This was a major shit test that Western Men failed, and we need to revisit and correct that error: same with allowing women to ban alcohol, it was a stupid decision of which the consequences have been far more disastrous than anyone could previously conceive of.
Women voted for fascism and alcohol is bad for you.
>>517779322How about no more women, no more shit tests, and no more being a disposable provider tradcuck?
>>517779548>How about no more women, no more shit tests, and no more being a disposable provider tradcuck?So...prison?
>>517779322Glowies told us all the time "you won't do shit", but now it's my turn and I can guarantee that not one of them will ever do a fucking thing about women. They will all bend the knee, go extinct, get replaced by shitskins and they will be completely powerless to do anything about it despite having every inch of the planet staked out with satellites.You won't do a fucking thing. You're done. You lost to women.
>>517779393>Women voted for fascism and alcohol is bad for you.Women voted for whatever was the flavor of the week politics? No shit anon: that is the problem, because the current flavor of politics is not always in one's favor and this irrational voting eventually leads to them merely voting for whatever allows them more money and dicks.>alcohol is bad for youGo to Dubai then, Islamist cunt. Jesus didn't turn water into grape juice.>>517779548Women make the babies, moron. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. If you want to live in a monastery that's always been possible.
>>517779626Artificial wombs for having kids, and prostitutes for fun if you really need it. Men are checking out of being involved with women altogether.
>>517779322https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Aa4rQ9wzI
>>517779704Artificial wombs christcuck. CRISPR and genetic engineering can make it possible to have an exact clone of you.
>>517779322banning alcohol only became a problem because of alcohol addicts that were willing to kill, steal and traffic just for a drink
>>517779322Women have destroyed more lives than any war
>To repeal a constitutional amendment, it must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.Alright /pol/, what are the actual odds of this happening? Assume in the future the majority of boomer simps are dead and the younger, womanfatigued generations are the majority of men. There are a few more red states than blue states but a few more would be needed to reach 3/4. So the questions are, could post-boomer republicans become based? Would nonwhites like muslims actually help in voting against women? If so, could men outvote the women+simps? What are the likelihoods of smaller actions like divorce reform and prohibiting online dating/whoring?
