Ya…
Personally, I think any person subject to a governing body should have a say in said body. In our case, through representation. It seems nuts to me that American’s would want to create a voting class that controls the non-voting class.
4 Likes
Who determines what decisions are right?
Seriously. What is going on.
2 Likes
Sounds like only the Best People, meaning menfolk. Because women.
But trust me when I say this, sex has zilch to do with it, exampled by the fact I’d obviously trust @anon71262119 with a vote long before I’d want @therajraj anywhere near a voting booth.
2 Likes
Frankly, that isn’t a logical argument. Most Americans are just too stuck to the idea that everybody voting makes things better all the time that they can’t rationally and unemotionally discuss optimal suffrage.
The problem is that government can never really be representative. If you voted for Hillary, you are already in the non-voting class that is being controlled by the voting class. You might as well have not voted and nothing would have changed. Although, to that point, voting for Donald Trump didn’t actually change anything either if you voted for Donald Trump.
Representative government is a false god that doesn’t exist and might be terrible if it did.
No, it desecrates the commons because single women voting for their own individual self interests can be expected to collectively vote for a result that is bad for them collectively. It’s admittedly not exactly a desecration of the commons situation, but it is analogous in that everyone acting in self interest doesn’t work toward the common good.
I appreciate your ability to digest the argument and not respond with a kneejerk reaction that everyone should vote because 'murica.
This presupposes things that do not exist - namely that certain policies are categorically good and that one group has a special providence to know, repeatedly, what they are.
Any student of history knows that’s obviously not true, and our government is built on the opposite presupposition. In the real world, policies are mixed and fraught with trade offs. No one group can divine best outcome - not men, not women, not rich, not poor.
Mmkay…
Bunch of feminized men here.
I wear the pants in my household.
My wife said I could,
7 Likes
No. When a couple divorces, everybody tends to be economically worse off, including the men. Women just tend to be more likely to have the children in tow, and women who have spent years at home raising kids are less likely to have the better job skills or higher salary.
Who is more likely to take time off from work to raise kids? Women.
Who is more likely to choose jobs that allow flexibility when there are kids involved? Again, women.
We’ve put up links here before about the wage gap. It can nearly entirely be accounted for by these two factors. If you consider gender differences in choice of major, and assertiveness in salary negotiation, you pretty well account for why men make more money. These are the facts.
Again, No.
Divorce aside, if we’re talking about a young single mother who has never married, her chances of living in poverty skyrocket. I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with me that the young, uneducated single mother and her children are going to economically bear the brunt of that situation. If we close the “marriage gap,” poverty drops in to single digits for everyone, including minority families. If we really want to fix poverty, and make people less likely to want big government, closing the marriage gap would be a good place to start.
Yes. Thanks, Alrightmiami. I think women are WAY more motivated to vote for social programs because they fear the possibility of being left alone with kids.
Of course. I don’t think anyone here realistically thinks we’re going to get rid of the 19th. [quote=“thunderbolt23, post:44, topic:228344”]
But trust me when I say this, sex has zilch to do with it, exampled by the fact I’d obviously trust @Powerpuff with a vote long before I’d want @therajraj anywhere near a voting booth.
[/quote]
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, Bolt. That made me smile.
1 Like
Oh, I don’t agree with you, lol.
I just appreciate when someone makes me think things through from a different angle, especially when that person can do it in a relatively eloquent and thoughtful manner.
My thoughts on the subject mirror this one:
Nonetheless, I appreciate your initial post’s thoughtfulness and have enjoyed reading the back and forth that followed. You’ve all even managed to do it (so far) without Holocaust potshots or calling certain groups of people sub-human. Commendable.
Let me just ad, if you look at these major policy areas, according to wikipedia, women and men differ between 10-25 percentage points on all five. Some of this is a little bit intuitive, right? You’d expect men to be more concerned with military and firearms.
Increased role of government
U.S. military intervention
Healthcare and welfare
Firearms restrictions
Affirmative action
I’ve made the feminist argument for firearms before, but it’s not very popular. “Hey, I’m a small woman. Every man on this forum could easily overpower me if they were within grabbing distance. My only hope is to stay out of their reach. If I’m armed, things just got a lot more equal.”
1 Like
It just gives everyone a say in their goverance. Something all free people should have.
Haha no argument was made. Simply pointing out the yuuge flaw in your point of view.
What tbolt said:
I know the mentality you speak of, but I wouldn’t take it to repealing the 19th. I just don’t think gender (or sex according to our other thread) is that important. Women voting a certain way isn’t set in stone.
I do however feel that age is far more important than gender concerning the vote. If we were to get rid of the 26th, do we send it back to the states? 18 can vote in NY and it’s 21 in Arkansas? Or do we raise the age nationwide to 21? Or maybe 26 ? (Hey according to ACA that’s the age of adulthood.)
[quote=“anon71262119, post:50, topic:228344, full:true”]
No. When a couple divorces, everybody tends to be economically worse off, including the men. Women just tend to be more likely to have the children in tow, and women who have spent years at home raising kids are less likely to have the better job skills or higher salary. [/quote]
Here’s how it works : woman gets married, has kids then initiates divorce. Afterwards she collects alimony and child support from her ex-husband while concurrently being supported by her new man. This is Pushharders situation.
[quote=“anon71262119, post:50, topic:228344, full:true”]
Who is more likely to take time off from work to raise kids? Women. [/quote]
Who is more likely to pay alimony and child support?
[quote=“anon71262119, post:50, topic:228344, full:true”]
Who is more likely to choose jobs that allow flexibility when there are kids involved? Again, women. [/quote]
I bolded the operative word
[quote=“anon71262119, post:50, topic:228344, full:true”]
Again, No.
Divorce aside, if we’re talking about a young single mother who has never married, her chances of living in poverty skyrocket. I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with me that the young, uneducated single mother and her children are going to economically bear the brunt of that situation. [/quote]
Yes she has made terrible life decisions. If I spend $100k on a worthless liberal arts degree do I bear the brunt of that cost? It’s a silly way to describe the situation as if I didn’t know what was going to follow after enrolling.
Here is some life advice: pick your sexual partners like your future kid has a say in the matter.
Ouch!
The Commerce Clause has been the single largest vehicle for the Federal Government growing in size and scope. In the battle between the 10th amendment and the commerce clause the 10th should have prevailed.
Th loser of the presidential race should still be the VP.
The “vehicle exemption” to the 4th amendment is garbage. That’s an unwarranted search and seizure.
The Patriot Act. Just no. They spy on American Citizens and it isn’t incidental. Don’t give me that FISA court nonsense. The FF’s hated a simple tax on tea. Can you imagine if King George was opening every single letter they sent?
The 16th didn’t allow taxes on income, just removed the provision that the funds be apportioned among the states. Why tax income at all? Seems to go against life, liberty and property. I’d rather see national sales or VAT tax instead. I can avoid buying stuff to not pay taxes. I can’t not earn an income.
I’ve got one.
I’d change the Presidency from one person to an elected panel of three, split the US basically into thirds (the goal would be for close to equal populations per third), and a nominee can only run in one of the three voting zones. I think you would get better regional representation at the executive level.
3 Likes
So when the E coast and W coast got their 2/3 and voted against the flyover co prez…
Welcome to Texas - your passport please.
What would this accomplish in the modern era? Serious question.[quote=“Basement_Gainz, post:58, topic:228344”]
I can avoid buying stuff to not pay taxes. I can’t not earn an income.
[/quote]
The purpose of a national taxation system is to raise needed revenue, not to ensure citizens have plenty of options to avoid paying taxes, but I don’t hate the idea of diversifying the tax base and adding a consumption based tax to the mix.