Do women deserve to vote?

Do women deserve to vote?

no

no

Only if they belong to one of the following classes:

1.) Property Owners
2.) Veterans
3.) Business Owners

Maybe some other ones but those are the big ones.

It's not about "deserving", women aren't fit for roles other than raising children and being wives.

no

No.

No. Neither do you for being a landless, girlless, porn addict.

no, also no jobs

Jew, jew go away!

Shill this shit another day!

Yes but It should be worth half a mans vote

>inherit property from daddy
>be a spoiled whore, know jack shit about politics
>vote

>have no inheritance from daddy
>be a proper woman with a keen interest in politics
>can't vote

Genius.

No.

...

voting is not something you earn through some sort of effort

voting is something that is relegated to those most likely to use it well

native males of any country who are married, should receive the right to vote

women voting at all?

It should be one vote per couple, only married people should be allowed to vote too.

yes

Women hating is anti white

...

...

>be drunkard idiot native to his nation
>know jack shit about politics, only a slave to media manipulation
>vote

>be female
>have a keen interest in politics, not influenced by media manipulation
>can't vote

Genius system. Sasuga Sup Forums.

Women shouldn't be systematically denied a vote, and neither should men be systematically allowed to vote.

I think it would be worth it to strip women of the right to vote, provided they are given the privilege of not having to pay taxes, and the government must take care of them if they're destitute, kinda like how the government takes care of abandoned kids.

its called having "skin in the game"

Even your proposed idiot woman with inheritance has something to lose vice a supposed "intelligent" woman who has absolutely nothing to lose.

...

fpbp /thread

herbed.

...

No, they lack the intelligence

these feet dude, orgasmic!

...

Parents deserve the vote.
Childless adults don't.

One group is invested in the success of their nation because their children have to inhabit it after they die, the other group have no vested interest in the outcome of government.

...

...

yes

...

>Even your proposed idiot woman with inheritance has something to lose
Who cares? Those who have "skin in the game" need to be educated before being allowed to cast a vote. Nothing else matters.

Everyone deserves to take equal part in a completely irrelevant decision-making act that won't change anything.

...

With respect to laws created by the government and taxes:
Everyone has skin in the game.
If you deny someone the right to vote, why should they pay taxes at all? Or obey any of your laws? Why shouldn't they murder you?
Taxation without representation is wrong.

...

>be Kant
>devote your life to the pursuit of knowledge, but die a virgin
>never vote

>be white trash idiot
>marry some druggie whore, have 10 kids
>vote

More arbitrary criteria for voting please. I'm enjoying this.

...

Women should not vote or hold elected office, period. Anyone under 21 should not vote. Anyone between 21 and 30 who is unmarried should not vote (religious exceptions apply, like for Catholic priests)

hell no

...

these anti-woman infographics that have been getting reposted for 5 years are just nigger tier fake news. Believing anything seriously from a infographic posted on Sup Forums = you're a moron.

As a Republican, giving women the right to vote was one of my party's major accomplishments. Why would I want to take away what my party fought for decades to achieve?

...

No, neither does anyone under the age of 21

...

>Keen interest in politics
>Not measurable
>Therefore everyone has the right to vote
>Country goes to shit

Because this "muh party" herd mentality is for idiots. I guess it's just right for you.

...

Voting should be a privilege and should require a competency test on political issues and government in general to weed out the dumbfucks.
That being said, if such a test were to be instituted most women would fail.

get a life

This is probably a good enough standard, the vote goes to anyone who is a net taxpayer

...

>ability to drive a car
>not measurable
>therefore everyone has the right to drive a car
>country goes to shit

Or, we could propose a test and award driving licences! Wow! Who would've thought!

Because now the party is losing its strongholds to socialist liberal womyns.
It is inherent in women to be liberal, while it is inherent in men to be strong and resilient.

feet

...

no

...

non-citizens pay taxes yet do not have the right to vote. Your argument does pass muster.

Having skin in the game makes you a more responsible voter. It's not wrong to vote along your own interests - education really has nothing to do with it. Our system was built with this in mind, and the founding fathers knew not all voters would be educated. Education was a rare commodity when the the nation was founded.

No

Oh thank God, mods are finally deleting clickbait pics

...

Universal suffrage gives pink-haired man-hating feminists the same number of votes as incel neckbeard bloated autismos. These people have no place determining which direction society heads.

I'd take the judgement of the poorest parent over some MLP fellating basement-dweller any day of the week.

...

We're already past the point of rational argumentation. Look up any of the sources in these infographics, it's all from nonreputable sources or non-existent sources. All that's left to discuss is how much of a fool somebody has to be to accept substantial claims without looking for proof.

A test that measures interest in politics?
Kek

>anime
>foot fag

Kill yourself.

...

>Education was a rare commodity when the the nation was founded
And now it isn't. So don't hold people to the same standards as they were 300 years ago. Everyone in the civilised world has the access to a library and there is no excuse for anyone not to be educating themselves.

Btw you're all good goyim for falling for the (((democracy))) jew

...

Low IQ idiots like you wouldn't be allowed to vote.

>every single married native man is a drunkard idiot
>every single unmarried non native female has a keen interest in politics

yeah good argument, faggot

...

Sup Forums is full of idiots with the reading comprehension of a child. Why am I not surprised.

Some people never learn

...

>Falling for the democracy jew
>Calling other people low IQ

...

With respect to taxes on non-citizens:
Since a non-citizen has to obtain a visa or green card from the Federal Government to work, I wouldn't consider it related at all.
In fact, I would argue that such work would fall into the jurisdiction of international trade, and therefore wouldn't be considered "taxation without representation."
To argue otherwise would be similar to arguing that tariffs on foreign goods are "taxation without representation" which is an absurd comparison. Since obviously a federal government has power to control international trade and control borders.

...

Nice ad hom

I hope your Ancap parents sell your boipussi to the highest bidder

...

There is no alternative without a rational population. I'm trying to perfect it.

...

You missed my point, which is clearly laid out. This must mean that you're an idiot. And look up the definition of "ad hom" before you accuse someone of committing it again.

...

Therefore, principally, the notion of "taxation without representation" is a statement about jurisdiction.
Or put more succinctly, if you are solely and naturally under American jurisdiction, it is wrong to deny representation.
A non citizen is fundamentally not naturally in the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore can be denied the right to vote, until he becomes "naturalized" and is not naturally in the jurisdiction of the US.
Sure, the non-citizen has to respect the laws where he resides, but this is accepted as part of the terms for the agreement of "international trade."

>why should they pay taxes at all?
Women are a net loss on the tax system, they take out far more in services than they put in from working. Even if you only look at the top 10% of women who miraculously are skilled enough to perform in a high-paying job (and not a government make-work desk warmer), the hours they choose to work and the years they can maintain those hours are less than the average male and even these top-tier earning women are a net drain of tax revenue.

>Or obey any of your laws?
They don't. Women aren't held accountable for anything unless it would cause bad publicity somehow. Do you want the screencap collage of headlines like "Woman tries to stab boyfriend to death, but court gives her no criminal record because it would hurt her career." When convicted of a crime, women are sentenced to 30% of the penalty or severity that men on average are given.

>Why shouldn't they murder you?
Women kill the vast majority of children in the US every year. Most frequently their own, but also step-children or any under the sole custody of a female are the most likely demographic to die. The most dangerous place for a child under 18 is with their biological mother. Women are also the most likey demographic to rape a minor (yes, some highschool boys are probably fine with it, but you don't jeopardize a child's emotional development like that - especially when it's illegal, and we all know what happens to a man if he rapes a minor.)

>Taxation without representation is wrong.
Children do not have the right to vote, but they can legally be employed in various capacities as young as 12. Is this wrong to you? Are children an abused underclass being deprived of their rights? Of course not. They are protected and looked after by all of society. Harming a child is one of the biggest social taboos across all belief systems. But giving children full authority would end badly - they would vote for ice cream and pizza for every meal.

obviously not if they are just going to pick someone because they have a vagina. Stupid cunts almost cost us our country.

...

it depends what you think the purpose of voting is.

If it's to produce a nation or government that creates a healthy (mentally and physically) population of productive adults that can one day create masterworks like artificial intelligence, FTL travel, clean energy etc so our descendants can live in a post scarcity utopia

or if it's to represent the will of the people, no matter how convoluted, inefficient, self destructive and most likely doomed to end with our extinction it is.

If the former, then no they don't, but then neither do 99.99% of people.

nigger

...

...