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

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

I don't care if you think that's mean, I don't care how much you supposedly pay in taxes. You have no stake in the country's future. Your opinion is most likely short sighted and self serving. Sorry "wine aunt" it's time for you to go sleep it off and let the people who grew up make the decisions.

Maybe make it 45 even.

I don't care if you think that's mean, I don't care how much you supposedly pay in taxes. You have no stake in the country's future. Your opinion is most likely short sighted and self serving. Sorry "wine aunt" it's time for you to go sleep it off and let the people who grew up make the decisions. Maybe make it 45 even.

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts

Only White, land owning, men should be able to vote. Corporations shouldn't be able to donate (bribe) to political parties or politicians. Or have any other ties to political means, period. They shouldn't be let anywhere near politicians. Special interest groups like kikes shouldn't even be in this country to interfere with White men's political policies, let alone make donations (bribes.) Niggers, muslims and all other non Whites shouldn't have any say in White politics. They shouldn't even be here. If our founding fathers knew of our state today, they'd be rolling in their graves. Hey, we all have opinions.

[–] • 3 pts

Corporations shouldn't be able to donate (bribe) to political parties or politicians

I'm drawing a blank as to why corporations should even be allowed to exist.

[–] • 2 pts

It's to allowed limited liability investments. E.g. if I want to be a silent partner in Acme Co, I can invest $10k in that corporation by buying stock. My maximum liability is limited to my $10k investment. If Acme Co is up to something shady that I dont know about, I'm not going to lose my life savings if they get sued into bankruptcy.

One alternative would be forcing all investors to either enter into liable partners like buying a partnership at a law practice. The entry cost is quite high, excluding retail investors. It also sharply limits the size of capital intensive business ventures. It's very difficult to start a billion dollar refinery company if you cant sell stock to the general public and are exclusively beholden to individual investors with enough capital to buy-in as liable partners. E.g. the Musks and Bezos of the world.

You could also force investments into bonds where instead of buying stock you lend the company money. The tradeoffs is this hampers reinvestment of dividends by diverting them into bond payments, sharply limiting ROI.

The inherent tradeoff of publicly traded equities is that it's very difficult to identify liable parties for corporate malfeasance. You cant readily say "The 50 million people with shares in Proctor & Gamble are liable if it commits crimes", because how would they even know much less have mens rea?

I'd like to see mandatory liability for C-Suite executives as a way to address this. That way publicly traded equities are still available, and the buck stops somewhere.

[–] • 2 pts

Originally the "corporation" status was supposed to be temporary, not permanent AND the entities forming the said corporation were supposed to demonstrate the benefit of their project for the public/citizenry, before being allowed to combine, temporarily...

[–] • 0 pt

It's to allowed limited liability investments. E.g. if I want to be a silent partner in Acme Co, I can invest $10k in that corporation by buying stock. My maximum liability is limited to my $10k investment. If Acme Co is up to something shady that I dont know about, I'm not going to lose my life savings if they get sued into bankruptcy.

That's perfectly fine and should be allowed, but why should a corporation have any political or legal benefits beyond their existence? Corporations became weaponized behemoths that wield political power and influence to the point where they are more represented than any actual constituent. That needs to end and there should be no allowed means for a corporation to exert any force on politics as an entity rather than the individual people that make it up. Throw the jews out and fix corporations.

[–] • 1 pt

If I had a time machine, brother.

[–] • 2 pts

+50 are highly concentrated with conservatives. This sounds like a marxist/communist scheme to undermine conservativism.

[–] • 0 pt

+50 are highly concentrated with conservatives

Yes and conservatives are more likely to have kids. This would primarily affect old gays, cat ladies and climate nuts.

Inb4 what about infertile people

They can adopt.

[–] • 2 pts

Let's steelman this.

Net taxpayers are overwhelmingly childless couples and single men, in that order. To your point, their incentive to preserve a country is weak since they'll be long dead by the time any long term policies come to fruition.

Single mothers and couples with children are the greatest tax recipients, in that order. They have an inventive to care about the long term because their children will bear the consequences of their policies. However, they also have a strong incentive to vote for gibs now and screw their future.

So which do you want to favor for voting? The ones with no theoretical care for the future, or the ones who theoretically care for the future but are observedly voting to destroy the future?

[–] • 0 pt

However, they also have a strong incentive to vote for gibs now and screw their future.

There's an easy fix for this. You vote, you don't get gibs.

[–] • 2 pts

So only under 50 childless people who are probably 90% Liberal, gay commies. Great idea!

[–] • 1 pt

So, you mean the people who have the most experience in life and have seen and done everything, so they know what and who is actually BS?

[–] • 0 pt

People who have the most experience and still fell for the childfree/overpopulation/muh career brainwashing? Yeah.

[–] • 1 pt

Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote either.

[–] • 1 pt

I’d would say that older people usually vote to keep things the way they are. Conservatism. Which brings quality of life higher. But childless..I can see that. Self serving agents of pleasure that have no future to worry about, don’t need to vote for the future. Voting should be restricted to people who net to the system contributing to the system we all live under. I would also say that those without children shouldn’t hold office. They have no future to keep in decent order, and are prone to disaster policies from bribery.
Incentives should be in which strong foundational family’s exists. This means the power should be with the contributing families. But also leaves out the liberal vote blue no matter who abortion college aged females. Because she’s not contributing into taxes. No kids no office. I’d say two at least. Not one mistake like that Chelsea girl. No taxes no vote. Rely on taxes.. hard limits and sterilization.

[–] • 1 pt

Only land owners and business owners should be able to vote.

[–] • 1 pt

...and people who pay NET into the income tax system. While we are at it, register to vote EVERY YEAR.

[–] • 1 pt

Read "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein. The voting system there is perfectly laid out.

[–] • 0 pt

What if the said people over 50 lost their sons in one of the country's wars?

Fuck them or you just didn't think before typing?

[–] • 0 pt

I kinda figured people here would have common sense before I typed, if that's what you mean. Of course it shouldn't count against someone if their child dies, unless they caused it themselves (which would make them felons anyway).

[–] • 0 pt

Oh, of course it shouldn't count... So here we are with an exception to the grand general rule already... How many exceptions like that?

How about, too much because it sounds only good in theory, but in practice it's literally unpracticable https://poal.co/s/TellPoal/663350/89c19d31-c799-4429-a122-5097b3958afb#cmnts

>Let's steelman this. Net taxpayers are overwhelmingly childless couples and single men, in that order. To your point, their incentive to preserve a country is weak since they'll be long dead by the time any long term policies come to fruition. Single mothers and couples with children are the greatest tax recipients, in that order. They have an inventive to care about the long term because their children will bear the consequences of their policies. However, they also have a strong incentive to vote for gibs now and screw their future. So which do you want to favor for voting? The ones with no theoretical care for the future, or the ones who theoretically care for the future but are observedly voting to destroy the future?

https://dailystormer.in/stupid-ideological-nonsense-is-so-fundamental-to-the-american-system-that-there-is-no-path-to-fixing-this-society

[–] • 0 pt

So here we are with an exception to the grand general rule already

No it's just a miscommunication about the original rule. I'm talking about people who haven't reproduced by the time they are 50 years old. These people have chosen to take their ball and go home from the game of life. That's their choice but it makes no sense to give them a say in the rules when they aren't playing.

Do you think some 60 year old lesbian spinster should have a say in how your kids are educated or whether your country should get into a war that won't effect her? I don't.

Also I agree with most of that article, which is basically why I don't care about the optics of stripping some people of the ability to vote.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

They'll remember that when the zogbots close in. You aren't worth the bullets to save. I'll laugh. You get what you deserve, turn your back on people who have nothing to lose, and you'll get just that, a loss.

Sorry for your luck. Rofl

Men can make babies even after their dead, with a little help.