WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

326

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)

[–] 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

We don't have a deficit of profound idiots with 10+ kids on this planet.

Why should a bunch of profound idiots have a say in anything to begin with?

Because they fucked a broad at some point in their life? How is this supposed to be a guarantee of anything?

By the age of 20 your average diversity-nigger probably fathered 10 kids already, so what?