It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What if only men voted?

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I love the way you are perfectly fine with removing retired people, who have already spent most of the adult lives paying into the system and have retired from the ranks of voters....
until I point out that hey then trump can't vote because he hasn't paid taxes in god only knows how long...
then you are willing to change things....

how about all those stay at home moms, who although they aren't earning a paycheck, are probably working harder than some of those highly paid workers out there? do they get to vote, since well, they are being good little housewives and relying on their husband's income while they care for the kids? or would you like to give women another incentive to have abortions?




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It would be amazing. Logic in politics.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Indigo5

Extremely doubtful information.


???

You obviously haven't read the supporting links, or looked at the numbers? Or are familiar with Nate Silver..who whilst is not a perfect statistician, is still widely regarded as the most honest and non-partisan one in politics.


Really he is just having fun with stats and deliberately showing both sides of the fun.

For fun lets run a pole where only gay men and women vote for either trumps clothes or Hilliary's. I bet we would get the same two charts but inverted.

Any comments made here are meant to pokes fun at statistics. Please don't flame me



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Thats alot of single women, they like to sleep around i guess.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: suvorov

I beg your pardon, but what, exactly, are you talking about?

You provided no context for your mysoginistic announcement, context which ought to have been present.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I think we should go back to what the original Constitution says.

None but Electors vote for President. Less drama.
edit on 10/13/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

How does anyone's same sex marriage affect you?
You do not pay for anyone's abortion.
How do you know you haven't been sharing a locker room with grown 'men' your entire life?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But muh illusions...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

#RepealThe19th

Stay classy Trump supporters.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Not all American men.

For the record - political polling isn't something I see as an end all / be all in most circumstances. Answering a poll isn't the same as committing to an act. It's kind of like guys in a bar/pub... Many guys talk massive lines of smack, reveling in bravado... but few actually hit on women or end up brawling in the parking lot.

This sort of socialization is less prevalent in females... And the guys who do talk smack usually stop and go home when their dates say "Enough BS. Time to go home..."



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I disagree with your litmus. We have enough issues with money controlling our government, without further destroying the voice of the people by further making wealth a designation of worth.


I agree... but you DO realize that in the early days only property-owning and debt-free white males could vote (according to state laws, which defined voter rights back then and varied from state to state)?

I don't think we should go back there.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Well, quite.

But the problem is not just the idea that all these respondents were prepared to poll the way they did, but that they hold the opinion at all. These opinions will effect their behaviour. Gentlemen, folk with dignity, respect and honour about themselves, would rather set themselves aflame than permit a womans dignity to be besmirched, and yet, one gets the impression that the polled voters, and especially those who are up for repealing the 19th amendment, are NOT gentlemen, have no class or distinction to them what so ever.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

What's funny is that the poster who proposed this lunacy probably assumes that such a measure would bring about a society and laws that are conducive to his ideological faps. My feeling however is that it would bring about a huge Progressive wave instead. Now tempting as it is and regardless how increasingly beneath contempt I find many Conservatives... I don't wish to strip them of their voices.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I think we should go back to what the original Constitution says.

None but Electors vote for President. Less drama.


I believe that is still the way it works..

Presidents are still elected by the electoral college.

And each state is responsible for their own process in Presidential Elections.

Theoretically, if a state's rules permits...a state can vote for one Presidential Candidate and it's electoral college rep can vote the other way.



Twenty-one states do not have laws that compel their electors to vote for a pledged candidate

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Then they go on about how they don't have to change the Constitution to stop anchor babies...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I disagree with your litmus. We have enough issues with money controlling our government, without further destroying the voice of the people by further making wealth a designation of worth.


I agree... but you DO realize that in the early days only property-owning and debt-free white males could vote (according to state laws, which defined voter rights back then and varied from state to state)?

I don't think we should go back there.


A culture needs to be mature for this to not be a problem. Problem now is PTB dividing folks along lines to manipulate vote. This thread is a stinking example of that.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The only amendments to the Constitution that cannot be altered are the first 10. The Bill of rights.
All others can be repealed. So stop saying the 19th amendment is permanent law.

The fact of the matter is you do not have an affirmative right to vote for President listed in the Constitution.
What the CoTUS does say is that IF a State chooses to use a general election to choose its Electors then the right to vote in that election cannot be discriminated based on race, sex or age.
But States do not have to use a general election to choose their electors.


The problem with voting is that the original intent has not been maintained.
It was the intent of the founders that the various States would have representation in the legislature.
That was destroyed when Senators were switched to be chosen by direct election. Today the various State governments have no representation in the Federal legislature and thus all manner of control was ripped from them and consolidated into the Federal government.
The entire election has become a popularity contest and what we are seeing play out before us is the long inevitable train pulling into its last station. A complete circus, the most craven and loathsome people that our society can produce seek to rule us. They ply our vote with as many promises and payoffs as they can muster and feed the beast government with the blood of our toil.
A nation cannot stand when its people learn that they can vote for the government to rob from one citizen to give to another. When the more than half of the tax eligible population pay no taxes but still get to vote, there is no path but disaster.
There should be only one vote per household. You should have to own property to declare a household although I am sure that a method for allowing people to pay a property tax to establish a household would suffice to allow long term renters to vote.
To many voters as it is. To many women voting with their vaginas (thats how we got Bill Clinton) and to many men voting with their johnson's (they vote to impress their lady friends so they seem more enlightened).



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Why would anyone not want all citizens to have a vote in the leadership of our country. Oh, right, those who only want it their way, all the time.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Indigo5

It obviously also speaks to the large difference in opinion between the genders...lots of married couples this election will be voting different ways.




I can't be asked to look it up (phone dying on train), but pretty sure I saw a poll that a majority of married women supported Trump. Killary gets her support from Bachrlorettes



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Indigo5

It obviously also speaks to the large difference in opinion between the genders...lots of married couples this election will be voting different ways.



Not necessarily. Research shows that married women tend to vote more like their husbands because their husbands more often than not tend to bring home the bacon and the wife wants to protect that. .


Care to link to 'the Research''?




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join