Why Would Any Man Vote Democrat?
By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., and Dianna Thompson

Quote:The most presciently under-appreciated and intentionally ignored book in gender politics was published by David Paul Kuhn in 2007 and titled “The Neglected Voter: White Men and The Democratic Dilemma.” The message is in the title. White men have fled the Democratic Party in droves, for good reason – and why shouldn’t they continue to flee in 2014,— while keeping an eye on 2016?

For those not afraid of being “bullied” by the Democratic left, there are a half dozen long-ignored but critically important problems facing the nation’s males that should bring all voting-age men to the polls in 2014 – perhaps men’s last chance for hope and change before the ice age possibly returns in 2016. Consider six interlocking sets of issues.

First, ask what have the last two Democratic administrations done for boys, men and fathers? Because of “The Woman’s Vote” and his powerful feminist base, Democratic President Obama has given us a Cabinet-level White House Council on Women and Girls. Despite extensive and repeated calls for a gender equivalent White House Council on Men and Boys, Democratic President Obama has refused even to consider the multitude of problems facing males in today’s economy and society.

Second, family law reform. An inconvenient truth for the Family Law Sections of State Bar Associations and those living off the Domestic Violence Industry is that most children of divorce love both of their parents and do not want to be separated by law from either of them. If divorced fathers, second wives, moms and the voting-age children of divorce band together and make their demands known to candidates, 2015 may be the year of post-divorce Equal Shared Parenting and the elimination of Permanent Alimony.

Third, education. The boy-crisis deniers finally have been overwhelmed by raw statistical data. The most telling statistic is that in the 1960s men were awarded about 60 percent of all higher-education degrees, but today they are down to about 40 percent. Unsurprisingly, boys and men today fare worse on all indices of academic achievement and academic failure than do girls and women. Both hope and change are going to be required to reverse this trend and return the pendulum to the center.

Fourth, health. There are a multitude offices of women’s health spread throughout the federal bureaucracy. There are no offices of men’s health. Unsurprisingly, men top nine out of 10 of the leading causes of death and live about five years less than women.

Fifth, if men need any more reason to move out of their mother’s basements and get off their video games, they need look no further than “Affirmative Consent.” California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed SB 967, popularly known as the “yes means yes” affirmative consent for sex on campus bill, followed immediately by Democratic Gov. Cuomo who by fiat imposed affirmative consent on his university system – even though data show there is no “rape crisis” on the nation’s campuses.

The heart of the problem is that the affirmative consent movement gives total power, control and resources to women in all matters sexual while simultaneously denying all due process rights to the accused man in campus tribunals. The denial of due process includes the denial of: the presumption of innocence, an attorney, cross-examining your accuser and an evidentiary standard higher than a coin toss. College men who have been expelled with the Scarlet “R” affixed to their transcript have no future.

The differential impact of SB 967 on California’s sons and daughters is horrific and must be replaced by legislation that treats the nation’s sons and daughters equally.

Finally, consider the consequences for men of men not voting in 2014. Supposing that men leave everything up to “The Women’s Vote” in 2014, it would, of course, lead to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party gaining ground in both the House and Senate. Such an outcome would further grease the skids for the already enshrined leader of the pack for the Democratic presidential nomination – Hillary Clinton – with no clear leader of the pack on the Republican side.

Should Hillary win the presidency in 2016, would her primary concern be boys, men and fathers?

Not hardly.

Men and women who want the leaders of this country to be concerned about the issues facing all citizens (including the men and boys in their lives) might ask themselves – why vote Democrat in 2014?

(10-22-2014 10:41 AM)Renzy Wrote:  Why Would Any Man Vote Democrat?
By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., and Dianna Thompson

Quote:The most presciently under-appreciated and intentionally ignored book in gender politics was published by David Paul Kuhn in 2007 and titled “The Neglected Voter: White Men and The Democratic Dilemma.” The message is in the title. White men have fled the Democratic Party in droves, for good reason – and why shouldn’t they continue to flee in 2014,— while keeping an eye on 2016?

For those not afraid of being “bullied” by the Democratic left, there are a half dozen long-ignored but critically important problems facing the nation’s males that should bring all voting-age men to the polls in 2014 – perhaps men’s last chance for hope and change before the ice age possibly returns in 2016. Consider six interlocking sets of issues.

First, ask what have the last two Democratic administrations done for boys, men and fathers? Because of “The Woman’s Vote” and his powerful feminist base, Democratic President Obama has given us a Cabinet-level White House Council on Women and Girls. Despite extensive and repeated calls for a gender equivalent White House Council on Men and Boys, Democratic President Obama has refused even to consider the multitude of problems facing males in today’s economy and society.

Second, family law reform. An inconvenient truth for the Family Law Sections of State Bar Associations and those living off the Domestic Violence Industry is that most children of divorce love both of their parents and do not want to be separated by law from either of them. If divorced fathers, second wives, moms and the voting-age children of divorce band together and make their demands known to candidates, 2015 may be the year of post-divorce Equal Shared Parenting and the elimination of Permanent Alimony.

Third, education. The boy-crisis deniers finally have been overwhelmed by raw statistical data. The most telling statistic is that in the 1960s men were awarded about 60 percent of all higher-education degrees, but today they are down to about 40 percent. Unsurprisingly, boys and men today fare worse on all indices of academic achievement and academic failure than do girls and women. Both hope and change are going to be required to reverse this trend and return the pendulum to the center.

Fourth, health. There are a multitude offices of women’s health spread throughout the federal bureaucracy. There are no offices of men’s health. Unsurprisingly, men top nine out of 10 of the leading causes of death and live about five years less than women.

Fifth, if men need any more reason to move out of their mother’s basements and get off their video games, they need look no further than “Affirmative Consent.” California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed SB 967, popularly known as the “yes means yes” affirmative consent for sex on campus bill, followed immediately by Democratic Gov. Cuomo who by fiat imposed affirmative consent on his university system – even though data show there is no “rape crisis” on the nation’s campuses.

The heart of the problem is that the affirmative consent movement gives total power, control and resources to women in all matters sexual while simultaneously denying all due process rights to the accused man in campus tribunals. The denial of due process includes the denial of: the presumption of innocence, an attorney, cross-examining your accuser and an evidentiary standard higher than a coin toss. College men who have been expelled with the Scarlet “R” affixed to their transcript have no future.

The differential impact of SB 967 on California’s sons and daughters is horrific and must be replaced by legislation that treats the nation’s sons and daughters equally.

Finally, consider the consequences for men of men not voting in 2014. Supposing that men leave everything up to “The Women’s Vote” in 2014, it would, of course, lead to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party gaining ground in both the House and Senate. Such an outcome would further grease the skids for the already enshrined leader of the pack for the Democratic presidential nomination – Hillary Clinton – with no clear leader of the pack on the Republican side.

Should Hillary win the presidency in 2016, would her primary concern be boys, men and fathers?

Not hardly.

Men and women who want the leaders of this country to be concerned about the issues facing all citizens (including the men and boys in their lives) might ask themselves – why vote Democrat in 2014?

Why would any man vote Republican? They're just Democrat-lite, the party of enablers and white knights. Things didn't suddenly go to shit in 2008. This has been a long time building, regardless of who the president has been, who has controlled Congress, or who has sat on the Supreme Court. The system is indeed screwed up, but the Republicans and the entire apparatus of support for them are simply what keep the gullible coming back for more so that the system has legitimacy.

Because if Republicans sweep both the House and the Senate this year, and if they sweep the presidency in 2016, that will make everything just peachy, right? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

No, the Democrats need to get complete control so they can fully run amok unopposed. That is the only way that the scales will really fall from the eyes of men such that they finally rebel, drop out, or flee to greener pastures.

I don't know if political parties have theme songs, but they should definitely play this one at the next Republican National Convention:

There are a LOT of boomers on Social Security. They vote to get their money every month. Same for any other type of welfare/entitlement hoarder. They are actually anti-consumers, and anti-business. Most I've met hoard their money rather than spend it and any politician (as certainly is the case here in Canada) will vote OUT the one who mentions the R word.

(Reform)

I voted for a Democrat one time. He was a local 90-something-year-old tax collector who wasn't all that political and had the job for decades. His own party was trying to oust him from the position partly due to his age but I think they also wanted to replace him with a younger guy who toed the modern party line.

I would never vote for any other Democrat. Never.

Here's the thing, though: what have Republicans done for men lately? They ran up the debt under Bush, unnecessarily took us to war in Iraq, and are just less bad than the Democrats. They both were instrumental in setting up the police state we're facing and perverting justice.

Not to mention so many of their politicians are mealy-mouthed pussies on issues that actually matter. They're good at blocking things but seemingly have little interest in trying to reverse terrible shit passed by the Dems.

They may not be the enemy in all things like the Dems usually are, but they aren't particularly helpful either.

Since I live in FL, on November 4th I'm faced with the choice of Governor Skeletor McThievery (Scott) and Former Governor Sociopath Closet Homo (Crist) who is the most transparent scumbag politician in the country.

I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for the current guy and I'd rather cut my right pinky off than vote for Crist.

I don't know what the solution is besides trying to take over the Republican Party through primaries, if that's even possible.

(10-22-2014 11:53 AM)Soothesayer Wrote:  There are a LOT of boomers on Social Security. They vote to get their money every month. Same for any other type of welfare/entitlement hoarder. They are actually anti-consumers, and anti-business. Most I've met hoard their money rather than spend it and any politician (as certainly is the case here in Canada) will vote OUT the one who mentions the R word.

(Reform)

Yes, the nerve of these people who worked and paid into the social security system their entire lives to actually want some of their money back now that they're old and can't work anymore.

Congress/Parliaments should be allocated more of this money to spend on finding more non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to pay their salaries while voting to repeal Obamacare for the 4718th time.

Why would any man vote?

Since vote was given to women, men should boicot this charade.

Lots of men vote Democrat because they're union members and want to preserve collective bargaining.

As for Republicans they are a different party since the Neo-Cons took over, the entire Bush admin were Neo-Cons and they still have power. Seems like Tea Party and Rand Paul conservatism is on the rise though, which historically probably is more what the Republican party has been about.

Neo-cons are not conservatives, they are leftists who didn't see a platform for military intervention in the post Vietnam War democratic party.

Quote:The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.[2]

Many neoconservatives had been leftist during the 1930s and 1940s, when they opposed Stalinism. After World War II, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were from the Jewish[30] intellectual milieu of New York City.[31]

In other words, war mongering cultural-marxists who couldn't see an interventionist military policy in the Middle East in the Democratic party, so they jumped ship to the Republican party and began working on linking interventionist policy in the ME and Israel as the Holy Country to win over the historically apolitical Christian right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Thankfully it seems like the neo-con's influence on the American right is waning.

(10-22-2014 01:55 PM)Stun Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:53 AM)Soothesayer Wrote:  There are a LOT of boomers on Social Security. They vote to get their money every month. Same for any other type of welfare/entitlement hoarder. They are actually anti-consumers, and anti-business. Most I've met hoard their money rather than spend it and any politician (as certainly is the case here in Canada) will vote OUT the one who mentions the R word.

(Reform)

Yes, the nerve of these people who worked and paid into the social security system their entire lives to actually want some of their money back now that they're old and can't work anymore.

Congress/Parliaments should be allocated more of this money to spend on finding more non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to pay their salaries while voting to repeal Obamacare for the 4718th time.

I don't judge the eldery for wanting financial sustanance or retired public sector workers wanting pensions promised to them.

However, the economic model has to collapse at some point - witness the widespread destruction of manufacturing jobs, rising unemployment and/or transition from full-time to part-time work for vast segments of the population, diminishing worker base, rapidly increasing ageing population, rising health care costs, diminishing tax base, outsourcing of corporate tax profits, ballooning debt...

There is not enough money to cover the liabilities promised by govt. Not just in the US, most Western nations.

See: 2012 GOP Presidential candidates.

Seriously, I'm no fan of the Dems, but the GOP is a joke at the moment and the Tea Party is the retarded cousin.

I'd vote for this Democrat (if he was real):

I didn't vote either party in the last election, or in 2008, but I would have voted Democrat if I had to choose.

Health care is the main reason. Lo and behold, more people now have access to healthcare. That is Obama's greatest accomplishment domestically. We are now one step closer to the standard of every other civilized country in the world, and one step further away from looking like the third world.

I also believe in gun control. Every civilized country provides the example, again.

I am anti-war. Well, that one didn't go so hot. Seems like every American President is just dedicated to invading a country or two and remotely bombing about 20-30 countries. Sad.

I believe in funding our public education system instead of gutting it. Our system isn't perfect, and no system is, but gutting our educational funding like Republicans have been clamoring to do is a great way to take places with bad education systems and make them worse.

I also believe in Unions as a powerful voice for the people. Corporations are organizations representing the interests of capital. Unions are organizations representing the interests of labor. I think both are important. Having capital organized and labor unorganized leads to one-sided deals. As is evidenced by the falling wages in the U.S. correlating with the decline of unions.

I believe in protecting the environment, and do not believe oil company propaganda that global warming is a farce. Again, every other civilized country in the world is on board with this.

I wanted to close Guantanamo, as Obama said he would. If they were dangerous criminals, try them, if not free them, don't just leave people there indefinitely. Obama has somehow managed to keep it open while freeing people who were clearly terrorists. He couldn't have tried them and imprisioned them for having committed actual crimes? I don't get that...

I was against the Patriot Act, passed under Bush, but obviously with a lot of support from Democrats. They haven't done anything against it...

I believe Obama's banking reforms were also a step in the right direction, wall street nearly sunk the global economy and expects to be pampered and bowed down to. Fuck them. They deserve more heavy regulation, taxes, etc.

(10-22-2014 05:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I didn't vote either party in the last election, or in 2008, but I would have voted Democrat if I had to choose.

Health care is the main reason. Lo and behold, more people now have access to healthcare. That is Obama's greatest accomplishment domestically. We are now one step closer to the standard of every other civilized country in the world, and one step further away from looking like the third world.

I also believe in gun control. Every civilized country provides the example, again.

I am anti-war. Well, that one didn't go so hot. Seems like every American President is just dedicated to invading a country or two and remotely bombing about 20-30 countries. Sad.

I believe in funding our public education system instead of gutting it. Our system isn't perfect, and no system is, but gutting our educational funding like Republicans have been clamoring to do is a great way to take places with bad education systems and make them worse.

I also believe in Unions as a powerful voice for the people. Corporations are organizations representing the interests of capital. Unions are organizations representing the interests of labor. I think both are important. Having capital organized and labor unorganized leads to one-sided deals. As is evidenced by the falling wages in the U.S. correlating with the decline of unions.

I believe in protecting the environment, and do not believe oil company propaganda that global warming is a farce. Again, every other civilized country in the world is on board with this.

I wanted to close Guantanamo, as Obama said he would. If they were dangerous criminals, try them, if not free them, don't just leave people there indefinitely. Obama has somehow managed to keep it open while freeing people who were clearly terrorists. He couldn't have tried them and imprisioned them for having committed actual crimes? I don't get that...

I was against the Patriot Act, passed under Bush, but obviously with a lot of support from Democrats. They haven't done anything against it...

I believe Obama's banking reforms were also a step in the right direction, wall street nearly sunk the global economy and expects to be pampered and bowed down to. Fuck them. They deserve more heavy regulation, taxes, etc.

Only a few million more have healthcare now than had healthcare before Obamacare. This is before the expected high increases over the next five years due to the 2,700 page disater having increased taxes and regulations. When it is said and done, if there are more insured, they will be on shitty medicaid and will recieve bad healthcare, while the rest of us pay more and more for subpar healthcare.

Obamacare will go down as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written. It has already caused many companies to turn full time employees into part time employees to get around the 30 hour mandate and the results can be seen in the dismal average house hold income.

At best Obamacare was a really bad attempt at fixing healthcare and will eventually be defunded. At worst it was written to fail on purpose, push us into social healthcare, and the entire world will suffer greatly as a result. Most medical inventions and advancements come from the USA because we don't have a socialist healthcare system. There is money to be made here. When that is gone, so are most advances in medical care.

Gun control has been a failure all over the USA. Chicago, Detroit, DC, on and on. The criminals don't follow laws, why in the world would they not use a gun for fear of breaking a law. It only makes the average person more vulnerable.

It is the Democrats that are against the vouchers program because it would hurt the Feminist NWO and the Teacher's Unions. Republicans are for vouchers because it allows more poor students who do want to learn a chance to get into better schools they cannot afford. No amount of money will make areas full of bad parents have good schools. But vouchers will give the kids in bad areas a chance to get out, rather than be stuck there.

Yes, a report today just said that 3 of the 5 Obama traded for Bergdahl have already gotten into contact with the Taliban.

The Democrats took the Patriot Act and put it on steroids. NIA and the NDAA make the Patriot Act look like a blip on the radar.

Obama's banking reforms rewarded the big banks and punished small banks with regulations. At least it was an attempt, but he would have been best to just reinstate Glass Stegall and leave his new ideas out of it.

(10-22-2014 12:18 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I would never vote for any other Democrat. Never.

Here's the thing, though: what have Republicans done for men lately?

I appreciate you trying to be fair about it. Respect.

I haven't voted at all for years. Democrats want to tax me to fed the welfare mommas and take away my only means of defense in an area of 1/2 hour+ police response, Republicans want to make me a father if I accidentally knock up some skank and let BP clean up an oil spill by dumping a few gallons of dish soap on it.

(10-22-2014 05:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I also believe in gun control. Every civilized country provides the example, again.

Fear of an inanimate object is not a masculine trait. When was the last time you saw on the "Manly thing you did today" thread - "I practiced quick-drawing my pepper spray"?


Also, no country has ever seen a reduction in homicide rates as a result of any gun control measure. In England rates continued to rise for years after an outright ban, while the expiration of the US ban on "assault weapons" and the sale of some 2 million of them over the past decade has coincided with a steady decline in homicides.

Why would anyone vote?

Same people two "different" parties.

You really think the sheeple can change things by voting. Lol

America doesn't have a gun problem. It has a Drug War problem.

Wanting to give our oh-so-trustworthy government more power to restrict the civilian population from owning guns to somehow tackle the crime problem makes no sense.

The cops don't have to protect you, the NSA spies, the government lies. But sure, let's give politicians more power to control who can buy guns.

Brilliant.

Why would any man vote democrat?

Because the last thing I want is to be ruled by a bunch of war mongering neo-con Republicans.

Worse yet, Rand Paul.

(10-22-2014 10:41 AM)Renzy Wrote:  If divorced fathers, second wives, moms and the voting-age children of divorce band together and make their demands known to candidates, 2015 may be the year of post-divorce Equal Shared Parenting and the elimination of Permanent Alimony.

as long as the majority of politicans are lawyers, beholden on the left to the trial law lobby and on the right to the social con notion that women are delicate snowflakes in need of the helping hand of government, this is a pipe dream.

there will always be men who vote Democrat. particularly the blue collar types have been a strong and reliable base. I think given the extended economic effects on blue collar men you will see a retrenching in support during this election cycle, but the idea that it's a permanent demographic change is fallacy.

(10-22-2014 05:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Health care is the main reason. Lo and behold, more people now have access to healthcare. That is Obama's greatest accomplishment domestically.

Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At what cost?

(10-22-2014 05:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I didn't vote either party in the last election, or in 2008, but I would have voted Democrat if I had to choose.

Health care is the main reason. Lo and behold, more people now have access to healthcare. That is Obama's greatest accomplishment domestically. We are now one step closer to the standard of every other civilized country in the world, and one step further away from looking like the third world.

That's all fine and dandy, but how are you going to fund it? How are you going to deal with an obesity epidemic and other lifestyle related illnesses, or the massive costs of geriatric health care that are increasing exponentially as life expectancy increases? What is even worse is that there is a high correlation between people leading highly unhealthy lifestyles that drain the public purse and people who do not pay any taxes.

Quote:I also believe in gun control. Every civilized country provides the example, again.

I also believe in controlling the wheel, bronze smelting, animal husbandry, the wheelbarrow, the printing press and the internet. Not sure what the hell I'm on about? Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed. The guy has made, amongst other things, a functioning 3D-printed pistol. He put the plans on the internet. In the 24 hours before the government made him take them down, 100,000 people had downloaded the plans. 3D printing technology is only going to improve. The horse has bolted; gun control is a complete non-issue now.

As for civilised countries, let me ask you this: take all of the white, middle class gun owning "nuts" -- I'm talking about the grossest caricature of some redneck dudes riding around in a pick up truck with a Confederate flag on it firing guns into the air and shouting "Yeehaw!" before driving back to deliver another 500lbs of freeze-dried bacon and 20 ounces of gold to their underground bunkers -- and total their number of kills; now take all of the numbers of people killed by governments. Which is higher, and by what factor? Yes, citizens should definitely be disarmed against the good guys of the state. Relax, the government is there to help.

Quote:I believe in funding our public education system instead of gutting it. Our system isn't perfect, and no system is, but gutting our educational funding like Republicans have been clamoring to do is a great way to take places with bad education systems and make them worse.

This one again. I've worked in public education systems in three countries. The sheer amount of waste I have seen is mind boggling. Sometimes, it's the staff. Sometimes, it's the kids/parents. I've seen a computer lab with half the power sockets kicked in. Is funding the solution there or might it be something else? Perhaps that school's dismal outcomes are the result of a lack of funding. I propose they build a computer lab twice the size so that the kids have twice as many power sockets to kick in!

The two single greatest things that could be done to improve the education system would be a massive purge of cultural Marxism and allowing parents who do actually care about their children's educations to withdraw them from the company of their feral classmates and teachers. That's not really an issue of lack of funding.

Quote:I also believe in Unions as a powerful voice for the people. Corporations are organizations representing the interests of capital. Unions are organizations representing the interests of labor. I think both are important. Having capital organized and labor unorganized leads to one-sided deals. As is evidenced by the falling wages in the U.S. correlating with the decline of unions.

I do think that people should be able to organise themselves, though such organisations shouldn't be able to lobby government, and they also shouldn't be allowed to enforce "no ticket, no work" rules on others.

That said, the decline of American wages is multi-causal. At the same time that union membership was declining, huge numbers of cheap labourers were coming onto the world market in the developing world. There are really only two ways to compete with such a situation. The first is/would have been for American workers to get into niche fields that required higher levels of skills or education. Of course, that hasn't happened (enough) for a whole lot of reasons. The other solution is full-blown protectionism, which is something that has never ended well in history. At the end of the day, it's nonsensical to complain about the decline in wages without noting that consumers obviously wanted cheap goods rather than to support local industry, despite the higher prices. You can't have your cake and eat it too, though.

Quote:I believe in protecting the environment, and do not believe oil company propaganda that global warming is a farce. Again, every other civilized country in the world is on board with this.

Are they, and what if they are? Frankly, who gives a shit if Denmark or New Zealand are on board with this if countries such as China, India, Indonesia (many of them with swelling middle classes and population growth) aren't? You and every other American, nay Westerner, could reduce your carbon footprint to zero tomorrow and it would be completely offset by what's happening, and is going to happen over coming decades, in the developing world.

Quote:I believe Obama's banking reforms were also a step in the right direction, wall street nearly sunk the global economy and expects to be pampered and bowed down to. Fuck them. They deserve more heavy regulation, taxes, etc.

Wall Street nearly sank the economy, so they were punished by big bail outs. Yeah, that makes sense. Six years later and the world is staring down the barrel of not one Fed-induced asset bubble, but multiple bubbles. This is like deja vu on steroids. Of course, when it all inevitably goes to shit, people will double down yet again and demand more government intervention, i.e. not one fox guarding the hen house, but two foxes.

The real issues that need to be addressed are the completely unaccountable legions of people like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Timothy Geithner, their minions and all of their wacky funny money decisions that create all sorts of perverse incentives. Whilst we're at it, the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington needs to be closed. Fractional reserve banking and fiat currencies need to be addressed also.

None of any of those issues are going to be addressed under either a Republican or a Democrat.

(10-22-2014 07:19 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Why would any man vote democrat?

Because the last thing I want is to be ruled by a bunch of war mongering neo-con Republicans.

Worse yet, Rand Paul.

You think small govt. Rand Paul is worse than feminist loser N.O.W. Democrats?

BTW, the Democrats have done an excellent job of one upping Bush's war mongering.

How any heterosexual male could vote for a Democrat is beyond me. You're feeding into and supporting everything this forum and the manosphere stands against.

Economic policy and foreign policy can both be easily reversed. Restructuring the social fabric of the West (unchecked feminism, equalism, etc.) is permanent and fatal. By voting Democrat, you're subsidizing the Jezebel crowd, the "yes means yes" crowd, the SJW crowd, etc.

Disagreeing with a Republican alternative isn't a good enough excuse for supporting those things.

(10-23-2014 04:09 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  How any heterosexual male could vote for a Democrat is beyond me. You're feeding into and supporting everything this forum and the manosphere stands against.

Economic policy and foreign policy can both be easily reversed. Restructuring the social fabric of the West (unchecked feminism, equalism, etc.) is permanent and fatal. By voting Democrat, you're subsidizing the Jezebel crowd, the "yes means yes" crowd, the SJW crowd, etc.

Disagreeing with a Republican alternative isn't a good enough excuse for supporting those things.

Exactly. And the only thing the Democrats had left going for them...

- Anti-Patriot Act
- No War Mongering

They have not only destroyed in the last 6 years, they have done the same as Republicans but on steroids and HGH.

If you are not a welfare recipient, which would be a miserable life, or a govt. crony who thinks that magically bankrupting the country to pay your bloated salary for a few years is a good trade off, then there is no reason to vote Democrat. If you don't like Republicans, fine, vote 3rd party or don't vote.

I'm speaking about Croatia here, but since the left hasn't produced economic results any better than the right (there is less corruption, but so much staggering incompetence), while it is pushing absolutely disgusting and uncivilized misandry on everyone, I have decided that I will never vote for a left or left-associated party again. I will either not vote at all, or vote for some right party if they don't look like they're going to steal too much.

Some short-haired tattooed bitch enabling any woman to put me into jail and confiscate my family's belongings just on the basis of her word is far more offending than a politician just stealing something. The latter is greed; the former is hatred.

(10-23-2014 05:04 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I'm speaking about Croatia here, but since the left hasn't produced economic results any better than the right (there is less corruption, but so much staggering incompetence), while it is pushing absolutely disgusting and uncivilized misandry on everyone, I have decided that I will never vote for a left or left-associated party again. I will either not vote at all, or vote for some right party if they don't look like they're going to steal too much.

Some short-haired tattooed bitch enabling any woman to put me into jail and confiscate my family's belongings just on the basis of her word is far more offending than a politician just stealing something. The latter is greed; the former is hatred.

Leftist politics, whatever it is called/level it is pushed, and in the USA the Democrats are the leftists, is heavily dependent upon feminism.

If women are happily married with families and husbands they love, the left has little to no chance. Their husbands keep them safe and happy, and in return the men are satisfied.

If women are single mothers, or career minded, then the left will do better. These women deep down know they need men, but at the same time their head is pumped with "independent woman", so they vote in the leftist political party that will take men's resources behind the barrel of a gun and give them to women and the only thing the women have to give back is to keep voting further left.

Now women are the majority of voters in the USA by a pretty large % 54% to 46% in the USA, the Democrats will push more and more anti-male policies to grow this huge voter base.