So if we just tell criminals not to commit crimes, they won’t commit the crime? Genius idea. Why don’t anyone ever think about that? So Dora the Explorer had it right when Dora says “Swiper no swiping” and he immediately gives up?

I’ll tell you what feminists really mean by this statement. They don’t believe rape is a crime committed by individual evil or sociopathic men. They believe the average man (or boy even) has an innate primal urge to rape women and they need to be “taught” how to keep that urge at bay. It’s disgusting and vile.

Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure everyone's heard some version of the Cornell 7, Jane Doe's civil lawsuit, and even the NY governor becoming involved in the matter.

Following a series of stories from major media outlets, the names of the Cornell 7, their lives, their jobs have all become public, with some having been harassed and threatened in public by internet sleuths.

To my original point, I understand the reason behind keeping accuser's anonymous, but literally the exact reason why we do this is happening to the accused currently.

Now, I'm not saying what they allegedly did was OK, but one reason we publicly name those charged with a crime is so that others can come forward to possibly testify on their behalf or to corroborate the charges. SA is a serious felony charge and, as a society, we'd want to be absolutely certain and obtain all evidence before we seriously impact and potentially ruin the lives of the accused.

If the accuser's name was made public, people could then draw other witnesses to corroborate or contradict facts of the case. Hypothetically, if the accuser is lying and admitted contrary facts to someone else, there would be no way for that person to know that these facts are central to someone's case, because the accuser's name is anonymous.

They were all drunk, taking part in drugs, and in the cases of everyone involved, not in their right minds at the time of the event.

Like, if Jane Doe can’t consent, then doesn’t that mean that the boys couldn’t either, all things being equal?

The whole situation is fucked up and I honestly don’t know who has culpability here - it seems like a massive fuck up on everyone’s part.

But I’m also shocked that so many people are talking about how she couldn’t consent, yet if you read any of the statements (including Jane Doe’s statements) than all of them were on drugs and alcohol. Shouldn’t consent go both ways?

I’m on a throw away account because if I bring this up I just know people will say I’m a rape apologist or I’m blaming the victim…they were all victims! They should all be in therapy, all take classes on sex ed and drug use, and all should be held to the same standard.

I think Emmett Till is one of the clearest historical examples of why accusations should never be treated as proof. A 14-year-old Black boy was abducted and lynched in 1955 after being accused of behaving inappropriately toward a white woman. There was no trial, no opportunity for him to defend himself and no due process: the accusation itself was enough for a mob to decide he deserved punishment.

Obviously, I am not saying online harassment is equivalent in severity to lynching. The comparison is about the underlying principle: once you accept that an accusation alone is enough to justify publicly identifying, harassing or punishing someone before the evidence has been properly examined, you are relying on mob justice rather than due process.
And supporting alleged victims and taking accusations seriously does not require assuming guilt, doxxing the accused or harassing people before an investigation has reached a conclusion.

For all my American friends down south, up here in canada, if you try to defend yourself from an attack, there is a very high likelihood that you're going to end up in jail for at least a day, and will probably have to defend yourself in court.

See unlike in your glorious country, up here, if somebody attacks you and you defend yourself in a manner that hurts them in a way that the police can see and verify, you are almost certainly going to have to go through the court process as a defendant.

I'll give you an example. I had a client who was sitting at home with her two children when some crackhead broke in. The crackhead immediately rushed at her older child who was playing with his toys near the front door, and attacked him. She quite understandably grabbed the vacuum cleaner and smashed it over the guy's head. The guy ended up leaving an ambulance.

She left in a police car.

She was arrested and charged with assault with deadly weapon given the way that she used the weapons to quote unquote defend herself. She then had to go and go in front of a judge, and had argue her case. She had to argue that she was stopping that lunatic from hurting one of her young children. She didn't get the perception of innocence, she was arrested in front of her sobbing children after she had just saved one of them for an attack by somebody that was later found to be carryig a very large knife, and was then forced to go through the legal process as a defendant. It took quite a long time, she lost her job over it because her work production went down in flames due to the stress she was feeling, and her marriage suffered pretty badly because of the stress and put on the husband.

Canadian police will lock you up and completely f*** your entire life up for months or even years at a time all because you decided not to let some lunatic with violent intentions attack you or someone you love. You literally cannot protect yourself here without having to do some insane mental gymnastics. And if my children are being attacked, I shouldn't have to sit there, pull out a law book, and figure out if I'm allowed to stop this guy while he sits there hurting my children. I shouldn't have to do those kind of mental gymnastics when every millisecond matters down to life or death. It's completely despicable, and Canadian police will simply justify themselves by saying that it's the law, and that it's not their problem. They'll claim that fighting it in court will guarantee reveal the problem, the Court will find you not guilty, and will send you on your way and they act like that's totally fine and that it does no harm to you whatsoever. They don't factor in the severe psychological stress, and a pretty strict way that the law interpreterses in a way that the average citizen doesn't understand.

The near fact that this law is even enforced in any capacity in Canada, on its own, proves that a shadow of a doubt that at the very least, police and cannabis specifically care more about enforcing the law than they do about their communities. If they cared about their communities, they wouldn't be locking people up for defending themselves. A few years ago I personally had a good friend that was attacked, and she was afraid to protect yourself because she didn't want to end up in jail and having to go to court, so she just left this guy beat the piss out of her until she was laying on the sidewalk with a broken leg, stole all her s*** and then ran off. She wouldn't have had to do that if the police weren't such assholes and didn't rescue for protecting yourself.

Canadian police are garbage. If you're a Canadian cop, be ashamed.

10 years ago, HuffPost predicted that Hillary Clinton had a 98.1% chance of winning the 2016 presidential election. HuffPost ended up being wrong. All the polls showed Clinton in the lead, Trump pulled a miraculous upset.

Fast forward to today. Democrats on Reddit and elsewhere feel confident that Talarico can win Texas. But despite this, Ken Paxton has the advantage.

• Millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, have migrated from blue states to Texas in the past 6 years, mostly fleeing draconian lockdown rules, high cost of living, high crime rates, and high taxes.
• Texans, by and large, don't want their state to look like California, New York, and Illinois. These states have high taxes and net negative migration. Los Angeles, near where I live, looks like a post-apocalyptic zombie movie. Most Texans rightfully see blue cities and states as failed.
• The oil and gas industry is huge in Texas, and the left is against fossil fuels.
• Talarico's views are too extreme and at odds with the majority of Texans.

Gas is $7 in California, and although it's increased in Texas, it's still less than half of commiefornia prices. And if Texas does happen to turn blue, it'll quickly decline the same way Colorado did.

Ever since NATO was formed, the US is responsible for defending all of NATO, which is why our defense budget is so high. Part of the reason is because under NATO agreement, all member states must commit at least 2% of GDP to defense spending and the US's GDP alone makes up more than half of NATO's entire GDP, which is why our defense budget is higher than every other NATO member combined.

We've been in charge of single-handedly keeping Russia and China in check and we are the only country with the economic means to do so. Our defense spending to stay ahead of their combined military might only takes up 3% of our GDP. No other NATO country can stay ahead of those two countries combined. If 2022 proved anything is Russia will do anything they want but they also fear the US. They attacked Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO, putting them under the US's protection. Since Putin wanted to bring Ukraine back under Russian rule, it was now or never. China wants to do the same to Taiwan and I'll give you one guess to the biggest deterrent of that happening. Taiwan isn't a member of NATO but the world has a vested interest in keeping Taiwan safe since it is the biggest microchip producer; if China attacked Taiwan, it would devastate the global economy. The US has made tremendous sacrifices and gets a lot of shit for it because people don't know the real sacrifices it has made for the world. The reason many of the EU has free college education, healthcare, etc., is because they've been living safely under the US's protection. Without the US, they would be vulnerable to Russia and China expansion, even more so because they've been slacking off on defense upkeep. Many member nations aren't even honoring the 2% agreement. That may have changed when Trump negotiate with the rest of NATO to demand they start doing their part, but the fact remains without the US, the EU will be vulnerable to Russian and Chinese aggression without the US.

Japan's post WW2 constitution bans them from having offensive weapons because the US agreed to protect them and because Japan didn't have much of a military budget they could focus everything on economic and technological growth.

Israel could have chosen to barrel bomb Gaza's population; it could have chosen not to create humanitarian corridors; or give immunization shots to Gazans. It could have restricted all food and medical supplies; it could have chosen not to give away its element of surprise by warning Gazan civilians with leaflets, mass text messages, and phone calls. 3 percent of the Gazans died, including some civilians, sadly. Still, the majority of deaths in Gaza were military-aged males. Hamas could have further limited the civilian death toll by sheltering Gazan civilians in the many miles of tunnels; instead, they forced them to be human shields. They used child soldiers and Gaza’s children as military spotters. Hamas had military uniforms and yet refused to wear them in combat. Not a single piece of solid evidence has been brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague that would implicate Israel in proven intent to commit genocide in Gaza. Wars with much higher civilian death tolls have recently happened in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, and Congo, and yet none of those countries have been brought to The Hague. If this farce continues and countries that try to protect civilians at the expense of their own military personnel's safety realize they can be tossed into a kangaroo court no matter what they try to do to mitigate civilian deaths, they won't have any motivation to limit collateral damage at the expense of military tactics. Over 90 percent of all the jews of Poland and Lithuania were murdered 3 million in 3 years. Gaza has lost 3 percent of its population, with the majority of the dead being Hamas militia members. This is an attempt to invert the holocaust and weaponize it against the Jewish people by misusing the word genocide in a conflict that is clearly a war by every classical measurement of modern warfare and not a genocide.

To preface, I'm an Asian American 20m college student.

I'm a pretty big history and politics nerd, especially when it comes to the Middle East. It's insane to me how so many of my own peers are brainwashed by the media (the same ones they claim are owned by "the Jews") to think that every Israeli is a genocidal sociopath.

To be clear, historically there absolutely were Jewish Zionist terrorists, but the vast majority of Jews sought only peace with their neighbors. We see that even today, because anytime an Arab nation wants peace (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia), Israel is more than willing to agree.

Do you think Israel WANTS to blockade Gaza and bomb certain spots of infrastructure while the world condemns them? It's a waste of time, money, resources, and reputation. But they need to for survival. Just like any country has ever done in war, Israel does have a lot of civilian casualties because Gaza happens to be the most densely populated area on earth, and yet they have been shown to limit it as much as possible through repeated warnings. But it's the barbaric Hamas that literally forces civilians to stay.

At the end of the day, though, it's kind of terrifying how much this mask of "anti-Zionism" is showing off to platform people who advertise Hitler being cool, or that any person even from Israel shouldn't be allowed to have any sort of platform/public life.

To be clear, Israel is by no means a perfect country. Hell, America isn't either -- we've done some pretty horrific things in our history (from Native Americans to slavery to nuking Japan), but the ideals of what makes this country great are simply far beyond every other superpower, which are dictatorship-run and persecute all kinds of minorities (like Russia and China).

I have no love for Netanyahu or for the far-right in the Knesset. But at the end of the day, most Israelis are, shockingly, normal and everyday people. In fact, most of them have liberal policies (by American standards), which include welfare programs and tolerant social issues (like abortion and LGBTQ rights). Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, the only one fully tolerant to all religions, sexualities, ethnicities, and sexes.

I'm sure I'll get the "Mossad bot" comments, but it's really shocking just how brainwashed some people have become. Everything is wrong with Israel defending its people, but seemingly no attention is paid to the persecution in Sudan, or the forced child marriages in Pakistan, or the killings of tens of thousands of innocent protestors in Iran, or the flagrant violation of women's autonomy in Afghanistan.

It's pretty much the template for it. It's an event that is embarrassing an ultra-leftist Ivy League college in an ultra-leftist state led by an ultra-leftist (fraud) governor and an ultra-leftist (fraud) AG right before the mid-terms. If you actually read the court docs you'd see that no crime actually occurred here, by the supposed "victim's" own statements. She simply changed her story when the frat shunned her and didn't want her around anymore and she started getting shunned by other people on campus. This will not stop the AG from pressing charges in an attempt to ruin these students' lives as to show that if you defy the left politically then the facts be damned you will be an example of how they will do whatever they want to you.

Just like they did with Trump, Cuomo and Adams, to name a few.

It's boilerplate what the left does and the goal is demoralization of their political enemies and it speaks to how they will corrupt literally anything. Just like how they corrupted the medical industry during COVID and how they've been corrupting the K-12 public school system for decades, which is failing completely under their control.

They're all frauds.

EDIT: Oh, and does anybody actually believe that 35% of the female student body was assaulted while going to school there? If so, what does that say about leftist dominated Ivy League colleges?

This will be a bit of a hot take to many of you, but most jobs are learned on the job not in a classroom.

obvious exceptions: Lawyer, doctor, engineers.

But every other job I can think of can easily be learned by someone with average iq on the job site.

For instance: Construction (already done this way), Sales (experience is the most important), barista, content creator, law enforcement, etc etc.

Like most jobs that don't require innovation or genuine knowledge of laws, physics or anatomy are kind of learned on the job. And the schooling required is a barrier to entry to isolate those who have the desire to do the job from those who don't.

Cause if there was no degree for business or sales and everyone could just apply for a sales position or to be a CEO, then you'd have millions of applications. But having those degrees makes it so that only a handful of people get a masters so they can sort through them.

Idk I thought of this in like 30 seconds but what do yall think?

In the society we live in the history of who you are and what you have done matters. In pretty much everything.

Why is there a major push to make it so that a person’s sexual history is the one facet of life that history should no longer matter? Why is that the outlier?

History should matter. It’s a verifiable track record of who a person is and what could rationally be expected of them and their behaviors. (I know… insert the “people can change” arguments. But changing behavior doesn’t eradicate past behavior… This probably could/should be a separate post entirely.)

If you want to get into a college the admissions office is going to check transcripts - a HISTORY of your academic performance.

If you apply for a home/car/personal loan from a financial institution they will run a credit check - a HISTORY of your financial performance and responsibility.

If you apply for a job in the professional workforce they will run a full background check - a HISTORY of your public/societal behaviors.

If you run for public office everything you have done in your past - good or bad - will likely come to light. And your candidacy will be assessed on how your HISTORY of behaviors and opinions align with the values of the office you intend to hold.

Every facet of life in modern society has some ties to and is affected by your history… yet when it comes to sex - one of the most intimate and important things humans do with their time on Earth - history (in regards to one’s sexual past) is supposed to be disregarded and considered unimportant. At least it seems there’s a push to make this the prevailing sentiment.

“It’s the past.” That’s the phrase that’s used when rationalizing previous behaviors and a person’s body count, correct?

But the past matters. In everything. Including body count.

This may be viewed as extremest or alarmist, but it’s been proven that disregarding past behaviors is a sure fire path to the downfall of not only the individual but of a society.

In 2014 Scott Alexander wrote a blog post called The Toxoplasma of Rage. It's just as relevant now as it is then.

One of the things he mentioned was that high-profile rape cases that blow up in the media are exponentially more likely to be proven false than the normal false allegation rate (e.g. Duke Lacrosse, UVA Rolling Stone hoax, and the 2009 Hofstra University gang rape accusation). That doesn't mean that all high-profile cases are false. Brock Turner for example was a highly publicized case but he did in fact get convicted (albeit the conviction was for sexual assault and not rape)

Why? Because the claims that are shaky and likely to be proven false are the ones most likely to get attention.

Why do they get more attention? Because the cases that are controversial and likely to be proven false are the most suitable for signaling and bringing attention to the cause. In a case where someone was caught secretly slipping date rape drugs to victims so they can rape them while unconscious, virtually no one's going to defend it.

Now take the Cornell case. We don't know for certain whether the allegations of rape are true or false.

We do know for certain that the complainant's statement that she personally read, made many changes to, then signed on the penalty of perjury contained no allegations of rape or similar non-consensual actions, even if we take her statement (this specific signed statement, not a lawsuit or any other subsequent statements where lying isn't a crime) as completely true.

We do know for certain that after the alleged rape at the fraternity, the complainant wanted to attend the frat's Halloween party and got upset that she was disinvited from it. It was only after that when she went to the police to report being raped.

Is that conclusive proof that she wasn't raped? No. However it does clearly raise reasonable doubt. So anyone who isn't a firm feminist who unironically says "believe all women" isn't going to jump on the bandwagon and condemn the accused men. And some people will go further and actually defend the men, given that the evidence against them is so shaky but despite that they are already being condemned, harassed, and threatened.

So why then is the accuser getting so much more public support from randoms or even influencers and some celebrities, compared to rape cases with stronger evidence? It's not in spite of the fact that it's shaky and likely to be false. It's because of that fact.

Ironically, this support then leads to the average person thinking that false rape claims are far more common than they actually are, because the high-profile ones that they see in the news turn out to be false way more often than average.

When you are unemployed, you literally have all the time in the world. There is zero excuse to let your health and fitness completely slide.
You can easily carve out a 1.5 to 2-hour block from your day to just walk around your neighbourhood. You don't even need to go to a gym or a pilates studio, walking is free. Put your headphones on, listen to some music or a podcast, and before you know it, you’ve hit 12,000 steps.

For most people walking at a moderate pace, 12,000 steps only takes about 1 hour and 40 minutes to 2 hours. If you have the free time, taking care of your body costs nothing and requires zero special equipment, just lace up and get outside.

There was a viral post the other day on Twitter of unemployed people screenshotting their step counts in the quotes, and the majority of them averaged under 2,500 steps per day. How??

There. I said it.
Money isn’t everything. You need people you love, good health, peace of mind, experiences, purpose, etc.
But pretending money doesn’t contribute to happiness is crazy to me.
Being able to pay your bills without stressing?
Buying something you’ve wanted for years?
Taking your family somewhere nice?
Having the freedom to say “yes” instead of “I can’t afford it”?
Yeah. That sounds like happiness to me.
So if you disagree and genuinely believe money has nothing to do with happiness…
My PayPal is open. You can prove me wrong. 😂

You hear it a bunch of times: Europeans making fun of Americans for not traveling but now Americans ARE traveling A LOT, as it turns out a lot of the time it's cheaper to travel abroad than domestic.

Now that they are traveling though, you hear: "Ugh so many Americans everywhere!"

Maybe a better complain is: "There's too many europeans everywhere." And often they're as loud and rude as the worst tourists. Why are they the benchmark of world travel? They also overrun American national parks in droves, start wild fires, and behave dumbly toward wildlife

As a lot of you are aware, dating in the west has completely collapsed for the most part. I can't speak on dating in the global south or the east because I am simply not educated in the topic enough for those parts of the world. However, I have noticed how, a lot of the time in dating, women more often than not go after men who are either more successful and usually older on average. I see no reason to criticize this kind of behavior because it has simply been the way humanity has gone since its conception, and I don't place any blame on women due to them becoming essentially held in fiscal servitude should she stay with this man.

This ends up leaving a lot of men, younger men in particular, fairly destitute when it comes to dating and relationships. This is also caused do to their being a gender imbalance between men and women between the ages of 18-30 (Yes there are countries with more women than men in total but we're talking specifically in the 18-30 age bracket) which is about 102-104 men for every 100 women.

Due to both the factors of women dating more established men on average and there being a surplus of men to women, the only conceivable option to fix it would be to bring in strictly female immigrants. This would solve the gender imbalance in the western dating market completely, amd possibly even creating a surplus of women to men, though I find this very unlikely in long term scenarios.

Edit: I want to talk about some of the comments underneath this post

1. The amount of comments I've seen that are just "Yeah bro, we need submissive immigrants with fat asses" is genuinely weird asf and the idea of viewing women strictly as an object for sex is weird and gross

2. To everyone who obfuscated my entire post to make me out to be some theocrat who wants to strip away women's autonomy for the "betterment" of specific western nations have completely missed the point. Idk how you managed to go from me saying "We should allow easier immigration for female immigrants only" and subverting that to "Bro you wanna take away women's rights bro and make them breeding cattle bro" is genuinely baffling

I would consider myself politically moderate, having voted both for Republicans and Democrats in the past. I've read a decent chunk of the Federalist Papers, love American history, and my general interpretation of the constitution is closer to an originalist viewpoint. I have a profound respect for the Founding Fathers and their vision for our country. I used to want to be a lawyer but wound up following a different path in life. Nonetheless, I try to keep up with jurisprudence and stay educated as I am able.

Any time a court case or legal situation goes viral, it just increases my respect for what our founders wanted for our nation. The presumption of innocence with the burden of proof being on the state is a core element of our legal system. Maybe because civics aren't taught well or because people are just so emotional and indoctrinated these days, it seems like the public has divorced itself from these values when a case offends their particular moral sensibilities. This applies equally well to right wingers, left wingers, feminists, men's rights advocates, and most interest groups -- especially online.

At any rate, if you found yourself joining mob mentality around punishment before a guilty verdict on

• The Cornell Seven

• Lindsay Clancy

• Kyle Rittenhouse

• Dereck Chauvin

• Luigi Mangione

• Hunter Biden

• Trump's various legal entanglements

• Casey Anthony

then you should spend some time thinking about if you have been radicalized and if you are living up to expectations of rationality when it comes to the matter of state sanctioned force. Regardless of how guilty or not guilty you think any of these people are / were, investigation into facts should remain boring and rule-bound especially when they touch on highly sensitive knee-jerk feelings. People seem to want to discard established, precedented, protected constitutional procedure when they get upset. Everyone I listed above is entitled to legal counsel, a jury, and a well-ordered interrogation into the truth before any conviction occurs REGARDLESS of what the court of public opinion thinks should happen no matter how nasty the accusation.

All of the people I described are sickening individuals. The world would be a better place if they were not born. While they are horrible people, their power contributed a lot to it. There are some truly sick people who don’t have that level of power, who if they did would do horrible things. What comes first, evil or power? It’s evil, but power allows people to commit greater evil

By Jane Doe’s own account, she never lost consciousness. In fact, she was less intoxicated than at-least one of the men she had sex with. She actually engaged in sexual acts while he was passed out.

By Jane Doe’s own account, she consented to everything that happened. “But I was pretty OK with all of this.” She even admitted when she asked them to stop because she was tired, they did.

Even her roommate, who Jane Doe recounted the evenings events, said she did not describe the evening as rape.

Actual text messages show she said she wanted to do it again.

In what world is any of this rape? Just because she didn’t like the social consequences and regretted her actions that night does not make it rape. You can’t just decide because you reflect on what happened and don’t like it, you retroactively withdraw consent.

To please the moderators, this is not a generalization of men nor women.

One of the big cases of this past-week is that of the Cornell 7; a young-woman (we'll call Jane Doe because her name hasn't been revealed, which is weird because she's an adult) and a group of guys engaged in an alcohol and ketamine-fueled orgy at a frat-party, leading to some of the guys the inviting other guys to participate, and then turning the orgy into a gangbang. Well, it has been alleged that prior to the orgy that Jane Doe had taken advantage of an already drunk and unconscious "Cornell 7 suspect" by giving him oral sex. In case you didn't know, that's date-rape, and she had barely-started drinking at the time.

The reason why I bring this up is because everyone, when the orgy was getting out of hand, were plastered. Yet, only the men in the story are getting thrown under the bus. The reason why this is, it's because feminists hate the power-dynamics until it benefits them and could ruin men's lives. Maybe they use it as another reason to eliminate the patriarchy and why it's bad. Maybe, it's a full-blown double-standard. Maybe they think the crimes of the Jane Doe should cancel-out because everything after was so bad. This is a bit of a theme towards most cases where the woman is the victim; is that any responsibility a woman should take are always suppressed, because "man."

In my opinion; just expel everybody directly involved. No patriarchy; just true equality.

This is coming from someone who is currently a junior at a college in New Hampshire. I work three on campus jobs, am super involved in a bunch of clubs, and yet still have not been able to make any meaningful connections or friends because the social life in college feels like it's entirely based around partying.

College feels like it's where modesty and quietness goes to die. The primary form of socialization pushed is through having crazy parties where people are getting shitfaced, doing drugs, or otherwise illegal or dangerous things. Dating seems impossible because while everyone complains that they can't find a boyfriend/girlfriend, they are actively just hooking up with a bunch of people, so someone who detests casual sex is basically screwed.

It's the one point in my life where it feels like everyone around me has regressed in maturity or have straight up gotten dumber since highschool. It feels like there is this complete homogeneity across campus where everyone wears the same stuff, spends their nights the same way, and just like lose all passion and whimsey.

I just miss highschool where it felt like people were interesting still and didn't just get brainwashed into becoming a degenerate because that's what pop culture told them they have to do to have the "college experience".

I don't know if you guys have ever thought about this, but democracy has failed and will collapse in the coming decade. It's pretty simple: most people are too stupid to have a vote.

Why the fuck should someone nullify my vote, if that person is for example born with a mental insufficiency and shitting his pants, while his is drooling?

Why should someone nullify my vote, that has never worked an h in his life ?(He has never paid a cent in taxes)

Why should someone nullify my vote that doesn't even know the basics of politics and is just screeching whatever is said on TikTok or their favourite popstar?

Like let's face it, most people are historically illiterate, they don't even know when world war 1 was, let alone WW2.Why the fuck should these morons have a right to vote ? People should have an extensive understanding of history to be able to vote, not just the basics.

I bet there are a million more examples.