Thread 514787968

I think only people without an immediate family (wife, kids) should be allowed to be politicians

>>514787968 (OP)
People incapable of having love should tell us what to do ? People who never learned to compromise, put the needs of others before theirs, should govern me by example ?
Are you for real ?

>>514787968 (OP)
Why? They would have nothing to live for.

>>514787968 (OP)
>a government full of incels
whats the worse that could happen?

>>514787968 (OP)
They have nothing to lose and will make crazy decisions
But then again most politicians are probably not too caring of their PR families either

>>514787968 (OP)
People without children have zero stake in the future and shouldn’t be allowed to hold office

Only married men should serve in public office. Only families should get a vote -- one per family. There should be increased taxes on the unmarried. Married couples who fail to have children within two years without proof of medical issues should face hefty fines yearly.

I think incels should be used as slave cattle, castrated and forever buckbroken as the ottomans did with cervixbians

>>514788069
To be frank, the founding fathers & pilgrims of the US were willing to risk the lives of themselves and their families for a free future. Now people actively support restricting our rights "for the children." I get where OP is coming from. People have become incredibly controlled and risk-rejecting. Family men have become incredibly weak as a result. They used to lead their families through the fire, but that isn't the case anymore.

Regardless, I don't agree with OP, but there absolutely is some merit to his view.

>>514788366
If the politicians weren't using the children as an excuse they'd just use another one. The trick is to get virtuous men into government and publicly execute those who put us in the conditi
on we're in now.

>>514788126
Total normicide

>>514788187
>There should be increased taxes on the unmarried.

Yeah also maximum taxes on neets and autists

>>514788647
And more 100% on childless cucks

>>514788647
Agreed. And publicly funded worker's barracks for them to live in. Leave the homes for the families.

>>514788550
Well that's sort of the fundamental issue when revolt is necessary. It doesn't matter who you elect & you need the rubes to not be weak. We're in the "up shit's creek" scenario, primarily due to the weakness of men. It's not the single men who are unwilling to risk it all right now. We see what I'd on the horizon & don't want it to come. The married men largely have their heads in the sand. I'd rather get to it on our terms before it pops off, much like it is in the UK right now.

I do agree getting virtuous, strong willed, and down to earth men into office is good, but even a few dozen of them couldn't do anything.

>>514787968 (OP)
Since business loves the idea of shops and street heaving with masses of foreigners, no one from a business background must ever enter public office.

>>514788830
Elect? Surely you can see democracy is what got us here in the first place.

i think they should first stop being pedophiles...

I'll do it, I will be your president

>>514787968 (OP)
op is correct, those that lead the country need to be incorruptible

>>514788069
>teh clergy
Correct

>>514788069
Nigger most politician can send thousands of man into death with a swing of a pen. They all are incapable of love.

>>514787968 (OP)
is this movie worth watching? been considering buying digitally

>>514787968 (OP)
>>514789263
The opposite. Childless losers are the most corruptible. They don't have to care about their nation's future; they're not involved in it. Look at europe, almost entirely childless leaders flooding their nations with muslims for money and promises of more power.

>>514789331
Priests are married to the church and consider the entire congregation as their children. Far different than a man and woman who are "just waiting for the right time and finding ourselves, you know?"

>>514788186
What if they want to have kids in the future? OP didn't specify. Men who want to have families but haven't yet would certainly stop the status quo from being controlled by men who "got theirs."

>Spiteful bitter incels should make all the policy
Nah

>>514789518
Managing a household successfully should be a prerequisite to government. People inexperienced with the leadership of people whose very lives rely on them simply aren't qualified.

>>514789640
So you're saying housewives would be the perfect politicians

>>514789816
No; politics should be men only. Women should not work outside of the home except in rare cases as nurses. They simply don't have the sobriety of mind that a man can bring to the table.