Can I vote for a female politician? In principle, yes. That's because literally no political party in the West is woman-free. Literally none. If I can't vote for a female politician, I can't vote at all. Some things are asinine, though. For example, they are prepping Erika Kirk to be this political leader, when she should be mourning her husband instead. And, yes, ideally women should not be in politics at all, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Accelerationist voting. This is stupid. Basically, this is you purposefully voting for the worst option, as you see it, to "destroy the system." But you won't destroy shit. The system will remain. And maybe you don't even know, which truly is the worst. Democrats could do accelerationist voting for Republicans because they believe that unrestrained billionaires will "destroy the system." Republicans could do accelerationist voting for Democrats because they believe immigrants will "destroy the system." Which one is it?
Voting for NEETbux. So voting for a left wing candidate, who proposes an increase in welfare benefits, supposedly some of this could be accessible to incels. With this, there are two problems. One, leftism is always muh women, muh faggots, muh niggers. The NEETbux, were there any, won't be for you. Two, if they make NEETbux accessible for everyone, eventually no one will work, and they won't be able to collect enough taxes to support the program, so they'll simply cancel it.
Voting for chuds. This is actually good, in my book. So, this is UKIP or Donald Trump. Realistically, they won't make anything better for us. But, when they win, they make fat, ugly single mothers cry on TikTok, which is funny.
But vote or not, always remember: nothing ever happens.
Accelerationist voting. This is stupid. Basically, this is you purposefully voting for the worst option, as you see it, to "destroy the system." But you won't destroy shit. The system will remain. And maybe you don't even know, which truly is the worst. Democrats could do accelerationist voting for Republicans because they believe that unrestrained billionaires will "destroy the system." Republicans could do accelerationist voting for Democrats because they believe immigrants will "destroy the system." Which one is it?
Voting for NEETbux. So voting for a left wing candidate, who proposes an increase in welfare benefits, supposedly some of this could be accessible to incels. With this, there are two problems. One, leftism is always muh women, muh faggots, muh niggers. The NEETbux, were there any, won't be for you. Two, if they make NEETbux accessible for everyone, eventually no one will work, and they won't be able to collect enough taxes to support the program, so they'll simply cancel it.
Voting for chuds. This is actually good, in my book. So, this is UKIP or Donald Trump. Realistically, they won't make anything better for us. But, when they win, they make fat, ugly single mothers cry on TikTok, which is funny.
But vote or not, always remember: nothing ever happens.
