[RandalGraves]

(11-10-2012 10:59 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  

Here are some novel election stats:

What The 2012 Election Would Have Looked Like Without Universal Suffrage: These five maps look at how the 2012 election would have played out before everyone could vote.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics...-like-with

If men only voted:

[IpsaScientiaPotestasEst]

Can we please throw out the beta and feminist stuff out for one second and talk about the actual policies?

-The Republicans keep bringing up the rape thing every now and then, why the hell that is even still being talked about in the 21st century is beyond me? Thats reason enough for ANYONE with half a brain to vote against their party. Furthermore cuts to social safety nuts were going to go insane. Now yes they should be reformed and cut, but are you gonna give power back to the party that sent this country into a nosedive the previous four years? Hell no. This is the 21st century while republicans still act like its the antebellum period. If they don't move back to the center and gets some credible people, you CAN plan on Democrats staying in power for a long time. Now is that something I'm excited about? Yes and no, its obviously gonna depend on what those politicians end up doing in the future. However, what you did see (more so than single women) was a statement by the millennials (I HATE that term but its just so people know what demographic I'm talking about) about who they want in power and what policies they want-not this ass backwards shit the Republicans were pushing as someone previously stated in this thread.

The Republicans lost because they went WAY too far to the extreme, NO ONEs gonna vote for their bs. Furthermore they ran with the two whitest dudes in the land at a time when the youth is more multicultural and liberal than previous ones, let alone the different minorities are severely lacking representation. I said it a billion times before and will say it again, Romney had NO business running for President. Paul/Johnson/Huntsman would have been a MUCH better ticket for getting independents and people from various backgrounds out-but hey, shit happens.

[Samseau]

Quote:

The Republicans keep bringing up the rape thing every now and then, why the hell that is even still being talked about in the 21st century is beyond me? Thats reason enough for ANYONE with half a brain to vote against their party.

Can you name more than one republican who talked about rape?

Did you vote for a party based on hearsay?

Quote:

Romney had NO business running for President. Paul/Johnson/Huntsman would have been a MUCH better ticket for getting independents and people from various backgrounds out-but hey, shit happens.

Completely agree with you, the fact that the Republican Party turned down Ron Paul pretty much guaranteed I'd never vote for them.

I'm not voting for the Republicans until they start putting in Libertarian candidates.

[jammer]

(11-10-2012 02:01 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The Republicans keep bringing up the rape thing every now and then, why the hell that is even still being talked about in the 21st century is beyond me? Thats reason enough for ANYONE with half a brain to vote against their party.

Can you name more than one republican who talked about rape?

Did you vote for a party based on hearsay?

Akin
Mourdock
Ryan

[Samseau]

(11-10-2012 02:08 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(11-10-2012 02:01 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The Republicans keep bringing up the rape thing every now and then, why the hell that is even still being talked about in the 21st century is beyond me? Thats reason enough for ANYONE with half a brain to vote against their party.

Can you name more than one republican who talked about rape?

Did you vote for a party based on hearsay?

Akin
Mourdock
Ryan

No wonder they lost the woman vote.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ry...onception/

While technically Ryan might be right in a slim section of circumstances (a woman might fake rape in order to score an abortion), it's just bad politics to get all a priori about moral principles for a national election.

If a woman is actually raped she shouldn't be forced to have the child, it's just ridiculous.

[tenderman100]

Who gives a fuck if the Republicans put the whitest white guys on the front of the ticket?

Who gives a fuck if a couple of Republican senatorial candidates utter inanities about rape?

Who gives a fuck if most Republicans are pro choice.

Don't you know? It's not about race, it's about competence to deal with our MOST pressing problem, and that our most pressing problem is our fiscal nightmare.

Don't you know? A couple of senatorial candidates can say whatever they want about rape, or the virgin birth, and the fact of the matter is they can't do one fucking thing about consequences of any rape or any actual or putative rapist.

Don't you know? Just because Republicans as a rule are pro-choice doesn't mean abortion is going to be prohibited as an option for women. It's not.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..................millions of single women, their hamsters running wild in both their personal and political lives, simply do not understand this. And, apparently, a bunch of posters on the Roosh V Forum don't understand it either.

As voters, we have to take a look at the political landscape and say, "What's the best alternative, or least damaging alternative, given where we are as a country in the arc of history?"

So, you tally it up. On the one hand you have Republicans -- fiscally conservative yet with troglodyte social views. On the other hand you have Democrats -- who are FOND of central government and central planning and a burdensome regulatory regime, who find the idea of a government with "limited and enumerated powers" something to fight against. But who, at the same time, have basically "acceptable" social views on gay marriage and other issues. But who, as Democrats, simply can't face or address the disastrous fiscal path we are on.

In the end, then, given that there is no way you can have a party that reflects the totality of what you (and I daresay I) want, where do you HAVE to come down?

It has to be the party, and the candidates, who are going to address the potentially catastrophic fiscal issues we are facing. The party which is really pro-business, pro-capitalism.

In the end, in my view, it's an easy choice. Why? We're not going to turn the clock back to Jim Crow lunch counters and back of the bus seating. We are not going to turn the clock back to dark alley abortions with coat hangers. We're not going to turn back the clock to where gays had to hide in the closet. We are not going to turn back the clock to where women could only wind up in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Oh, sure, the Todd Akins and the Richard Mourdocks can utter the inanities they do, but they can't do shit about where we are now. And that's good.

But we WILL be headed to oblivion (re; a Greece-like fiscal condition) if we do not get our debt and spending under control. All the greatness of the United States -- as a bulwark for freedom, as a nation where great entrepreneurial effort can create wondrous things -- will go down the toilet, unless we address and solve this issue. And who can do it?

It isn't the Elizabeth Warrens of the world, that's for sure. Maybe the other side can't do it, either, but they at least have a shot.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Who gives a fuck if a couple of Republican senatorial candidates utter inanities about rape?

It's one thing if a few crackpots make comments about rape, but the VP? Jesus that was dumb.

[tenderman100]

(11-10-2012 02:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Who gives a fuck if a couple of Republican senatorial candidates utter inanities about rape?

It's one thing if a few crackpots make comments about rape, but the VP? Jesus that was dumb.

Yeah, it was dumb, but the same conclusion applies even for him.

The Democrats won't solve our fiscal problems.

[captaingeneric]

The cynic in me is actually quite happy the Democrats won the election. I see a lot of guys here defending the Republican/Anti-Democrat side in good faith, but lets not forget that the US economy is finished either way. Even the Republicans would likely not have saved this sinking ship.

So let the Democrats and those who voted for them hang themselves. Give them all the rope they need.

Better the collapse come under their watch than under ours.

[Samseau]

(11-10-2012 03:05 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-10-2012 02:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Who gives a fuck if a couple of Republican senatorial candidates utter inanities about rape?

It's one thing if a few crackpots make comments about rape, but the VP? Jesus that was dumb.

Yeah, it was dumb, but the same conclusion applies even for him.

The Democrats won't solve our fiscal problems.

Neither will the republicans.

I understand the democrats are dipshits, I really do, but why bother trying to defend the republicans? Both parties are trash!

[tenderman100]

(11-10-2012 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Neither will the republicans.

I understand the democrats are dipshits, I really do, but why bother trying to defend the republicans? Both parties are trash!

You're right, but at least they have shot.

[oldnemesis]

(11-10-2012 09:24 AM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

Lower-case "l" = libertarian, the ideology. Capital "L" = Libertarian the proper noun, aka the Libertarian Party. I was referring to the libertarian ideology, which is much, much broader than the party.

There seem to be no such things as single "libertarian ideology".

[oregonziggy]

I didn't see or hear anything from Republicans that gave me any hope they had a decent plan to help our fiscal issues. Not saying I heard anything from Democrats either. Did hear lots of moronic fighting back and forth. Like they were trying out for "Jerry Springer"
Women swayed the election big time. Every single women I know is a Democrat and they all said the same thing. Romney will try to take away our "rights" as women. Meaning everything from birth control, abortion, to pay in the workplace.

Seems in 2012 if you even hint at messing around with a women's "right" to use her vagina anyway she sees fit, you won't get her vote. LOL
Nothing else mattered to them.

[Jaydublin]

Just another example of people voting gifts for themselves

[oldnemesis]

(11-11-2012 03:49 PM)oregonziggy Wrote:  

Seems in 2012 if you even hint at messing around with a women's "right" to use her vagina anyway she sees fit, you won't get her vote. LOL

Well, let's be honest here. Would you vote for a dude who'd want to take away your rights? Like if he said he believes men should be paid less, not allowed vasectomy or pay a "childless tax" like the one we had back in Soviet Union? I guess you wouldn't vote for such candidate either.

[oregonziggy]

Hey I totally agreed with my women friends on that one. Just thought it was interesting how even hinting at messing with their vaginas helped sway an election.

[j r]

I'll go back to what I said earlier in this thread. Politocs is about convincing people that your policies are the right ones and that you're the right person to hold office, just like game is about building attraction with women and convincing them to bang you. If you fail in either of those things, you just sound like a whiner when you blame the people that you couldn't convince.

I know why women make less money than men, but I understand economics better than the average voter. Was there ever a point where Romney actually made a convincing argument as to why this happens? If he did, I didn't see it. I did see an awful lot of Republicans making stupid rape comments. Is it really that surprising that women didn't want to vote Republican?

This is how democracy works. You actually have to convince people that you're right. And women are 50+% of people. Republicans either need to learn to effectively communicate with women and minorities or get used to being the party of old white dudes. That's just real talk.

[46.]

(11-12-2012 11:53 AM)j r Wrote:  

I'll go back to what I said earlier in this thread. Politocs is about convincing people that your policies are the right ones

Is it really that surprising that women didn't want to vote Republican?

This is how democracy works. You actually have to convince people that you're right. And women are 50+% of people. Republicans either need to learn to effectively communicate with women and minorities or get used to being the party of old white dudes. That's just real talk.

lol

Said in Star Wars Emperor Voice:
"Yes, yes that's it. Use your hate. Use your hate GOP. Drive the women and latinos over to the democrats. Forever. Tell them. No abortions. Back to Mexico. Yes, yes that's it."

Back to 46 Voice:
I don't know why I donate to democrats when I should donate to republicans so more people (especially women and latinos) can hear their message. Thanks for handing us the election, even with 7.8 unemployment.

[iknowexactly]

(11-10-2012 03:52 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-10-2012 09:24 AM)RandalGraves Wrote:  

Lower-case "l" = libertarian, the ideology. Capital "L" = Libertarian the proper noun, aka the Libertarian Party. I was referring to the libertarian ideology, which is much, much broader than the party.

There seem to be no such things as single "libertarian ideology".

It is difficult to get people to understand the idea of "reification," which is confusing a vague, abstract concept with something concrete, and mutually verifiable and observable.

Abstract terms would include "libertarian ideology"; if you ask 20 different people, 20 different answers. There is no such objective thing.

However, a list of the Libertarian Party members in California might be something real, a computer file or printout that two people could both observe and copy. And there may be a book on policy, which will have specific positions, like "abolish the social security old-age pension system by 2015", and be objectively real things. ( And senior poverty woud be way up based on all economic logic I know of).

http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html

Abstract terms can be a practical necessity as shorthand when dealing with the world, for instance "overheating" when referring to a car without a specific temperature is still a useful concept: it can lead to examination of the radiator.

But when politicians use reification terms, it is not to communicate but often to obfuscate and manipulate.

Thus you have guys making $10/hr at Walmart voting for "conservatives" who want to give away the Social Security system to Wall Street; when those Walmart workers will desperately need that money later, and not have it stolen by Wall St. crooks. With bullshit abstraction like "small government" you can get people to act/vote against their own interests.

How many Germans really wanted German to end up like it did at the end of WW2?

Thus "conservatives " borrow trillions to start wars, a very reckless and un-conservative thing, and "liberals" forbid sex between students and professors, and very un-liberal constriction on a student's sex life.

That is why it is important to look at what politicians do as far as:

1) Who do they take money from, and how much ? Workers or oligarchs?

2) Who do they give it to, and how much ? Doctors or arms manufacturers?

These facts are somewhat verifiable in the USA ( who were checks made out to, how much taxes were collected) and help cut through the BS to what the politicians you judge actually want.

All the label abstractions are just noise, there to confuse you and make you vulnerable.

[teh_skeeze]

(11-12-2012 03:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Thus you have guys making $10/hr at Walmart voting for "conservatives" who want to give away the Social Security system to Wall Street; when those Walmart workers will desperately need that money later, and not have it stolen by Wall St. crooks. With bullshit abstraction like "small government" you can get people to act/vote against their own interests.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
-John Steinbeck

The poor are overwhelmingly stupid. Politicians know this and exploit it by scaring them with the boogeymen of welfare leeches in urban areas and shameless whores killing the white race through birth control and abortion (let's face it, politicians could give two shits if Shaniqua kills her baby). Since they are working, they don't see the point of government assistance. It doesn't matter if they don't even make a living wage.

[Hencredible Casanova]

I wasn't surprised at all that single women voted overwhelmingly in his favor. Though DC is overwhelmingly democratic, I have met girls there from all over the country. I usually drop this rapport question when I'm meeting up with them, "If you could have dinner with any famous person in the world, who would it be and why?" Nine times out of ten I get Barack or Michelle Obama.