Women and minorities were given right to vote

Shouldn't have ruined our countries then desu.

I don't even give that much of a fuck. What bothers me more than anything is the hypocrisy and subversion in the media who are now, more than ever, just a mouth piece of the governments and infiltrated by feel-good elitists who don't actually live in those multicultural paradises that they create in the head, but rather live in upper-class areas and make sure their kids aren't in those shit tier schools full of immigrants.

But, at the end of the day, I won't be the one affected, it will be the "progressives", women and faggots that will get the short end of the stick.

I didn't ruin any country. That being said, chances are your "country" didn't even exist and, if it did, was a shithole before any European knew of it, and likely benefited from le ebil eurobeans in the long term as it seems you're both literate and able to use modern technology.

>I don't even give that much of a fuck
Ya well then don't share your irrelevant feelings on the topic shithead

>I didn't ruin any country.
Never said you specifically did.

>That being said, chances are your "country" didn't even exist
It did considering it was only a few decades ago desu.

I'm not. In fact, I'm quite happy about it.

Is this a poor attempt at being troll or are you just retarded? Just kidding, I know its both.

>Never said you specifically did.
Then who were you talking to if not to me?

>It did considering it was only a few decades ago desu.
Name it or stay a cryptic faglord

Give some examples.

t. roastie

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. Inca empire social and familily unit homogeneity and stability, cultural interrelations between artisans and trade influence was completely different and in a better status compared to the eurangutan mongrel post slavery situation it is now.

Time to get extinct'd , subhuman.

Sure is reddit in here

Voting is zero sum, female and minority enfranchisement implicitly disenfranchises the white male vote therefore I oppose it.

>People who don't own land are allowed to vote
You literally can't defend this shit
If you don't own land there's no reason why anything you say should be taken into account

>There's a natural law that says Okonkwo is obliged to cast a vote for Belfast's dog catcher

I think I still prefer living in a society where we give these rights out to everyone, but you don't need any of that pageantry

there isn't a single person that owns any land

>Everything I don't like is Reddit

Illinois, Chicago specifically. Most "blue" cities aren't that perfect of Neo-Liberal experiments. Useless people spend the margins of society. Those precious surpluses could go to other good things.

The most prominent example is certainly the Hispanic (or Latino, if you prefer) immigrants in the US. The national average is roughly 50:50 regarding Republicans vs Democrats voting patterns, but for the Hispanic population its 30:70 at best. Meaning that 7 out of 10 Hispanic immigrants who are given citizenship will vote for the same party that's encouraging immigration and citizenship to Hispanics.

Its the same in the UK
>It should come as no surprise that an estimated 65 percent of ethnic minority voters opted for Labour. The party has a track record on equalities legislation and supporting the urban areas where the majority of minorities in the country live. This strong showing for Labour had an effect on key marginals like Croydon Central, where 38 per cent of the electorate are from an ethnic minority background. It is no coincidence that Kensington, which had never before been Labour, turned red and is home to a 32 per cent minority electorate. Across the multicultural capital, there was a Labour surge that led to a 10 per cent swing to Labour in Battersea to overturn a previously safe majority.
65% in a multi-party country (multi as in more than 2 major parties). Does it come to surprise to you then that Labour was the main instigator of mass migration to the UK and is still supportive of it?

>Brexit was perhaps the best example of the racial fault line in British politics, with 53 per cent of white voters wanting to leave and 73 per cent of black people voting to remain. If Britain was as diverse as America, the ethnic minority vote as a whole would have kept the nation in the EU.

>voting
A FAILED GOD
WE NEED MONARCHY

What do you mean?

land can't be owned

wow its almost as if when a political party helps a group of people it makes that group want to support the party

You're right, user, but I wonder what, in particular, has caused this specific thread. Why are you so angry?

>t. literal retard

See

Wow, what could possibly be wrong with importing voters with tax payers money and continuing to hand it out in exchange for votes from the most socially conservative part of the population while pretending you're social progressives? I bet you think Nazis were great too, after all they just voted for the party that helped them the most, right?

I hope they kill you first when the money runs out, and the money will run out as non-EU migrants are a net negative in practically every EU country and have almost double the birth rates, but the real kicker is that the productive part of the population who's funding them is growing older and will be phased out. Meanwhile the entire economic model is based on infinite growth. We'll see if those 3rd world immigrants that live of welfare will fund your pension though.

I didn't make this thread.

>Wow, what could possibly be wrong with importing voters with tax payers money and continuing to hand it out in exchange for votes from the most socially conservative part of the population while pretending you're social progressives?
none of this is true

>sage
>reddit
You have to go back.

Ah, yes the "not true" defense when running out arguments.

>Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EEA arrivals.
>Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.
This doesn't even include the cost created in terms of policing and court systems where immigrants are grossly over represented.

Here's one from Denmark, pic also related:
>59% of the tax surplus collected from native Danes is spent on ethnic minorities, who are a massive drain on the system.
>ethnic minorities, who are by definition immigrants to Denmark, represent 84% of all welfare recipients, as of 2016.

Just fucking off yourself already

>Ah, yes the "not true" defense when running out arguments.
I never tried to argue with you. I'm just disagreeing with you.

>this angry

Holy fuck kys

White dude who immigrated to the US two decades ago. Why should I get a vote while some black/asian/middle eastern guy who immigrated here as well? Ultimately, we'd have the same level of contribution to the US prior to our arrival (jack all) so in any meaningful way there's no difference between us.

>being this mad

There's a difference between disagreement and denial albeit you're probably too retarded to understand it.

denials and disagreements aren't mutually exclusive smart one. I'm disagreeing with you and it is taking the form of a denial. however, the point of my last post was to say that I am not arguing with you. a denial isn't an argument

>Assist the US in transforming the Middle East into a relatively stable (albeit authoritarian maintained) region into a massive clusterfuck of instability
>Act surprised when boatloads of people fleeing said clusterfuck arrive on the shores of the stablest continent in the region where you happen to live

Really gets the noggin' joggin'

*transforming the Middle East from a

>wow its almost as if when a political party helps a group of people it makes that group want to support the party
it's also as if that party helps them at the cost of someone else

>denials and disagreements aren't mutually exclusive smart one. I'm disagreeing with you and it is taking the form of a denial. however, the point of my last post was to say that I am not arguing with you. a denial isn't an argument
That is generally how leftists argue around this issue if they are not celebrating the success of the strategy

Not him but that's every political party. For instance, let's say you promise farmers farm subsidies. That was money that could have gone to educational programs elsewhere for instance.

Any penny spent anywhere is a penny that could have been spent elsewhere. So while your argument is true, it's so pointless as to be a waste of words.

t. incel

By definition denial of facts is an argument, you just have nothing to substantiate the argument with. In other words, and I'm repeating myself here, you're retarded.

>false equivalence
Great job, retard.

>False equivalence

How so?

>By definition denial of facts is an argument
excepts its not. all I'm saying is "Not Q", no premises or anything involved here. just stating a position.

>Act surprised when boatloads of people fleeing said clusterfuck arrive on the shores of the stablest continent in the region where you happen to live
We aren't getting immigrants from Syria and Iraq. they mostly come from Pakistan, afghanistan and other stabel middle eastern countries. We also get a fuckton of Africans who "flee" from Nigeria. These people also have a duty to go to the nearest stable country. None of them went to Israel or Saudi-Arabia, the former is significant as many zionist and jews work round the clock to enable the economic migrants.

The EU can't prevent these people from illegal immigration, but they can prevent Ukrainians from seeking refuge. Nigerians and Ghanians are fine, but Ukrainians are apparently not. Really makes you think

>Any penny spent anywhere is a penny that could have been spent elsewhere. So while your argument is true, it's so pointless as to be a waste of words.
That's a stupid argument as investments are not issues independent and are also associated with dismissing returns. Some resource spending there is a real return in and other there are none. You are being disingenuous in a way that is fucking stupid

>still pretending that the majority of EU immigrants are coming from the middle east (Syria in particular)
It's not true, you faggot

Is burning a million dollars the same as using a million dollars on infrastructure that helps an industry thrive?

Syria and Iraq make up the bulk of migrants originating outside of europe

>Voting in your own interests
Holy fucking shit, what a massive fucking surprise

>Nonlandowners were given the right to vote

That's not the problem, you mongoloid, but the implications and symptoms it creates when you're importing people for the sake of votes and no benefit to the native population. It creates a self-reinforcing system that will keep going until you run out of the native people's money to subsidize the immigrants and their votes

Because you're comparing citizens to non-citizens.

Your position is contrary to mine, by definition its an argument. What I find particularly funny is that not only do you lack substance to base your argument on, but prefer to argue off-topic matters instead.

Excellent post user.

>if I start using different words then people will believe me
Love how 'majority' turned into a subjective 'bulk'. How about you admit you're wrong instead and admit the majority of immigrants to the EU are not from the middle east?

Or do you prefer rephrasing yourself and be wrong?

>media who are now, more than ever,
the media have been created by liberals. looks like you know nothing baout history

t. brainlet

>Your position is contrary to mine, by definition its an argument.
according to no definition of argument is stating a position a form of argument
>Love how 'majority' turned into a subjective 'bulk'.
You were the only person to use the word majority, I never did.

>according to no definition of argument
noun
1.
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation:

Yet you chose to quote me and 'disprove' my claim which was the fact that the majority of immigrants are not from the middle east. How does it feel being a retard?

>an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation:
lmao so you were just using argument as is commonly use not how it is used in logic. way to split hairs user

>How does it feel being a retard?
pretty good high iq is for losers

>Yet you chose to quote me and 'disprove' my claim which was the fact that the majority of immigrants are not from the middle east. How does it feel being a retard?
I didn't quote you to disprove your claim, where did you get that idea?

>logic
You don't use logic otherwise you'd substantiate your argument based on logic and reason instead of denial of fact so, if anything, it's funny to read that.

What was the intended purpose of quoting me then? To corroborate my claim? Top kek

>You don't use logic otherwise you'd substantiate your argument based on logic and reason instead of denial of fact so, if anything, it's funny to read that.
the point I'm making right now is that I am not making an argument (in the sense of the word as it is used in logic) against your position right now which means that I don't need to use logic to substantiate anything. all I'm doing is stating a position which is not an argument in the sense of how that term is used in logic
>What was the intended purpose of quoting me then? To corroborate my claim? Top kek
to add to the discussion. you said they don't make up the majority and I posted actual data to show others that they make up the plurality of them.

>No women vote
>No minorities vote
>All people who vote must be prepared to fight for the polis
>Elections dominated by chad war veterans, insteady of greeedy politicians
>Imperialist, not cucked pacifist like today

Was Athens the manliest democracy system in history?

>claims he's not making an argument towards my position
>while denying the factuality of my position
Kek, you're unable to substantiate your argument because apparently you lack the intellectual capacity to do so. That's it. Instead you're attempting to derail the discussing and arguing about arguments while claiming the text-book definition of argument doesn't apply to you.

>I posted actual data to show others that they make up the plurality of them.
So both posts that you quoted are actually correct and factual? Thanks for corroborating both of our claims.

My last (You), take it and fuck off.

you don't seem to be grasping the distinction between the word argument as it is used in logic and the word argument as it is used commonly. Yes, what I am doing is considered an argument in the common sense of the term because it is a disagreement. No, what I'm doing is not considered an argument in the sense of how the word is used in logic. Only in that sense would an argument need to be substantiated because it is more than just a disagreement. Having a disagreement is just stating a position. It has nothing to do with supporting it.
>So both posts that you quoted are actually correct and factual? Thanks for corroborating both of our claims.
No they are not both correct. Your post was correct as in it they are not the majority. I simply added to the discussion by showing that they are the plurality. The other post however is entirely wrong because they claimed that "We aren't getting immigrants from Syria and Iraq." when in fact the plurality of them come from there.

Minorities voting I don't necessarily have a problem with. Ideally only people who own land/property and thus have a concrete stake in society should be able to vote, if that includes a number of black/Hispanic/whatever men, so be it.

Women on the other hand should never be allowed to vote or participate in government under any circumstances.

saved

OP here, mainly created the thread for shitposting needs and (you's) but I'm pleasantly surprised it devolved into decent discussion
Good job Veeky Forums

Its all gonna be for nothing user, I swear I feel like I might literally be the only latino in my neighborhood whose parents are legal immigrants and citizens here in SoCal. Everyone else is either an illegal or an anchor baby, most noticeably they will NEVER call the cops if some shit starts to go down whereas my dad will do it at the sign of first trouble (he even knows the Sheriff by name). Why? They'd rather deal with crime, violence and drugs in the neighborhood than get the law involve and risk getting deported which turns neighborhoods and entire communities into SHIT and this is the story for many places in SoCal and the SFV. I'm praying for the day ICE rolls through and just scoops up all the illegals so this place can be tolerable for once. Hell, with my time in the military, I'm even considering signing up for ICE for the opportunity to do it myself. I just can't fathom it, these people come over here to work like literal slaves, raise some shitty kids who vote leftist, jump on welfare because CA lets them and then proceed to bitch about the country thats literally sustaining them. Not a single moral fiber in these people lemme tell ya.

America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Deal with it.

You shouldn't. We should stopped immigration ages ago. Only people descended from the early European immigrants should get to vote.

Migrants don't have to prove that they are from Syria, this is why we have Africans claiming to be Syrian children and being let in on those grounds.

Which means that those statistics don't mean anything, they are fraudulent

...

Despite the blatant shitposting this inherently welcomes, it brings up a good question:

Why is a vote promised to you, by mere virtue of existing? We have already said that felons can't vote, meaning that we have said that there is SOME qualifier, but why is our bar so low? Millions upon millions of Americans go and vote for politicians with near no understanding whatsoever of the implications of their economic policies for example, but rather some absurd social policy with little actual change to society at large.

I'm not saying the bar should be set at simple race and sex qualifiers (although I think that these were originally in place to act as ways of getting the most learned and logical people only to vote, rather than simple bigotry), but the fact that my 19 y/o ass holds a vote determining the next economic policy, just as much as a man with a degree in such matters, is nonsense.

Well, this has the inherent issue of deciding who gets to vote. Who decides when someone is qualified enough to get a vote? If the decider is in anyway biased, it becomes a huge issue. At least with race and sex based qualifications, nobody decides whether or not you get to vote, you are born either as a voter, or a non-voter.

>Joe's a retard who lives off his parents
>He gambles
>Gets money
>Buys some cheap patch of land
>What he's saying is taken into account
>Mike's a doctor with a stellar career, he saved thousands of lives
>Owns an apartment and is happy with it
>What he's saying isn't be taken into account

just make it so that the only way to get to vote is if you have a degree from college or university

For that to even be possible the immigrants would have to be a massive voting block, which they're not, no one gives a shit about them, they don't even give a shit about each other. You might like to think the 'system' is full of power hungry assholes that are willing to burn the country so they remain in power, but there are actual reasons behind immigrant policies.

Most of the western world isn't having kids, more and more chunks of the population are filled with retired old people. Old people take money and don't work anymore, thus the labor force diminishes, thus companies move out, to places where they can make a bigger buck easier, and the economy of the west starts going downhill. That's why they're taking in so many immigrants, it's a last ditch attempt to fix the population decline even if it means bringing in rapists and murderers.

They tried so hard to have military might, yet they were still fucked over and over by countries that actually had it.

>why is everyone allowed to vote
The idea behind it is that everyone's voice should be heard. In practice that's harder, most people don't vote and voting blocks are very disproportionate.

If you start setting arbitrary standards like or a make some criteria like income, IQ, age(if it's pushed to 30 or something like that), etc you alienate chunks of the population and effectively turn them into second class citizens by destroying their entire voting block. That's something you don't want to happen for two main reasons:

>It makes the people of the destroyed blocks want their rights back, which can literally lead to a revolution, or want to leave, which means population decline.
>It creates the precedent that the vote is a privilege, not a right, which means it can be taken away. The ruling class will have the ability to dismantle voting blocks and only keep the ones they want, and slowly you turn into an Oligarchy.

It does well to gather complacency, but is it just?
Why should my 19 y/o no-college-education ass NOT be a second class citizen to an educated and experienced individual in such matters?
I have done nothing to deserve a say in the nationalized healthcare debate, other than simply exist. That's a shit reason to have a vote.

Occasionally

>t. roasties or white knights
no smart free thinking man has a high opinion of women

old Schopie already destroyed the vaginal jew once and for all

Because it is unjust to decide who gets to vote based upon "education." But I agree, we need to raise the minimum voting age to 25.

No because I’m not a horrendous person.

Only people with a steady job should be able to work.
Welfare receivers should be barred from participating in the voting system.

why would you put education in quotation marks like there isn't a difference between being learned and unlearned?
what inherent wisdom comes with 25 years of existence?