Theory: extending the right to vote to women has put western countries at risk

[MikeHawkBiggums]

For me, it's never about who I support, as there is a severe shortage of those people. I tend to focus more on who I do NOT want.

You should never find a politicians who has identical views as you do -- that's just silly. Instead, figure out the issues that really matter to you, issues that you are willing to compromise on, and issues that you care nothing about...and from that, you decide who to eliminate.

That's kinda how I feel about Larry Lessig. Out of the candidates that've had a presence in the polls, he's the only one that's talking about how money in politics is our #1 problem.

Can't watch the videos at the moment, but I will take a look at them later. I really question whether people would be as upset about Citizens United if the sides had been swapped.

I think that a lot of Citizens United detractors would remain objective.

[Sebstan01]

Asking for sources when discussing opinions rather than statements of historical certainty or statistics is the last refuge of those who are unable to employ logic, reasoning, historical parallels, or an understanding of politics.

Funny. Usually logic and reasoning are intertwined with cold, hard facts as opposed to mere opinions of a random on the web. Eh, so long as you agree that your opinion is just that, I got nothin' against ya .

[BobisMighty]

Asking for sources when discussing opinions rather than statements of historical certainty or statistics is the last refuge of those who are unable to employ logic, reasoning, historical parallels, or an understanding of politics.

You probably didn't read or fully understand my post. Please don't let the fact that you have 12k reps fool you, those were likely the result of being white knighted to a large degree.

LOL "asking me to back up my opinions is failing at logic." You're that guy who backs up his own arguments by saying "just think about it."

[Hesher]

LOL "asking me to back up my opinions is failing at logic." You're that guy who backs up his own arguments by saying "just think about it."

Tell me which of the 5 items I listed needs a citation.

[Hesher]

I think that a lot of Citizens United detractors would remain objective.

Here's where we differ... check this out:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/pu...ee-speech.aspx








Based on these, public opinion was clearly in line with the decision that was rendered in Citizens United.

BUT...all the polls we see after the decision indicate that there's a strong opposition to the decision.

The sudden swing when you change from the principles at play to the actual court case isn't exactly indicative of objectivity.

[CitizenVagrant]

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle

The West is more tolerant and apathetic at this moment than it has been in the last 200 years. Check voter turnouts and how permissive society has become of dysgenic and regressive activity.

Check the events leading up to the fall of Rome. History will repeat itself. The West will not fall in the same way Rome did, but it will decline. You're living part of it right now, and the worst is yet to come.

Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional and will harp on about "perception being reality."

No, reality is reality. That's why it's ****ing called "reality." It remains constant despite all delusion. Millennial Hedonism is just trying to cover up the nihilism that lies beneath - the rational part of us all that can see the empire crumbling brick by brick.

[ParanormalGains]

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle

The West is more tolerant and apathetic at this moment than it has been in the last 200 years. Check voter turnouts and how permissive society has become of dysgenic and regressive activity.

Check the events leading up to the fall of Rome. History will repeat itself. The West will not fall in the same way Rome did, but it will decline. You're living part of it right now, and the worst is yet to come.

Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional and will harp on about "perception being reality."

No, reality is reality. That's why it's ****ing called "reality." It remains constant despite all delusion. Millennial Hedonism is just trying to cover up the nihilism that lies beneath - the rational part of us all that can see the empire crumbling brick by brick.

Hell yeah. This is a strong post. Repped.

Decadence leads to the downfall of societies. USA is increasingly decadent these days. When shtf it will be the tough bastards who keep our economy from completely dying until something like a war resurrects the economy, check out the great depression.

[MikeHawkBiggums]

The sudden swing when you change from the principles at play to the actual court case isn't exactly indicative of objectivity.

Why not? Maybe they were ignorant about the issue before the case, but after the case, they became more educated (and thus more objective) about what that so-called "free speech" actually entails.

[KingIndicud]

40 years old and you're arguing on a online bodybuilding forum about politics.

People like you are the ultimate waste. Only able to ever discuss politics and society because you'll never have the power to do anything about changing it.


You're as useful as trash.

[KingIndicud]

Hell yeah. This is a strong post. Repped.

Decadence leads to the downfall of societies. USA is increasingly decadent these days. When shtf it will be the tough bastards who keep our economy from completely dying until something like a war resurrects the economy, check out the great depression.

Human society hasnt existed long enough to form any type of idea about absolute precedent(s) like you dumbasses spout.

You trash are all the same quoting cryptic philosophy from hundreds and hundreds of years ago, spouting in absolutes.

At least form your own opinion.

[rockr101]

Claims to support "rights and freedom".

Wants our daughters to be treated as chattel.

No thanks, Jeff.

lmao jamal and tyrone already treating them like chattel

[ParanormalGains]

Human society hasnt existed long enough to form any type of idea about absolute precedent(s) like you dumbasses spout.

You trash are all the same quoting cryptic philosophy from hundreds and hundreds of years ago, spouting in absolutes.

At least form your own opinion.

I formed my opinion by reading so called cryptic philosophy, reading current thought, and observing current events and comparing them to past events. This is the only good process for forming an opinion. Just because people agree with the ideas of another person does not mean they haven't formed their own opinions. No one on earth has a novel viewpoint. "There is nothing new under the sun" is a concept that was figured out a long time ago.

If you dont use history and past thought as a lens to understand modern circumstances you are an idiot.

[pollywogpriest]

I think it's not women. There's plenty of people unfit to vote.

I think the democratic assumption that all people are equal and everyones vote holds equal value is the issue. An individuals voting power should be somewhat proportional to his level of education, maybe also tied to an IQ test, or similar.

The vote of some 22 year old meth addict should not weigh the same as that of a highly educated, highly successful business man who has read countless books on economics and gives seminars about international corporate politics at some prestigious private business school.

It's a very tricky thing to suggest though, particularly in a society where education is dependant on financial well being. So unless education is free this would remove the middle class and create a massive gap between rich and poor overnight.

I'd love to study this **** more indepth, srs.

[kratosbrah]

That's a stupid theory

[KingIndicud]

I formed my opinion by reading so called cryptic philosophy, reading current thought, and observing current events and comparing them to past events. This is the only good process for forming an opinion. Just because people agree with the ideas of another person does not mean they haven't formed their own opinions. No one on earth has a novel viewpoint. "There is nothing new under the sun" is a concept that was figured out a long time ago.

If you dont use history and past thought as a lens to understand modern circumstances you are an idiot.

Only one thing holds true in this world.

We live and die. Enjoy what time you have here and don't concern yourself with irrelevant hypotheticals.

[Hesher]

40 years old and you're arguing on a online bodybuilding forum about politics.

People like you are the ultimate waste. Only able to ever discuss politics and society because you'll never have the power to do anything about changing it.


You're as useful as trash.

Age: 17 years old.

I have shoes that are older than you.


I'm also looking forward to when reality slaps its cawk across your face when you enter the real world. You literally have no first hand knowledge about how the world works.

[earwax]

A long time ago I watched a video of a woman cursing the fact that women were given the vote and saying it pit the two genders against each other when they're supposed to work in harmony. She went on to say it was healthier when women saw voting as a family thing and trusted their fathers and brothers to make voting decisions on their behalf.

Anyone know the video I'm talking about? Can't find it

[Hesher]

Why not? Maybe they were ignorant about the issue before the case, but after the case, they became more educated (and thus more objective) about what that so-called "free speech" actually entails.

Or perhaps they are swayed by media coverage, which is the opposite of becoming more educated. Or maybe people talk a good game about rights, but when reality sets in, they suddenly decide that they didn't mean "THOSE" rights.

Take for example the notion of school choice. You either believe it's a good thing or a bad thing -- the fact that a bunch of poor kids suddenly show up at a school in a well off area shouldn't change your opinion one way or the other.

[Hesher]

That's a stupid theory

Location: northern CA

Libs gon lib.

[KingofLifts]

Age: 17 years old.

I have shoes that are older than you.


I'm also looking forward to when reality slaps its cawk across your face when you enter the real world. You literally have no first hand knowledge about how the world works.

You've gotta be a troll brah. No way this whole thread was made seriously.

[NVious]

http://link.springer.com/article/10....A1018312829025

Women's suffrage and the growth of the welfare state

In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland's extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women's suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.

http://harvey.binghamton.edu/~hist26...historical.htm

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~i.../LottKenny.pdf

This paper examines the growth of government during this century
as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional
time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures
and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate
state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state
laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government
expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
over time as more women took advantage of the franchise.

Women are also more likely to use welfare and work government jobs

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...der-inequality

Women disproportionately affected by austerity, charities warn

http://www.psacbc.com/job-cuts-hurt-...-fighting-back

When the government slashes public services, women suffer

Also married women or women with a man who is going to get hit harder by taxes vote conservative (lesser taxation) more than single women:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=cim...vative&f=false

And if you've read anything about the "1%" you'll know it's almost exclusively men and the "1%" ends up paying the majority of taxes:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1...ome-taxes.html

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-o...tax-1428674384

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Taxes are mostly man tax because even IF a woman is a high earning woman, her taking time away from work to have kids=less taxes and her living longer=more social benefits

[Caxoo]

This thread is so Misc it's ridiculous lmao

brb woman-bashing, dem evil liberals, and subtle reference to Syrian refugees being terrorists all in one swoop

[MikeHawkBiggums]

Or perhaps they are swayed by media coverage, which is the opposite of becoming more educated.

Well, if they're being swayed by MSM coverage, then yeah, that would be the opposite of becoming more educated. However, most people that are becoming more educated about money in politics aren't being swayed by the media that has a vested interest in maintaining our currently corrupt system.

Or maybe people talk a good game about rights, but when reality sets in, they suddenly decide that they didn't mean "THOSE" rights.

Seems like you're assuming that they held an unnuanced position to begin with.

[Polaris]

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle

The West is more tolerant and apathetic at this moment than it has been in the last 200 years. Check voter turnouts and how permissive society has become of dysgenic and regressive activity.

Check the events leading up to the fall of Rome. History will repeat itself. The West will not fall in the same way Rome did, but it will decline. You're living part of it right now, and the worst is yet to come.

Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional and will harp on about "perception being reality."

No, reality is reality. That's why it's ****ing called "reality." It remains constant despite all delusion. Millennial Hedonism is just trying to cover up the nihilism that lies beneath - the rational part of us all that can see the empire crumbling brick by brick.

What was the main initial catalyst for the decline of Rome? Moving away from "Patriarchy" and giving women too much power, which led to a whole host of other things.

The PC cry****s wouldnt like it, but women and their unsavory natures need to be kept in check. Not only is our society failing hard at that overall...but there is so much excusing, glorifying, and rewarding shytty behavior in women. Its no accident either.

[NVious]

In any case there should be two stipulations towards voting:

A certain level of income
A small payment to do it

This shows that you are NOT incentivized to vote to grow the government for your own sake as you produce and the small payment means you are actually invested on some level (and thus more likely to do research and vote according to facts/logic/reason).

That said, democracy is a joke, the two parties are both bat **** insane and the above would NEVER be implemented (if anything government wants MORE retards voting so it can expand it's power).

[BobisMighty]

This whole thread is an MRA's wet dream feverishly oozing into a sock wearing a fedora.

[KingofLifts]

In any case there should be two stipulations towards voting:

A certain level of income
A small payment to do it

This shows that you are NOT incentivized to vote to grow the government for your own sake as you produce and the small payment means you are actually invested on some level (and thus more likely to do research and vote according to facts/logic/reason).

That said, democracy is a joke, the two parties are both bat **** insane and the above would NEVER be implemented (if anything government wants MORE retards voting so it can expand it's power).

A country under total control of the elites eh? You're right democracy is a joke, but what you just proposed has gotta be the most laughable thing I've ever heard. First, how could you set a numerical value to the "certain level of income." Over $50,000? Over $100,000? Gotta be a millionaire? You can't. Plus who would set this certain level of income? The millionaires? The government elites?

What would your poll tax be set at? There is NO possible way to set a fair level. You're assumption here is that all low income earners will vote to grow the government, and that government spending is bad. No sir, even if low income earners tend to vote for big government, it doesn't mean that bigger government is necessarily bad. Fact is under your suggestion, even you might be left out of the voting process, regardless of your "logic and reasoning skills."

This is the BS elitism, and arrogance which is plagued the politicians of this country.

[Enguin]

Lol problem isn't women voting, its that life is so good we create bull**** problems to create stress for ourselves.
Wheres that png of the dude saying he needs feminism so he can get ****ed with a strap on.

None of this chit flies if you're out there in the middle of winter trying to kill buffallo so you dont starve to death.
Or too busy worrying about child soldiers killing your family and it turns out one of the child soldiers is your son.

[Sinix]

Going back to 1 vote per man and a vote being representative of a family unit would probably solve a lot of problems which include the introduction of destructive far left liberal laws and the decline of the family unit.

Women voting has been major problem. Srs

[NVious]

A country under total control of the elites eh? You're right democracy is a joke, but what you just proposed has gotta be the most laughable thing I've ever heard. First, how could you set a numerical value to the "certain level of income." Over $50,000? Over $100,000? Gotta be a millionaire? You can't. Plus who would set this certain level of income? The millionaires? The government elites?

What would your poll tax be set at? There is NO possible way to set a fair level. You're assumption here is that all low income earners will vote to grow the government, and that government spending is bad. No sir, even if low income earners tend to vote for big government, it doesn't mean that bigger government is necessarily bad. Fact is under your suggestion, even you might be left out of the voting process, regardless of your "logic and reasoning skills."

This is the BS elitism, and arrogance which is plagued the politicians of this country.

In the thought exercise I conducted above, none of these salaries/payments would be exorbitant, i.e $100 to vote and 20-30k income. This alternative is STILL better than the current system where you have people who literally couldn't care less about any actual politics or learning any facts/figures/stats, people that don't produce, people that don't even WANT to produce vote.

Again, that was just an alternative to have a more educated voter base as opposed to letting people vote for MORE welfare, MORE spending and MORE government ENTIRELY at the cost of someone else because on SOME level they are actually invested in producing or even "bucking up" by payment themselves.

But the entire thing is a farce and it's entirely futile for anyone to attempt to implement any of these things.

Government IS bad because government uses force to steal (taxes).

It also doesn't produce anything apart from taking human resources and wasting them or misspending them.

Government: The idea that human nature must be constrained, by who? Humans OFC!

Government: The idea that a group of intellectuals can decide how to spend YOUR money better than you.

Government: The idea that democracy is this ultimate good, yet computers/iphones and technology could unleash democracy in letting people ACTUALLY VOTE on EVERY bill THEMSELVES and this is NEVER brought up (even though it is TRUE democracy).

Government: The idea that a group of people spending OTHER people's money with no oversight (apart from themselves) will produce anything other than waste.

Government: The idea that using force to provide "goods" aka using money that would've been OTHERWISE available for the SAME goods/production somehow improves things or the idea that you get better service at a DMV than Macdonalds, a public school vs a private school or the notion that spending must be controlled by a third party because humans are too stupid to decide for themselves (ignore their humanity/lack of oversight because these things can't POSSIBLY impact anything).

Government: The world's most inefficient and force using version of GoFundMe