 18 is too low, and they want to go lower. My thinking is this - just match it to requirements for office. You have to be 35 and a citizen of the USA to be President, so that should be your requirements for voting as well. If you can't hold the office, why should you be able to decide who's in the office?
Exemption for military, of course. If you're willing to serve, you get to vote earlier.
I guess thats one way to put it. Really its that women tend to let their emotions rule over them, they vote and think in line with their emotions. Crying kids, mean words, social pressure can all easily sway their mindsets.
Instead of critically thinking about what is best, they let their feelings guide them.
At the end of the day though i lay blame at the feet of weak men who have allowed women to walk all over them and think through emotion aswell.
Conservative women with conservative men in their lives are better off.
Agreed, but it goes deeper than emotion. They are philosophical zombies with a tint of solipsism. Their mental process (which includes political ideas) consists of the conjectural question "how would I behave if other people besides me actually existed?"
This mental process is excellent for social nesting and raising their children (an extension of themselves). It is positively miserable for maintaining a cogent civilization.
That doesnt seem like a problem at all. Empathy is part of why western civilization is so much better than robotic civilizations like china or barbaric ones like african states. That question sounds like the age old "treat others as i would like to be treated."
Empathy and altruism, which stem from emotion, is only bad if it passes into pathological territory like it has for the west. Disregarding statistical facts and trying to treat everyone as if they are inherently nice and good. That a hug will bring world peace.
Unless ive misinterpreted what you mean.
I'm gonna give you some facts that may or may not shock you:
Women control 56% of the vote. Women are a little over 52% of the adult population and the rest of the difference is due to disenfranchised felons.
From 1776 to 1920, the Federal government ran on ~2% of GDP sans wartime. We're pushing 40% of GDP now.
Every State that allowed women's suffrage prior to the 19th immediately started growing at near exponential levels. The States which didn't ratify the 19th but were beholden to it also increased at the State level once it was enacted. In short, the USA was a near-perfect natural experiment to isolate the cause of government expansion to be women's suffrage.
One of the major reasons government has increased significantly is because men pay 75% of taxes while women receive 80% of government welfare.
Currently, the USA government transfers $2T/yr from men to women.
I don't have the exact numbers for other countries, but the UK, France, and even Switzerland (which allowed women's suffrage in the 1970s) have all followed similar trends in the increase of government (intrusion and taxes) after women's suffrage.
That's the cost of women's suffrage. What does it grant which offsets the cost?
Those are hate facts
Womens voting pattern is almost unanimously retarded. Even conservative women want media banned and alcohol prohibited.
We do? I must have missed that memo.
Most conservative women I know just want to shoot their guns and take care of their family. For some that means working, for some it's staying home.
We want feminists to stop trying to turn us all into victims.
We want to support and love our men, and encourage them to be strong protectors, and never hear the term "toxic masculinity" again.
Most of us are quite capable of protecting our family from media they don't need to see and avoiding alcohol if we need to.
Most conservative women would also support a gun ban if it was worded correctly. Carly Fiorina (GOP Presidential candidate 2012). Was asked about gun rights and clammed up while putting out a boiler plate Republican lip service response. Ended up saying her husband has guns but not her.
They support mass surveillance after a "terrorist attack" as well. Tell them there are a freaks online and the internet would become China lite overnight. They would also try to get media, and hobbies restricted or banned because their husbands were spending time with those instead of them. Prohibition was heavily pushed by women for example.
You must know different conservative women than I do. We really aren't stupid... I don't know anyone who would support any kind of gun ban, no matter how it is worded.
And that would be the liberal "cancel culture" trying to get things banned to keep their husbands away from it. Most marriages I've seen where both are conservative have been relatively happy. Conservative women as a whole seem happier. We rely on our husbands, support them and submit to them... But that doesn't mean that we're doormats that have to go behind his back to get him to spend more time with us.
I wouldn't use Carly Fiorina as an example of a typical conservative woman if I were you. She's a RINO at best.