Quote: (12-13-2017 10:46 AM)Renton1875 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 06:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea that marriages with age differences cannot work is nothing more than sinful, degenerate dogma.

People have been getting married with large age differences for all of recorded human history, which means it's probably been happening for millions of years.

I know my great-grandmother married at 14. She went on to have a 50 year marriage, with 6 children, and 15+ grandchildren. You're telling me this is bad? Only dumb and evil feminists could think such a thing.

Of course, parental consent was always involved for young ages.

The world we live in is unnatural, has negative birth rates, and causes mass unhappiness. It's obviously doomed. The world of marriages with young women will return, one way or the other.

Marriage with age differences most certainly do work and should be encouraged. Although surely there must be a base line for the minor.

Congratulations to your great-grandmother on her long and successful marriage. Out of interest, what age was your great-grandfather when they married? Which decade?

As you live in one of the mentioned states, you still have a chance to carry on the family tradition.

Your 14 year old daughter asks you for permission to get married to Chad, your just gonna say "of course my darling, what took you so long", then march her down the aisle. Am I getting this right? Or maybe I'm just being a dumb and evil feminist!

My point was, your laws are fucked. 10 yr olds being married off in some states whilst the age of consent in others is well beyond the best before date. The screaming masses that no doubt tipped this result don't even care.

Even if Moore was guilty of approaching this 13 yr old all these years ago, where is the crime if that state allows 13 yr olds to be married off. Why didn't any of Moores team throw that out there, that would have brought the shit show to a halt. Americas dirty little secret.

Personally I'm with Suits, 16 yrs old is the current consent and marriage age in my country. This is the age when you are considered an adult. In my opinion the judges, not unlike Moore himself, who sign off 10 yr olds to marry 31 yr olds should be strung up, but guess what, you can't. It's the law

That's both degenerate and sinful.

A healthy baseline is set by biology itself(excluding disorders). A form of natural law if you will that enables a line to be set.

No doubt teenagers married in history and it is not as negative as have been portrayed.

This is the Hebrew law on this subject(resulting from my forays into Islam as subject of research):
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm


In many cultures they weren't just children and possessed adult responsibilities. Including the ability to marry with the permission of their parents of course.

Being of the right includes confronting hard truths like history and the hard realities of our biology. Let us not fall into our enemies framing or lenses of seeing the world but come to our own conclusion seeking the truth.

Quote: (12-13-2017 09:18 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

It's a shame that media voter suppression tactics worked here, despite all of Moore's flaws.

When I was watching the votes come in, I realized we don't have the demographic numbers going forward.

Even in Alabama, young people broke for Jones. College educated people leaned much more heavily towards Jones.

Blacks and Hispanics obviously vote massively democrat.

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:56 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:46 AM)Renton1875 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 06:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea that marriages with age differences cannot work is nothing more than sinful, degenerate dogma.

People have been getting married with large age differences for all of recorded human history, which means it's probably been happening for millions of years.

I know my great-grandmother married at 14. She went on to have a 50 year marriage, with 6 children, and 15+ grandchildren. You're telling me this is bad? Only dumb and evil feminists could think such a thing.

Of course, parental consent was always involved for young ages.

The world we live in is unnatural, has negative birth rates, and causes mass unhappiness. It's obviously doomed. The world of marriages with young women will return, one way or the other.

Marriage with age differences most certainly do work and should be encouraged. Although surely there must be a base line for the minor.

Congratulations to your great-grandmother on her long and successful marriage. Out of interest, what age was your great-grandfather when they married? Which decade?

32.

Quote:Quote:

Your 14 year old daughter asks you for permission to get married to Chad, your just gonna say "of course my darling, what took you so long", then march her down the aisle. Am I getting this right? Or maybe I'm just being a dumb and evil feminist!

Yep, you sound just like a dumb and evil feminist right now.

Quote:Quote:

My point was, your laws are fucked. 10 yr olds being married off in some states whilst the age of consent in others is well beyond the best before date. The screaming masses that no doubt tipped this result don't even care.

Laws that go against human nature cannot and will not last. You can make laws to reverse gravity it won't change a thing.

Quote:Quote:

Personally I'm with Suits, 16 yrs old is the current consent and marriage age in my country. This is the age when you are considered an adult. In my opinion the judges, not unlike Moore himself, who sign off 10 yr olds to marry 31 yr olds should be strung up, but guess what, you can't. It's the law

That's both degenerate and sinful.

Producing massive families is degenerate, okay good thinking there chap.

Ha.

Quote:Quote:

32.

32, eh? Must've been born in the Victorian era, late 1800's or early 1900's. Hardy bunch back then.

Quote:Quote:

Yep, you sound just like a dumb and evil feminist right now.

Okay, I hear you, I am and sound like a dumb and evil feminist, but you still never answered. Would Samseau let his little 14 year old Sammy trot down the aisle with Chad? Yes or No.

Quote:Quote:

Laws that go against human nature cannot and will not last. You can make laws to reverse gravity it won't change a thing.

These laws are older than your country, but your right. They haven't lasted in other civilised countries. They've deemed that an under 16 yr old should be classed as a child. Seems fair to me.

Quote:Quote:

Producing massive families is degenerate, okay good thinking there chap.

Producing massive families is degenerate, who said that? Words in mouth there, bud.



Nah, the degenerate and sinful bit, that was about the judges allowing, through the law, the marriage of 10 year olds to others, on one occasion a 31 yr old. I think both the law and the judges are degenerate and sinful. I would've hoped that you agreed, but possibly you don't.

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:56 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:46 AM)Renton1875 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 06:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea that marriages with age differences cannot work is nothing more than sinful, degenerate dogma.

People have been getting married with large age differences for all of recorded human history, which means it's probably been happening for millions of years.

I know my great-grandmother married at 14. She went on to have a 50 year marriage, with 6 children, and 15+ grandchildren. You're telling me this is bad? Only dumb and evil feminists could think such a thing.

Of course, parental consent was always involved for young ages.

The world we live in is unnatural, has negative birth rates, and causes mass unhappiness. It's obviously doomed. The world of marriages with young women will return, one way or the other.

Marriage with age differences most certainly do work and should be encouraged. Although surely there must be a base line for the minor.

Congratulations to your great-grandmother on her long and successful marriage. Out of interest, what age was your great-grandfather when they married? Which decade?

32.

Quote:Quote:

Your 14 year old daughter asks you for permission to get married to Chad, your just gonna say "of course my darling, what took you so long", then march her down the aisle. Am I getting this right? Or maybe I'm just being a dumb and evil feminist!

Yep, you sound just like a dumb and evil feminist right now.

Quote:Quote:

My point was, your laws are fucked. 10 yr olds being married off in some states whilst the age of consent in others is well beyond the best before date. The screaming masses that no doubt tipped this result don't even care.

Laws that go against human nature cannot and will not last. You can make laws to reverse gravity it won't change a thing.

Quote:Quote:

Personally I'm with Suits, 16 yrs old is the current consent and marriage age in my country. This is the age when you are considered an adult. In my opinion the judges, not unlike Moore himself, who sign off 10 yr olds to marry 31 yr olds should be strung up, but guess what, you can't. It's the law

That's both degenerate and sinful.

Producing massive families is degenerate, okay good thinking there chap.

Asking if he would marry his theoretical, unrealized 14 year old daughter to "Chad"?

I wonder if he needs more info than why you supplied before he makes a decision.

Quote: (12-13-2017 08:42 PM)Renton1875 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:56 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 10:46 AM)Renton1875 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 06:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea that marriages with age differences cannot work is nothing more than sinful, degenerate dogma.

People have been getting married with large age differences for all of recorded human history, which means it's probably been happening for millions of years.

I know my great-grandmother married at 14. She went on to have a 50 year marriage, with 6 children, and 15+ grandchildren. You're telling me this is bad? Only dumb and evil feminists could think such a thing.

Of course, parental consent was always involved for young ages.

The world we live in is unnatural, has negative birth rates, and causes mass unhappiness. It's obviously doomed. The world of marriages with young women will return, one way or the other.

Marriage with age differences most certainly do work and should be encouraged. Although surely there must be a base line for the minor.

Congratulations to your great-grandmother on her long and successful marriage. Out of interest, what age was your great-grandfather when they married? Which decade?

32.

Quote:Quote:

Your 14 year old daughter asks you for permission to get married to Chad, your just gonna say "of course my darling, what took you so long", then march her down the aisle. Am I getting this right? Or maybe I'm just being a dumb and evil feminist!

Yep, you sound just like a dumb and evil feminist right now.

Quote:Quote:

My point was, your laws are fucked. 10 yr olds being married off in some states whilst the age of consent in others is well beyond the best before date. The screaming masses that no doubt tipped this result don't even care.

Laws that go against human nature cannot and will not last. You can make laws to reverse gravity it won't change a thing.

Quote:Quote:

Personally I'm with Suits, 16 yrs old is the current consent and marriage age in my country. This is the age when you are considered an adult. In my opinion the judges, not unlike Moore himself, who sign off 10 yr olds to marry 31 yr olds should be strung up, but guess what, you can't. It's the law

That's both degenerate and sinful.

Producing massive families is degenerate, okay good thinking there chap.

Ha.

Quote:Quote:

32.

32, eh? Must've been born in the Victorian era, late 1800's or early 1900's. Hardy bunch back then.

Quote:Quote:

Yep, you sound just like a dumb and evil feminist right now.

Okay, I hear you, I am and sound like a dumb and evil feminist, but you still never answered. Would Samseau let his little 14 year old Sammy trot down the aisle with Chad? Yes or No.

Quote:Quote:

Laws that go against human nature cannot and will not last. You can make laws to reverse gravity it won't change a thing.

These laws are older than your country, but your right. They haven't lasted in other civilised countries. They've deemed that an under 16 yr old should be classed as a child. Seems fair to me.

Quote:Quote:

Producing massive families is degenerate, okay good thinking there chap.

Producing massive families is degenerate, who said that? Words in mouth there, bud.



Nah, the degenerate and sinful bit, that was about the judges allowing, through the law, the marriage of 10 year olds to others, on one occasion a 31 yr old. I think both the law and the judges are degenerate and sinful. I would've hoped that you agreed, but possibly you don't.

You are certainly correct in this regard:

Quote:Quote:

It is not only fornication, but also the giving in marriage prematurely, that is called fornication; when, so to speak, one not of ripe age is given to a husband, either of her own accord or by her parents. (Clement of Alexandria, IX.-Fragment of the Treatise on Marriage, Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II; online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)

The Mishnah sets the age of maturity for a female at twelve years and six months:

"she won her case in court before she matured [at the age of twelve years and six months], lo, they belong to the father." Mishnah Ketubot, 4:1.

The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible in volume 2, page 1407, under "Marriage", states this about Jewish marriage customs:

"Subsequently, minimum ages (for marriage) of 13 for boys and 12 for girls were set."

Jim West, Th.D., writes in an online article titled, "Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs":

"The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the ‘outset of puberty’ or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line."

From the link I have provided.

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

See pretty much every other Stefan Molyneux video for the last year or two.

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

I have been looking for actual evidence that Hispanics support the welfare state. I haven't found any. Since the Red Team and the Blue Team are BOTH socialists and champions of the welfare state, a vote for a Red Socialist or a Blue Socialist signifies nothing.

The only reason that Hispanics are voting for the Blue Socialists is the fact that the Blue Socialists have been a lot less xenophobic than the Red Socialists. Thirty years ago, the Hispanic vote was split about evenly between the Red Socialists and the Blue Socialists.

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 09:18 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

It's a shame that media voter suppression tactics worked here, despite all of Moore's flaws.

When I was watching the votes come in, I realized we don't have the demographic numbers going forward.

Even in Alabama, young people broke for Jones. College educated people leaned much more heavily towards Jones.

Blacks and Hispanics obviously vote massively democrat.

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

I just had this very issue explained to me, in person tonight, by a very brilliant young woman who happens to speak both Arabic and Spanish, and owns her very own MAGA hat.

Her theory is simple and she has verified it personally hundreds of times. Latinos who come here and gain the right to vote almost always register as Democrats because they believe they came to America for "democracy" as opposed to tyranny or socialism they escaped. Since in Spanish democracy is Democracia - they see Democratic party and register as such even if it is not a political match.

Literally almost noone except this one, is bothering to explain to new registrants "you are not a democrat."

Quote: (12-14-2017 12:39 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

I just had this very issue explained to me, in person tonight, by a very brilliant young woman who happens to speak both Arabic and Spanish, and owns her very own MAGA hat.

That's the problem with immigrants these days. For some reason they can speak Arabic and/or Spanish, but they never bother to learn English too.

#MAGA

Quote: (12-12-2017 10:41 PM)LeeEnfield303 Wrote:  

Fuck. You. In. The. Ass. With. A. Cactus.

Well, now there's a visual...

Quote: (12-14-2017 12:39 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 09:18 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

It's a shame that media voter suppression tactics worked here, despite all of Moore's flaws.

When I was watching the votes come in, I realized we don't have the demographic numbers going forward.

Even in Alabama, young people broke for Jones. College educated people leaned much more heavily towards Jones.

Blacks and Hispanics obviously vote massively democrat.

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

I just had this very issue explained to me, in person tonight, by a very brilliant young woman who happens to speak both Arabic and Spanish, and owns her very own MAGA hat.

Her theory is simple and she has verified it personally hundreds of times. Latinos who come here and gain the right to vote almost always register as Democrats because they believe they came to America for "democracy" as opposed to tyranny or socialism they escaped. Since in Spanish democracy is Democracia - they see Democratic party and register as such even if it is not a political match.

Literally almost noone except this one, is bothering to explain to new registrants "you are not a democrat."

Kinda makes sense if you’re fleeing Republica De (insert Banana Republic) for a new life in a “democratic” country but seriously, WTF?

Clearly, “they’re not sending their best.”

Quote: (12-14-2017 12:27 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

I have been looking for actual evidence that Hispanics support the welfare state. I haven't found any. Since the Red Team and the Blue Team are BOTH socialists and champions of the welfare state, a vote for a Red Socialist or a Blue Socialist signifies nothing.

The only reason that Hispanics are voting for the Blue Socialists is the fact that the Blue Socialists have been a lot less xenophobic than the Red Socialists. Thirty years ago, the Hispanic vote was split about evenly between the Red Socialists and the Blue Socialists.

I disagree. Aside from Chile, which had the free market imposed on them by dictatorship, no Latin American country is that economically free.

According to the 2017 Economic Freedom of the World Index, the most economically free Latin American country after Chile is Costa Rica, which ranks 35. Chile is 15, the United States is 11.

Not to mention that election after election, Hispanics vote Democrat. What more evidence do you need that Hispanics support bigger government?

If Hispanics identify alternately to whites then they will vote alternately to whites. It's not rocket science. Nobody votes for the party that will continue to ensure their race plays second fiddle, even if that happens to get the best outcome for the orchestra.

Whites are trapped on this one. Enough Hispanics want open borders for that to be their issue of choice, and there's no guarantee that they'll suddenly start voting Republican if whites give them that "as an act of love". Regardless, the new ones that stream across the border are not going to be pro-independence, pro-constitution, anti-welfare or pro-liberty. They are reliably going to vote for whoever gives them the most cash and asks the least in return. If the democrat powerbrokers doubted this in the slightest then they would be building the wall themselves and simply importing whichever Somalians are capable of being trusted to pull the right (Left) lever in a voting booth.

In the end what does it matter? You don't get to have a universal franchise and then call foul when morons vote for assholes. If the inevitable outcome of your nation's system of governance is unacceptable to you then the only question left is whether you're going to suck it up, leave, or do something to change it. The first two are easily achievable. The last is not.

But endless complaints about how blacks and hispanics vote is pointless. There is no magical strategy to put them in the same camp as whites, and even if you managed by some miracle to do that then a team of CIA spooks dressed up in camo pants, flannel shirts and John Deere caps would massacre a Cinco De Mayo celebration and the next day you'd be back to square one.

Get used to it, leave, or prepare to fight.

Those are your three options.

Trump is most likely nothing more than temporary breathing space to make that decision and prepare accordingly.

And Cuckservatives too...

   

Quote:Quote:

If Hispanics identify alternately to whites then they will vote alternately to whites

Eliminate the category of Hispanic on the census?

It’s unclear to me why “Hispanic” is on the census. “Hispanic” wasn’t a category until 1970 and there is nothing really tying Hispanics other than some claim of ancestry to a Latin American country. You don’t have to speak Spanish or Portuguese to be Hispanic and there are white Argentines, Brazilians with Japanese ancestry, mestizo Mexicans and black Dominicans and yet they are all considered “Hispanic”. Even though most Hispanic Immigration is coming from Mexico there are a lot of Mexicans that look white.

The problem of the government officially recognizing groups is that it allows the government to grant benefits to said groups and to push for their own interests. Hell, if the Irish or Somalians or any other group were officially recognized, it gives an incentive for them to engage in identity politics too. And in fact, many white ethnics were identified as separate groups in the past.

Since 53 of Hispanics identity as white already, it’s best to just eliminate the Hispanic category, most Hispanics will be lumped into the white group and it undercuts “Hispanics” looking out for their interests. It would also help to make English an official language too.

^All perfectly reasonable, and none of it is going to happen.

Trump was a miracle, and he only won because he was a dramatically superior candidate while Hillary was a dramatically inferior candidate. If Trump had never stepped up we would be debating about whether Rubio would have had a better shot than Ted, who only lost because blah blah blah. Meanwhile we'd be routing all traffic through VPNs and sleeping with a gun under our pillow. Half of us would be unemployed and the other half would be seriously considering quitting the forum to keep our families fed, if the forum still existed at all.

What it boils down to is this. Trump can wreck up the deep-state's house but at the end of his time in office it is most certainly still going to be the deep-state's house. Can Trump beat the continued white demographic slide in 3 years? Who else could possibly beat it in 7?

I used to be an optimist about this kind of shit but not any more. I'm grateful for every day Trump sits in the Whitehouse but I see it for exactly what it is. A blessed opportunity for the Right to get its shit together before the Left makes up for time lost. Sadly I'm well aware that the Right can be routinely relied upon to get soft and slack when their guys are in power. If this were not the case then the reporters destroying lives, election campaigns and essentially democracy itself with utterly fabricated allegations would be hanging from lamp-posts by now. I'm not even kidding. The saddest part about the Right is that they perpetually fail to recognise the stakes at play, and furthermore they are suicidally insistent on following the rules when their enemies follow none.

It's like watching a pack of morons turning up to play soccer and then impotently complaining when the opposing side picks up the ball, baseball-bats anyone that gets close, shoots the goalkeeper and walks it in for a point that the referee then upholds because he's already bought and paid for.

We are headed for extremely interesting times and we've been given an incredible head start on preparing for those times thanks to Trump. But the fact that not a single CNN building has thus far been occupied by angry patriots nor a single reporter so much as slapped in public makes it clear that the Right is far too lazy to hold traitors accountable or even see to their own long term survival.

I'm not sure any mestizo has ever invented anything of consequence as part of modern civilization. They're afraid of being denied entry into western civilization or being cut off from it, so they'll always vote to take from whitey. No matter how nice or helpful the country is to them they will always see themselves differently.

I'm amazed at how the poor ones still have so many kids, the mental wiring just isn't there.

Imported Voter admits Fraud

https://streamable.com/qid1q

Quote: (12-14-2017 07:35 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

If Hispanics identify alternately to whites then they will vote alternately to whites

Eliminate the category of Hispanic on the census?

It’s unclear to me why “Hispanic” is on the census. “Hispanic” wasn’t a category until 1970 and there is nothing really tying Hispanics other than some claim of ancestry to a Latin American country. You don’t have to speak Spanish or Portuguese to be Hispanic and there are white Argentines, Brazilians with Japanese ancestry, mestizo Mexicans and black Dominicans and yet they are all considered “Hispanic”. Even though most Hispanic Immigration is coming from Mexico there are a lot of Mexicans that look white.

The problem of the government officially recognizing groups is that it allows the government to grant benefits to said groups and to push for their own interests. Hell, if the Irish or Somalians or any other group were officially recognized, it gives an incentive for them to engage in identity politics too. And in fact, many white ethnics were identified as separate groups in the past.

Since 53 of Hispanics identity as white already, it’s best to just eliminate the Hispanic category, most Hispanics will be lumped into the white group and it undercuts “Hispanics” looking out for their interests. It would also help to make English an official language too.

Reminds me of this book I read...

thread-51287...=hispanics

Most Hispanics considered themselves white until about 1980 when the census created the Hispanics category.

Keep fighting Roy!

Pretty disappointing result. Alabama is supposed to be a 100% stone cold lock for being deep red. Maybe Moore was just a bad candidate, maybe the demographics are already swinging in Dems favor, I don't know. All I can think about after this is Texas voting 52.2% for Trump last election...how much danger are we in of that state flipping in three years? Feels much more feasible now.

Anyway, time to start preparing to be called a pedophile for dating/fucking 18 year olds, cause that's where this hysteria is headed. Age of consent raised to 21 too probably.

Nick Saban won the write-in votes in the Alabama Senate race. ROLL TIDE!

Quote: (12-14-2017 12:39 AM)Off The Reservation Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 07:44 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Quote: (12-13-2017 09:18 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

It's a shame that media voter suppression tactics worked here, despite all of Moore's flaws.

When I was watching the votes come in, I realized we don't have the demographic numbers going forward.

Even in Alabama, young people broke for Jones. College educated people leaned much more heavily towards Jones.

Blacks and Hispanics obviously vote massively democrat.

The solution is right here.

There is no rational, cultural, everlasting reason why Hispanics should be voting Democrat.

I mean, Hispanics, being from a traditional-Christian, and still quite macho society, and suffering first-hand from almost daily BLM violence (in the non-wealthy areas where they usually live), they should vote for the Right.

They (Hispanics) are the demographics the Republicans should now go after, instead of making the doomed and tragic mistake of courting the Black vote, which will forever shun them.

I just had this very issue explained to me, in person tonight, by a very brilliant young woman who happens to speak both Arabic and Spanish, and owns her very own MAGA hat.

Her theory is simple and she has verified it personally hundreds of times. Latinos who come here and gain the right to vote almost always register as Democrats because they believe they came to America for "democracy" as opposed to tyranny or socialism they escaped. Since in Spanish democracy is Democracia - they see Democratic party and register as such even if it is not a political match.

Literally almost noone except this one, is bothering to explain to new registrants "you are not a democrat."

Wait, isn't republic a cognate as well? It's not like the Republican party is named "pone pendejos en la boca"

Pew has done the research, illegals/immigrants/aliens from south of the border have been increasingly moving towards marxist or at least heavily left leaning as you see with Central and S. American countries as a rule. "Hispanics" being "family oriented" and thus prone to Republican voting is quite simply, a lie.

Quote: (12-14-2017 06:14 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

Quote: (12-14-2017 12:27 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

I have been looking for actual evidence that Hispanics support the welfare state. I haven't found any. Since the Red Team and the Blue Team are BOTH socialists and champions of the welfare state, a vote for a Red Socialist or a Blue Socialist signifies nothing.

The only reason that Hispanics are voting for the Blue Socialists is the fact that the Blue Socialists have been a lot less xenophobic than the Red Socialists. Thirty years ago, the Hispanic vote was split about evenly between the Red Socialists and the Blue Socialists.

I disagree. Aside from Chile, which had the free market imposed on them by dictatorship, no Latin American country is that economically free.

According to the 2017 Economic Freedom of the World Index, the most economically free Latin American country after Chile is Costa Rica, which ranks 35. Chile is 15, the United States is 11.

Not to mention that election after election, Hispanics vote Democrat. What more evidence do you need that Hispanics support bigger government?

Those Hispanics are staying in those countries. They never come here, so they don't matter. Do you think they are exactly the same as people who leave their countries?

You can't determine motive in a prisoner's dilemma scenario, which is what voting is. Since Republicans are also a party of big government, a vote for a Democrat over a Republican means nothing.

Do you have any evidence via referendum or initiatives? That would actually prove something. Picking one socialist over another socialist means nothing.