Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves

  1. #31
    Women should not have the vote in the first place. They will too often look at socialism as "sharing".



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    They will align with the party they think will help pay the most of the bills .
    Like I said.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,145
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    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
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    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
    2008 was remarkably high voter turnout though IIRC. How does that trend play out over a longer period?

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    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.
    USE THIS SITE TO LINK ARTICLES FROM OLIGARCH MEDIA:http://archive.is/ STARVE THE BEAST.
    More Government = Less Freedom
    Communism never disappeared it only changed its name to Social Democrat
    Emotion and Logic mix like oil and water

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by seapilot View Post
    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.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by seapilot View Post
    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.
    Every couple years elections take place all over the USA, and they have been for a long time. What you say here gets proven wrong over and over every single time.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
    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.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Millennial women leaving the Republican Party in droves: Pew

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-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.

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    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".
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    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 $#@! 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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  17. #44
    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://www.people-press.org/2016/09/...ers-1992-2016/
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-22-2018 at 03:47 PM.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    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.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    And large majorities of women disagree with that statement.

    Vehemently.
    Then they need to get back in the kitchen.


  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    Then they need to get back in the kitchen.
    Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    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.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.
    Why? I'm not Republican.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.
    And it's Democrat judges that are ruling that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Which is the sort of statement driving them to voting Democratic.
    Actually, I retract mine uncooth slanders. Women: stay out of the kitchen!


  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    Actually, I retract mine uncooth slanders. Women: stay out of the kitchen!

    You remind me of this classic bit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    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.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    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.
    +rep
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    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.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-22-2018 at 08:32 PM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    You remind me of this classic bit:

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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.

  34. #59
    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".

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    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?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sarah Palin floats idea of leaving the Republican Party
    By CaseyJones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 06-30-2013, 01:15 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 04:13 PM
  3. Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves
    By sailingaway in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 08:06 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 10:40 AM
  5. Houston 9/12 leader says people leaving in droves
    By Ron_Paul_Knows in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 02:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •