I saw data from the 2018 elections, and it doesnt look good. Women outvote men in all demographic groups, and they are starting to vote democratic later and later into life, many as late as their mid 60s and early 70s. Additionally, many women vote fiscally conservative locally (at their city and county levels), but vote more liberal on the state and national levels. In other words, they have no loyality to the GOP, they have loyality to their taxes at the local level, and expect the state and national leaders to carry their ideology. We're heading the wrong way as a voting bloc.
And now politics is just whoever is most pissed off. Its not about rationality, just emotions of the biggest whiners.
Go take a look at voter data. Remove women's votes from the equation. See what kind of results you get. Literally every single shitty political movement is primarily supported by women. Democrats would never win again if women's votes were taken out of the equation.
This is also easily explained by biology and the evolutionary history of women.
Name a shitty political movement. BLM, Feminism, fat positivity, Intersectionalism, the tranny movement, etc. You can literally just list them off, and they are all primarily supported by women.
You're not even actually considering whether what I'm saying is true and thinking about it. You are just automatically defending women. Which is what most people do, whether left or right.
They are supported by corporations to foster division. Such as the division of man versus woman. Can you imagine convincing a rational adult male to go against their spouse? That's just crazy that any rational man would fall for such. Because men are smart. Am I right fam?
I agree that division between men and women is being fostered, but it's not what this is about. This isn't going against women. It's acknowledging women's evolutionary history, and their biology.
Women advocate for themselves. They advocate for taking resources from men and giving it to themselves. It makes a lot of sense why when you consider the evolutionary history of the sexes. Women needed to do so, because that was how they secured resources for their offspring.
They had to have very strong traits for this because there were lots of things stacked against them. Men were more competent, and also much stronger. In modern society, nothing tempers women's imperative to take resources from men. They no longer have to fear anything from men because of how civilization is set up.
They also don't have any responsibility to worry about either. If a woman decides to have a kid with some random loser, or she behaves terribly and is a terrible wife and partner, the government takes money from men by force and gives it to her. Not even just from the man who is the father of her children, but from all men through taxes. What incentive does a woman have to temper her inclination to advocate for herself? Absolutely none. All of women's bad behaviors and negative biological traits have nothing inhibiting them anymore. There is no incentive for a woman to be realistic or treat men nicely. Couple that with the fact that they innately do not have a problem with taking resources from men, and you have a big problem. The women in evolutionary history who had a problem with taking resources from men or just advocating for themselves did not have as successful offspring, so through the process of natural selection, the genes for endless advocacy are what flourished.
The biggest problem in my opinion is that no matter which side of the aisle, nobody likes these biological facts. They just pretend things aren't this way because acknowledging it makes them feel badly.
Imagine if Prohibition never happened, a complete ban on legal alcohol because women didnt like the idea that some men were abusive. Imagine now that 78% of women support an assault weapons ban, in 2019 two thirds of women said that controlling gun violence of a few criminals is more important than protecting gun rights for the law-abiding, and just over 50 percent of registered Republican women say they support a ban on all "assault weapons".
When it comes to COVID 19 compliance, 88% of women would rather wear a mask when asked than to openly challenge the prevailing COVID mandates. 59% of women would rather follow CDC guidelines (whereas only 33% of men would follow CDC guidelines).
Any way you slice it, women are more agreeable in general. They would rather go with the herd than to stick out.
I kinda agree but think voting should be limited to tax paying citizens. No land requirement but if you don’t net pay taxes you’re a leech on society and don’t get to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff.
This is a good point, but it does have some issues. What about people who were rendered unemployed by bad policies? They are no longer paying taxes. But obviously they should have recourse in the ability to vote out the shitty politicians who destroyed their jobs.
This is really just a finer detail that could be worked out though.
What? The 14th amendment took away the right to voting by land ownership. It replaced it with birth-right to voting. If youre born here, you get to vote. And now look at all the illegal immigrants trying to make sure their child is born on US soil to ensure they have a right to citizenship in this country.
The 14 is deliberately misinterpreted to benefit forigners.not too long ago the couldnt vote for any number of reasons and were deported at the drop of a hat,but like all things Democrats screwed it up to gain power and work against America and our citizens.
Close. Personally, I think voting should be based on productive family unit. 1 vote per household. The ‘white male land owner’ thing was a proxy for that. In today’s world you can be any race you want and we can redefine land owning, but it makes sense. Letting children vote was also a bad idea.
Agreed to some degree, but not fully. However, I surely would prefer to maintain my right to vote, since my husband and I co-own property. Also, if two are working in a household, even if one is working part time so as to care for /homeschool children I believe that sort of woman is more qualified to vote than an unemployed single person who owns nothing (regardless of sex or age).
I think it’s fine if one person’s working and agree anyone employed should have more of a say than someone unemployed for reasons that aren’t they’re rich enough to not need to work. I’m not necessarily saying women should not vote, but that the vote should be by family unit. One way to handle that would be that you and your husband split a vote, each of you contributing .5 to the total.
My opposition to how voting has changed isn’t so much that women do it but that it got away from family units doing it. We’re a democratic republic and not a full democracy because that’s mob rule, but even when the concept of democracy was being developed, it wasn’t usually just anyone voting. It was typically different houses voting, or those involved with what was being voted on, not 12 year olds and a purple haired vagrant living on scraps from the state on the outskirts of town, or a hostile of people voting.
Making it by family also prevents people from shitting out a bunch of kids and swaying the vote. They’d only be able to do that if those kids went on to start successful families. I’m fine if gay people and whoever else votes too, it’d still be by the same standard. You’d have your household and still be splitting the vote among it.
If we made property owning a criteria I would personally lose my right to vote, but if we couldn’t figure out a way to have rentals work into then I’d still be fine with it because I think the overall direction of the country and quality of vote would be higher. I don’t have kids or own property so if someone else does and made a family and it’s working out for them, maybe they should have more of a vote than me. It’d reward and incentivize it. I’m not against people that chose to be single but it might be for the best if we prioritized making successful families and not living on Tinder indefinitely. The breaking of the family unit’s one of the main ways the establishment is establishing itself. It pretty much broke black America to break their family units, which used to have less divorce than others. Now they have fatherless children that end up under a knee after doing enough drugs to kill them and using counterfeit money.
I would raise the age requirement to 21, unless the person has gainful employment and/ or lives on their own or pays rent... I believe working for a living sobers one up, especially when you see how much in taxes are taken out by local, state, and federal taxes. (but then, I would also eliminate the draft as well, except in national emergency, and exclude only sons even in NE.)
Except that women have a biological imperative to vote for taking resources from men. So we'd just end up fucked anyway.
And that's why things will collapse instead of reversing course. Because the chain has been thrown over the edge. Women vote for more power and resources for themselves, regardless of merit. And once they get more, it just becomes that much harder to stop the inertia. Where we are now, there is nothing that will stop it.
Wait a minute... I thought our votes don’t count and all elections/the 2020 election was rigged by globalist elites/foreign governments? But women are to blame? Got it...
But, to be fair, Trump is not a real "Republican", as far as the establishment is concerned. And the establishment are the real losers in 2016 and 2020, so you cant really compare what happened while Trump ran versus what happened before.
We're devolving into tribalism and forgetting what Makes America Great, which is people aligning with each other for the Common Good. For Ourselves and Our Posterity.
Keep people in debt. Keep them in schools that do not teach anything. Keep them hating the opposite sex. Keep them screaming at each other on Faceybørg and yelling at Orange Man on CNN (1984 Two Minute Hate). Dumb everyone down by celebrating gangsta culture. Destroy all heroes, philosophy and art. Do the same to history.
Make it so that people do not vote based upon the Social Compact and our Founding Documents, but on their tribe. This is why the Ds are always so interested in being the ones to run the Census. Because they view every vote as, essentially, a census of cohorts that will always vote en bloc. Because that is what they have been trained to do. By the Democrats.
This is the perfect thread to discuss something like voting rights. Imagine if I posted something like, "what constitutes good voting rights?" You wouldnt even be here if I didnt post something spicy or edgy, and you know it.
I think theres a fundamental disconnect going on between the Republican women and Republican men. And it concerns agreeableness. Women are more agreeable, so they tend to avoid ideas that are not considered mainstream.
I (and the pollsters and politicians) find the most reliable way to engage women in siding with the Constitution/"topics where they risk disagreements" is for them to have male children, or at least children. That puts a woman's skin in the game. For a lot of women, her husband is always someone who can be jettisoned if it became a necessity. But 99% of females would never do that to their own children. And as long as they can be focused on Our Posterity, we can get them to stand up for said Posterity, and be willing to risk disagreements/icky conversations.
Thats a good point, as during the Covid pandemic, 88% of women would stick with CDC guidelines (wearing a mask when required, social distancing, etc) with one notable exception...when it came to school closures. Womens agreement with closing schools because of covid was at about 33%.
In other words, they didnt care about any of the other parts (no enough to confront people about it) unless their children were impacted.
One of the key takeaways from the Stanley Milgram Experiments, for me, is that the data shows clearly that women are better bootlicker/stormtroopers than men. They are more submissive, and therefore more adherent to commands.
But when it comes to their children, it's different.
It's been studied and proven that women have an in-group bias toward other women. So they may compete with each other, but at the end of the day, most women side with other women.
Women tend to be agreeable. A good rule of thumb is, if its on MSM, then most likely the average woman will support it because its "mainstream".
In 2019, over 50% of registered Republican women support a ban on all "assault weapons". Two thirds say stopping gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights.
I am not against women to vote, I just tried to historically explain it.
In a future society, we will not have to pay taxes at all. We will be all landowners, because it is the land that feeds us.
Megacities will die. Industrial agriculture will die.
People will only follow the Natural Law, so lawyers will go out of business.
With Terra Preta, it should be possible to grow the yearly food for one person on about 60 feet2.
When everything is private, there is not much to vote.
It actually wasn't the right to vote. It was when women entered the workforce en masse in the 70s. In less than a decade 2 income households became the norm, which lead to the modern era where now it's impossible to survive on a single income for most people. It's basic supply and demand. Suddenly there was an excess of labor and the economy balanced to match it.
I point this out as one of the main ways progressives were manipulated by corporations. Now it happens all the time. They do the same thing now with mass immigration, calling everyone racists and xenopnobes instead of sexists, so that they can flood the labor force and drive wages down even further. And progressives fall for it.
They do the same with regulation. Making absurd regulations so megacorporations are the only ones who can afford the team of lawyers to pore over the regulations and make sure they're compliant, or pay the fees required to be compliant. Progressives fall for it because it's framed as safety.
They did it with COVID restrictions too. Nonsensical restrictions that destroyed small businesses, but all mega corps were kept open. And progressives fell for it because they were fed a narrative that allowed them to be morally and intellectually superior.
And... to stay on topic. Who are the majority of "progressives"? Women.
Why did in the past only have the men the right to vote?
My thesis: At a time when a state did not exist the only time people needed to vote, was then an aggressor brought war over the tribe. Hence it was the mens duty to fight, so they voted who would lead them. Women did not fight, so why should they vote on the fighters matter?
And this is backed up by history from the Revolution on. There have always been women on the field, caring for the men who are wounded (Florence Nightingale and others) Molly Pitchers, keeping water handy where needed, or actually fighting (Deborah Sampson and others).
I think feminism is bullshit too, but this is just straight up misogyny. You are alienating anti-establishment and conservative women and women on the fence who may be swayed to the right if y'all weren't a bunch of cunts who post shit like this.
Yes. Women should be barred from matters of politics and war. Men should vote if they own land. Women should have a say in that vote, if they have a husband who owns land.
Men build the world, women nurture it. This is how society has worked thousands upon thousands of years. It is the natural way of life. But like everything in modern Western society it has become (((inversed))).
I honestly think we've crossed the point of no return. 9/10 girls i meet today are fEmInIStS who have no idea what feminism, politics or left/right wing really means and are just automaton sheep riding on the "I'm a victim" gravy train. Not to mention, all feminists I've known (and I used to be a faggot lefty in college, I knew a lot of feminists) are promiscuous druggies who grow their armpit hair and are depressed because they have no direction in life, no future. That's what happens when you cross off kids and marriage off your life goal's list. You "liberate" yourself from nature's GIFT to women, and instead you enslave yourself to some dickhead (almost always a man) in an office.
Everything we live today started with feminism. Reverse engineer the steps from Joe Biden to late 1800's feminism.to understand how one event led.to the next.
This should be the single point of action. Reverse feminism
Leftism ruined the female vote. Feel good politics, media backing, hollywood influence, and social media bastardized logic with emotional response.
The fear and hate campaign targeted the weak and misinformed.
I saw data from the 2018 elections, and it doesnt look good. Women outvote men in all demographic groups, and they are starting to vote democratic later and later into life, many as late as their mid 60s and early 70s. Additionally, many women vote fiscally conservative locally (at their city and county levels), but vote more liberal on the state and national levels. In other words, they have no loyality to the GOP, they have loyality to their taxes at the local level, and expect the state and national leaders to carry their ideology. We're heading the wrong way as a voting bloc.
And now politics is just whoever is most pissed off. Its not about rationality, just emotions of the biggest whiners.
Oh, is that what caused systemic voter fraud?
Didn't the league of women's voters keep the presidential debates honest before that roll was striped from them?
Aren't you falling for, and hence fostering division by pushing this stereotype?
Go take a look at voter data. Remove women's votes from the equation. See what kind of results you get. Literally every single shitty political movement is primarily supported by women. Democrats would never win again if women's votes were taken out of the equation.
This is also easily explained by biology and the evolutionary history of women.
Again, ignoring voter fraud, pretending that the DNC are actual Democrats, ignoring the RINOs, and assuming psyops aren't used on men.
Speaking of which. Nice thread.
As vague and meaningless as reading tea leaves or my horoscope. Makes it so the data can mean anything I wish, as long as I believe. Womp, womp...
Name a shitty political movement. BLM, Feminism, fat positivity, Intersectionalism, the tranny movement, etc. You can literally just list them off, and they are all primarily supported by women.
You're not even actually considering whether what I'm saying is true and thinking about it. You are just automatically defending women. Which is what most people do, whether left or right.
They are supported by corporations to foster division. Such as the division of man versus woman. Can you imagine convincing a rational adult male to go against their spouse? That's just crazy that any rational man would fall for such. Because men are smart. Am I right fam?
I agree that division between men and women is being fostered, but it's not what this is about. This isn't going against women. It's acknowledging women's evolutionary history, and their biology.
Women advocate for themselves. They advocate for taking resources from men and giving it to themselves. It makes a lot of sense why when you consider the evolutionary history of the sexes. Women needed to do so, because that was how they secured resources for their offspring.
They had to have very strong traits for this because there were lots of things stacked against them. Men were more competent, and also much stronger. In modern society, nothing tempers women's imperative to take resources from men. They no longer have to fear anything from men because of how civilization is set up.
They also don't have any responsibility to worry about either. If a woman decides to have a kid with some random loser, or she behaves terribly and is a terrible wife and partner, the government takes money from men by force and gives it to her. Not even just from the man who is the father of her children, but from all men through taxes. What incentive does a woman have to temper her inclination to advocate for herself? Absolutely none. All of women's bad behaviors and negative biological traits have nothing inhibiting them anymore. There is no incentive for a woman to be realistic or treat men nicely. Couple that with the fact that they innately do not have a problem with taking resources from men, and you have a big problem. The women in evolutionary history who had a problem with taking resources from men or just advocating for themselves did not have as successful offspring, so through the process of natural selection, the genes for endless advocacy are what flourished.
The biggest problem in my opinion is that no matter which side of the aisle, nobody likes these biological facts. They just pretend things aren't this way because acknowledging it makes them feel badly.
Imagine if Prohibition never happened, a complete ban on legal alcohol because women didnt like the idea that some men were abusive. Imagine now that 78% of women support an assault weapons ban, in 2019 two thirds of women said that controlling gun violence of a few criminals is more important than protecting gun rights for the law-abiding, and just over 50 percent of registered Republican women say they support a ban on all "assault weapons".
When it comes to COVID 19 compliance, 88% of women would rather wear a mask when asked than to openly challenge the prevailing COVID mandates. 59% of women would rather follow CDC guidelines (whereas only 33% of men would follow CDC guidelines).
Any way you slice it, women are more agreeable in general. They would rather go with the herd than to stick out.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/265791996
Was on bitchute, but my bookmark gave a 404 error.
So the 14th amendment was the mistake and ruined society?
Because the 14th abolished the land owning requirement to vote.
It helped.you shouldn't vote if you have no buy in into society. Otherwise gibs and feefees rule your vote
I kinda agree but think voting should be limited to tax paying citizens. No land requirement but if you don’t net pay taxes you’re a leech on society and don’t get to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff.
Real property not neccessary just land.
This is a good point, but it does have some issues. What about people who were rendered unemployed by bad policies? They are no longer paying taxes. But obviously they should have recourse in the ability to vote out the shitty politicians who destroyed their jobs.
This is really just a finer detail that could be worked out though.
People like Bill Gates would just buy everything. The ancient Greeks talked about the problems with the mega rich become governments unto themselves.
What? The 14th amendment took away the right to voting by land ownership. It replaced it with birth-right to voting. If youre born here, you get to vote. And now look at all the illegal immigrants trying to make sure their child is born on US soil to ensure they have a right to citizenship in this country.
The 14 is deliberately misinterpreted to benefit forigners.not too long ago the couldnt vote for any number of reasons and were deported at the drop of a hat,but like all things Democrats screwed it up to gain power and work against America and our citizens.
Worked great before the sixties.
Free white persons of good character. Just like the Founding Fathers intended.
Close. Personally, I think voting should be based on productive family unit. 1 vote per household. The ‘white male land owner’ thing was a proxy for that. In today’s world you can be any race you want and we can redefine land owning, but it makes sense. Letting children vote was also a bad idea.
Agreed to some degree, but not fully. However, I surely would prefer to maintain my right to vote, since my husband and I co-own property. Also, if two are working in a household, even if one is working part time so as to care for /homeschool children I believe that sort of woman is more qualified to vote than an unemployed single person who owns nothing (regardless of sex or age).
I think it’s fine if one person’s working and agree anyone employed should have more of a say than someone unemployed for reasons that aren’t they’re rich enough to not need to work. I’m not necessarily saying women should not vote, but that the vote should be by family unit. One way to handle that would be that you and your husband split a vote, each of you contributing .5 to the total.
My opposition to how voting has changed isn’t so much that women do it but that it got away from family units doing it. We’re a democratic republic and not a full democracy because that’s mob rule, but even when the concept of democracy was being developed, it wasn’t usually just anyone voting. It was typically different houses voting, or those involved with what was being voted on, not 12 year olds and a purple haired vagrant living on scraps from the state on the outskirts of town, or a hostile of people voting.
Making it by family also prevents people from shitting out a bunch of kids and swaying the vote. They’d only be able to do that if those kids went on to start successful families. I’m fine if gay people and whoever else votes too, it’d still be by the same standard. You’d have your household and still be splitting the vote among it.
If we made property owning a criteria I would personally lose my right to vote, but if we couldn’t figure out a way to have rentals work into then I’d still be fine with it because I think the overall direction of the country and quality of vote would be higher. I don’t have kids or own property so if someone else does and made a family and it’s working out for them, maybe they should have more of a vote than me. It’d reward and incentivize it. I’m not against people that chose to be single but it might be for the best if we prioritized making successful families and not living on Tinder indefinitely. The breaking of the family unit’s one of the main ways the establishment is establishing itself. It pretty much broke black America to break their family units, which used to have less divorce than others. Now they have fatherless children that end up under a knee after doing enough drugs to kill them and using counterfeit money.
I would raise the age requirement to 21, unless the person has gainful employment and/ or lives on their own or pays rent... I believe working for a living sobers one up, especially when you see how much in taxes are taken out by local, state, and federal taxes. (but then, I would also eliminate the draft as well, except in national emergency, and exclude only sons even in NE.)
If I could I’d make military service mandatory and a requirement to vote. It’d solve many problems.
Except that women have a biological imperative to vote for taking resources from men. So we'd just end up fucked anyway.
And that's why things will collapse instead of reversing course. Because the chain has been thrown over the edge. Women vote for more power and resources for themselves, regardless of merit. And once they get more, it just becomes that much harder to stop the inertia. Where we are now, there is nothing that will stop it.
So were the 16th 17th &,18th https://blog.independent.org/2013/02/12/the-16th-amendment-a-transfer-of-power-from-the-states-to-the-federal-government/ I think the 16th, 17th and 18th were actually bigger mistakes, but that's MHO. https://conventionofstates.com/news/effect-of-the-seventeenth-amendment (this covers the 18th, as well and 19th. ) The 19th was more easily justifiable, as it was presumed that wives and husbands would share similar values.
And then Prohibition happened, and gender differences never really came back.
Wait a minute... I thought our votes don’t count and all elections/the 2020 election was rigged by globalist elites/foreign governments? But women are to blame? Got it...
I just want to see the simps fight incel in the comments section ?
But, to be fair, Trump is not a real "Republican", as far as the establishment is concerned. And the establishment are the real losers in 2016 and 2020, so you cant really compare what happened while Trump ran versus what happened before.
We're devolving into tribalism and forgetting what Makes America Great, which is people aligning with each other for the Common Good. For Ourselves and Our Posterity.
Keep people in debt. Keep them in schools that do not teach anything. Keep them hating the opposite sex. Keep them screaming at each other on Faceybørg and yelling at Orange Man on CNN (1984 Two Minute Hate). Dumb everyone down by celebrating gangsta culture. Destroy all heroes, philosophy and art. Do the same to history.
Make it so that people do not vote based upon the Social Compact and our Founding Documents, but on their tribe. This is why the Ds are always so interested in being the ones to run the Census. Because they view every vote as, essentially, a census of cohorts that will always vote en bloc. Because that is what they have been trained to do. By the Democrats.
This is the perfect thread to discuss something like voting rights. Imagine if I posted something like, "what constitutes good voting rights?" You wouldnt even be here if I didnt post something spicy or edgy, and you know it.
I think theres a fundamental disconnect going on between the Republican women and Republican men. And it concerns agreeableness. Women are more agreeable, so they tend to avoid ideas that are not considered mainstream.
I (and the pollsters and politicians) find the most reliable way to engage women in siding with the Constitution/"topics where they risk disagreements" is for them to have male children, or at least children. That puts a woman's skin in the game. For a lot of women, her husband is always someone who can be jettisoned if it became a necessity. But 99% of females would never do that to their own children. And as long as they can be focused on Our Posterity, we can get them to stand up for said Posterity, and be willing to risk disagreements/icky conversations.
Thats a good point, as during the Covid pandemic, 88% of women would stick with CDC guidelines (wearing a mask when required, social distancing, etc) with one notable exception...when it came to school closures. Womens agreement with closing schools because of covid was at about 33%.
In other words, they didnt care about any of the other parts (no enough to confront people about it) unless their children were impacted.
Correct.
One of the key takeaways from the Stanley Milgram Experiments, for me, is that the data shows clearly that women are better bootlicker/stormtroopers than men. They are more submissive, and therefore more adherent to commands.
But when it comes to their children, it's different.
It's been studied and proven that women have an in-group bias toward other women. So they may compete with each other, but at the end of the day, most women side with other women.
Women tend to be agreeable. A good rule of thumb is, if its on MSM, then most likely the average woman will support it because its "mainstream".
In 2019, over 50% of registered Republican women support a ban on all "assault weapons". Two thirds say stopping gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights.
Not what I was expecting... guessing there aren’t many women in here...
Oh, so billionaires buy all the land. Congratulations, you aren't allowed to vote.
Fucking stupidest voting idea on the planet here folks.
Why allow them to hold office if they can't vote?
EVEN Ann Coulter? A dumbass right wing talking head that does whatever she's paid to do spouts out misogynistic right wing talking point?
Fucking lol. EVEN her?
I am not against women to vote, I just tried to historically explain it.
In a future society, we will not have to pay taxes at all. We will be all landowners, because it is the land that feeds us. Megacities will die. Industrial agriculture will die. People will only follow the Natural Law, so lawyers will go out of business. With Terra Preta, it should be possible to grow the yearly food for one person on about 60 feet2. When everything is private, there is not much to vote.
It actually wasn't the right to vote. It was when women entered the workforce en masse in the 70s. In less than a decade 2 income households became the norm, which lead to the modern era where now it's impossible to survive on a single income for most people. It's basic supply and demand. Suddenly there was an excess of labor and the economy balanced to match it.
I point this out as one of the main ways progressives were manipulated by corporations. Now it happens all the time. They do the same thing now with mass immigration, calling everyone racists and xenopnobes instead of sexists, so that they can flood the labor force and drive wages down even further. And progressives fall for it.
They do the same with regulation. Making absurd regulations so megacorporations are the only ones who can afford the team of lawyers to pore over the regulations and make sure they're compliant, or pay the fees required to be compliant. Progressives fall for it because it's framed as safety.
They did it with COVID restrictions too. Nonsensical restrictions that destroyed small businesses, but all mega corps were kept open. And progressives fell for it because they were fed a narrative that allowed them to be morally and intellectually superior.
And... to stay on topic. Who are the majority of "progressives"? Women.
Why did in the past only have the men the right to vote? My thesis: At a time when a state did not exist the only time people needed to vote, was then an aggressor brought war over the tribe. Hence it was the mens duty to fight, so they voted who would lead them. Women did not fight, so why should they vote on the fighters matter?
And this is backed up by history from the Revolution on. There have always been women on the field, caring for the men who are wounded (Florence Nightingale and others) Molly Pitchers, keeping water handy where needed, or actually fighting (Deborah Sampson and others).
I think feminism is bullshit too, but this is just straight up misogyny. You are alienating anti-establishment and conservative women and women on the fence who may be swayed to the right if y'all weren't a bunch of cunts who post shit like this.
I see you took your hood out for today's posting.
Yes. Women should be barred from matters of politics and war. Men should vote if they own land. Women should have a say in that vote, if they have a husband who owns land.
Men build the world, women nurture it. This is how society has worked thousands upon thousands of years. It is the natural way of life. But like everything in modern Western society it has become (((inversed))).
I honestly think we've crossed the point of no return. 9/10 girls i meet today are fEmInIStS who have no idea what feminism, politics or left/right wing really means and are just automaton sheep riding on the "I'm a victim" gravy train. Not to mention, all feminists I've known (and I used to be a faggot lefty in college, I knew a lot of feminists) are promiscuous druggies who grow their armpit hair and are depressed because they have no direction in life, no future. That's what happens when you cross off kids and marriage off your life goal's list. You "liberate" yourself from nature's GIFT to women, and instead you enslave yourself to some dickhead (almost always a man) in an office.
Fuck I really hate feminism.
It's all by design. When you realize this, it all makes sense.
Everything we live today started with feminism. Reverse engineer the steps from Joe Biden to late 1800's feminism.to understand how one event led.to the next. This should be the single point of action. Reverse feminism