View Poll Results: Should females have the right to vote in political elections?

Voters
458. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    294 64.19%
  • I am not sure

    30 6.55%
  • No

    134 29.26%
Page 45 of 67 FirstFirst ... 35404142434445464748495055 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 662

Thread: Should Women Have the Right to Vote?

  1. #441
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    575
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    527
    Thanked in
    232 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    What does this have to do with the question of whether or not women should have voting rights?
    It shows that White women are more likely to vote against their own racial interests then White men do.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Do you mean to imply that people should be barred from voting because many of them vote for parties or individuals you don't support?
    Yes. I do not believe in a universal franchise and see no reason that the vote should be extended to groups that support the dispossession of my people & the further transformation of the US into a multiracial liberal democracy. Negroes & Hispanics have no respect for the republic (not democracy) that was created by the founding fathers, therefore they should not vote. The Asian or Mexican who's family arrived after 1970 should not have the vote. And females, many of whom view themselves as historical victims of discrimination by evil White men (despite the fact White American women have historically had it better then just about anyone in the history of mankind) align themselves in the grand alliance of people-with-a-grudge (racial minorities, LGBT, Jews & women)to destroy a society that was the envy of the world, a society created by White males. And anyway the vote of White women (and White men) is being diluted by the naturalization of non-White immigrants & the coming of age of the anchor babies. It is the likes of Jose, Li-Chin & Tawanda who are more of a threat to your cherished right to vote then evil White males like myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    That would be tyranny.
    It is common sense & a survival instinct. Liberal democracy is a very recent development in political systems & one that will not function in non-homogenous societies.

  2. #442
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Questioning the right of women to vote is silly to me; viewing women as subservient rather than as equal is a product of the slave cultures of the Middle East and not the product of the cultural groups that I claim descent from (Celtic and Germanic). Even certain native tribal groups in North America, the Iroquois for one example, have a better view of women than the indigenous cultures found in the "cradle of civilization."

  3. #443
    Senior Member CruxClaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 03:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Irish, German, Polish, Scottish, English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Center-left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Æmeric View Post
    It shows that White women are more likely to vote against their own racial interests then White men do.
    This is by no means a valid reason to restrict anyone from voting.

    Yes. I do not believe in a universal franchise and see no reason that the vote should be extended to groups that support the dispossession of my people & the further transformation of the US into a multiracial liberal democracy.
    I don't think it could accurately be called a full democracy at all if the franchise is restricted based on factors like gender. The United States government represents the voting body of US citizens. If the voting body has indicated that it would prefer a "multiracial liberal democracy," which it apparently has, existing in such a national state is valid and justifiable.

    Negroes & Hispanics have no respect for the republic (not democracy) that was created by the founding fathers, therefore they should not vote. The Asian or Mexican who's family arrived after 1970 should not have the vote.
    How can we validly interpret the will of the Founding Fathers when
    1. They are all long-dead
    2. They did not agree among themselves about what the Republic should be like, hence using rather vague language in the Constitution
    3. Many of their beliefs and decisions were based in a context of their era?

    Government will naturally evolve over time to suit the needs of certain time periods, which will obviously result in different national issues. One thing the Framers were clear about, however, was their wish that people not be restricted from voting based on holding contentious political beliefs. And it sounds like you would deprive various groups of voting rights simply because they are less inclined to agree with your political beliefs, as the party you align yourself with has historically acted against them. I therefore find it incredibly hypocritical of you to bring the will of the Founders into this.


    And females, many of whom view themselves as historical victims of discrimination by evil White men (despite the fact White American women have historically had it better then just about anyone in the history of mankind) align themselves in the grand alliance of people-with-a-grudge (racial minorities, LGBT, Jews & women)to destroy a society that was the envy of the world, a society created by White males.
    So females have never had a role in shaping a successful society? Even before women were granted suffrage, while the "separate spheres" philosophy was still popularly practiced, women contributed to the American workforce as well as acting as wives and mothers who would raise their children, both female and male, to reflect American values.

    No woman I know has any grand plan to destroy American society. Most just wish to see their interests, as well as those of males, represented in politics, which I see no problem with, considering women, as well as men, are expected to comply with laws and policies passed at the state and federal levels.


    And anyway the vote of White women (and White men) is being diluted by the naturalization of non-White immigrants & the coming of age of the anchor babies. It is the likes of Jose, Li-Chin & Tawanda who are more of a threat to your cherished right to vote then evil White males like myself.
    This thread is actually the first instance in which I've experienced anyone born/raised in America seriously questioning whether or not women should have voting rights, and I don't see any minorities here.

    It is common sense & a survival instinct. Liberal democracy is a very recent development in political systems & one that will not function in non-homogenous societies.
    American society has never been homogeneous. Even when the voting body was all-white, various national and religious groups were represented. We have never drawn national borders based on ethnicity. Even during the American Revolution, when the majority of colonists were English, there were plenty of Germans and Scotch-Irish around, as well as smaller numbers of immigrants from France, Scandinavia, etc., and even some Jews. And that's not even including the non-white groups that were restricted from voting.
    Leben heißt für mich, mehr Träume in meiner Seele zu haben als die Realität zerstören kann.
    -Hans Kruppa

  4. #444
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Þoreiðar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 11:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,319
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,387
    Thanked in
    688 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Questioning the right of women to vote is silly to me; viewing women as subservient rather than as equal is a product of the slave cultures of the Middle East and not the product of the cultural groups that I claim descent from (Celtic and Germanic).
    I wouldn't say 'subserviant', but at the very least, women have been considered less suitable for politics (that is, deciding over overarching societal matters) than men for a long time in Germanic cultures. Men had their place, an women had their own. The latter traditionally as masters of the household, spiritual guiders and healers. Matters of war, relationships with foreign Nations and justice, has always been the realm of the man in Germanic society, up untill the 20th century.

    Germanic men have always respected and taken heed to the voice of their women, much unlike most other cultures in the World, but at the end of the day, it is the male that has been deciding.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  5. #445
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 08:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post

    How can we validly interpret the will of the Founding Fathers when
    1. They are all long-dead
    2. They did not agree among themselves about what the Republic should be like, hence using rather vague language in the Constitution
    3. Many of their beliefs and decisions were based in a context of their era?

    Government will naturally evolve over time to suit the needs of certain time periods, which will obviously result in different national issues. One thing the Framers were clear about, however, was their wish that people not be restricted from voting based on holding contentious political beliefs. And it sounds like you would deprive various groups of voting rights simply because they are less inclined to agree with your political beliefs, as the party you align yourself with has historically acted against them. I therefore find it incredibly hypocritical of you to bring the will of the Founders into this.

    I somewhat disagree.
    The founding fathers knew exactly what they wanted to create. And that is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy.

    Democracy in its purest form is basically Athens, winch did not last, where as Rome a Republic lasted 900 years.

    Why don't you take a look at the capital buildings in Washington some time ans you will see they are modeled after Rome.

    As such it is probably best to think of Americans as Romans with helicopter gunships and assault rifles.

    And just like the Roman republic we are facing the same sort of demise in the sense. IE Government Corruption of the Senate, and an Imperial Presidency. And finally Expansionist wars to feed the empire. As far as "Womens Rights to Vote" under original intent then the law would be clear.

    It is not there.

    That being said, as I have said before that restricting white womens right to vote would only give nonwhites more power that I can see and would not reverse the trend.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    I don't think it could accurately be called a full democracy at all if the franchise is restricted based on factors like gender. The United States government represents the voting body of US citizens. If the voting body has indicated that it would prefer a "multiracial liberal democracy," which it apparently has, existing in such a national state is valid and justifiable.
    Ok well once again America IS NOT a Democracy and has never been a Democracy. Let us recite the pledge of allegiance shall we.
    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the>>> republic<<< for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
    Once again NO Democracy anywhere in there is it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    So females have never had a role in shaping a successful society? Even before women were granted suffrage, while the "separate spheres" philosophy was still popularly practiced, women contributed to the American workforce as well as acting as wives and mothers who would raise their children, both female and male, to reflect American values.

    No woman I know has any grand plan to destroy American society. Most just wish to see their interests, as well as those of males, represented in politics, which I see no problem with, considering women, as well as men, are expected to comply with laws and policies passed at the state and federal levels.
    Ok I will grant that for YOU here and NOW, but in the 1960's and 1970's the issue was far different and women of that era were a bit more Marxist and Anti-American.

    Ancient Rome



    United States Supreme Court Building


    Welcome to the Empire My Dear!

  6. #446
    Senior Member CruxClaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 03:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Irish, German, Polish, Scottish, English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Center-left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by EQ Fighter View Post
    I somewhat disagree.
    The founding fathers knew exactly what they wanted to create. And that is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy.

    Democracy in its purest form is basically Athens, winch did not last, where as Rome a Republic lasted 900 years.
    Um, okay, I wasn't attempting to start a debate on the merits of a republic versus a democracy. I don't know what they has to do with the argument. But, on that topic, Rome's success can be attributed as much to its well-trained military and relatively good treatment of conquered nations as to the fact that it was a Republic.

    As such it is probably best to think of Americans as Romans with helicopter gunships and assault rifles.
    Because our architecture has been influenced by the Romans? The Romans were influenced very heavily by the Greeks, but you put down Athenian democracy.

    And just like the Roman republic we are facing the same sort of demise in the sense. IE Government Corruption of the Senate, and an Imperial Presidency.
    The government has always been corrupt. And Presidential power is not at its peak under Obama. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, for example, had much more power over the other branches of government than Obama does.

    As far as "Womens Rights to Vote" under original intent then the law would be clear.

    It is not there.
    No, not necessarily. The Founders disagreed upon various aspects of government. Ratification took some time because it was hard to reach a suitable compromise. When people talk about the will of the Framers, they speak as if they all acted as one entity, but in fact, they were a group of individuals representing different regions and frames of mind. Look at some of their disagreements on slavery - others wanted to abolish it through the Constitution, and others were hell-bent on keeping it. The Founders purposely left the Constitution amenable and open to interpretation (also because they recognized that the needs of a nation can change over time).


    Ok well once again America IS NOT a Democracy and has never been a Democracy. Let us recite the pledge of allegiance shall we.

    Once again NO Democracy anywhere in there is it.
    Well, "and to the Democracy, for which it stands" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

    In all seriousness, I don't think the word "republic" in the Pledge is adequate evidence that the US is not or should not have a democratic government. The Pledge isn't even necessarily an accurate representation of the land, given the "One Nation, Under God" phrase. I don't say the Pledge, and I think it's a bit tyrannical that people are expected to.


    Ok I will grant that for YOU here and NOW, but in the 1960's and 1970's the issue was far different and women of that era were a bit more Marxist and Anti-American.
    Sick of unequal pay and being looked down upon =/= Marxist
    Leben heißt für mich, mehr Träume in meiner Seele zu haben als die Realität zerstören kann.
    -Hans Kruppa

  7. #447
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,275
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    575
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    527
    Thanked in
    232 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Questioning the right of women to vote is silly to me; viewing women as subservient rather than as equal is a product of the slave cultures of the Middle East and not the product of the cultural groups that I claim descent from (Celtic and Germanic). Even certain native tribal groups in North America, the Iroquois for one example, have a better view of women than the indigenous cultures found in the "cradle of civilization."
    Extending the franchise to females is a relatively recent event ocurring mainly after WWI in most of the West. And not extending the vote to someone does not imply subservience but instead delegates certain responsibilities to the male 1/2 of the populace. The obligation to register for the draft at age 18 is not extended to females this does not make them subservient.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    This is by no means a valid reason to restrict anyone from voting.
    Yes it is. What is at stake is what sort of nation we will have in 50 years. It will be completely unrecognizable from what the founders had in mind.




    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    I don't think it could accurately be called a full democracy at all if the franchise is restricted based on factors like gender.
    You are missing the point, the US was not intended to be a democracy but a republic - a nation based on the rule of law with limited government & not by the tyranny of the majority.

    The United States government represents the voting body of US citizens. If the voting body has indicated that it would prefer a "multiracial liberal democracy," which it apparently has, existing in such a national state is valid and justifiable.
    The voters of the US never approved the transformation of the US into a multiracial democracy. Political leaders (such as the Kennedy brothers) lied about what impact the Immigration Act of 1965 would have on demographics & any attempts to discuss the matter have been stifled by hounding those who are vocally opposed as racists. There has never been a serious political discussion of the demographic transformation that is in progress, it is treated as being inevitable.



    How can we validly interpret the will of the Founding Fathers when
    1. They are all long-dead
    2. They did not agree among themselves about what the Republic should be like, hence using rather vague language in the Constitution
    3. Many of their beliefs and decisions were based in a context of their era?
    They left behind plenty of personal papers & these were men who did not extend the right to vote to all White men, let alone women or non-Whites.


    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Government will naturally evolve over time to suit the needs of certain time periods, which will obviously result in different national issues. One thing the Framers were clear about, however, was their wish that people not be restricted from voting based on holding contentious political beliefs. And it sounds like you would deprive various groups of voting rights simply because they are less inclined to agree with your political beliefs, as the party you align yourself with has historically acted against them.
    The founding fathers would not have approved of giving the franchise to groups that would have voted according to group politics, which is what we have with the women's vote, the Negro vote, the Hispanic vote etc... the founders were opposed to democracy.


    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    I therefore find it incredibly hypocritical of you to bring the will of the Founders into this.
    In other words you disagree with the Founding Fathers.







    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    No woman I know has any grand plan to destroy American society.
    There are more then a few of them out there with that agenda - Barbara Boxer, Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton - most of them are just like sheep going along with the herd voting for what they've been programed to think is fair or progressive.





    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    This thread is actually the first instance in which I've experienced anyone born/raised in America seriously questioning whether or not women should have voting rights, and I don't see any minorities here.
    That is because the reality is that certain subjects are not suppose to be discussed, irregardless of the right of free speech. That is what happens when you extend the franchise to everyone.



    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    American society has never been homogeneous. Even when the voting body was all-white, various national and religious groups were represented. We have never drawn national borders based on ethnicity. Even during the American Revolution, when the majority of colonists were English, there were plenty of Germans and Scotch-Irish around, as well as smaller numbers of immigrants from France, Scandinavia, etc., and even some Jews. And that's not even including the non-white groups that were restricted from voting.
    Whites made up over 80% in 1790, English speakers from the British Isles were 8over 80% of Whites & the other Europeans were assimilable. The Jews were only 1000-2000 at the time lets not try to make them seem more important then what they were. The majority of non-Whites in the US have roots extending less then 40 years in this country. We are in the process of electing a new people & White females are more likely to support politicians who support their own dispossession.

  8. #448
    Secure a future for Germanic children
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bärin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Mother
    Politics
    National Communism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    119
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    327
    Thanked in
    126 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    I don't think it could accurately be called a full democracy at all if the franchise is restricted based on factors like gender. The United States government represents the voting body of US citizens. If the voting body has indicated that it would prefer a "multiracial liberal democracy," which it apparently has, existing in such a national state is valid and justifiable.
    You find it justifiable because you are mixed and because you are a liberal.

    I think it questionable if that's the preference of true American people. Any way you want to loosely interpret the Founding Fathers, one thing is clear: they did not intend the American identity to apply to anybody who comes fresh off the boat, or jumps the border. That perverted definition came later with Ellis Island.

  9. #449
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Questioning the right of women to vote is silly to me; viewing women as subservient rather than as equal is a product of the slave cultures of the Middle East and not the product of the cultural groups that I claim descent from (Celtic and Germanic).
    So were women allowed at the Thing? Do you have a reference for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    This is by no means a valid reason to restrict anyone from voting.
    This is the only valid reason, precisely because people tend to make uninformed, egoistic, naive, etc. decisions, we shall restrict the voting power to those few who have proven their abilities. We may call it Aristocracy, or Meritocracy.

    You argue under the premise that "Democracy" (as in general suffrage) is somehow an expression of a rational will, nothing could be further from the truth.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  10. #450
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Þoreiðar View Post
    I wouldn't say 'subserviant', but at the very least, women have been considered less suitable for politics (that is, deciding over overarching societal matters) than men for a long time in Germanic cultures. Men had their place, an women had their own. The latter traditionally as masters of the household, spiritual guiders and healers. Matters of war, relationships with foreign Nations and justice, has always been the realm of the man in Germanic society, up untill the 20th century.

    Germanic men have always respected and taken heed to the voice of their women, much unlike most other cultures in the World, but at the end of the day, it is the male that has been deciding.
    A return to the practices of past times isn't possible; what is possible is a modernistic approach to politics based in a traditionally folkish worldview (or however one wants to term it). Personally, I don't see what prevents a woman from being an informed, capable voter (or a canny politician, i.e.Yulia Tymoshenko, Margaret Thatcher).

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 118
    Last Post: Friday, June 14th, 2019, 07:53 AM
  2. Minority Women with Degree Outearn White Women
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, July 20th, 2009, 08:14 PM
  3. How do you vote?
    By anti-climacus in forum The United States
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •