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 46 of 67 FirstFirst ... 36414243444546474849505156 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 662

Thread: Should Women Have the Right to Vote?

  1. #451
    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 Bärin View Post
    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.
    Mixed what? Mixed race? Mixed European perhaps, but nobody could call me a minority. And I'm not a liberal either - I'm a moderate. Like the majority of the American people. However, I would sooner vote for the Left not for racial reasons but because it offers more financial security to the individual, and because the Right seems to mostly represent large corporations and individuals unwilling to cope with the pace at which society has developed (fundamentalist Christians, for example). Am I, as a female, incapable of making well-informed and thoughtful decisions, simply because I have an X chromosome instead of a Y?

    You ("you" extends to everyone I've been talking to in this thread) seem to have three main arguments about female suffrage:
    1. A large number of women vote in a way I disapprove of, so they should lose their right to vote.
    2. The Founding Fathers did not write in the Constitution that women may vote, so they have no claim to voting rights.
    3. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, so it's not necessarily to represent the interests of all citizens by granting them voting rights.

    My responses:
    1. You've made some sweeping generalizations about women's motives for voting and how they vote. You assume that the majority of women vote for parties on the Left because they want to destroy the white man. This is not true. The only women who are motivated by the idea of subjugating men are the extremely radical feminists, who are a minority even among feminists in general. The majority of women who vote vote based on which candidate they believe will best reflect their interests (read: interests that usually have nothing to do with bringing men down) in office. The Left has offered women benefits that the Right hasn't. The Right, for example, has threatened to re-illegalize abortion.

    The fact that many members of a large and diverse group only connected by its members' sex organs disagree with your believes does not indicate that the members of said group are incapable of thinking rationally. As a woman who values rationality, I find that insulting.

    2. The Founding Fathers, again, never reached a general consensus on exactly they wanted the Constitution and the USA to become. They left the Constitution amenable for a reason; they recognized that national matters would change and wanted the government to change accordingly. The place of the woman in American society has clearly changed enough from the 1780s to warrant a resulting change in government.

    3. A democracy is a republican form of government. The two are not mutually exclusive. A republic can be a democracy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. You sound like you're promoting the latter two, but since the US doesn't have a nobility and the only kind of oligarchy we've got going is the near-rule by a few corporate tycoons, the question of whether or not the US is a republic is irrelevant to the argument.
    Leben heißt für mich, mehr Träume in meiner Seele zu haben als die Realität zerstören kann.
    -Hans Kruppa

  2. #452
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    56 Minutes Ago @ 09:44 AM
    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
    2,402
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,309
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,385
    Thanked in
    687 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    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).
    For starters, the boundryless sympathy and the general emotionality that is far more pronounced in the female part than in the male part of our populations. In an evolutionary context, women have never been forced to take a stance on certain matters that are vital for the group's survival and prosperity. For example, killing dangerous out-group people or banishing fellow tribe members for the common good of the tribe. Necessary decisions that have absolutely no place in the mushy, fairytale Disney-world most women seem to be living in.

    Being a staunch believer in evolution and natural selection, I find it very hard to believe the ablity to make such decisions is equally distributed between both sexes. That's not to say there aren't any women that possess much better judgement on such matters than the vast majority of men, but generally, I find my initial assessment to be true. Hopefully, I'm dead wrong.

    As for the modern, Germanic woman's place in society and politics, I think the most dynamic and complimentary solution would be to designate specific areas and matters of the community to be ruled by the female sex. Matters which require a great deal of empathy and care to be properly managed, and where these great qualities cannot be misguided and abused to the detriment of themselves and our community.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  3. #453
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Because our architecture has been influenced by the Romans? The Romans were influenced very heavily by the Greeks, but you put down Athenian democracy.
    Not really!
    Athenian Democracy was a Direct Democracy, and as the old saying goes "A Democracy will last only as long as the People do not find a way to vote themselves Largess out of the public Fund".

    Rome was a Representative Democracy, just as we have in the United States. And it was the Representative Version that proved to be stable for some 500 years until greed set in.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    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.
    Jackson is the guy that has "I KILLED the Bank" written on his tomb stone. So your analogy does not hold water. Lincoln on the other hand could be seen as the first nail in the coffin of the Republic, in the sense he massively trampled on States Rights.

    Obama on the other hand is more like a Cesar Augustus, or even worse Octavian. He basically does not consider himself under the Law. When Clinton was able to successfully violate and skirt Impeachment, because his own party controlled the Congress, that was the beginning of the End of the Republic as we know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    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).
    Amendable in the context of ENGLISH COMMON LAW, and PROTESTANT LAW, but NOT Amendable in the context of Cultural Judaism and Marxism. And for Sure as HELL not in the context of Jewish Rothschild Banksters.

    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    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.
    You don't say the Pledge because of Cultural Jewish Lawyers such as Alan Dershowitz and others in the 1960's had it removed from the schools, other wise you would not have a problem with it. And most of your legal interpretations seem to be coming directly form his and the Anti Defamation League sort of legal interpretation.

    Had we simply stayed out of WW2, this garbage would not be a problem today.


    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Sick of unequal pay and being looked down upon =/= Marxist
    I assume you are talking "Womens Pay"
    Fact is women are payed MORE than their actual contribution to the job market. Fact is Feminist continue to cook the numbers to push their aginda, because at the end of the Day they ARE MARXIST, and most of them Jews.

    With the exception of the White Bimbos that follow them like lemmings, and treat them as Messiah.
    Last edited by Juthunge; Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 02:07 AM. Reason: 2. There must be no approval of, or suggestions to genocide or other criminal measures. Please mind your language as well.

  4. #454
    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
    Not really!
    Athenian Democracy was a Direct Democracy, and as the old saying goes "A Democracy will last only as long as the People do not find a way to vote themselves Largess out of the public Fund".

    Rome was a Representative Democracy, just as we have in the United States. And it was the Representative Version that proved to be stable for some 500 years until greed set in.
    And greed will always set in, so if we're going to talk about greed, why bother discussing the merits of Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy in the first place? Either the people will get greedy or the state will get greedy.


    Jackson is the guy that has "I KILLED the Bank" written on his tomb stone. So your analogy does not hold water. Lincoln on the other hand could be seen as the first nail in the coffin of the Republic, in the sense he massively trampled on States Rights.
    Perhaps you did not comprehend what I was saying about Jackson and Lincoln? I was not attempting to imply anything about my opinion of them. I dislike Jackson and like Lincoln, and that's irrelevant. I was just giving examples of Presidents who took control over the other branches of government. Jackson is a prime example. Look at how he brought the Bank down and cases like Worcester v. Georgia, where he refused to enforce the Supreme Court's decision, therefore taking power away from the Judicial branch for the Executive branch.

    Obama on the other hand is more like a Cesar Augustus, or even worse Octavian. He basically does not consider himself under the Law. When Clinton was able to successfully violate and skirt Impeachment, because his own party controlled the Congress, that was the beginning of the End of the Republic as we know it.
    The beginning of the End of the Republic as we know it probably happened around the end of World War II, when the US embraced political, economic, and cultural globalism. Obama is a product of our era, not the creator of it.

    Amendable in the context of ENGLISH COMMON LAW, and PROTESTANT LAW, but NOT Amendable in the context of Cultural Judaism and Marxism. And for Sure as HELL not in the context of Jewish Rothschild Banksters.
    Evidence, please....we declared ourselves legally independent of the British empire more than 10 years before the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution is amenable in the context of AMERICAN law, which is determined by the AMERICAN people. Meaning American voters. As far as Protestant law goes, I encourage you take a look at the religions of the Framers. One (Benjamin Franklin) was an open Deist, two were de-facto Deists, three were Quakers (technically Protestant, but not the type of Protestant generally included under the WASP umbrella), and two were Roman Catholic. The Founders represented a wide variety of different viewpoints, and that you would suggest otherwise indicates that you have not done much research.


    You don't say the Pledge because of Cultural Jewish Lawyers such as Alan Dershowitz and others in the 1960's had it removed from the schools, other wise you would not have a problem with it. And most of your legal interpretations seem to be coming directly form his and the Anti Defamation League sort of legal interpretation.
    We DO say the Pledge in school, and we always have, preschool (which I started at age 2) through the present (I will be 18 in four months). Every day. I didn't have a problem with it for a long time, but then I eventually started thinking about the Pledge and what it represents. I found out that "Under God" originated in the Cold War, and was used as a political tool to reinforce anti-Soviet paranoia. I don't say the Pledge because I don't believe in God and think it's ridiculous to mindlessly pledge my allegiance to a nation that I'm only a citizen of due to an accident of birth. I contribute to society by attending school, working two jobs, and paying taxes. Why is that not enough? Why should I also pledge myself to a "nation under God?"

    Had we simply stayed out of WW2, this garbage would not be a problem today.
    Perhaps you forgot that Japan bombed us terrifically in a surprise attack. You would advocate not defending your nation when it was under direct attack, on your home soil?

    I assume you are talking "Womens Pay"
    Fact is women are payed MORE than their actual contribution to the job market. Fact is Feminist continue to cook the numbers to push their aginda, because at the end of the Day they ARE MARXIST, and most of them Jews.

    With the exception of the White Bimbos that follow them like lemmings, and treat them as Messiah.
    Can you back up any of these ludicrous claims? I detect prejudice and hatred here, but I have found no logical sense whatsoever. I saw that a moderator edited your comment for cursing and apparently advocating genocide. It would appear to the casual observer that you have abandoned your real argument to resort to petty insults and threats. Your apparent refusal to cite actual evidence or argue rationally discredits your arguments.

    Perhaps you thought I could not possibly comprehend cold logic because I am a female and therefore understand only emotional matters. If this is what you thought, or continue to think, you're dead wrong.
    Leben heißt für mich, mehr Träume in meiner Seele zu haben als die Realität zerstören kann.
    -Hans Kruppa

  5. #455
    Senior Member Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 01:42 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    56
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    You should read up on history and try to understand why Japan bombed Perl Harbor. It was not as if Tojo woke up one morning and thought that it was time for some fireworks.

  6. #456
    Senior Member hyidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 11:44 AM
    Ethnicity
    British Isles
    Ancestry
    All over the British isles
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    1,477
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    NO! Feminists women had their say, when do us 'women feminists haters' get ours? I want to be the fairer sex. If I really wanted to vote to my heart desires I will only vote for one thing, women being the fairest sex. So stupid this feminists mishap.

  7. #457
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 15th, 2012 @ 05:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Ancestry
    Denmark/Jutland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Denmark Denmark
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Retired pilot
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian / Asatru
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Well, women should NOT have the right to vote.
    It is none of their bussiness.
    Men build societies and nations to have a safe place for their families, period.
    For a lot of reasons, women has no part in this, except to exploit it.

    Go listen to a GirlWritesWhat on youtube, listen AVfM radio or you could google MGTOW.
    There is a lot of stuff about this on the net.

  8. #458
    Account Inactive Thunir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:01 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    My ancestry hails from Scotland, Norway and England. I have minor Italian ancestry
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self-employed
    Politics
    Conservative
    Posts
    20
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragner View Post
    Well, women should NOT have the right to vote.
    It is none of their bussiness.
    Men build societies and nations to have a safe place for their families, period.
    For a lot of reasons, women has no part in this, except to exploit it.

    Go listen to a GirlWritesWhat on youtube, listen AVfM radio or you could google MGTOW.
    There is a lot of stuff about this on the net.
    The building of societies is the work of both sexes, together. The child must be nurtured and loved in order to become the man; is the supplying of this not the task of the female? If not, then what is her role within society? To be, as you suggest, an exploiter of the male's achievements? Why then do we keep her around? For the necessity of propagating the race, one may answer. Is she no better then than cattle, and ought she be afforded no greater privilege? Or, if we are to return to your suggestion of exploitation; is she no different from a Jew?

    You see the slippery slope that ensues from the hyperbolic condemnation of one necessary half of the race. I do not believe this discussion will be enhanced by irrational and unsupported claims.

  9. #459
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 16th, 2012 @ 04:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, England
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    18
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Yes everyone should vote. If you take away everyone's vote's you just end up with certain people being represented and other's not. If people want to take away everyone's vote who don't agree with them, they may of well just be a dictator or autocrat. The left want's to take away a voice for everyone who doesn't agree with them but we need to have more integrity and win people over with reason.

  10. #460
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Online
    Friday, June 29th, 2012 @ 07:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany/British Isles/Frisia
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    95
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I must agree with the above post - to have no say in the running of your own society is not unlike living under a dictatorship. I think that depriving one section of the population of the vote while expecting them to comply with the laws decided without their input is unfair, and it might lead to greater unrest and eventual chaos overall. I also must point out that the times have moved on significantly and it is vastly unrealistic to expect people nowadays to be satisfied with conditions that didn't even exist for their grandparents! Taking away our right to vote is a pie in the sky fantasy for some men, I think.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 118
    Last Post: Friday, June 14th, 2019, 07:53 AM
  2. Minority Women with Degree Outearn White Women
    By Veršandi 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
  •