Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves [Archive]

Anti Federalist

03-21-2018, 08:20 PM

Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves: Pew

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/millennial-women-leaving-the-republican-party-in-droves-pew

by Katelyn Caralle | March 21, 2018 10:26 AM

Between 2002 and 2017, millennial women who identify as Democrat grew from 54 percent to 70 percent, according to a new Pew Research poll.

Millennial women are leaving the Republican Party in droves in recent years, with less than a quarter of younger women voters now identifying as Republicans.

Between 2002 and 2017, millennial women who identify as Democrat grew from 54 percent to 70 percent, according to a new Pew Research poll. Conversely, 23 percent of millennial women now identify as Republican as compared to 36 percent in 2002.

The amount of millennial men who identified as Democrat has gone from 52 to 49 percent in that same time frame. About 41 percent of millennial men identify as Republican, compared to 39 percent in 2002.

Gender gaps between voter partisanship in other generations is far more modest than the 21 percent difference in male and female millennials.

In general in the past two decades, women have been leaving the Republican Party and increasingly have been identifying as Democrat.

Right now, 56 percent of women lean towards or affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party, compared to only 44 percent of men.

oyarde

03-21-2018, 08:27 PM

That is because they were all communist to begin with . Raised by them , educated by them and now hoping they will pay the student loans and healthcare . They are the further downfall of america . Most babies born are pd for by medicaid now .

Krugminator2

03-21-2018, 08:34 PM

RJB

03-21-2018, 08:42 PM

It is an un-PC thing to say but Peter Thiel was right. The trajectory of the country was better off prior to allowing women to vote. Women are a tough group for people who believe in freedom.

What is baffling is why women would move left as they have become more educated and more a part of the work force. I would have expected a rightward shift as they have more responsibility.

Most higher education is indoctrination for the most part. Someone will go indebted for a degree in gender studies and learn how they are oppressed by the patriarchy. When no one wants to hire them because 1. their degree is worthless, and 2. because they are bitter and angry, they feel that the baloney they learned in college was correct.

dannno

03-21-2018, 08:48 PM

What is baffling is why women would move left as they have become more educated and more a part of the work force. I would have expected a rightward shift as they have more responsibility.

Stef had two different women call in to his show recently who were being educated to be doctors and wanted to have children. They were both in their early 30s and still had a few years left of programs, they got some pay but were still not technically done with their programs until their mid 30s.

One of them was something like $200k in debt, and the other one was in Sweden and her parents and the government paid. But both figured that with all of the government subsidies they had spent over $1 million in resources spent to be educated.

So they spend over ten years being trained, then they want to have kids. In Sweden, the government pays female doctors to stay home with their kids for 15 months or more for each kid, at 80% of their normal salary.

They put all this time and resources into being trained to be doctors, because doctors are extremely valuable to society, and then they barely practice until maybe later in life. It really doesn't make sense to put a lot of training into someone who isn't going to work much.

So of course they can't be effective mothers if they are working, and if they stay at home then they can't use the skills they were paid to learn. The other option is letting other people raise your kids, but causes abandonment issues which create problems later in life.

Too many women want it all, but there is no way they would be able to get away with thinking they could do that without government.

Conservative women want their husband to be able to keep as much money as possible so that she doesn't have to work as much.

AuH20

03-21-2018, 08:51 PM

Emotion trumps logic. Women are very emotional and nurturers by design. So they are tailor made for the democratic platform.

AuH20

03-21-2018, 08:53 PM

Think about women for a second in the modern age. Very pampered and still hunting for the party that can provide the most resources. Frankly, they don't care where these resources are gathered from. Number two, they are the ultimate control freaks, especially in light of their historical bondage.

Lamp

03-21-2018, 09:05 PM

Honestly did it ever occur to you that maybe the republican party was just bad at marketing in the early 2000s and still is?
Its a giant joke. Its not a business oriented party. It's not respectable. It's just a giant obese wheelchair riding meme now that no one would want to associate with if big daddy Cheeto Emperor hadn't hopped on board or to a lesser but nevertheless important extent being that the Paul's unfortunately associated themselves with it.

Anti Federalist

03-21-2018, 09:40 PM

Lamp

03-21-2018, 09:43 PM

It's not marketing.

The product, freedom, is not wanted.

I don't know how many ways that has to be drilled into people's heads.

Just look around you...freedom is NOT popular.

The republican party was never pro freedom and it doesn't matter whether people renounce their membership from it or not. Whether you associate that with renouncing freedom is another thing. I'm not talking about freedom in this case.

Lamp

03-21-2018, 09:55 PM

No shit. "freedom isn't popular" because the idiots who claim to promote it are a joke who can't even tie their own shoelaces without falling over and breaking their noses much less roll themselves over after they fall over like turtles with their exposed bellies pointing to the sky perfectly aligned in a manner that allows the buzzards overhead to peck at their soft gooey innards.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G9RE09rwe5E/UD7C0OQOHSI/AAAAAAAAIYE/NGQ7O9cyQPc/s1600/chris-christie-get-in-my-belly-fat-disgusting-pig-meme.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjt9K26hP_ZAhXm4IMKHdM4BbIQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalmemes.blogspot.com%2F201 2%2F08%2Fchris-christie-real-life-fat-bastard.html&psig=AOvVaw0tUKmUJM3UE4J-pxh6ZgYw&ust=1521777327523041)

fisharmor

03-21-2018, 10:07 PM

It's not marketing.

The product, freedom, is not wanted.

I don't know how many ways that has to be drilled into people's heads.

Just look around you...freedom is NOT popular.

Freedom is not popular first because nobody understands it, and second because nobody is explaining it.
I don't know what your story is, but I know for a fact I'm not the only person in America who had something inside me woken up by Ron Paul.
He showed me that something about myself - a desire for freedom - that I wasn't previously in touch with.
He pointed out that nobody in my lifetime had tried to satisfy that desire.
He promised to satisfy it if he was put in power.
And I believed him.
And now I don't believe anyone else about anything they're saying - that's when even I give a shit what they're saying, which is practically never.

There was a real opportunity there. All we needed was a successor. Someone to pick up that torch and carry it.
We could have been a contender.

What we got is a man whose inaugural act as the new standard bearer for liberty, was endorsing Flip Flop Romney.
The very first thing he did is take that huge base his father built, and collectively kicked it in the balls.
We all know why he did it: it was a calculated move to be able to be a Republican.

Well, he is now. He's a Republican. Nobody thinks of him as anything else.
He calculated wrong.

If he stays in the senate for another 20 years and makes the absolute correct call every single time he acts, then he'll have his father's credibility.
We were willing to extend that credibility to him without the track record, and he squandered that.

It's not that freedom isn't popular. It's that there's nobody left preaching it.

Rand tweets about how we need Republicans to stop acting like Democrats.
That's not a coherent philosophy. That's partisan bullshit.

It absolutely is about marketing. The people who are supposedly marketing freedom are hucking the same old crap: vote against those evil guys over there. Vote for me, because I have some bullet points that you vaguely agree with.

If you perceive freedom as not popular, it's because if anyone is selling it, nobody knows that.

Superfluous Man

03-21-2018, 10:09 PM

oyarde

03-21-2018, 10:11 PM

Being communist is no reason to leave the Republican party.

They will align with the party they think will help pay the most of the bills .

thoughtomator

03-21-2018, 10:22 PM

Freedom is not popular first because nobody understands it, and second because nobody is explaining it.

It's also because its supposed champions are full of high-minded nonsense and fail utterly to connect the ideals of liberty to the real world that people actually live in. Like when people tell the folks in a town where the main source of work was a factory that got shipped off to China, that these foreign trade deals are good for the US. It sets up liberty as their opponent rather than their ally. Or when someone doesn't give a damn about border enforcement and someone's brother gets murdered by a many-times-deported repeat felon we can't keep out of the country due to a failure to enforce the border. Our worst enemies couldn't mar the message of liberty more than these highly offensive pretenses to the promotion of liberty do.

dannno

03-21-2018, 10:22 PM

Freedom is not popular first because nobody understands it, and second because nobody is explaining it.
I don't know what your story is, but I know for a fact I'm not the only person in America who had something inside me woken up by Ron Paul.
He showed me that something about myself - a desire for freedom - that I wasn't previously in touch with.
He pointed out that nobody in my lifetime had tried to satisfy that desire.
He promised to satisfy it if he was put in power.
And I believed him.
And now I don't believe anyone else about anything they're saying - that's when even I give a shit what they're saying, which is practically never.

There was a real opportunity there. All we needed was a successor. Someone to pick up that torch and carry it.
We could have been a contender.

What we got is a man whose inaugural act as the new standard bearer for liberty, was endorsing Flip Flop Romney.
The very first thing he did is take that huge base his father built, and collectively kicked it in the balls.
We all know why he did it: it was a calculated move to be able to be a Republican.

Well, he is now. He's a Republican. Nobody thinks of him as anything else.
He calculated wrong.

If he stays in the senate for another 20 years and makes the absolute correct call every single time he acts, then he'll have his father's credibility.
We were willing to extend that credibility to him without the track record, and he squandered that.

It's not that freedom isn't popular. It's that there's nobody left preaching it.

Rand tweets about how we need Republicans to stop acting like Democrats.
That's not a coherent philosophy. That's partisan bullshit.

It absolutely is about marketing. The people who are supposedly marketing freedom are hucking the same old crap: vote against those evil guys over there. Vote for me, because I have some bullet points that you vaguely agree with.

If you perceive freedom as not popular, it's because if anyone is selling it, nobody knows that.

Rand is better suited for doing what he is doing, which is a lot... and Ron is better suited at what he was doing and at what he does, which was and is a lot. We need more of both.

heavenlyboy34

03-21-2018, 10:32 PM

It's not marketing.

The product, freedom, is not wanted.

I don't know how many ways that has to be drilled into people's heads.

Just look around you...freedom is NOT popular.

Hey, the GOP isn't offering much in the way of freedom either. They're selling perpetual war and a Security State. Not to mention forever occupation abroad. RP has talked about this several times in his Liberty Report things and so on. The "Liberty" voices are the vast minority.

kahless

03-21-2018, 10:39 PM

It's also because its supposed champions are full of high-minded nonsense and fail utterly to connect the ideals of liberty to the real world that people actually live in. Like when people tell the folks in a town where the main source of work was a factory that got shipped off to China, that these foreign trade deals are good for the US. It sets up liberty as their opponent rather than their ally. Or when someone doesn't give a damn about border enforcement and someone's brother gets murdered by a many-times-deported repeat felon we can't keep out of the country due to a failure to enforce the border. Our worst enemies couldn't mar the message of liberty more than these highly offensive pretenses to the promotion of liberty do.

Much of liberty movement is manipulated and funded by the establishment to support open borders and bad trade policy to ensure politicians and parties associated with the values of liberty are not a threat. It keeps support of the LP and Libertarian like politicians 1 to 2% factor just where the establishment likes it.

timosman

03-21-2018, 10:42 PM

Much of liberty movement is manipulated and funded by the establishment to support open borders and bad trade policy to ensure politicians and parties associated with the values of liberty are not a threat. It keeps support of the LP and Libertarian like politicians 1 to 2% factor just where the establishment likes it.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-best-way-to-control-the-opposition-is-to-lead-it-ourselves-vladimir-lenin-35-44-09.jpg

donnay

03-22-2018, 05:15 AM

Liberty is not something a man (or woman) can promise and keep. This country has definitely lost it's way.

2 Corinthians 3:17 (KJV)
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Isaiah 61:1 (KJV)
1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Galatians 5:1 (KJV)
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Psalm 119:45 (KJV)
45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

1 Peter 2:16 (KJV)
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

James 1:25 (KJV)
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Psalm 68:6 (KJV)
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.

Anti Federalist

03-22-2018, 06:21 AM

Hey, the GOP isn't offering much in the way of freedom either. They're selling perpetual war and a Security State. Not to mention forever occupation abroad. RP has talked about this several times in his Liberty Report things and so on. The "Liberty" voices are the vast minority.

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

In the public's mind, and in minds of women, which this thread is about, the GOP does represent a certain bastardized concept of liberty.

And even that weaksauce, milquetoast version, is rejected, soundly.

Women and "minorities", by double digit margins, consistently and regularly vote for and support more government, more regulation, more handouts, more curtailing of freedom and more taxation.

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 06:52 AM

In the public's mind, and in minds of women, which this thread is about, the GOP does represent a certain bastardized concept of liberty.

Not really, no. To most it represents the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, blue laws, gays being told who they can't marry, war, corporatism, the NSA, asset forfeiture and tax breaks that exclusively spare the rich. As we all know, Washington Democrats are about as complicit in most or all of that, but that's the perception.

None of that has anything to do with liberty at all. In fact, most people associate the Republican Party with the Second Amendment, but figure it's against the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, at a minimum.

This forum has gotten awfully insular if we actually believe the GOP--outside of a libertarian or two who used it to get elected--has any truck with liberty at all, or if we believe people can't tell the truth of the matter by looking. Eight years of Dubya/Cheney made it all abundantly clear to most people what the GOP's true colors are. And it's a realistic view. The PATRIOT Act didn't get created during a Democratic administration, and neither did the DHS. In fact, as we have noted it seems to largely be Republican administrations that grab the guns, too, as the pro-gun people tend to let their guard down when the GOP is in the White House. That makes Republican administrations far, far more dangerous to liberty.

Freedom isn't popular? Nobody knows. All anybody knows for sure is freedom isn't available. And which party does more to place it out of reach is very much a debatable point. Very, very debatable. Yes, we who pay attention can tell the Republicans may have done more to curtail civil liberties in the past, but the Democrats with their wars on smoking, homophobia, religion, borders, small business, peace and tolerance has surpassed it. But when a fair portion of the public doesn't realize half of that is happening and still hasn't figured out the other half does more to imprison all people than to free half from the 'bondage' they figure the other half has been imposing on them, then their perception is skewed.

No, the GOP isn't losing this demographic by being a bastion of freedom and liberty. That's just silly. Yeah, maybe this crop of Millennials is stupid enough to mistake totalitarianism for liberty, like millions of communists before them, and maybe they can't grasp the concept that, as Will Rogers said, you can only have as much liberty as you give. But the simple truth is, if the Republican Party was truly in the habit of offering and delivering liberty, it would be overwhelmingly popular.

Ender

03-22-2018, 07:47 AM

Not really, no. To most it represents the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, blue laws, gays being told who they can't marry, war, corporatism, the NSA, asset forfeiture and tax breaks that exclusively spare the rich. As we all know, Washington Democrats are about as complicit in most or all of that, but that's the perception.

None of that has anything to do with liberty at all. In fact, most people associate the Republican Party with the Second Amendment, but figure it's against the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, at a minimum.

This forum has gotten awfully insular if we actually believe the GOP--outside of a libertarian or two who used it to get elected--has any truck with liberty at all, or if we believe people can't tell the truth of the matter by looking. Eight years of Dubya/Cheney made it all abundantly clear to most people what the GOP's true colors are. And it's a realistic view. The PATRIOT Act didn't get created during a Democratic administration, and neither did the DHS. In fact, as we have noted it seems to largely be Republican administrations that grab the guns, too, as the pro-gun people tend to let their guard down when the GOP is in the White House. That makes Republican administrations far, far more dangerous to liberty.

Freedom isn't popular? Nobody knows. All anybody knows for sure is freedom isn't available. And which party does more to place it out of reach is very much a debatable point. Very, very debatable. Yes, we who pay attention can tell the Republicans may have done more to curtail civil liberties in the past, but the Democrats with their wars on smoking, homophobia, religion, borders, small business, peace and tolerance has surpassed it. But when a fair portion of the public doesn't realize half of that is happening and still hasn't figured out the other half does more to imprison all people than to free half from the 'bondage' they figure the other half has been imposing on them, then their perception is skewed.

No, the GOP isn't losing this demographic by being a bastion of freedom and liberty. That's just silly. Yeah, maybe this crop of Millennials is stupid enough to mistake totalitarianism for liberty, like millions of communists before them, and maybe they can't grasp the concept that, as Will Rogers said, you can only have as much liberty as you give. But the simple truth is, if the Republican Party was truly in the habit of offering and delivering liberty, it would be overwhelmingly popular.

Pretty much my POV.

For me there really isn't "2 parties". Just 2 halves of the same whole, saying all the right buzz words, while they continue to take away more liberty and freedom from the populace.

And our "education" system is exactly set up to indoctrinate young people until they comply. If they don't then they are drugged to death.

I know, I know- I've said this a zillion times on the forum.

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 07:50 AM

Pretty much my POV.

For me there really isn't "2 parties". Just 2 halves of the same whole, saying all the right buzz words, while they continue to take away more liberty and freedom from the populace.

And our "education" system is exactly set up to indoctrinate young people until they comply. If they don't then they are drugged to death.

I know, I know- I've said this a zillion times on the forum.

Sure is hard to know how to overcome the black magic of the party system if three quarters of even this forum buys the bullshit.

Ender

03-22-2018, 07:54 AM

Sure is hard to know how to overcome the black magic of the party system if three quarters of even this forum buys the bull$#@!.

I hear ya. :rolleyes:

fedupinmo

03-22-2018, 08:01 AM

Not really, no. To most it represents the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, blue laws, gays being told who they can't marry, war, corporatism, the NSA, asset forfeiture and tax breaks that exclusively spare the rich.

Gays can marry whoever they want, as long as what they do is actually marry. What they want to do IS NOT marry, it is shack up with another of the same sex with the blessing of the gov and the force of law used against those of us who know what marry really means.

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 08:12 AM

Gays can marry whoever they want, as long as what they do is actually marry. What they want to do IS NOT marry, it is shack up with another of the same sex with the blessing of the gov and the force of law used against those of us who know what marry really means.

And if the government didn't sanction the stuff, insurance companies would have to choose to let their customers let one person ride on their policy or not. If government didn't sanction the stuff, it couldn't allow anyone to file jointly.

There are lots of Democrats who are fine with it because they want to force insurance companies to cover Significant Others, and lots of Republicans who are fine with it because they want insurance companies to discriminate in favor of heterosexuals. There are also lots of people who register with both parties who are willing to give liberty to get liberty, and know when it's no skin off their noses.

The puzzle is, how do we convince that last group that they don't have to worry about whether the orange clown the most xenophobic six percent of Republicans nominated is less worse or more worse than the serial murdering bitch the Democratic Superdelegates nominated if they'd just realize their numbers, pick someone else, and vote for them.

heavenlyboy34

03-22-2018, 08:20 AM

Pretty much my POV.

For me there really isn't "2 parties". Just 2 halves of the same whole, saying all the right buzz words, while they continue to take away more liberty and freedom from the populace.

And our "education" system is exactly set up to indoctrinate young people until they comply. If they don't then they are drugged to death.

I know, I know- I've said this a zillion times on the forum.

Indeed! Even in those mock POTUS elections they do in grade schools, they don't include all the parties/individuals on the kiddie ballot-just the Big Two-teaching them to avoid thinking for themselves early on.

enhanced_deficit

03-22-2018, 08:22 AM

There is increasing noise in media that Trump led GOP will get wiped out in midterms. With gun control, US Israel embassy move, Schumer/Feinstein-Trump synergy, anti-nepotism/anti-corruption advisors and constant chatter like below could be confusing/alienating some demographics.. especially women.

Stormy Daniels' lawyer says porn star was physically threatened to remain silent over alleged affair with Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/stormy-daniels-says-she-was-physically-threatened-to-keep-silent.html)
CNBC 11h ago

"White Christian men" were one of the biggest supporters of GOP led Iraqi freedom war and majority of that demo may stick around on Trump side given his combative skillset to defend the conservative/Christian family values fortress.. but will that be enough to win elections?

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 08:26 AM

There is increasing noise in media that Trump led GOP will get wiped out in midterms. With gun control, US Israel embassy move, Schumer/Fienstein-TrumP synergy, anti-nepotism/anti-corruption advisors and constant chatter like below could be confusing/alienating some demographics.. especially women.

Stormy Daniels' lawyer says porn star was physically threatened to remain silent over alleged affair with Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/stormy-daniels-says-she-was-physically-threatened-to-keep-silent.html)
CNBC 11h ago

"White Christian men" were one of the biggest supporters of GOP led Iraqi freedom war and majority off that demo may stick around on Trump side giving his combative skill set to defend the conservative/Christian family values fortress.. but will that be enough to win elections?

Trump could not possibly be doing a better job of handing 2018 to the Democrats. He is removing the veil from the truth of his true establishment colors at just the right time to keep disestablishmentarianist Republicans home from the polls in droves.

All that other stuff makes nice icing on the cake. But the fact that he's revealed as an establishment stooge is the cake itself. Yes, Democrats are likely to do well. And I'm pretty much all in with giving the GOP all the rope it needs to hang itself.

Raginfridus

03-22-2018, 10:20 AM

Women should not have the vote in the first place. They will too often look at socialism as "sharing".

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 10:21 AM

They will align with the party they think will help pay the most of the bills .

Like I said.

Cleaner44

03-22-2018, 11:08 AM

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 11:35 AM

seapilot

03-22-2018, 11:36 AM

I can't help but notice that the population of the US keeps growing, yet the Democrat party keeps getting less and less votes in the presidential elections.

2008
69,498,516

2012
65,915,795

2016
65,853,516

Democrats have gone full socialist. The only reason many republicans win is they are socialist lite. Most people identify as independents or moderate. The biggest marketing tool that Liberty people could use is Personal Freedom of Choice (though that has been co-opted to mean something else entirely). Paint the competition as for limiting choice, as most people understand and they will start winning. Most people vote for self interest and choose what is best for them, appeal to that and they vote for the candidate they feel will benefit them the most.

Krugminator2

03-22-2018, 12:07 PM

Democrats have gone full socialist. The only reason many republicans win is they are socialist lite. Most people identify as independents or moderate. The biggest marketing tool that Liberty people could use is Personal Freedom of Choice (though that has been co-opted to mean something else entirely). Paint the competition as for limiting choice, as most people understand and they will start winning. Most people vote for self interest and choose what is best for them, appeal to that and they vote for the candidate they feel will benefit them the most.

I don't think the overwhelming majority of people really want choice. Making decisions requires thinking and effort. It requires holding yourself accountable when something goes wrong based on your decisions. Most people are really bad decision makers. For example people do horrifically bad managing their 401k's. People have choices and they freeze up and make bad choices. It is part of the reason Social Security Privatization doesn't happen. People don't want that responsibility. They would rather have a pension or Social Security where someone else has control.

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 12:10 PM

fisharmor

03-22-2018, 01:12 PM

It's also because its supposed champions are full of high-minded nonsense and fail utterly to connect the ideals of liberty to the real world that people actually live in. Like when people tell the folks in a town where the main source of work was a factory that got shipped off to China, that these foreign trade deals are good for the US. It sets up liberty as their opponent rather than their ally. Or when someone doesn't give a damn about border enforcement and someone's brother gets murdered by a many-times-deported repeat felon we can't keep out of the country due to a failure to enforce the border. Our worst enemies couldn't mar the message of liberty more than these highly offensive pretenses to the promotion of liberty do.
Well, if we can go over and over this on a forum called "liberty forest" and the people who are supposed to be into liberty can't understand these things, maybe you're right.

A liberty message must include the following.

1) It is not the government's job to protect you.

2) Everyone is a repeat felon because everything is a felony, and that's a problem.

3) If murder victims don't have the option of defending themselves, that's the fundamental problem.

4) See point #1.

That's without even getting into the ridiculous hackneyed border arguments.

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 01:29 PM

Well, if we can go over and over this on a forum called "liberty forest" and the people who are supposed to be into liberty can't understand these things, maybe you're right.

A liberty message must include the following.

1) It is not the government's job to protect you.

2) Everyone is a repeat felon because everything is a felony, and that's a problem.

3) If murder victims don't have the option of defending themselves, that's the fundamental problem.

4) See point #1.

That's without even getting into the ridiculous hackneyed border arguments.

We don't need anywhere near that much to get votes specifically in elections for federal office. All we need to do that is this:

The federal government is very corrupt.

The federal government doesn't even try to sort out individuals and help the needy ones, because it knows it can't. It just takes a big cut off the top, and gives the money to your city and/or county--provided your local government jumps through enough hoops. If you want to help people, cut out the Washington middleman.

Libertarians will give peace a chance.

nobody's_hero

03-22-2018, 02:27 PM

I don't think the overwhelming majority of people really want choice. Making decisions requires thinking and effort. It requires holding yourself accountable when something goes wrong based on your decisions. Most people are really bad decision makers. For example people do horrifically bad managing their 401k's. People have choices and they freeze up and make bad choices. It is part of the reason Social Security Privatization doesn't happen. People don't want that responsibility. They would rather have a pension or Social Security where someone else has control.

I agree with that. People want an auto-pilot government. I vote for you to make decisions so I don't have to. Even people who don't want government at all think you can just 'set it and forget it' and it will always stay the way you want it. Anything worth having is necessary to fight for. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and all that.

thoughtomator

03-22-2018, 02:41 PM

Well, if we can go over and over this on a forum called "liberty forest" and the people who are supposed to be into liberty can't understand these things, maybe you're right.

A liberty message must include the following.

1) It is not the government's job to protect you.

This is a liberty message:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

You now stand in direct opposition to it.

It is in fact, precisely the government's job to protect your liberties, and it has no other legitimate function. That is the very reason it was brought into existence.

It is no wonder that you find no audience when you view your countrymen - the people who vote on your policies - as disposable and replaceable commodities.

I can assure you that they do not view themselves as disposable and don't take kindly to the idea of being replaced.

"Every man for himself" is not liberty.

Brian4Liberty

03-22-2018, 03:16 PM

Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves: Pew

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/millennial-women-leaving-the-republican-party-in-droves-pew

The wording on that may be a little weaselly. People are leaving both big Parties these days. Many States no longer require a person to register as a particular Party to vote in Primaries. It's a big trend to drop Party membership or affiliation in California.

Emotion trumps logic. Women are very emotional and nurturers by design. So they are tailor made for the democratic platform.

And the Democrats market heavily to them. Emotion vs. logic is the key.

If we look at the Democrats and Republicans in terms of the Myers-Briggs, Thinking vs. Feeling indicator, 75% of women are "Feeling", 75% of men are "Thinking".

Thus as a simplified example, in a two Party system with a sterile environment free of marriage, family and other entanglements, women would probably be 75% Democrat, and men would be 75% Republican.

Now this does not indicate a particular position on any given issue. Any issue can be argued from an emotional standpoint (Feeling) or a reasoning standpoint (Thinking). So the Democrats come at every issue from an emotional angle, while Republicans tend to come from a reasoning perspective. It an issue of style and focus, with a big portion of dividing into "us vs. them" thrown in.

Good arguments for any given issue should come from both emotional and rational positions, thus the power of the two Parties is weakened.

While the MBTI T/F trend is a statistical generalization, we should always remember that everyone is an individual, and that the percentages are not absolute. 25% of women are "Thinking", while 25% of men are "Feeling".

fisharmor

03-22-2018, 03:31 PM

You now stand in direct opposition to it.
To the US constitution? Yes, I stand in direct opposition to it as it was THE power grab that allowed the federal government to turn into precisely what it is.

It is in fact, precisely the government's job to protect your liberties, and it has no other legitimate function. That is the very reason it was brought into existence.
And yet it fails to do so at every conceivable level.
More to my original point, that same government has repeatedly ruled - spelled out in writing - that no, it is not its duty to protect you.
You brought up the tired old trope of the murderer immigrant (in a transparent effort to paint them all so) and I countered it by stating an irrefutable fact: it is not the government's job to protect you from murderers.

It is also an irrefutable fact that it is precisely the government's job to murder YOU. I'm not sure how you have seen the news stories shared here for the last decade and not come to that conclusion.
They murder people, they walk free, and the government states explicitly that they were within department policy.
They literally say it's their job to do the exact thing you accuse all immigrants of doing, and you ignore it.

It is no wonder that you find no audience when you view your countrymen - the people who vote on your policies - as disposable and replaceable commodities.
At no point did I say that.
I tried to point out in my first post here that you have no have no coherent message.
Acptulsa responded to my second post by reaffirming that you have no coherent message.
It's all about votes - throw out some bullet points that people will agree with and get them to go vote for your stooge.
Don't vote FOR anything. That requires too much effort, as acp pointed out.
Keep voting AGAINST things you don't like.
The revolution died, and we're back to the way things were before. Everyone has completely forgotten what it means to really focus on liberty.

I can assure you that they do not view themselves as disposable and don't take kindly to the idea of being replaced.
And I can assure you that if you shift your message away from the classic scaremongering that has been around ever since I first voted, and back to a message that
1) these people are their own masters and they are clever enough to figure this out, and
2) if the same government they are running to for answers got the fuck out of their way of figuring it out, it would be a hell of a lot easier,
then you would get the votes you're looking for.

It was happening. All it needed was one or two more election cycles. But it was killed, and for reasons you still support, despite the fact that it's been stone dead for nearly six years.

"Every man for himself" is not liberty.
I'm not going to argue that it is (as much as I believe that) and just point out that your message is
"Every man forced under threat of death to participate in systems that were sold to us to help people but have reverse incentives that reward them for failing and punish them for succeeding".
I'm not sure if Patrick Henry ever really believed what he said, but what you seem to be saying doesn't jive with it at all.

Zippyjuan

03-22-2018, 03:43 PM

The Republican Party – once more youthful than the Democratic Party – has aged rapidly over the past 24 years. In 1992, far more GOP voters were under the age of 50 (61%) than age 50 and older (38%). Today, fully 58% of Republican voters are 50 and older while the share under 50 has declined to 41%. Among Democratic voters, 48% are 50 and older, while 51% are under 50. The rate of aging within the Democratic Party since 1992 (when 57% were under 50 and 42% were 50 and older) has been much less steep than that seen within the GOP.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/0_2.png

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/2_7.png

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/PP_16.08.31_partyID_lede.png

http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

Krugminator2

03-22-2018, 04:02 PM

The Republican Party – once more youthful than the Democratic Party – has aged rapidly over the past 24 years. In 1992, far more GOP voters were under the age of 50

I think most people form politically allegiances early and don't change. People in that age group grew up with a very competent and popular Republican President and the last memory of a Democrat was pussy Jimmy Carter. Whereas people in that demographic today have seen two unpopular presidents in W. and Trump as the Republican standard bearers.

Anti Federalist

03-22-2018, 04:37 PM

A liberty message must include the following.

1) It is not the government's job to protect you.

And large majorities of women disagree with that statement.

Vehemently.

Raginfridus

03-22-2018, 04:40 PM

And large majorities of women disagree with that statement.

Vehemently.

Then they need to get back in the kitchen.

https://new2.fjcdn.com/pictures/You+see+that+kitchen+httpsadhillnewscomwpcontentup loads201102youseethatitsakitchennowgetbackinitsadh illnewsjpg_5cf2be_3543711.jpg

Zippyjuan

03-22-2018, 04:47 PM

Then they need to get back in the kitchen.

Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.

r3volution 3.0

03-22-2018, 04:54 PM

When both parties pursue the same policies on the important issues, and no one really cares about the important issues anyway, all that remains is the culture war, and the cultural-left is winning, despite the seeming resurgence of the cultural-right under Trump. The GOP had a chance some years ago (cough*Ron*cough*Rand) to put aside the culture war and rebrand themselves as a genuine reform party, the "adult party"; instead, they put aside what little principle or dignity they had left and followed an orange clown off the toad meme cliff. Reap the whirlwind, idiots.

Raginfridus

03-22-2018, 05:01 PM

Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.Why? I'm not Republican.

acptulsa

03-22-2018, 05:31 PM

Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.

And it's Democrat judges that are ruling that way.

Raginfridus

03-22-2018, 05:50 PM

Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.Actually, I retract mine uncooth slanders. Women: stay out of the kitchen!

https://image.ibb.co/eAjBEc/123_1.jpg

heavenlyboy34

03-22-2018, 07:21 PM

Actually, I retract mine uncooth slanders. Women: stay out of the kitchen!

https://image.ibb.co/eAjBEc/123_1.jpg
You remind me of this classic bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 07:59 PM

It is in fact, precisely the government's job to protect your liberties, and it has no other legitimate function. That is the very reason it was brought into existence.

It is only in a fairy tale that the state came into existence for such a noble purpose. Not state that has yet come into existence arose with that purpose or served that purpose.

The state only serves its subjects' interests in the same way that farmers serve their chickens' interests, so as to maximize the eggs they can get from them.

If you doubt this then please, by all means, scour history, and see if you can find the example of a state that was brought into existence for the purpose of protecting peoples' liberties. And share your results here when you find one.

heavenlyboy34

03-22-2018, 08:04 PM

r3volution 3.0

03-22-2018, 08:29 PM

It is only in a fairy tale that the state came into existence for such a noble purpose. Not state that has yet come into existence arose with that purpose or served that purpose.

The state only serves its subjects' interests in the same way that farmers serve their chickens' interests, so as to maximize the eggs they can get from them.

If you doubt this then please, by all means, scour history, and see if you can find the example of a state that was brought into existence for the purpose of protecting peoples' liberties. And share your results here when you find one.

The state didn't arise to protect liberty in the sense of the social contract, but it did arise to protect liberty in the sense of the farmer seeking to protect the chickens from (other) predators, as you say. And, in any event, the history of its emergence aside, that's the justification for the state; it is in fact better for the chickens to be farmed by one sedentary predator than to be the object of competition between many predators.

Raginfridus

03-22-2018, 08:51 PM

You remind me of this classic bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
https://youtu.be/JZ0jRuASVEQ

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 09:35 PM

The state didn't arise to protect liberty in the sense of the social contract, but it did arise to protect liberty in the sense of the farmer seeking to protect the chickens from (other) predators, as you say. And, in any event, the history of its emergence aside, that's the justification for the state; it is in fact better for the chickens to be farmed by one sedentary predator than to be the object of competition between many predators.

It arose to protect the liberty and other interests of certain individuals at the expense of the liberties and interests of others. But it did not arise to protect liberty in general, but rather to do the very opposite, by subjugating people as slaves. Yes, it's true that the beneficiaries of this didn't see it that way. But we can't just consider them and not their subjects.

thoughtomator

03-22-2018, 09:42 PM

r3volution 3.0

03-22-2018, 09:49 PM

It arose to protect the liberty and other interests of certain individuals at the expense of the liberties and interests of others. But it did not arise to protect liberty in general, but rather to do the very opposite, by subjugating people as slaves. Yes, it's true that the beneficiaries of this didn't see it that way. But we can't just consider them and not their subjects.

Why have states historically prosecuted people who kill, rob, or otherwise reduce the taxpaying ability of their subjects?

Superfluous Man

03-22-2018, 10:05 PM

If you voluntarily surrender your own agency by wallowing in negativity, you earn a negative outcome. This play-to-lose attitude is why you get farmed.

Don't forget, the man you got that analogy from also said, "to see the farm is to leave it".

I had to Google that quote. I definitely didn't get that analogy from Stefan Molyneaux. I'm not sure where I did, but I'm sure many compared political subjects to farm animals long before he ever did.

It's possible to tell the truth about injustices without wallowing in negativity.

Pretending that a lie is the truth, and that injustice is just, isn't being pro-active or optimistic. It's just being dishonest and unjust.