# Why do minorities and women in the US generally vote left wing?



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 4, 2018)

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

It should suprise no one that in the United States it is generally common for minority ethnic groups and women to vote Democrat and for Left Wing policies, why do you think this is?


----------



## d12 (Sep 4, 2018)

Might be because of the popular perception of the Republican Party's affiliation with racist groups and ideologues. Whether or not that perception is still accurate I can't say but I feel that may be a key factor. The Republicans may be the party of Lincoln but Nixon's Southern Strategy may have shuffled things up I feel. Might also be the fact that the Dems market themselves pretty aggressively to minorities as the "correct" party to vote for as opposed to those bigoted Republican fat cats (disregarding the fact that the Dems are just as obese and feline).


----------



## Leadlight_ (Sep 4, 2018)

Minorities generally live in more urban areas, which historically have been Democrat for decades. If you're father voted Democrat and you live in a community where Democratic rule is all you know, you're more likely to continue to vote Democrat out of familiarity. Doesn't help the fact that many Democratic politicians try to pander to minorities and less-than-well-off people with free stuff and the like.

As for woman, I dunno. Generally they vote Democrat, yes, but It's not as hard-set as it is for predicting minority votes. The 2016 election really stunned a lot of people with just how many woman actually voted for Trump despite all the allegations against him. I think it also comes down to pandering and politicians setting up false narratives to convince woman that they are oppressed and need the Democratic party's help to break the glass ceiling or something.


----------



## Draza (Sep 4, 2018)

They want they free shit.


----------



## Doc Cassidy (Sep 4, 2018)

Low IQ


----------



## Pablo Birmingham (Sep 4, 2018)

Free shit


----------



## Dangus Bang Boon (Sep 4, 2018)

Shit for free.


----------



## Trasha Pay That A$$ (Sep 4, 2018)

Leadlight_ said:


> As for woman, I dunno. Generally they vote Democrat, yes, but It's not as hard-set as it is for predicting minority votes. The 2016 election really stunned a lot of people with just how many woman actually voted for Trump despite all the allegations against him. I think it also comes down to pandering and politicians setting up false narratives to convince woman that they are oppressed and need the Democratic party's help to break the glass ceiling or something.



Yes and it really burned Hillary too. Her attacks that women who didn't vote for her only listen to their husbands and do what they say was pretty re.tarded of her. I think most women vote based on emotion and like you said, the narratives that the left wing puts forth tug at those heartstrings.


----------



## Black Waltz (Sep 4, 2018)

Because they're stupid and need to be put in their place.


----------



## Lipitor (Sep 4, 2018)

It's not that complicated. You vote for the candidate that will better represent your personal interests best. Not everyone has the same personal interests. Even people within the same party may not have the same economic interests, depending on which candidate supports one of a plethora of rival industries.


----------



## Zaragoza (Sep 4, 2018)

Leadlight_ said:


> If you're father voted Democrat and you live in a community where Democratic rule is all you know, you're more likely to continue to vote Democrat out of familiarity. Doesn't help the fact that many Democratic politicians try to pander to minorities and less-than-well-off people with free stuff and the like.


I can relate to this a lot, also take into consideration that the aging demographic tend to get their political views and information from TV which always lean toward the left.


----------



## Leadlight_ (Sep 4, 2018)

Lipitor said:


> It's not that complicated. You vote for the candidate that will better represent your personal interests best.



You should vote for the candidate that will better represent the peoples interests best.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Sep 4, 2018)

Tiny brains for tiny gains.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 5, 2018)

Women do it out of peer pressure. They tend to value consensus and harmony more than men, who are by contrast willing to be brazen iconoclasts even when it makes no sense to do so just to make a point. America's institutions are dominated by left wing voices, so this pushes more consensus minded people left. This is also why being left leaning is less pronounced with married women.

Minorities do it because of welfare and successfully pushed racism narratives.

These are of course just describing general trends and not every woman is a blind conformist anymore than every non-white person just wants mo money fo dem programs.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Sep 5, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> not every woman is a blind conformist


They've got brains built like bugs though. It is in their nature to be nurtured.


----------



## Dreamland (Sep 5, 2018)

They have no concept of their own responsibility in life and their actions can benefit or affect their own lives. Example of this are drugs, every junkie throwing used needles in sandboxes and shooting up on the streets is a victim because "heroin is not free"/"they're just insane"/"it's all [current president's] fault!!". There is also a fundamental difference in the interpretation of "freedom", whereas most people consider freedom as the idea that you are free to influence and control your life and decisions, most leftists consider it to be more prosaic concept where "free" is the pricetag on their drugs/healthcare/bread & circus/food.

"If i hate it it should be forbidden by law, if i like it the state should be there to provide it for me."


----------



## BeanBidan (Sep 5, 2018)

My Obama phone never came.


----------



## millais (Sep 5, 2018)

For a long time, it is speculated that people move further left on the political spectrum with increasing level of higher education, and the exit poll data generally bears out this correlation, so it stands to reason that since a higher proportion of women attain higher education than men, the women will skew further left.

Also, the women are probably a big contingent of "single issue voter" when it comes to "reproductive rights", so that will also skew to the left.

The socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities probably skew left on account of their desire for "gib me dats"


----------



## ES 148 (Sep 5, 2018)

Because being right-wing is gay and the minorities don't like the gays


----------



## Malagor the dank omen (Sep 5, 2018)

millais said:


> For a long time, it is speculated that people move further left on the political spectrum with increasing level of higher education, and the exit poll data generally bears out this correlation, so it stands to reason that since a higher proportion of women attain higher education than men, the women will skew further left.
> 
> Also, the women are probably a big contingent of "single issue voter" when it comes to "reproductive rights", so that will also skew to the left.
> 
> The socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities probably skew left on account of their desire for "gib me dats"



This pretty much. Dems (and pretty much all left wing) push for giving lotsa benefits to minorities so they can get money just by existing as long as they fulfill certain conditions.

As for women, i can attest for women in higher education being screeching banshees that buy into leftism. About their cause, it's because leftism goes for women but if you ask them for something specifical, they will struggle to say something. More than usually it will just be the magical "equality", but in reality, it just clicks for them. And colleges being massive hives of leftists don't make it easier since women need that sweet social validation, therefore buying into the popular leftism just makes them popular by default.

Being a conservative in college is pretty much vowing to be either scorned or an outcast


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 5, 2018)

Women naturally follow trends instead of creating their own opinions and watch lots of mainstream media because of their traditional gender roles. They were previously the staunchest conservatives when that was the norm and reinforced by all of media and society.
Doesn't help that Republican candidates say batshit insane stuff about women.

As for immigrants, they tend to want to bring more of their relatives into the country and Republicans hate that.

Black people is literally gibs and some retarded Clinton fetish that has been manufactured by the media since the 90s.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 5, 2018)

Leadlight_ said:


> You should vote for the candidate that will better represent the peoples interests best.


Very few people do that.  Most voters just vote for the guy they think is cool and won't raise their taxes.  The amount of voters who actually think about shit is a slim minority.


----------



## Leadlight_ (Sep 5, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Very few people do that.  Most voters just vote for the guy they think is cool and won't raise their taxes.  The amount of voters who actually think about shit is a slim minority.



Hence _"should"_


----------



## Y2K Baby (Sep 5, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Very few people do that.  Most voters just vote for the guy they think is cool and won't raise their taxes.  The amount of voters who actually think about shit is a slim minority.


Except you, of course.


----------



## Trasha Pay That A$$ (Sep 5, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Very few people do that.  Most voters just vote for the guy they think is cool and won't raise their taxes.  The amount of voters who actually think about shit is a slim minority.



I just vote for the guy who I think would look best in a Speedo. Female candidates should be banned as this great country was founded on the backs of Straight White Cis Men.


----------



## BeanBidan (Sep 5, 2018)

Vrakks said:


> Because being right-wing is gay and the minorities don't like the gays


Have you seen Puerto Rico? It's chalk full of flamboyant sassy the gays


----------



## Y2K Baby (Sep 5, 2018)

BeanBidan said:


> Have you seen Puerto Rico? It's chalk full of flamboyant sassy the gays


That's why Puerto Rico and Spain have the best Spics. Know from a friend. No homo.


----------



## Crippled_Retard (Sep 5, 2018)

Cubans are one ethnic group outside of white that tends to vote red.  This is why Florida, despite it's huge immigrant population, is a red state.  Of course what sets them apart is their giant aversion to communism/socialism because of Castro, and Democrats happen to be much more friendly to sometimes outright being those things.  Maybe if shit gets bad enough a similar flip will happen. I have seen some black people advocate for conceal carry just because they need protection and the police can't do shit, for example.


----------



## Medicated (Sep 19, 2018)

millais said:


> For a long time, it is speculated that people move further left on the political spectrum with increasing level of higher education, and the exit poll data generally bears out this correlation, so it stands to reason that since a higher proportion of women attain higher education than men, the women will skew further left.
> 
> Also, the women are probably a big contingent of "single issue voter" when it comes to "reproductive rights", so that will also skew to the left.
> 
> The socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities probably skew left on account of their desire for "gib me dats"



I'm interested in the reasoning behind education = leftist views.  Because most people agree that Universities and Colleges are in general, left institutions, they peddle leftist ideas with little to no critique.  We can see the result of that at the extreme end in the US.  Does higher education just brainwash people to think left=good without any counterbalance?


----------



## Terrorist (Sep 22, 2018)

For (white) women that's untrue, most voted in favor of trump (and BASED nixon, if we go further back). It's true that women favor regulations, but those are largely sane ones that help their families and social cohesion as a whole.  Honestly, I'll take anything that works against lolbertians at this point. 

Minorities mostly vote on the basis of "what have you done for me, lately?" rather than abstract ideology as white people do. Gibs > racial pandering any day (which is why blacks voted for trump more than any other republican, he promised them less competition for gibs and menial jobs from mexicans).


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 22, 2018)

Terrorist said:


> Minorities mostly vote on the basis of "what have you done for me, lately?" rather than abstract ideology as white people do.


You're mostly correct but you're deluded if you think white people are somehow innately more altruistic in their voting.  _Most_ people regardless of race vote out of self-interest.  This has been a well-understood fact of the American voting system since the time of the Founders.  Shit, a good reason why Trump won is he appealed to working-class white Democrats who felt like Trump was going to look after their jobs.


----------



## Terrorist (Sep 22, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> You're mostly correct but you're deluded if you think white people are somehow innately more altruistic in their voting.  _Most_ people regardless of race vote out of self-interest.  This has been a well-understood fact of the American voting system since the time of the Founders.  Shit, a good reason why Trump won is he appealed to working-class white Democrats who felt like Trump was going to look after their jobs.



Agreed. My point there was that minorities are generally less ideological than whites; white people vote in their self-interest too, but articulate that more in terms of ideology (democrat, republican, libertarian, etc.).


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 22, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> You're mostly correct but you're deluded if you think white people are somehow innately more altruistic in their voting.  _Most_ people regardless of race vote out of self-interest.  This has been a well-understood fact of the American voting system since the time of the Founders.  Shit, a good reason why Trump won is he appealed to working-class white Democrats who felt like Trump was going to look after their jobs.



Middle class whites tend to vote on feelgood basis because of how privileged they are. Kinda ironic.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Sep 22, 2018)

Apoth42 said:


> Middle class whites tend to vote on feelgood basis because of how privileged they are. Kinda ironic.


Toilet seat complexions vote for reasons not too complex.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 22, 2018)

Terrorist said:


> Agreed. My point there was that minorities are generally less ideological than whites; white people vote in their self-interest too, but articulate that more in terms of ideology (democrat, republican, libertarian, etc.).


I'd say that's less "ideology" and more "political identity".  Hispanics generally vote against abortion laws because they're strongly religious.  Cubans are also pretty anti-Commie.  That's definitely ideological.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 23, 2018)

Because the right is absolute shit at conveying their message to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. All of the big right-wing platforms, Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, all of them get great ratings but they're only preaching to the choir. Nobody's going to happen upon Tucker Carlson DESTROYS feminist blm leader with FACTS and LOGIC on Youtube and suddenly see the light if they don't already agree with him.

And the right doesn't even try to appeal to minority voters. When you just write them off as "They just want gibs me dats" as everyone in this thread has, what black individual is going to look at that and think "These guys are writing me off as a worthless leach _and _making fun of how they assume I talk in the same sentence? Fantastic, I should give them a chance and see what else they have to say!" 

Pandering to people based on their race isn't great, but neither is ignoring what people want. You can hold onto basic principles of limited government, economic freedom, rule of law, and individual rights, while also taking into account what certain people are concerned about. For instance, ask most black people and they'll tell you that the police treat them differently than they treat white people. I've never seen a single Republican candidate mention that concern or take it seriously.


----------



## millais (Sep 23, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Because the right is absolute shit at conveying their message to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. All of the big right-wing platforms, Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, all of them get great ratings but they're only preaching to the choir. Nobody's going to happen upon Tucker Carlson DESTROYS feminist blm leader with FACTS and LOGIC on Youtube and suddenly see the light if they don't already agree with him.
> 
> And the right doesn't even try to appeal to minority voters. When you just write them off as "They just want gibs me dats" as everyone in this thread has, what black individual is going to look at that and think "These guys are writing me off as a worthless leach _and _making fun of how they assume I talk in the same sentence? Fantastic, I should give them a chance and see what else they have to say!"
> 
> Pandering to people based on their race isn't great, but neither is ignoring what people want. You can hold onto basic principles of limited government, economic freedom, rule of law, and individual rights, while also taking into account what certain people are concerned about. For instance, ask most black people and they'll tell you that the police treat them differently than they treat white people. I've never seen a single Republican candidate mention that concern or take it seriously.


paying attention to the black people defeats the whole point of the fascist ethnostate the right is supposedly conspiring to establish.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 23, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Because the right is absolute shit at conveying their message to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. All of the big right-wing platforms, Fox News, Ben Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, all of them get great ratings but they're only preaching to the choir. Nobody's going to happen upon Tucker Carlson DESTROYS feminist blm leader with FACTS and LOGIC on Youtube and suddenly see the light if they don't already agree with him.
> 
> And the right doesn't even try to appeal to minority voters. When you just write them off as "They just want gibs me dats" as everyone in this thread has, what black individual is going to look at that and think "These guys are writing me off as a worthless leach _and _making fun of how they assume I talk in the same sentence? Fantastic, I should give them a chance and see what else they have to say!"
> 
> Pandering to people based on their race isn't great, but neither is ignoring what people want. You can hold onto basic principles of limited government, economic freedom, rule of law, and individual rights, while also taking into account what certain people are concerned about. For instance, ask most black people and they'll tell you that the police treat them differently than they treat white people. I've never seen a single Republican candidate mention that concern or take it seriously.


Then our options become to either completely change the values of the GOP by supporting welfare and selective treatment or continue to lose the minority vote. Either way we lose.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 23, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Then our options become to either completely change the values of the GOP by supporting welfare and selective treatment or continue to lose the minority vote. Either way we lose.


As with the majority of the posters in this thread you're completely missing the point, and repeating the same racist rhetoric that minorities will only ever want welfare and their minds can't be changed. 

What I'm saying is that Republicans need to get better at persuading minorities. There's no Republican candidates campaigning in minority neighborhoods trying to argue the case for limited government and personal responsibility.


----------



## Just Some Other Guy (Sep 23, 2018)

To me excessive welfare is like a drug. You can't go up to a meth user and try to sell the virtues of being meth free. They have to crash and realize they need help. Then you can start getting them on the right track.

But what do you do if they never crash? If the meth is sanctioned and handed out by the government?


----------



## JustStopDude (Sep 23, 2018)

I think most people that thing welfare is some easy thing to get or that its desirable to be dependent on it...have never actually dealt with the system. 

Its a shitty cycle to be stuck in.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 23, 2018)

JustStopDude said:


> I think most people that thing welfare is some easy thing to get or that its desirable to be dependent on it...have never actually dealt with the system.
> 
> Its a shitty cycle to be stuck in.


They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.

My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 24, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> What I'm saying is that Republicans need to get better at persuading minorities. There's no Republican candidates campaigning in minority neighborhoods trying to argue the case for limited government and personal responsibility.


Trump.



Replicant Sasquatch said:


> They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.
> 
> My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.


Yeah it's not really intended to be a temporary thing to help people between jobs. Or if it is it's structured horribly for that purpose. A lot of the welfare programs seem designed with the intent of being permanent and actually setting up a situation where you'll end up substantially worse off financially if you try to improve your position and get off them.

That said even if they don't start that way that system tends to produce shitty people that have difficulty even imagining not being dependent on that system so I'm not sure it's as simple as just arguing your way past it.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Sep 24, 2018)

Simple truth:  People are naturally risk-averse and hate change.  Government safety nets are offered under the premise that they reduce risk and make radical change (especially personal change) less necessary.

Women especially hate risk.  Most of us are naturally that way because we are the ones who have to look after the kids, and instability makes it harder.  _That is not a bad thing_, because someone has to balance out Dad's willingness to embrace risk for bigger rewards.  But now inject that into a voting context, and you get the left-wing Nanny State looking pretty good compared to the Wild-West attitude of the right.  Whether it's actually better or worse is irrelevant; that's our gut instinct.

Minorities, besides other things people have raised upthread, also have been told all their lives that there is no success waiting for them.  Risks cannot lead to rewards because Da White Man is just waiting to swoop in and snap it out of their hands.  Why take the risks, then?  When you've been taught to live in fear of someone, you'll put your support behind the people who say they'll protect you.  And since they tend to live in self-segregated ghettos (from which generations often cannot escape), they seldom meet with a white person who proves this perception flawed.

There's more to it--again, look upthread--but this is absolutely a factor.  The right-wing women and minorities I know are much less risk-averse, more independent in attitude, and less fearful of the dreaded White boogey Man.  What you expect from life tends to color how you address it.


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 24, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.
> 
> My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.



The system gimps them.

Make too much money? Welp, no insurance for you anymore, also, we're reducing your payout by a huge % and kicking your kids out of their program, etc


----------



## Medicated (Sep 24, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> As with the majority of the posters in this thread you're completely missing the point, and repeating the same racist rhetoric that minorities will only ever want welfare and their minds can't be changed.
> 
> What I'm saying is that Republicans need to get better at persuading minorities. There's no Republican candidates campaigning in minority neighborhoods trying to argue the case for limited government and personal responsibility.



I don't think the solution is to pander by race or gender.  The simply creates division and resentment and "othering".  Look at what pandering has done, people are virtually asking for 1950's segregation. The only identity a political party should pander to is the American identity.  Everything else should just focus on the most important and largest needs of the population.  Measurable ones btw, not "i feel oppressed".

Why should I voted for a party that would tell me I should feel good about myself because they are helping illegal immigrants with housing, medical, and job placement, more than their own homeless citizens?  Meanwhile, I'm not exactly raking in the cash over here, and the labor force is getting more people that can be paid under the table?

Is the lefts hope to create communism by opening borders to the point where every country turns into the same cartel run warzone that the refugees were trying to escape from?  Every country will then be equally shit.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 25, 2018)

Medicated said:


> The only identity a political party should pander to is the American identity.


That's a great platitude, and a great ideal, but the reality of the situation is that a lot of minorities don't feel connected to the "American Identity". I think they could be convinced to, but someone needs to make that case to them or else they'll keep voting for the people who at least pretend to care what they think.

It doesn't have to be pandering to black people as if they're different or something, but just Republican candidates going into majority-minority neighborhoods and campaigning and talking to people. The GOP won't pay for candidates to campaign in minority neighborhoods because they think there's no chance of winning. They're right in the short term, they'll lose the next election, but in the long term making inroads with minorities is vital for the party's long term survival. If Republicans can reach just ~20-25% of black voters the Democrats will never be in power again.


----------



## Medicated (Sep 25, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> That's a great platitude, and a great ideal, but the reality of the situation is that a lot of minorities don't feel connected to the "American Identity". I think they could be convinced to, but someone needs to make that case to them or else they'll keep voting for the people who at least pretend to care what they think.



I'm not so sure about that, since many blacks feel that Obama was just a platitudes and ideals man, with his "believe in hope" and making regular entertainment appearances.  Many think he did nothing to help blacks.  However if you said you were going to outline how you were going to get Americans in the low class better economic conditions for them.  Not only do you help blacks, but you also end up helping everyone else in the lower class.  And you don't even need to single out people through identity politics.

Which is why I suspect that lower to middle classes are happy about Trump, since curbing illegal immigration is just one step towards securing the prosperity of the citizens.  Certainly more than most administrations have done in the last 15 years.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Sep 26, 2018)

I know most of it's probably just joking around here, but let's see:  would *you* vote for the side that refers to you as someone who just wants their "gimmies", or is just a stupid criminal/terrorist/druggie/leech/harpy, etc?  C'mon now.  That's just plain fucking common sense.

And it's not just on the right, either.  Prime example would be Hilary Clinton's comment about Trump supporters being a lot of "degenerates".  Now would she have won if she hadn't said it?  I don't know.  I DO almost certainly believe it was a major factor in her losing the election.  Whether it was true or not, you don't fucking say things like that. 


I think the coming of the religious right in the 1980s really hurt the Republican party with women.  Now, once again, a lot of people on the left need to stop lumping all Christians in with fundamentalists.  Just like not all Muslims are terrorists,  nor are all Christians a bunch of gay-hating fundies.  BUT, the religious right does hold a lot of sway with the GOP, and it has definitely alienated women.  I'm not going to vote for a politician that wants to take away not only my right to choose, but also in many cases think that birth control should be restricted as well.  (Rick Santorum used to be my senator -- 'nuff said)
Tying yourself to a group that believes men should be in charge is going to turn women away. 


About the whole "Party of Lincoln" thing.  I read a comment the other day -- I can't remember where, so don't ask me to link to it.  But someone basically pointed out that if you have to go all the way back to the 1860s to find an example of your party helping minorities?  That's not really a point in your favor.

Speaking of "gimme", that's also not exclusive to the left, or minorities.  Plenty of white people are on welfare, and hasn't it been shown that welfare recipients live mostly in red states?  And forget welfare.
How much bitching do we hear about tax breaks for the wealthy?  Corporate bailouts?  If it's greedy for the guy down at the bottom to want to be paid a decent wage, why isn't it just as bad for the guy at the top who's just fucked over an entire industry to ask the government to bail him out?

Finally, the left tends to be the side of the under dog, and traditionally, that's where minorities and women have stood. 

Look, I know this place has a lot of Trump fans.  But you can't deny the dude has said some pretty hateful things about women and minorities.  If someone called ME a criminal, or a terrorist or some shit like that, then good luck getting MY vote.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 26, 2018)

Mrs Paul said:


> I think the coming of the religious right in the 1980s really hurt the Republican party with women.  Now, once again, a lot of people on the left need to stop lumping all Christians in with fundamentalists.  Just like not all Muslims are terrorists,  nor are all Christians a bunch of gay-hating fundies.  BUT, the religious right does hold a lot of sway with the GOP, and it has definitely alienated women.  I'm not going to vote for a politician that wants to take away not only my right to choose, but also in many cases think that birth control should be restricted as well.  (Rick Santorum used to be my senator -- 'nuff said)
> Tying yourself to a group that believes men should be in charge is going to turn women away.


It's weird though, in my experience the Republicans that cared the most about religious right style social issues were all women. Granted I don't have any statistics to back that up, it's just an anecdote. Just I've seen the shrill church-lady types voting single issue on that far more than men.



Mrs Paul said:


> Look, I know this place has a lot of Trump fans.  But you can't deny the dude has said some pretty hateful things about women and minorities.  If someone called ME a criminal, or a terrorist or some shit like that, then good luck getting MY vote.


Only if you take an attack on one or one group of women or minorities as an attack on all women and minorities.


----------



## Inflatable Julay (Sep 26, 2018)

Minorities and *ugly* women. There are plenty of hot Ilsa's out there.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Sep 27, 2018)

Aren't most white women Republicans? Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent.

Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.
Republicans have a racism problem, and if you disagree with that, you're ignoring the reality of the GOP. There's no good reason that 65% of Asian American voted for Clinton otherwise. Except for refugees, they're not on welfare and believe strongly in small business and pulling yourself up. I don't see why Republicans aren't majorly courting them. It's the only way they're still going to have House seats in California in 20 years.

Maybe women vote for left wing politicians because we're more altruistic. Sorry for thinking people dying because they can't afford insulin is bad.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 27, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Aren't most white women Republicans? Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent.
> 
> Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.
> Republicans have a racism problem, and if you disagree with that, you're ignoring the reality of the GOP. There's no good reason that 65% of Asian American voted for Clinton otherwise. Except for refugees, they're not on welfare and believe strongly in small business and pulling yourself up. I don't see why Republicans aren't majorly courting them. It's the only way they're still going to have House seats in California in 20 years.
> ...



GOP would probably have a better image if they dropped that neocon shit. It always felt weird to me how the party which markets itself on a platform of small government also cobstantly tries legislating Biblical moralism into law.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Sep 27, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> GOP would probably have a better image if they dropped that neocon shit. It always felt weird to me how the party which markets itself on a platform of small government also cobstantly tries legislating Biblical moralism into law.


That's how you get the voters, though. I think the other issue is that most people don't actually want smaller government. Look at Kansas. Very conservative legislature, cut lots of taxes, tons of services got reduced. Roads were shitty, schools were shitty. And you know what happened in 2016...people voted in moderate Republicans and Democrats.
This is also why extreme libertarianism will never happen. Most people don't want it.


----------



## *extremely mom voice* (Sep 28, 2018)

If you think about it, it seems like women should be more conservative than men. Women value social stability more than men, and conservatism is all about social stability and either maintaining a status quo or reverting back to the way things were in the past. Progressivism and social change is a risk. Like people have said, most women are more risk averse than most men. So why are women more likely to be liberal?

Part of it is that democrats and republicans are so similar on so many issues. How different would the world be if Hillary had won? Maybe HillaryWorld would have slightly more welfare programs rather than slightly fewer, slightly more environmental regulations rather than slightly fewer. Maybe the North Korea talks wouldn't have happened. There would be some furious but ultimately inconsequential scandals just like there are with Trump. But we'd still be in Afghanistan, deportations would continue just like they did under Obama and just like they're continuing now, there would be no wall, no infrastructure projects, no draining of the swamp. Just like none of those things are happening in TrumpWorld. Things would be basically the same.

So really both parties are the party of the status quo, and the only difference between them is where they fall on certain social issues that don't have much to do with the larger structure of society. Abortion is a big one. Or the party just adopts a certain style or brand that they think will appeal to people. Republicans' brand appeals more to men, Democrats' brand appeals more to women. Although it's still a pretty close split.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 28, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent


He was


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Sep 28, 2018)

*extremely mom voice* said:


> If you think about it, it seems like women should be more conservative than men. Women value social stability more than men, and conservatism is all about social stability and either maintaining a status quo or reverting back to the way things were in the past. Progressivism and social change is a risk. Like people have said, most women are more risk averse than most men. So why are women more likely to be liberal?


you can't understand why women care about abortion and birth control? or stuff like subsidized childcare and public schools? it seems reasonable to me that women are more likely to be liberal. also, the past wasn't great for women--i mean, when my thought-nixon-was-innocent grandma was born, women couldn't vote.


----------



## JustStopDude (Sep 29, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.



When I come to the US, I was very much conservative like my mother. It was just her and I. Very conservative Orthodox Christian. We both work very hard to get where we are. My mother went from being a nurse in our home country to cleaning houses for rich people. 

The problem is, we are pariahs to average random GOP members.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 29, 2018)

JustStopDude said:


> The problem is, we are pariahs to average random GOP members.


Actual Republican voters are pretty diverse.  Not as diverse as Democrats but when you get to ground level you see more variety.

Republican lawmakers however generally fit the mold of "boring white Christian with a neocon haircut".


----------



## JustStopDude (Sep 29, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Republican lawmakers however generally fit the mold of "boring white Christian with a neocon haircut".




This is pet peeve of mine, but I have lost track of Evangelical that has told me I am like satanist because I am not Evangelical...and as child I had to translate the Vulgate into multiple languages. I have run into many American Christians that believed Jesus spoke American English. Sorry...I am drinking...to hear sola fide Evangelicals tell me I am not Christian...I must laugh.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 29, 2018)

Mrs Paul said:


> I know most of it's probably just joking around here, but let's see:  would *you* vote for the side that refers to you as someone who just wants their "gimmies", or is just a stupid criminal/terrorist/druggie/leech/harpy, etc?  C'mon now.  That's just plain fucking common sense.
> 
> And it's not just on the right, either.  Prime example would be Hilary Clinton's comment about Trump supporters being a lot of "degenerates".  Now would she have won if she hadn't said it?  I don't know.  I DO almost certainly believe it was a major factor in her losing the election.  Whether it was true or not, you don't fucking say things like that.
> 
> ...


Then our options become to either stop being pro life compromising our values  in the rather vain hope of getting the female and minority vote.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 29, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Then our options become to either stop being pro life compromising our values


GOP compromised its values when let weirdo Evangelists dictate them.  As much as I admire Reagan his presidency ushered in the worst kinds of people to lead the party.  Abortion is a lost battle and REEEEing about it will take the party nowhere.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Sep 29, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> GOP compromised its values when let weirdo Evangelists dictate them.  As much as I admire Reagan his presidency ushered in the worst kinds of people to lead the party.  Abortion is a lost battle and REEEEing about it will take the party nowhere.


Reagan was part of the reason the GOP is where it is today, it went from focusing on social issues and religion to "tax cuts and wasting billions on useless military projects".


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Sep 29, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Then our options become to either stop being pro life compromising our values  in the rather vain hope of getting the female and minority vote.


Being pro life isn't hurting getting the minority vote--minorities are socially conservative, as a whole, and I would venture a guess that they're more pro-life as a percentage than white people. You need to stop being racist to get the minority vote (or at least, stop being massively out of touch). I honestly don't even buy that pro-life is a huge issue because a majority of women think abortion is immoral. Republicans are doing great right now--why should you change anything? Women who are pro-choice live places where Republicans are already not getting elected to stuff. It's going to come down to economics if it comes down to anything.


----------



## queerape (Sep 30, 2018)

Apoth42 said:


> Doesn't help that Republican candidates say batshit insane stuff about women.



I think this is the primary reason, as women don’t want to vote for a party that doesn’t understand their needs and lives.


----------



## Just Some Other Guy (Sep 30, 2018)

It is amusing though. "Republicans need to stop using racist stereotypes", proceeds to vote for party that reinforces racist stereotypes. There comes a point you have to realize stereotypes exist for a reason and you have to fight against them. The Dems preaching for illegal immigration and more welfare programs (on a national level) are not helping with this.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Sep 30, 2018)

Just Some Other Guy said:


> It is amusing though. "Republicans need to stop using racist stereotypes", proceeds to vote for party that reinforces racist stereotypes. There comes a point you have to realize stereotypes exist for a reason and you have to fight against them. The Dems preaching for illegal immigration and more welfare programs (on a national level) are not helping with this.


Democrats are just as racist as Republicans.  The problem is Republicans have a really bad habit of saying dipshit out of touch things about women and minorities.  Democrats say stupid things too but you're probably not gonna hear one say something like how the female body shuts down pregnancy in cases of rape.


----------



## Just Some Other Guy (Sep 30, 2018)

The dems aren't saying dumb out of touch things everyday in media? Isn't that where most of our political content on this site is coming from?


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 30, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Reagan was part of the reason the GOP is where it is today, it went from focusing on social issues and religion to "tax cuts and wasting billions on useless military projects".



The Republicans became a party of big business after the 1870s. They abandoned reconstruction to win the presidency in an agreement that involved giving the country Rutherford B. Hayes as its leader.

Both parties had massive progressive factions, the two most famous leaders of those factions both being Roosevelts.

The Democrats were the party of social conservatism, moralism and racism but obviously the Republicans had a tinge of that but it was mostly business. Nixon and JFK had a fight over MLK and JFK prevailed by visiting MLK in prison and giving speeches for him.

Nixon went on employ the Southern Strategy by sweeping up the solid south and all of its now disenfranchised racists. Alot of dems today say they "dogwhistled" about states rights, which is true. However, they make the mistake of assuming that states rights meant racism to everybody back then and that it still does for most today.

After that.  it was just a matter of time before progressives fully backed one party. The dems had the legacy of FDR and now JFK. With FDR they were fully in the business of big government and with JFK they were fully in the business of "social justice". Sure the Repubs had engaged in progressivism but MLK is better optics.

The Republicans had no choice but to tap into the reactionaries that were horrified by the radical change. They weren't invented, in fact they just became concentrated in one party.



Just Some Other Guy said:


> The dems aren't saying dumb out of touch things everyday in media? Isn't that where most of our political content on this site is coming from?



The Republican party is a populist party. The members decide the policy by electing strong personalities and the parties message varies based on the region. The Republicans picked Trump so they went down the path of protectionism.

The Democrats are a centrally planned party. Bernie was a wildcard but the system was rigged against him. Nobody seriously considered challenging her.

The Republican system is more honest but you get more people saying dumb shit. The Democratic system is good at tard wrangling. However, that system breaks down when the tards take over the asylum.

In most countries, its the more conservative faction that is better at tard wrangling. The Democrats origins as a conservative party and the Republican parties origins as a progressive party have really made your history weird.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Sep 30, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Then our options become to either stop being pro life compromising our values  in the rather vain hope of getting the female and minority vote.


"Our" values. I'm extremely to the right and I'd abort the Hartley hooligans right now for $20.


----------



## Trans-istor (Oct 1, 2018)

Because we're told to... by the left. I could understand it in 1958 but [current year] and all, but I guess nobody's even printed out the memos yet that segregation isn't a thing anymore.


Your Weird Fetish said:


> "Our" values. I'm extremely to the right and I'd abort the Hartley hooligans right now for $20.



I wouldn't even need that much money, I'd do it out of mercy.


----------



## Just Some Other Guy (Oct 1, 2018)

Oh but segregation is a thing, being brought back to you by the 'progressive' party.


----------



## ⋖ cørdion ⋗ (Oct 1, 2018)

Motherly instinct, compassion. Everyone needs a chance and a participation trophy, but those set on becoming the best shouldn't be allowed to do so.


----------



## DNA_JACKED (Oct 1, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Aren't most white women Republicans? Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent.
> 
> Republicans have a racism problem, and if you disagree with that, you're ignoring the reality of the GOP. There's no good reason that 65% of Asian American voted for Clinton otherwise. Except for refugees, they're not on welfare and believe strongly in small business and pulling yourself up. I don't see why Republicans aren't majorly courting them. It's the only way they're still going to have House seats in California in 20 years.


So what are these "racist problems" eh? Is not pandering considered "racist" now? The easiest answer for why 2/3rds of asians vote democrat is simple, they largely live in large cities that...wait for it...vote democrat by a huge margin. You dont see many asians in smaller cities or towns, or areas that are not hard blue. Could it be racism? Perhaps, in some fever dream, but in reality it is probably more related to cultural differences, many asian immigrants prefer to live in urban areas close to work, use public transport, and often stick to majorly asian populated areas. This creates a feedback loop of asians staying in very blue areas and thus being more likely to vote blue themselves. Even then, 1/3 dont vote democrat, its not like ALL asians vote democrat.

A reminder as well that the democrats have openly spoken against people with white skin, while promoting people with black skin simply because they were black (affirmative action). That is, by definition, racism. They also attack and demean people for being of one sexual orientation, while promoting other types. That is, by definition, sexism. 



> Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.


So 15 years ago? You do know the republicans were not a minority party for the last 50 years right? Or are you referring to the pre civil rights america, where the "progressive" democrats ruled the south, where they passed jim crow laws and....ooops. What was that about conservatives being bad for minorities again?



> Maybe women vote for left wing politicians because we're more altruistic. Sorry for thinking people dying because they can't afford insulin is bad.



Altruistic my ass. The democrats passed obamacare, and royally fucked it up jacking up prices and giving insurance companies a free ticket to run a train on the asses of the self employed and those without insurance already. And democrats did so while trying to take money from people via higher taxes. Goes against the very definition of altruistic.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 1, 2018)

queerape said:


> I think this is the primary reason, as women don’t want to vote for a party that doesn’t understand their needs and lives.


Nobody understands women.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Oct 1, 2018)

DNA_JACKED said:


> So what are these "racist problems" eh? Is not pandering considered "racist" now? The easiest answer for why 2/3rds of asians vote democrat is simple, they largely live in large cities that...wait for it...vote democrat by a huge margin. You dont see many asians in smaller cities or towns, or areas that are not hard blue. Could it be racism? Perhaps, in some fever dream, but in reality it is probably more related to cultural differences, many asian immigrants prefer to live in urban areas close to work, use public transport, and often stick to majorly asian populated areas. This creates a feedback loop of asians staying in very blue areas and thus being more likely to vote blue themselves. Even then, 1/3 dont vote democrat, its not like ALL asians vote democrat.
> 
> A reminder as well that the democrats have openly spoken against people with white skin, while promoting people with black skin simply because they were black (affirmative action). That is, by definition, racism. They also attack and demean people for being of one sexual orientation, while promoting other types. That is, by definition, sexism.
> 
> ...


Come on, don't play the definition game. The Democrats weren't progressive in the 50s. Nobody was progressive in the 50s by modern standards. It's about actions, not labels. The Dixiecrats became Republicans (see: Strom Thurmond). Do you actually think Republicans are the party that cares about black people getting a better shot at life? Also, you clearly don't know what sexism means. What you're describing would be 'heterophobia'. Did your parents send you to some shitty charter school or something?
I don't like Obamacare because it's not a left wing policy. It's neoliberal. Obama was a terrible president.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 1, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Do you actually think Republicans are the party that cares about black people getting a better shot at life?


Do you really think Democrats do


----------



## DNA_JACKED (Oct 1, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Come on, don't play the definition game.


If you don't want to play the definition game, dont come out using it, only to  cry when someone else does it to you and blows your arguments out of the water.


> The Democrats weren't progressive in the 50s. Nobody was progressive in the 50s by modern standards. It's about actions, not labels. The Dixiecrats became Republicans (see: Strom Thurmond).


The democrats from 2008 are not considered "progressive" by current "progressives" either, your definition of "progressive" is worthless in a historical context. Many of the progressives in the 60s were republicans, they were a major supporter of civil rights, and those people did not all register as (d) on the next ballot. The southern strategy did result in some shifting views, but the democrats didnt all magically become republicans overnight or some dumb shit like that. Many of the democrats that were in power in the south in the 50s were still there in the 70s, as democrats.


> Do you actually think Republicans are the party that cares about black people getting a better shot at life?


Republicans think everyone should have the opportunity to do what they want, thats why they are against regulations that give one group an advantage over other groups. They dont care if you are black, latino, white, ece. Everybody should have the opportunity to do what they want, and the outcome will not be equal because not everybody is going to put the same work in, or know the same skills.

Democrats, OTOH, seem obsessed with blacks and Latinos doing better then whites, and want the government to enforce this "equality" upon American institutions. Awfully racist of them.


> Also, you clearly don't know what sexism means. What you're describing would be 'heterophobia'. Did your parents send you to some shitty charter school or something?


Sexism is being prejudices against someone based on their sexual orientation. And gender is a synonym for sex, no matter what liberal snoflake professors cry about on tumblr. So democratic senators criticizing people for being straight men is sexism. "Heterophobia" would be fear of people with a straight sexual orientation (and also indication someone is mentally deranged and should be locked up for being fucked in the head), which is ALSO prejudice against someone based on sexual orientation, and thus sexism, you dumb motherfucker.


> I don't like Obamacare because it's not a left wing policy. It's neoliberal. Obama was a terrible president.


So, by your definition, democrats today are not left wing, they are neo-liberals, because as you said, "its about actions, not labels". So if they are not left wing politicians, why do you claim women vote for them because they are left wing?


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Oct 1, 2018)

Sexism is being prejudiced against someone for being a man or a woman. It has literally never, ever meant prejudice due to sexual orientation. I don't know how you're this stupid.

Women vote for Democrats because they're the lesser of two evils. The Democrats suck, everyone knows that, Republicans suck _more_.

Republicans think everyone should have the opportunity to do what they want? What if you want to have an abortion? Guess that's racially equal so it's fine. Guess it's irrelevant that Republicans don't provide everyone with the same opportunity, like the state government of Michigan that took over the Detroit public schools, where a federal judge ruled that students don't have the right to learn how to read.

You didn't answer my charter school question, so I guess it's true and your parents didn't love you enough to send you to a real school (or homeschool you).


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 1, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> Women vote for Democrats because they're the lesser of two evils. The Democrats suck, everyone knows that, Republicans suck _more_.





Crunchy Leaf said:


> What if you want to have an abortion?


Lol, you're evil.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Oct 1, 2018)

Y2K Baby said:


> Lol, you're evil.


The only reason Democrats focus so much on abortion is because it's something upper middle class white women care about when their birth control fails. For poor women, there's literally no difference in outcomes between getting teen pregnant and not getting teen pregnant (there's been studies). You'll never see the Democrats gather behind, like, drug treatment programs as a women's issue, because ugh, _white trash. _(And implying black women might sometimes do drugs is racist, obviously).


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 1, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> The only reason Democrats focus so much on abortion is because it's something upper middle class white women care about when their birth control fails.


You have no idea how funny this sentence is to me.


----------



## Just Some Other Guy (Oct 1, 2018)

It shows how much the Dem party respects women. Keep mentioning that same point about abortion and get them to forget their lessening self worth because of pandering programs. Yes women, let the men handle the issues. We'll get your abortion, just let us take care of everything.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Oct 1, 2018)

Y2K Baby said:


> You have no idea how funny this sentence is to me.


No, but it's true! The reason Democrats focus on cultural issues is because cultural issues still effect you when you're rich. Some black woman at Harvard gets asked if she's a cleaner, it's a fucking scandal!! Some black woman gets evicted because her boyfriend beat her and the landlord kicks you out if you get the cops called, nobody gives a damn. That's why there's so many rich gay Republicans now--they all live in socially liberal bubbles like San Francisco or Manhattan where being gay is a non-issue.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

It's a non-issue most places that actually have public utilities but lack a large muslim population. I know plenty of hicks that just don't give a shit about homosexuality. I don't know why that changed so fast but it did.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Oct 2, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Abortion is a lost battle and REEEEing about it will take the party nowhere.


Lol Roe's getting overturned next year.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Lol Roe's getting overturned next year.


How?

And even if it was, (it's not) the states that like abortion will still have it and the states that don't will have it technically legal but require 10,000 hoop jumps first.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Oct 2, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> How?
> 
> And even if it was, (it's not) the states that like abortion will still have it and the states that don't will have it technically legal but require 10,000 hoop jumps first.


The moment Kavanaugh joins the court every state with a republican legislature will outlaw abortion and push it to the scotus as soon as possible.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> The moment Kavanaugh joins the court every state with a republican legislature will outlaw abortion and push it to the scotus as soon as possible.


The closest thing I know of to anything like that is Alabama pushing a constitutional amendment that says the state is officially prolife but is also unwilling to take any kind of legal action about it because they don't want to get sued. Sorta like how you can put "all natural" on a product to make it sell better but it doesn't actually mean anything. Kavanaugh isn't a fundie looking to overturn that precedent at the first opportunity.


----------



## 4000saladplates (Oct 2, 2018)

Democrats focus more on social issues, which tends to be more relevant to women and minorities. 


Jon-Kacho said:


> Lol Roe's getting overturned next year.


Idk how you think the Supreme Court works, but he's not going to single handedly overturn a previous court decision. I believe for that to happen, a similar case would have to go to court and 5-4 justices would have to rule to overturn a previous decision.
Ex. Plessy vs Ferguson instated separate but equal, but later Brown vs Board of Education overruled that.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Oct 2, 2018)

4000saladplates said:


> Democrats focus more on social issues, which tends to be more relevant to women and minorities.
> 
> Idk how you think the Supreme Court works, but he's not going to single handedly overturn a previous court decision. I believe for that to happen, a similar case would have to go to court and 5-4 justices would have to rule to overturn a previous decision.
> Ex. Plessy vs Ferguson instated separate but equal, but later Brown vs Board of Education overruled that.


 Republicans focus on social issues as well, it's just their approach is typically "whatever the Bible has to say about it".


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Republicans focus on social issues as well, it's just their approach is typically "whatever the Bible has to say about it".


I'm still not sure Republicans chasing the crazy church lady vote was a net good for them in purely strategic terms.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Oct 2, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> The closest thing I know of to anything like that is Alabama pushing a constitutional amendment that says the state is officially prolife but is also unwilling to take any kind of legal action about it because they don't want to get sued. Sorta like how you can put "all natural" on a product to make it sell better but it doesn't actually mean anything. Kavanaugh isn't a fundie looking to overturn that precedent at the first opportunity.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/opinion/ohio-abortion-ban-bill.html


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Jon-Kacho said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/opinion/ohio-abortion-ban-bill.html


Right I forgot Ohio, the state that's so retarded it banned the abortion of retard fetuses.

Holy shit this law is dense and hard to read. But from what I can make out so far, it just abolishes any state funding going towards abortion. Doesn't ban abortion itself. But the bill is huge and they're certainly couching it in that language so I could easily be missing something where it's an actual abortion ban and not just something sold as one to appeal to dumb fundies.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 2, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> Right I forgot Ohio, the state that's so exceptional it banned the abortion of exceptional individual fetuses.


Why do you want r.etarded folk to be dead.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Y2K Baby said:


> Why do you want r.etarded folk to be dead.


I have no problem with people raising retarded babies if that's what they want, as long as they pay for it. They won't though, the tax payers will. But in any case a retarded fetus isn't a folk. It's a folk in progress and if you catch it early there's no moral quandry at all about eliminating a person.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 2, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> But in any case a exceptional fetus isn't a folk. It's a folk in progress and if you catch it early there's no moral quandry at all about eliminating a person.


That's evil scientist talk and you know it.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Y2K Baby said:


> That's evil scientist talk and you know it.


I'm just saying if I ever have a kid () and any testing reveals the presence of an extra chromosome, I'm gonna want it flushed so I can try again for something that will have the capacity for a meaningful life.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 2, 2018)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> Right I forgot Ohio, the state that's so exceptional it banned the abortion of exceptional individual fetuses


They're children, they aren't "fetuses".


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Oct 2, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> They're children, they aren't "fetuses".


It's impossible to pinpoint a precise point when a fetus turns over into a child but that doesn't mean that the thing is as much a person at 8 weeks as it is immediately prior to birth. And even then, there's some rare and extremely horrific conditions that can't be spotted until very near delivery.


----------



## Strawberry Mirky Brend (Dec 11, 2021)

Joan Nyan said:


> Lol Roe's getting overturned next year.


Just 2 more weeks until Roe v. Wade gets overturned. 
T-This time for real guys, 
Q predicted this.
Conservatives have been at max copium about Roe for the last 50 years.


----------



## BrokLesnerd (Dec 12, 2021)

1. Lack of critical thinking skills
2. Desire to be well-liked rather than to do what is necessary to allow actual progress to occur.

It doesn't matter what subject you bring up. The more clan-ish a group is, the more likely those retards are to vote for establishment-left policies. Kikes? Democrats. Niggers? Democrats. Sandwich makers? Democrats. Wetbacks, Gooks, Camel-Jockies? Democrats, democrats, democrats. Rainbow coalition? Gay democrats.

Now ask yourself and be honest, are any of those groups known for accomplishing anything that makes the lives of their neighbors better? No. Without fail, every single one of the listed groups is first and foremost known for in-fighting.

Straight white men? Built the entire fucking modern world.


millais said:


> For a long time, it is speculated that people move further left on the political spectrum with increasing level of higher education, and the exit poll data generally bears out this correlation, so it stands to reason that since a higher proportion of women attain higher education than men, the women will skew further left.


That's not true.

"HiGhEr EdUcAtIoN cOrReLaTeS tO vOtInG lEft" only applies to people with Bachelor's Degrees. PhDs/MDs/DDSs are just as conservative as blue-collar normies.



Joan Nyan said:


> And the right doesn't even try to appeal to minority voters. When you just write them off as "They just want gibs me dats" as everyone in this thread has, what black individual is going to look at that and think "These guys are writing me off as a worthless leach _and _making fun of how they assume I talk in the same sentence? Fantastic, I should give them a chance and see what else they have to say!"


Shut up, nigger.

The right doesn't "appeal" to minorities because the only means of doing so is by pandering to them. Right wing values are egalitarian and for everyone. No gibs for nigs. No flowers for women. No beans for burritos. As long as you're able-bodied and willing to work, the right (in theory) will represent you.



Just Some Other Guy said:


> But what do you do if they never crash? If the meth is sanctioned and handed out by the government?


In situations like this I just ask myself one simple question: WWFCD?

What would Frank Castle do?


----------



## BrokLesnerd (Dec 12, 2021)

Mrs Paul said:


> I know most of it's probably just joking around here, but let's see:  would *you* vote for the side that refers to you as someone who just wants their "gimmies", or is just a stupid criminal/terrorist/druggie/leech/harpy, etc?  C'mon now.  That's just plain fucking common sense.
> 
> And it's not just on the right, either.  Prime example would be Hilary Clinton's comment about Trump supporters being a lot of "degenerates".  Now would she have won if she hadn't said it?  I don't know.  I DO almost certainly believe it was a major factor in her losing the election.  Whether it was true or not, you don't fucking say things like that.
> 
> ...


You don't have a right to murder. 

If it's acceptable for you to murder an unborn child, it's equally acceptable for me to murder you. After all, all you are is a clump of cells.

Please also understand that corporate bailouts typically come from left-wing controlled governments. "Taxing the rich" also doesn't help the little guy when the wealthy just raise prices to offset their tax burden. 

And why hasn't the Republican party done anything for niggers? Because the Republican party represents (in theory) Americans as a whole, not small groups. What have Democrats ever done for riot-Americans?
1994 crime bill that put them in prison?
1960s after-school programs that taught children to depend on the state rather than being self-sufficient?
1960s housing projects that re-segregated them?

Please just kill yourself. You already vote democrat, so nothing will change, you just won't be wasting oxygen.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (Dec 16, 2021)

Because they're low iq, impulsive, and easily lead by emotion. They're the perfect sheep and there's a reason they weren't allowed to vote in the first place.

Minorities just do it for gibs.


----------

