Post: #26

^ And then if there is at least 1 woman in a combat role somewhere, per liberal doctrine the entire military and society has to be arranged on the assumption that having both men and women in combat is perfectly normal.

I'm not disagreeing about the difficulty of getting society to change (back). I'm just trying to stay honest about the impact of making certain concessions. That's another thing that has been a big part of the liberal playbook ... getting society to make (seemingly small and kind-hearted) concessions and then using those to leverage bigger things that no one would have agreed with initially.

For example, see how abortion rights were originally sold, vs how now society is engineered around female sluttiness being the most important right that must be defended.

Post: #27

(02-17-2017 10:36 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  ^ And then if there is at least 1 woman in a combat role somewhere, per liberal doctrine the entire military and society has to be arranged on the assumption that having both men and women in combat is perfectly normal.

I'm not disagreeing about the difficulty of getting society to change (back). I'm just trying to stay honest about the impact of making certain concessions. That's another thing that has been a big part of the liberal playbook ... getting society to make (seemingly small and kind-hearted) concessions and then using those to leverage bigger things that no one would have agreed with initially.

For example, see how abortion rights were originally sold, vs how now society is engineered around female sluttiness being the most important right that must be defended.

Right. It's very similar to how restraining orders and no-fault divorce laws are often justified with the argument that women need to be able to get away from physically abusive husbands who might escalate their violence to murder. Yet most of the men restraining orders and divorce are used against aren't abusive. They're more commonly beta schmucks who are getting taken to the cleaners via the civil courts.

A woman who truly feels threatened usually won't risk enraging the man by taking out a restraining order that, being just a piece of paper, can't actually protect her. She'll just get an even bigger and tougher boyfriend who can kick the guy's ass if he doesn't leave her alone.

Post: #28

Other sources:
Ann Coulter: ‘Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote,’ But They ‘Can Still Write Books’





There are better ways of going about this. If you own land you vote. If you pay taxes you vote. One vote per 1040 tax return, so if you're wife wants to go lib, she'll have to file separately. Even lib wives who want to vote separately would be hesitant to file taxes separately, even if it just "wouldn't feel right".

All sorts of ways to fix the problem of the lazy people voting for their own handouts.

Post: #29

From another thread here on the forum, women are now fighting for the "right" to wear burka--a fight for less rights, essentially.

In combination with the above "If you're not on the frontline, you shouldn't be in the voting line either", wrap it with "patriarchal oppression forcing women to vote" and it's a done deal.

Post: #30

I like Beast's idea. Tie voting with military service, or at least signing up for the draft. Then have strict physical requirements to maintain eligibility for the draft or military. 95% women will fail or be excluded. Of course women will bitch but they will have no moral arguments.

There are many ways to skin the cat of female suffrage. Many solutions are out there.

Also, repealing the female vote is not as "fringe" as you may think. 80% of the alt-right is against female suffrage. What we need to really seal the deal is more Black and Latino men, while we continue to shame the hell out of White cucks.

This may take a few decades but your sons will thank you for it. Meme harder, argue intensely on comment boards, and troll away. If this works to get a President elected then the sky is the limit. Do not underestimate the internet.

Post: #31

(02-17-2017 11:41 AM)heavy Wrote:  There are better ways of going about this. If you own land you vote. If you pay taxes you vote. One vote per 1040 tax return, so if you're wife wants to go lib, she'll have to file separately. Even lib wives who want to vote separately would be hesitant to file taxes separately, even if it just "wouldn't feel right".

All sorts of ways to fix the problem of the lazy people voting for their own handouts.

I've thought about the "if you pay taxes" version before, which could make sense, but I decided that it should be something like "if you have paid at least $xxx in taxes over the past 3 years" or something of that sort (for people with non-uniformly distributed income), maybe also with a lifetime threshold that once you hit it you get the right permanently (helps retired folks.)

However, giving less votes to people who file jointly is going to have similar problems to what was mentioned above about going by household. If, per your prediction, married couples aren't willing to file separately just for the vote, then you are reducing the voting power of married couples compared to singles, which probably isn't productive.

Post: #32

Better idea, only allow military members to vote.

Post: #33

(02-17-2017 04:11 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Better idea, only allow military members to vote.

Too open for abuse, because the people in charge of military recruitment then become the de facto ruling class of America who determines who gets to vote. (and if you don't agree with them, they won't let you into the military!)

Universal draft with strict requirements 10000x better because it does not rely on human judgement for eligibility.

Post: #34

(02-17-2017 04:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 04:11 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Better idea, only allow military members to vote.

Too open for abuse, because the people in charge of military recruitment then become the de facto ruling class of America who determines who gets to vote. (and if you don't agree with them, they won't let you into the military!)

Universal draft with strict requirements 10000x better because it does not rely on human judgement for eligibility.

Plus, you have to consider that when someone joins the military, that's a nice prolonged period of potential indoctrination ... similar to a university, but with more control. How do you think that would turn out? Don't assume the culture and training in the military wouldn't be manipulated, potentially by a Soros surrogate or similar.

Post: #35

(02-17-2017 07:01 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  Plus, you have to consider that when someone joins the military, that's a nice prolonged period of potential indoctrination ... similar to a university, but with more control. How do you think that would turn out? Don't assume the culture and training in the military wouldn't be manipulated, potentially by a Soros surrogate or similar.

I think we should abolish the standing army and just have a militia. Then all the militiamen could be given the franchise without having to serve a five-year enlistment.

A standing army's purpose is mostly for invasion of other countries, since it consists of professionals hired to participate in unpopular wars if need be. A militia is composed of regular citizens, and is more for defense of the homeland. The founders' original plan was for the Navy, composed of professionals, to defend the coasts from invasion. (The Navy would not be able to, by itself, impose tyranny on the people or invade foreign lands, so it was not as much of a threat to liberty.) But if an enemy did manage to invade, the militia would be there to stop them.

Apparently, in 1812 that didn't work out too well. I think today, though, the U.S. Navy could make short work of an enemy fleet carrying troops to our shores. Plus we no longer have a bunch of Indian tribes hanging around waiting to attack us at the first opportunity.

A militia might not be well-suited to conflicts like the Afghanistan War. But that war would not have been needed if the U.S. had not had a major lapse in homeland security. Arguably, 9/11 also wouldn't have happened if the U.S. hadn't been intervening in the Arab world so much.

The founders' mistrust of standing armies was reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which noted, "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures" and in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". Historically, various state constitutions have also forbidden standing armies, to wit:

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1859 Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1868 South Carolina: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1971 Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Post: #36

(02-16-2017 12:04 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  I know liberals like bringing up Native tribes that had female leadership, but that is not a good comparison (social contracts/chiefdoms vs. government systems).

Why Patriarchy will smash matriarchy. Two civilizations clashed, one had won.

Keep in mind, this idea that women women do not vote republican or for conservative principles is nonsense. The first principle is women vote according to their community. I come from NY. It may surprise people to learn that New York State as a whole is actually conservative, but not republican. The perception that NY state is actually liberal is based on voting democrats. I live in the suburbs of New York City. These are people whose culture is derived from old school NYC. The battle is mostly the difference between Union democrats and conservatives. The second battle is differences in races and local communities. The third battle(and least important) is the difference in North(Liberal) and South(Conservative). The third factor isn't as important because The south is more densely populated than the North.

Post: #37

So you have to volunteer to fight for Israel to vote in the US? No thanks

Post: #38

(02-18-2017 07:00 PM)Enoch Wrote:  So you have to volunteer to fight for Israel to vote in the US? No thanks

Right now all males have to fight for Israel even if you're not registered to vote.

Post: #39

I like the military servicemen and veterans get a doublevote option.

You can sell it to the public as a "service for our veterans" rhetoric which is really strong in America, will get stronger under Pres. Trump.

Everybody get's a vote! (Although I agree repeal the 19th is the ultimate goal - a pipedream nonetheless)

Post: #40

Veteran's votes would just land us with more women in the military. Bad move.

Post: #41

(02-18-2017 06:46 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 07:01 PM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  Plus, you have to consider that when someone joins the military, that's a nice prolonged period of potential indoctrination ... similar to a university, but with more control. How do you think that would turn out? Don't assume the culture and training in the military wouldn't be manipulated, potentially by a Soros surrogate or similar.

I think we should abolish the standing army and just have a militia. Then all the militiamen could be given the franchise without having to serve a five-year enlistment.

A standing army's purpose is mostly for invasion of other countries, since it consists of professionals hired to participate in unpopular wars if need be. A militia is composed of regular citizens, and is more for defense of the homeland. ...

I give a wide berth to the founding fathers, and I don't truck with the "2A for muskets only" nonsense, but the founding fathers had no concept of ICBMs and rogue terror sponsor states etc.

The guy that steadfastly refuses to accept that checkers has morphed to 3D chess is going to get massacred. It's just the reality of the situation.

Yes, the army gets used for bad reasons sometimes, but defending your nation is no longer strictly an intra-national affair.

Post: #42

It's a nice pipe dream, but repealing women's suffrage is never going to happen. Yanks are better off focussing on getting a supreme court that properly balance the tenth amendment (states rights) and the commerce clause (that apparently grants the federal government the right to do whatever the fuck it wants).

The federal government needs to be ripped out of it's role as a kingmaker so that femcentric states can run their natural course of falling down and going boom.

Post: #43

(02-24-2017 10:24 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It's a nice pipe dream, but repealing women's suffrage is never going to happen. Yanks are better off focussing on getting a supreme court that properly balance the tenth amendment (states rights) and the commerce clause (that apparently grants the federal government the right to do whatever the fuck it wants).

The federal government needs to be ripped out of it's role as a kingmaker so that femcentric states can run their natural course of falling down and going boom.

Women's Suffrage used to be a pipedream too. However a series of cultural changes made that possible and caused it to occur. The egalitarian ideals since the French Revolution bore fruit that caused Universal Suffrage to occur.

For women's suffrage to disappear likewise requires a shift in demographics and culture which while seems not feasible in our lifetime but can and will happen if the right cultural shifts occurs alongside demographic change.

I do not believe ''Progressivism'' is impossible to reverse or undo. Because if we do believe its impossible then we are no different to Cuckservatives that believe that past leftist victories are impossible to reverse and hence they preserve the leftist gains. Conserving nothing but making the poison easier to swallow.

Whether a few decades or centuries of change. So can its direction change too.

All feminism is poison even the so called classical ones that called for "Equality"

Post: #44

^ Perhaps I should have been more specific. Women's suffrage will not disappear under our current democracy, nor will the 19th amendment be repealed in any sense other than that a violent revolution essentially "repeals" all laws.

But democratically speaking, you would literally have a better chance of decriminalising black slavery than ending women's suffrage, and that's just a numerical fact. Speaking honestly, I don't think that even a violent revolution and a "reset" of our governments would do it. Ending women's suffrage is still such a fringe idea that if you asked the majority of fighting-aged men in a nation (the ones that would do the overthrowing) then they'd shrug at the idea of denying women voting rights in a supposed new regime. "Who else" they might ask? Blacks? Mexicans? Half-mexicans? First generation immigrants? Second generation immigrants? Why should revolutionaries share any power with anyone other than those that fought to retake the country. Who could possibly be said to value the outcome equally to those who risked their lives for it?

Frankly it seems like we're better off ending democracy itself than engaging in half-cocked ideas about who gets to vote. Discussions like these are never taken in good faith by the undecided precisely because the advocate is never demanding a change in voter rights that would diminish his own political outcomes, and therefore such measures will always be seen as the most blatantly partisan power grab, whether it be justly motivated or not.

All systems of government can be damned. The only thing that keeps people honest is suffering the consequences of their decisions. All legal efforts should therefore push in that direction.

Post: #45

(02-25-2017 01:31 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ^ Perhaps I should have been more specific. Women's suffrage will not disappear under our current democracy, nor will the 19th amendment be repealed in any sense other than that a violent revolution essentially "repeals" all laws.

But democratically speaking, you would literally have a better chance of decriminalising black slavery than ending women's suffrage, and that's just a numerical fact. Speaking honestly, I don't think that even a violent revolution and a "reset" of our governments would do it. Ending women's suffrage is still such a fringe idea that if you asked the majority of fighting-aged men in a nation (the ones that would do the overthrowing) then they'd shrug at the idea of denying women voting rights in a supposed new regime. "Who else" they might ask? Blacks? Mexicans? Half-mexicans? First generation immigrants? Second generation immigrants? Why should revolutionaries share any power with anyone other than those that fought to retake the country. Who could possibly be said to value the outcome equally to those who risked their lives for it?

Frankly it seems like we're better off ending democracy itself than engaging in half-cocked ideas about who gets to vote. Discussions like these are never taken in good faith by the undecided precisely because the advocate is never demanding a change in voter rights that would diminish his own political outcomes, and therefore such measures will always be seen as the most blatantly partisan power grab, whether it be justly motivated or not.

All systems of government can be damned. The only thing that keeps people honest is suffering the consequences of their decisions. All legal efforts should therefore push in that direction.

I think Nassim Taleb has this concept called skin in the game to describe the situations that forces people to suffer the consequences of their actions.

The more isolated the person is from consequences the worse his potential ability to make decisions because of the lack of proper feedback.

As for the former part of your comment. It goes to show how politics is related to the founding memeplex that makes up the culture. The fact that the memeplex indicates that the majority of people aren't up for even considering the idea of repealing women's suffrage goes to show how far the left has won the past century or so.

That current majority of people are of the opinion of the historic left on many many issues.

It would require a sustantial overton window shift even greater than that which have occurred that enabled the election of Trump.

It also goes to show how all the incentives so far favors the leftward drift. Where the entire political spectrum shifts left.

If the incentives favor the rightward shift then it will be feasible soon enough and will result in taking away women's suffrage.

Many things that held no traction for people in the past like gay rights were made to have traction because of incentives imposed and the shifting of the overton window.

In my view by taking out the egalitarian assumption that underlies all this will destroy a lot of the ideologies of leftism that uses such assumptions for its existence.

Post: #46

The problem is that with current levels of technology and productivity the average man (and woman) can still get by quite comfortably.

The only reason that Trump was elected is because the left pushed their issues just a little too far. So between transgender bathrooms, islamic immigration and weaponising minorities right back to women's suffrage there's an enormous number of societal changes which are not credited to the downfall of our socieities, nor will they ever be because once we take even two or three steps backward the number of people suffering under leftism will drop below the thresh-hold for political interest.

Or in other words, once people are back to not being attacked, marginalised and having their nations destroyed they are mostly going to cease giving a fuck. They will be happy, perhaps not as much as they might be under strict patriarchy, but our enormous productive capacity allows us to suck up the problems that we created from 1900 to 2000.

So in that sense a soft restoration is only going to get a short distance before the political momentum to carry it sputters out. Beyond that there may be outside factors that cause trouble, hardship and once again cause us to rethink how much progressive fat we need to trim, but that's a whole other subject.

Post: #47

(02-25-2017 03:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The problem is that with current levels of technology and productivity the average man (and woman) can still get by quite comfortably.

The only reason that Trump was elected is because the left pushed their issues just a little too far. So between transgender bathrooms, islamic immigration and weaponising minorities right back to women's suffrage there's an enormous number of societal changes which are not credited to the downfall of our socieities, nor will they ever be because once we take even two or three steps backward the number of people suffering under leftism will drop below the thresh-hold for political interest.

Or in other words, once people are back to not being attacked, marginalised and having their nations destroyed they are mostly going to cease giving a fuck. They will be happy, perhaps not as much as they might be under strict patriarchy, but our enormous productive capacity allows us to suck up the problems that we created from 1900 to 2000.

You're neglecting the role of our media and the advent of the internet. Leftism is mostly a function of propaganda.

Post: #48

In my experience propaganda is what's necessary to silence the grumblers when making a change, but it's the underlying prosperity that has to be kept aloft in order to maintain the agenda.

It doesn't matter how much propaganda they stream in Germany. When a certain percentage of Germans can't afford to keep the lights on in winter while immigrants are getting free dental care then the shit is going to hit the fan.

Likewise it's well accepted that while beer and football are easily affordable commodities then there's simply not the drive needed for action on the Right.

Political change is not a temporary "rubber band" effect that will snap back into it's original place when force ceases to be applied. Women have the vote. Sodomy is legal. Even if the Right retakes the main stage it still takes a concerted effort to change these things and if they aren't seen specifically by the masses to be diminishing their lives in some sort of real and tangible manner then there is simply not going to be the political will to approach the situation, much less push through a corrective law.

Removing women's rights to vote is not impossible but I will never see it in my lifetime. It would take a century of dedicated and intergenerational cultural deconstruction in the opposite direction the Left has taken us, but it would in fact be twice as hard because you would be spending that century taking things away rather than giving things away.

Voting laws are probably one of the most tricky political issues out there, and nobody contradicted me when I said it would literally be politically easier to decriminalise black slavery than revoke women's suffrage. My point is that it's a million times more likely to occur after a revolution or some sort of disaster than it is to happen by political pressure applied to our current democratic political structure.

Post: #49

Getting out the illegals & strengthening Voter ID Laws are probably the only things that can be done to curb liberal votes at the moment.

Like other have said I would very much be in favor of a lifetime net taxes paid model. Threshold say at $250,000 in federal income taxes paid, at which point you are issued a voter ID card.

Post: #50

How about just allowing only full-time employees to vote, or banning anyone from voting who hasn't filed any income taxes in the current year?

If "no taxation without representation" comes up, then it wouldn't be an issue since unemployed welfare recipients don't pay federal taxes; I'd be fine with exempting those making under a certain income threshold from paying any taxes, if it would mean that we wouldn't have anymore part-time McDonald's workers with 5 kids voting Democrat just out of fear of losing their monthly bennies.

Fact is, the entire welfare system as it's designed today is a sham to intentionally discourage poor people from working and fool them into believing they have to trust in the government to take care of them; this is why the benefits are tailored to only provide a perpetual subsistence level and immediately cut off if you start working even a bare bones number of hours; they want to basically force poor people to either choose between working or having perpetual handouts, essentially blackmailing them into voting Democrat.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me either if many of the leftist attempts to market sex to children in the media are subconsciously designed to encourage teen pregnancy, since this will help guarantee future dependence on government; in fact Marx himself wrote that female promiscuity should be encouraged as it would help lead to the abolition of the "patriarchy" and capitalism itself.

In fact this does seem to be an element of the welfare state today; women are encouraged to sleep around and get knocked up at early ages, then because people feel sympathy for all the poor children that are procreated, the left is able to use this as emotional leeway to encourage expansion of the welfare state via policies like Obamacare. The anti-gun hysteria also uses fears of "dead children" to exploit people's emotions and encourage expansion of the state.