About the Equal Rights Amendment

[gtyellowjacket]

You live in an alternate reality.

No, you and much of the Democratic party are living in that alternate reality. There are too many Democrats that think the only possible reason anyone would vote for a Republican is because they are racist or misogynistic. I just don't think that's true for the vast majority of persuadable voters. It keeps us from embracing issues that people really care about.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

If we want to run on equal rights, it has to be for everyone.

We have to get people to realize that it isn't a zero sum game. That we can work on the equal rights of women as well as men.

Younger men seem to really be struggling. They are falling behind women in areas and it seems that they feel that women are being given an upper hand.

Plus, it seems that some women are simply happy to be subordinate and have a Man take care of them. Just look at how many women voted for a rapist this past election.

We have to figure out how to make everyone feel welcome in the party and that we want to level things for everyone, not just certain groups.

This is the way.

 

[EyeballKid]

If we want to run on equal rights, it has to be for everyone.

We have to get people to realize that it isn't a zero sum game. That we can work on the equal rights of women as well as men.

Younger men seem to really be struggling. They are falling behind women in areas and it seems that they feel that women are being given an upper hand.

Plus, it seems that some women are simply happy to be subordinate and have a Man take care of them. Just look at how many women voted for a rapist this past election.

We have to figure out how to make everyone feel welcome in the party and that we want to level things for everyone, not just certain groups.

While I agree in principle, the fact is that hate, division, and grievance are very powerful motivations. And Rs have had the straight white male market pretty well cornered for several decades now.

Joe Biden’s a faithful public servant and husband, and, by all accounts, a well-liked man on both sides of the political aisle.

Tim Walz is the Everyman midwestern middle class dude who coached football, owns guns, is an avid hunter and fisher.

Both white guys who’ve obviously found ways to maintain their masculinity and power while also respecting women, minorities, and lgbtq folks.

But Trump, Musk, Bannon, Hegseth, and many others have seized on the grievances that made Rush Limbaugh rich in the 90s—that white men and Christians are disadvantaged and have a god-given right to grab pussies (metaphorically and literally) and insult/undermine/harm others without repercussion.

It’s difficult to combat that with facts and reason—and it’s difficult to craft a narrative that will compete with those grievances.

 

[Calheel]

Are they the type of women that would be fine voting for Biden, but wouldn't vote for Harris? I doubt it. Most of them are going to vote Republican anyway.

Of course the vast majority of them were going to vote Republican anyway.

You do realize the last three elections would have turned out differently if just 1% of the electorate voted for the other candidate, right?

So when you are trying to explain why elections turn out a certain way, you need to focus on the motives of persuadable voters.

Every election starts at 45/45. The parties are just fighting over the 10% that can swing one way or the other. Obviously, misogyny is one (but just one and not even the most important one) of those reasons.

 

[Zoo_View]

Of course the vast majority of them were going to vote Republican anyway.

You do realize the last three elections would have turned out differently if just 1% of the electorate voted for the other candidate, right?

So when you are trying to explain why elections turn out a certain way, you need to focus on the motives of persuadable voters.

Every election starts at 45/45. The parties are just fighting over the 10% that can swing one way or the other. Obviously, misogyny is one (but just one and not even the most important one) of those reasons.

Probably 47/47.

 

[GeeWhy]

I'm guessing 48.5/48.3141592653.

 

[finesse]

I'm not seeing that. I really see Democrats as the party that is more focused on race, and sex. I see Republicans more focused on religion. Sexuality, I could see an argument either way.

You mean white protestants who are the people who did the most through out history to push for white supremacy and racial discrimination? The second Klan started off billing itself as a white Protestant movement and stayed that way until the 60s. I know from personal experience that they permeated the churches into the 60s and 70s. Why do you think so many of the Christian academies got their start around that time?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

You mean white protestants who are the people who did the most through out history to push for white supremacy and racial discrimination? The second Klan started off billing itself as a white Protestant movement and stayed that way until the 60s. I know from personal experience that they permeated the churches into the 60s and 70s. Why do you think so many of the Christian academies got their start around that time?

No. I mean the most recent election. Not the 60s and 70s.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Of course the vast majority of them were going to vote Republican anyway.

You do realize the last three elections would have turned out differently if just 1% of the electorate voted for the other candidate, right?

So when you are trying to explain why elections turn out a certain way, you need to focus on the motives of persuadable voters.

Every election starts at 45/45. The parties are just fighting over the 10% that can swing one way or the other. Obviously, misogyny is one (but just one and not even the most important one) of those reasons.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Are there racists and misogynists that voted for Trump? Sure. But the vast majority of them were going to vote for whatever R was on the ticket, just like 2020. But the persuadable middle ground is less likely to vote for or against someone because of their color or gender. In other words, Trump didn't win this one because that 10% is full of women haters.

 

[finesse]

No. I mean the most recent election. Not the 60s and 70s.

A lot of those people and their children that were educated in those academies are who voted for Trump in this election. You seriously underestimate how engrained that was in Protestants.

American Protestant racial beliefs on the mark of Cain​

[edit]
At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States, many[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Citation needed - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (February 2016)">citation needed</span></a></em>] Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone in an attempt to justify their actions, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan friar Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin.<a href="Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a>

Baptist segregationists​

[edit]
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught the belief that there were two separate heavens; one heaven was for Black people, and another heaven was for White people.<a href="Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> Southern Baptists either taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.<a href="Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>a<span>]</span></a> In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and it also apologized for its past defense of slavery.<a href="Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a>

The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining Black people to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe.[<em><a href="Wikipedia:Citation needed - Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2015)">citation needed</span></a></em>] However, the majority of Christian churches in the world, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize the racist interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to exclude Black people from ministry.

 

[nycfan]

My ex-wife and her mother were up in arms in the 1992 campaign after Hillary answered a question with an answer about why should she stay home and bake cookies instead of having a career. Ultimately, they voted for Bill; but, they’ve despised Hillary ever since (because “she questioned the value of stay-at-home moms”).

My MIL was the same, except didn’t vote for Bill Clinton, either. She brought up the cookies thing when HRC ran for POTUS. Hilariously, my MIL is a registered nurse who worked full time as a scrub nurse while having four kids (not a stay-at-home mom). But she HATES HRC and claims it was entirely because of the cookies remark.

We happened to be together at the beach when Comey gave his infamous press conference about not pressing charges against Clinton. My MIL was so giddy with the expectation that HRC would be charged that she misunderstood that is what Comey said. She insisted to everyone that is what he said for hours. So weird.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I'm not seeing that. I really see Democrats as the party that is more focused on race, and sex. I see Republicans more focused on religion. Sexuality, I could see an argument either way.

And this is exactly why Trump won. Because there are multitudes of low-information voters like yourself that actually believe that it's the Democrats that are more focused on race and sex.

The GOP platform is literally about identity politics, pronouns are bad, trans in women's sports, DEI, etc. Yet they've convinced stupid people that it's the Democrats that are entirely focused on it, even though the Harris campaign spent virtually no time campaigning on any of those things.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

And this is exactly why Trump won. Because there are multitudes of low-information voters like yourself that actually believe that it's the Democrats that are more focused on race and sex.

The GOP platform is literally about identity politics, pronouns are bad, trans in women's sports, DEI, etc. Yet they've convinced stupid people that it's the Democrats that are entirely focused on it, even though the Harris campaign spent virtually no time campaigning on any of those things.

Sure Harris ran away from those policies, because they're not very popular, but Democrats are the ones putting those policies in place. People see that.

 

[Healing]

Sure Harris ran away from those policies, because they're not very popular, but Democrats are the ones putting those policies in place. People see that.

There's a visible-with-the-naked-eye gap between "identity politics" and "policies that support free expression of identity".

 

[gtyellowjacket]

There's a visible-with-the-naked-eye gap between "identity politics" and "policies that support free expression of identity".

I certainly support the free expression of identity with the exception of some, but not all, athletic contests. If it's going to make some person happy and it doesn't hurt anybody else, go for it. That's more popular than programs that tend to disadvantage certain groups based on their race or their gender like the dei initiatives which I don't support.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Sure Harris ran away from those policies, because they're not very popular, but Democrats are the ones putting those policies in place. People see that.

Show me proof they aren’t popular.

I’m not talking about the weird, creepy Republican versions of those positions that people like you seem to adopt, I’m talking about the specific positions that Democrats hold in regards to freedom from discrimination based on sexual identity, race, religion, etc.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Show me proof they aren’t popular.

I’m not talking about the weird, creepy Republican versions of those positions that people like you seem to adopt, I’m talking about the specific positions that Democrats hold in regards to freedom from discrimination based on sexual identity, race, religion, etc.

Show me proof they are (and I'll show you a poll with a biased question set). The only proof I can really offer is the overwhelming number of companies that are pulling away from DEI programs, and an election a couple months back.

 

[StrangePackage]

And this is exactly why Trump won. Because there are multitudes of low-information voters like yourself that actually believe that it's the Democrats that are more focused on race and sex.

The GOP platform is literally about identity politics, pronouns are bad, trans in women's sports, DEI, etc. Yet they've convinced stupid people that it's the Democrats that are entirely focused on it, even though the Harris campaign spent virtually no time campaigning on any of those things.

They believe those things in part because the Democrats offer no alternative narrative. Even when we successfully provide things like insulin cost caps and infrastructure investment, we are miserable at taking credit for it. There was a moment it looked like we might with Walz, but then we neutered him and leaned into the myth of persuadable Republicans.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Show me proof they are (and I'll show you a poll with a biased question set). The only proof I can really offer is the overwhelming number of companies that are pulling away from DEI programs, and an election a couple months back.

Again, you offer nothing in the way of proof. The “overwhelming” number of companies pulling away from DEI programs?

Define “overwhelming.” Let’s start there. You’ve got Mark Zuckerberg and Meta shifting based on the way the political winds blow. What else? Show me these massive shifts away from diversity, equity, and inclusion you are suddenly seeing in an “overwhelming” amount of companies.

You fell for the Republican propaganda. Congratulations-You’re as simple-minded as the rest of them.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

They believe those things in part because the Democrats offer no alternative narrative. Even when we successfully provide things like insulin cost caps and infrastructure investment, we are miserable at taking credit for it. There was a moment it looked like we might with Walz, but then we neutered him and leaned into the myth of persuadable Republicans.

I just don't think those particular arguments were really strong enough to make much difference. The people that pay full boat for insulin is a pretty narrow piece of the population. I think they would have done better going after all pharma companies that were using regulatory restrictions to harvest outside profits.

I think the infrastructure bill was good policy but you didn't really hear a lot of Republicans pushing hard against it. The Democrats were able to get it done and maybe they should have trumpeted it a little bit harder but there really wasn't a story there where you could paint the Republicans as being against the infrastructure bill.

I think the one that's staring Democrats in the face is more worker rights. It's a popular issue. That non-compete rule was immensely popular. 70% of Americans support unions. But it means going up against an awful lot of donors that would prefer to keep those wages suppressed and worker protection regulations lax. Republicans on the other hand have somewhat successfully painted immigrants as the reason people's jobs suck but Democrats have a better story if they'd be willing to lean into it.