Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 15 pts

No. Simple as.

[–] • 2 pts

if you were forced to choose between a male nigger and a White female getting the vote?

yeah shit choice

[–] • 5 pts

No. Neither get to vote.

[–] • 0 pt

how far would you go to ensure that?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

White woman easily because niggers will still vote democrat while white women will vote republican. With that said, women still shouldn't have the right to vote. The only ones that should are married white men over the age of 35 with steady employment.

[–] • 0 pt

Women are socialist by nature.. Do the right thing, "net taxpayer voting system" if you pay 1 penny more in taxes than you get back in services you get to vote. this leaves only the top 20ish % of teh population to vote

you get socialism because people vote for free shit, when you have to pay for that free shit you don't vote for it

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

That's easy. Black men get to vote, white women don't (nor do black or brown women). The entire country would be Republican.

[–] • 5 pts

The fact you have to even ask is the problem

[–] • 3 pts

I read it as a rhetorical question.

[–] • 3 pts

I like to find out what the state of poal opinion is

[–] • 5 pts

As individuals they can be great. As a group, they have been a disappointment. Too easy to manipulate.

[–] • 2 pts

So easy that they are targeted specifically by every form of media when a narrative needs pushing.

[–] • 1 pt

As a female, I hate to agree with you. Too many females lack the ability to think for themselves and often only think with their feelings. The majority cannot be logical in any shape. But then again, these days there are plenty of "men" that fall into that category also.

[–] • 0 pt

Your right. A lot more men have fallen into that category. The man/woman on the street segments are both funny and scary.

[–] • 4 pts

Voting should require that you paid at least the 12% rate for income tax (income of $10,275 for single, $20,550 for a couple) and have proof of citizenship. That excludes welfare recipients of all races and sexes.

[–] • 7 pts

Land owning White males with children only, no children and you have no skin in the game for the future of the country.

[–] • 0 pt

Don't forget married, and adoption doesn't count.

[–] • 3 pts

yes I agree, and have long thought that if you receive government benefits you should give up your right to vote

[–] • 3 pts

Them not voting was predicated on the family unit with the husband being the head of the woman and the home, her 'vote' was represented in him.

Now everything's gone to pot and anything goes and the only fix is heaven sent radical soul changing spiritual revival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening

[–] • 2 pts

No, but I don't think that many who are able to vote now should be able to. It used to be only property owners could vote, and I think we'd do well to go back to a similar system. Just because someone can fog a mirror (leftists don't even seem to have that standard though), doesn't mean they should be permitted to vote. I also think that some way to determine that those who vote stay informed on the issues would need to figure into it somehow.

Even without all of that, no I don't think women should vote.

[–] • 1 pt

No and they won't in the future, after the civil war against the Muslims is over - not matter who wins, woman are going to lose a lot of rights.

[–] • 1 pt

In my idealized world these are the qualifications for voting privileges:

  1. White
  2. Male
  3. Owns property
  4. Married (to a woman)
  5. Never has been divorced.
  6. Has at least 1 bilogical offspring

If all of these conditions are met, you may vote. This way, women are still represented because only a man married to a woman can vote. The divorce disqualification has to be added in because short term voting marriages would become a problem otherwise. Plus it gives the added benefit of disenfranchising gays.

[–] • 1 pt

I dont think so, but at this point, taking party affiliation off ballots would be enough totally destroy the democrat party.

Load more (14 replies)