Why are you a Republican or Democrat?

[Deleted]

As do many other politicians. As a gay person myself, I have no issue with this. Twenty years ago you couldn't win elections being pro marriage equality. If you want to do good as a politician, you sometimes I have to posture yourself in a way you represent the voters.

Hillary is very good at that ^_______________________________________^

[NineSpine]

Nope I cannot, because I don't know every single thing she said and changed her mind on

Yeah, Hillary Clinton is a massive hypcorite, liar, warmonger, disaster of a human being. I don't like her either. You said the Democrats have moved to the left and now you seem desperate to not have to back that.

[Deleted]

Yeah, Hillary Clinton is a massive hypcorite, liar, warmonger, disaster of a human being. I don't like her either. You said the Democrats have moved to the left and now you seem desperate to not have to back that.

Would you consider Bernie Sanders to be left?

[Height]

Hillary is very good at that ^_______________________________________^

Yep, all politicians do it. Trump does it too. It's pretty much required if you want to win. Being a politician is in part an act. If you want to do good for people you have to put on a face that might not be your own.

[NineSpine]

Would you consider Bernie Sanders to be left?

Yes, and isn't it telling that he only became a Democrat to run in the presidency, and the party then attempted to destroy him for being too far left.

[Deleted]

Yep, all politicians do it. Trump does it too. It's pretty much required if you want to win. Being a politician is in part an act. If you want to do good for people you have to put on a face that might not be your own.

It seems to be very amplified in the US. Shows like House of Cards and political election movies seem to capture it quite well it seems haha

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and isn't it telling that he only became a Democrat to run in the presidency, and the party then attempted to destroy him for being too far left.

If what you say is true then you are right.

I didn't know exactly why Bernie had no chance. When I looked at the news it said "Bernie Sanders wins this state and that state and democrat voters love him" but now Hillary is running for presidency. Very confusing as to why exactly. Super delegates I've heard of. Weird system ^^

[Height]

I liked Bernie. I thought he was more genuine than Hillary, but he was a bit further left than what I'd care for. Some of the stuff he says wouldn't get through congress anyway, but he had to say those things to excite people. Again posturing, but I think he's a good guy. Way better than Trump or Hillary.

[THE Bigzoman]

Lol they didn't bitch and moan back in the day because they understood how they were privileged to not have to work in the coal mines, go to war, do all the hard nasty jobs that men do and still do today. Women do it today because they are tired from working all day and told how hard they have it and at the same time society kisses their ass and gives them all they want.

No they complained back in the day, i'm sure.



If anything, some enjoy work. I've seen so many "I worked 6 hours" as an excuse to not clean and shit.

Used to piss me and my roomate off when we put in 12 hours working at a casino.

[Height]

Hillary won because she had more votes. The older democrat demographic tended to like Hillary more. 35+ esque people. They also tend to vote more than the younglings. Haha. Bernie did great though, and the country is likely going to move more left as the millenial generation ages. She did win fair and square no matter how much the tin foil hat people would like you to believe.

[ITER]

No they complained back in the day, i'm sure.



If anything, some enjoy work. I've seen so many "I worked 6 hours" as an excuse to not clean and shit.

Used to piss me and my roomate off when we put in 12 hours working at a casino.

Of course everyone complains, but not about how hard they have it. More like the kids did something or this or that. Actually things to vent about. Not the "Im oppressed because some guy said hi to me and i didn't think he was hot and that i don't make as much money as bob because I'm discriminated (even though its illegal with a law passed in 1963)" crap or I had to make coffee at starbucks for a couple hours because i got a useless degree!

[Vynestra]

Because I believe everyone, male female, white black latino asian, straight or LGBT, rich or poor should all have the same priveleges and the same rights. And that's why i'm a democrat. I'm gay myself, and I just can't support a party or person who believes I shouldn't have the same rights as them, or that because of religion they should be able to deny me from entering stores or places. It's just wrong on a morale level.

I also believe the wealthy should pay their fair share. And I also hate the fear mongering and hatred that the republicans always use to win elections, i've seen it since 2000 when I was little, the fear tactics republicans used, the fear tactics they used in 04 to get re-elected, it's shameful.

[Sury]

And all of you are so damn sure that if they didn't we would all go to hell from an economical stand point. Could it be that if they stopped working, wages would rise (because less people so businesses would have to compete to gain workers) and men could be the sole breadwinner and standard of living wouldn't change. Why are you all so damn sure that wouldn't happen?

Explain to me how they are more complex then I want to realize.

Who says it is? Some news person? Some academic that I can't trust to not be biased?

Frankly, you are asking a question about a completely implausible scenario. Your tirade thus far is based on some sort of romanticized idea that nuclear families becoming the normality in America again is even remotely a practical solution to your perceived problem of familial culture in America. You have convinced yourself it is a fix to that perceived problem.

What I find fascinating about your entire argument is how feminism was by in large responsible for the forced indoctrination which led to the destruction of that familial unit. The interesting thing is the fact that prior to that calamity it was her family, friends, and especially parents who from a young age were the ones instilling the notion she needed to find a good husband and have a family in order to demonstrate their value as a woman by reproducing.

Sorry I have no useful answer to your hypothetical question.

Just to be clear I never said you did not realize the complexity of current social issues in American. I simply pointed out the fact you used monetary limitation as a reason woman today could not afford to have more children, when Genn made the valid point that monetary reasons is largely why woman need work in the first place. The issue is more complex than regressing back to an implausible solution in today's cultural and economical climate.

[mopkins]

I'm independent but socially left. I don't get the Republicans weird obsession with gay marriage and bathrooms. It's both fascinating and disturbing.

[ITER]

Frankly, you are asking a question about a completely implausible scenario. Your tirade thus far is based on some sort of romanticized idea that nuclear families becoming the normality in America again is even remotely a practical solution to your perceived problem of familial culture in America. You have convinced yourself it is a fix to that perceived problem.

It worked before you assume it can't work again because what we are doing right now is so good. I find it funny that you think and anyone else I have talked think we can reach this utopia of multiculturalism and equality. We have been trying that for decades all it has done is gotten people blown up and made people more unhappy with lower standards of living. You say my idea can't work, even though it worked before. Then what do you suggest we do?

What I find fascinating about your entire argument is how feminism was by in large responsible for the forced indoctrination which led to the destruction of that familial unit. The interesting thing is the fact that prior to that calamity it was her family, friends, and especially parents who from a young age were the ones instilling the notion she needed to find a good husband and have a family in order to demonstrate their value as a woman by reproducing.

Whats your point? Before feminism society promoted women to do their biological role and men to do theirs. Then feminism said "no, no, no the genders are not different anyone can be anything!" and society has become less happy, less stable, social of living has gone down, etc. since that point. All of you here are like no feminism has done nothing wrong! It couldn't be that it has to be inflation! Except for the fact women started entering the workforce before inflation become high. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi
This says inflation is roughly close to zero in the early to late 60s.

Yet here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9013.pdf
Figure 1:

Says that female employment was still rising and rose steadily before inflation spiked. You would think it would have massive jumps if it was inflation related. Also it looks like men's work force went down during that time because women took those jobs. I wonder if women didn't take those jobs would wages have gone up and things have stayed the same.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/wom...gs-in-2014.htm

This also says women's earnings have gone up even based on inflation. I wonder if men's wages wouldn't have plummeted if women didn't flood the market keeping men's wages stagnant or decreasing.

According to you all I am an idiot when it comes to economic things so hey maybe I am reading these wrong. You all say it was only inflation and things were going to change. Maybe but I can't see how inflation stay close to zero and women started entering the work force because of a near zero inflation rate.

Sorry I have no useful answer to your hypothetical question.

Just to be clear I never said you did not realize the complexity of current social issues in American. I simply pointed out the fact you used monetary limitation as a reason woman today could not afford to have more children, when Genn made the valid point that monetary reasons is largely why woman need work in the first place. The issue is more complex than regressing back to an implausible solution in today's cultural and economical climate.

You actually did say that...
Glenn said they went into the workplace to gain more money for children they weren't having...birthrate peaked in 1963 many years before the mass inflation that supposedly was its cause. 2nd wave feminism started in 1961 and gained momentum in 1963...

[cubby]

I think your post left out a third choice - Trumper. Seems the real Republicans want nothing to do with Trump.

I side Democrat.

[Sury]

It worked before you assume it can't work again because what we are doing right now is so good. I find it funny that you think and anyone else I have talked think we can reach this utopia of multiculturalism and equality. We have been trying that for decades all it has done is gotten people blown up and made people more unhappy with lower standards of living. You say my idea can't work, even though it worked before. Then what do you suggest we do?

First, I never said anything about utopia or multiculturalism being this perfect solution. We are people who are capable of unspeakably atrocious acts. Second, it is not about trying something. It is about woman making their own choices in a society built on freedom of choice. Your idea is not a plausible one because it is outdated. To continue promoting it in no way attempts to accomplishing meaningful improvement in American culture. I have no problem with familial dynamics in 2016 so I have zero need to find a solution for it.

Whats your point? Before feminism society promoted women to do their biological role and men to do theirs. Then feminism said "no, no, no the genders are not different anyone can be anything!" and society has become less happy, less stable, social of living has gone down, etc. since that point. All of you here are like no feminism has done nothing wrong! It couldn't be that it has to be inflation! Except for the fact women started entering the workforce before inflation become

My point is very simple. You can not have it both ways. You can not complain about feminist convincing women to abstain from childbearing while at the same time promote other individuals to convince them to do so. It is their choice to make and should be done void of outside influence otherwise your stance is hypocritical.

According to you all I am an idiot when it comes to economic things so hey maybe I am reading these wrong. You all say it was only inflation and things were going to change.

Quote were I said you were an idiot. If you can not do not imply that I did. One more time, I simply pointed out there are fiscal reasons woman work today which do not apply to the evidence you present from a time previous to right now in American culture. I do not care why woman want to work or even if they have to or not. If they make that choice good for them. If they do not great as well as long as they are happy with their decision.

You actually did say that...
Glenn said they went into the workplace to gain more money for children they weren't having...birthrate peaked in 1963 many years before the mass inflation that supposedly was its cause. 2nd wave feminism started in 1961 and gained momentum in 1963...

First, it is Genn not Glenn. Second, I think you are mixing up your conversations at this point. Third, to be very clear I in no way stated you did not understand the complexity of social issues. Quote the post where I did. Forth, I really really do not care about feminism. I want to be very clear about that. All I care about is woman should make their own choices regardless of what that choice may be. If they choose to stay at home and have a bunch of kids great. If they want to work instead, great. If they choose work and have children I am 100% fine with that as well.


-edit


I want to add one thing as well. I am not a liberal let alone a bleeding heart one. If you choose to reply realize it is not a liberal you are responding to but rather a pragmatist.

[Deleted]

Now when I think of it, both dems and reps are so dividesd with themselves right now, you vant look at them as just 2 entities. The republica party may be gay in its core, but its the Trump wing that leads- and with whatever Trump supporter I have spoken live or on the internet- the protection of gay rights was universaly held high.

Hell, the most "I dont agree with you but I will protect you" stuff I read was from that evil Bretbart site- probably the most wonderful commemts on gay rights, even before Orlando

Sick and tired of being called a homophobe amd racist for supporting Trump when I myself hold gay rights high and voted for gay marriage on the croatian refferendum

[glistermans]

i feel like my party changes every four years. every election.

[ITER]

First, I never said anything about utopia or multiculturalism being this perfect solution. We are people who are capable of unspeakably atrocious acts. Second, it is not about trying something. It is about woman making their own choices in a society built on freedom of choice. Your idea is not a plausible one because it is outdated. To continue promoting it in no way attempts to accomplishing meaningful improvement in American culture. I have no problem with familial dynamics in 2016 so I have zero need to find a solution for it.

If you don't think we should change things in this country than you believe in multiculturalism and all that stuff that goes along with it. Thats what our policies are promoting. Women have always had choices. Many choose to be mothers because that was the easiest thing to do and what made them happy. Women weren't chained to the stove, pregnant, and barefoot even if thats what the left claims. Who decided it is outdated? Western culture was structured a certain way for 100s of years and we moved forward. We changed it because some people thought it was wrong. What have we gained for it?
Well I have a problem with it, so do many people. Don't dismiss a problem because it doesn't effect you. Thats why so many people are pissed off in this country.

My point is very simple. You can not have it both ways. You can not complain about feminist convincing women to abstain from childbearing while at the same time promote other individuals to convince them to do so. It is their choice to make and should be done void of outside influence otherwise your stance is hypocritical.

They would choose motherhood and to be stay at home moms if they weren't being told by the mass media and their communities to go get a job and to be "independent." You wouldn't have to say anything they would do it themselves. Its in their DNA just like its in male's DNA to provide and protect. You suggest you can raise children without any influence. I am saying they want to be moms when they grow up because its natural so promote the natural thing to do because they were going to do it anyways.

Quote were I said you were an idiot. If you can not do not imply that I did. One more time, I simply pointed out there are fiscal reasons woman work today which do not apply to the evidence you present from a time previous to right now in American culture. I do not care why woman want to work or even if they have to or not. If they make that choice good for them. If they do not great as well as long as they are happy with their decision.

Never said I was an idiot but you implied it by suggesting I couldn't grasp a simple concept.

Do you really not understand the fact woman work more so than not in order to maintain financial viability?

I understand the concept I just don't agree that this is the sole reason why women choose to work because I have seen countless families survive on one bread winner. They were just fine because they were wise financially and didn't spend money on useless crap. No to answer your next question they weren't wealthy. They were middle to lower middle class families. They just understood luxuries are not necessities.

Everyone keeps claiming that. Sure I agree thats part of it but I keep saying hey why don't we try to make the changes to see if we can go back to that because I am not convinced we can't. I would prefer that time because all these "progressive" ideas have made my life worse and those I care about worse. So I don't give two-shits if people say my preference for a society is backwards. Well to me the progressive ideas are backwards and outdated and I am perfectly willing to roll the dice and try to go back there instead of going on this society suicide path the left has us on.

First, it is Genn not Glenn. Second, I think you are mixing up your conversations at this point. Third, to be very clear I in no way stated you did not understand the complexity of social issues. Quote the post where I did. Forth, I really really do not care about feminism. I want to be very clear about that. All I care about is woman should make their own choices regardless of what that choice may be. If they choose to stay at home and have a bunch of kids great. If they have a child I am 100% fine with that as well.

First I don't care. He started disrespecting me so I am not going to respect him. Probably because I apparently woke up a hornet's nest with my "evil" and "ridiculous" ideas.

You might not care about feminism but it has negatively impacted my life and if you start digging around it has made both boys and men's life worse. You may not care about men and boys. But I do because unlike most feminist and progressive I actually believe in equality. The equality of opportunity, not the equally of outcome which is what feminist, progressives, and the identity politics of the left believe.

- - - Updated - - -

I want to add one thing as well. I am not a liberal let alone a bleeding heart one. If you choose to reply realize it is not a liberal you are responding to but rather a pragmatist.

You maybe a pragmatist but if you support the status quo I just lump you in with the left wing. My life has been made worse by left wing ideas. I want to go back before they had their social experiment. It might not be possible but I would rather try then continue this path we are on.

[Sury]

If you don't think we should change things in this country than you believe in multiculturalism and all that stuff that goes along with it. Thats what our policies are promoting.

We could make plenty of positive changes in this country. I just happen to view the change you have suggested thus far in this thread to simply be incompatible with the current cultural trend of not only America but many if not most of every modern nation on Earth. The fact you want to regress is really just wishful thinking at this point.

Women have always had choices. Many choose to be mothers because that was the easiest thing to do and what made them happy. Women weren't chained to the stove, pregnant, and barefoot even if thats what the left claims. Who decided it is outdated? Western culture was structured a certain way for 100s of years and we moved forward.

Women did.

We changed it because some people thought it was wrong. What have we gained for it? Well I have a problem with it, so do many people. Don't dismiss a problem because it doesn't effect you. Thats why so many people are pissed off in this country.

Well no, I am not dismissing a real problem. You have stated an opinion on how you would like to see things restructured in a regressive way. I understand exactly where you are coming from and why you feel the way you do about it, but make no mistake it is nothing more than your personal view of how you wish things would go back to the way things were. Millions of Americans are angry for one reason or another simply because they want something to go back to the way it was. It does not justify their anger nor should we pander to their ideas any more than we should pander to the ideas of out of touch progressives or idealists.

They would choose motherhood and to be stay at home moms if they weren't being told by the mass media and their communities to go get a job and to be "independent." You wouldn't have to say anything they would do it themselves. Its in their DNA just like its in male's DNA to provide and protect. You suggest you can raise children without any influence. I am saying they want to be moms when they grow up because its natural so promote the natural thing to do because they were going to do it anyways.

Well since I am not going to speak for an entire sex I will respond with, or woman will make their own conscious decisions and leave instinctual or biological predisposition out of the conversation.

Never said I was an idiot but you implied it by suggesting I couldn't grasp a simple concept.

Thanks for clearing that up. To further clarify, I do not think you have trouble grasping simple concepts. I simply find your viewpoint to be implausible. I also find it to be impractical in regard to fixing the perceived problem you have with current familial culture.

I understand the concept I just don't agree that this is the sole reason why women choose to work because I have seen countless families survive on one bread winner. They were just fine because they were wise financially and didn't spend money on useless crap. No to answer your next question they weren't wealthy. They were middle to lower middle class families. They just understood luxuries are not necessities.

Everyone keeps claiming that. Sure I agree thats part of it but I keep saying hey why don't we try to make the changes to see if we can go back to that because I am not convinced we can't. I would prefer that time because all these "progressive" ideas have made my life worse and those I care about worse. So I don't give two-shits if people say my preference for a society is backwards. Well to me the progressive ideas are backwards and outdated and I am perfectly willing to roll the dice and try to go back there instead of going on this society suicide path the left has us on.

As a pragmatist I completely agree with the notion it is entirely possible to make it on a single middle class and possibly even lower middle class income and still support a small family. I do not need examples of it I have lived it. However I have to reject the idea that progressive ideas are backwards and outdated considering to be progressive is to progress. I also have to reject the idea that society is somehow on a suicidal path driven by the left. The progress made in this country is based on the progress of us collectively as a nation. Conservatives have also had a large influence on the current state of American culture, as well as Moderates.

You might not care about feminism but it has negatively impacted my life and if you start digging around it has made both boys and men's life worse. You may not care about men and boys. But I do because unlike most feminist and progressive I actually believe in equality. The equality of opportunity, not the equally of outcome which is what feminist, progressives, and the identity politics of the left believe.

All I can really say is this gives me more perspective on your point of view.

You maybe a pragmatist but if you support the status quo I just lump you in with the left wing. My life has been made worse by left wing ideas. I want to go back before they had their social experiment. It might not be possible but I would rather try then continue this path we are on.

Well as I stated earlier in this post there are plenty of things we could change to improve our culture. It is your prerogative to lump me in with which ever group you see fit even though you have an incomplete picture of the scope of my views. It is very clear you want to go back to another time and are perfectly willing to regress for your own benefit regardless of the cultural impact your suggestions would entail.

At this point there is nothing we could possibly gain from continuing this discussion.

Your entire argument is based on an entire gender regressing back to the way things were in order to end a social experiment. Gender is a forbidden topic according to this sub-forum's rules and further discussion on this subject will most certainly result in moderator intervention. I will not be continuing this discussion any further.