Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 284
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 


"Let's cut our military budget in half." Truly unfathomable to hear those words come out of the mouth of a Republican president.

Ok, something I can get behind. As long as the money goes to SS and social services for the most needy.
 
A Man can only marry a woman.
A pregnant woman doesn't have the right to certain medical treatments.
A trans person doesn't have the right to Brian medical treatments.
Now we're seeing things like a doctor doesn't have the right to recommend vaccinations in Louisiana.
They are for censorship of books, instead of letting people have the freedom to choose what to read.

There are more, but you know that.
It's worth mentioning that the administration is essentially conducting a cyber book burning.
 
But you are still equating a belief that the owner can run his company as being the same as supporting the owner exploiting employees, which I really don't understand because, again, the employer/employee relationship is voluntary on both sides. Nobody is forced to hire you and you aren't forced to work somewhere.
This sounds like the good guys with guns argument.

You are for the good owners who care and will take care of their employees. And in sure they do exist, but they are the vast minority.

Most will treat employees, like Amazon. You did read about Amazon employees urinating in bottles so they didn't have to go to the restroom in order to meet their efficiency standards, didn't you?
 
Last edited:
So, you believe the wage gap for women is non existent?

And you believe that there weren't reasons to have affirmative action laws? Those were driven by mistreatment, unfair practices in hiring, and unequal pay and treatment in the work place.

The goal of the current conservatives is that the rich get richer, the leadership just tries to keep the minions from knowing.
I think we have no idea if there is a wage gap because the original calculation that everyone references, which puts women's earnings at about 75% of men's, took absolutely no variables into consideration. Variables being things like the fact that men are more likely to work overtime. The fact that men are more likely to get into higher paying fields of work. The fact that women are more likely to stay home to have children or stay home to take care of children when they're sick or out of school on a break.

I think there was a point in time where affirmative action laws made sense. That time has long since passed.
 
I’m more interested in this “hard left turn” Obama made in his second term. I don’t remember that at all.
Well see it's relative. As Obama was pretty steady the republicans started drifting quickly right. Ram attributes that new distance between the parties incorrectly as a dem move when it was in reality hia party moving right. He also buys into the fox news BS that the Republicans are victims of the media.

I know, I was there. But Trump and life wvwnts were too much for me to hold on. I might have voted republican in 2016 had there been a different candidate, but not the worthless piece of shit trump. Then after a few years of trump I knew I was voting against him. Then in 2024 I voted Dem because they more align with my position that no one should be marginalized. AKA Woke.
 
I think we have no idea if there is a wage gap because the original calculation that everyone references, which puts women's earnings at about 75% of men's, took absolutely no variables into consideration.
This is a lie. I've seen the research. It has controlled for every variable you can imagine.

What makes you think you know how to conduct research better than actual researchers? You have trouble tying your shoes.
 
This is a lie. I've seen the research. It has controlled for every variable you can imagine.

What makes you think you know how to conduct research better than actual researchers? You have trouble tying your shoes.
Okay. Where is the research you referenced?

Past research, which references around a 75 cents per dollar difference, was done simply by taking the total amount earned by each sex and dividing by the total number of employed people of each sex.
 
Okay. Where is the research you referenced?

Past research, which references around a 75 cents per dollar difference, was done simply by taking the total amount earned by each sex and dividing by the total number of employed people of each sex.
You can read a full explainer here. You're welcomes.


Look in particular (though not exclusively) for this heading:

"Would adjusting the raw gender wage gap to include factors such as education help explain the gap? Maybe it is not as big of a problem as it seems?"
 
Not making a difference in anyone's life?; tell that to the family of Laken Riley. Guess they're racists too.
It was tragic what happened, but it isn't the norm.

You guys love pretending your 1 in a million examples are normal activity.

The same way you justify the conservative bigotry toward the 1% of people who are trans and the .001% that want to play sports.
 
Wait according to drump politico is an undercover democratic operation siphoning money off the government tit.
Which is hilarious, given that Politico was bought several years ago by a right-wing German media mogul and Trump admirer. He's actually moved Politico to the right, although they apparently still have enough independence to post some articles critical of Trump or Trumpism from time to time.
 
I think we have no idea if there is a wage gap because the original calculation that everyone references, which puts women's earnings at about 75% of men's, took absolutely no variables into consideration. Variables being things like the fact that men are more likely to work overtime. The fact that men are more likely to get into higher paying fields of work. The fact that women are more likely to stay home to have children or stay home to take care of children when they're sick or out of school on a break.

I think there was a point in time where affirmative action laws made sense. That time has long since passed.
You do realize that just 50 years ago a woman couldn't get a loan or a credit card without a male cosigner, don't you?


Do you really believe that our society has shifted from this kind of subjugation of women to equal pay 8n 50 short years?
 
You do realize that just 50 years ago a woman couldn't get a loan or a credit card without a male cosigner, don't you?


Do you really believe that our society has shifted from this kind of subjugation of women to equal pay 8n 50 short years?
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

 
Last edited:
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Do you not see this as a function of our society? Where men are traditionally the bread winners while women nurture the children?
Also, you seem to leave out a lot of other variables. Your own link gives lots of information to show why more men are employed,

From your link:
In 2021, women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $912, which represented 83.1 percent of men’s median weekly earnings ($1,097). Among women, earnings were higher for Asians ($1,141) than for Whites ($925), Blacks ($776), and Hispanics ($718). Women-to-men’s earnings ratios were higher for Blacks (94.1 percent) than for Hispanics (87.6 percent), Whites (82.2 percent), and Asians (78.5 percent). (See table 16; note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors, like occupation, that may be important in explaining earnings differences.)

Women’s median usual weekly earnings vary by educational attainment. In 2021, among female full-time wage and salary workers age 25 and older, those with less than a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $550. Women whose highest degree was a high school diploma had earnings of $698, those with an associate’s degree had earnings of $836, and those with a bachelor’s degree and higher had earnings of $1,272. (See table 17.)

By occupation, median usual weekly earnings of female full-time wage and salary workers in 2021 were the highest for other physicians ($2,283), pharmacists ($2,087), lawyers ($1,912), computer and information systems managers ($1,908), chief executives ($1,904), and nurse practitioners ($1,903). Earnings for men were highest for chief executives ($2,721), other physicians ($2,647), and lawyers ($2,495). (See table 18.)

In 2021, 1.8 percent of women who were paid hourly rates had earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour). Among women ages 16 to 24 who were paid an hourly rate, 4.3 percent had earnings at or below the minimum wage, compared with 1.2 percent of women age 25 and over. (See table 20.)
 
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Additionally, my point wasn't that there is or isn't a wage gap, the point is that our society has marginalized women, and they are only, in our lifetime, being treated more equally, so it's easy to believe that they would also be paid less.
 
I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Read the fucking link I provided, which refers to a great deal of research. What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? The world doesn't work according to your suppositions. Here you are, making the long-discredited Becker argument, and you don't even know what that means. You have no understanding of any labor market models that clearly demonstrate the possibility and indeed probability of persistent discrimination in employment markets. And there's data, and you could read it, but instead you prefer to mouth off like Elon Musk's kid. Except at least Elon's kid was directionally correct.

It is so sickening to read this utter tripe, deciding that the world must be just how they want it to be and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It's not an opinion. It's just indigestion. What you feel deep down in your gut, with common sense, and duh, duh, derp let's accuse all experts of ignorance and celebrate morons whose eyes are glued to a boob tube every night, ingesting and absorbing eagerly the propaganda so easily devised to fool you.
 
You can read a full explainer here. You're welcomes.


Look in particular (though not exclusively) for this heading:

"Would adjusting the raw gender wage gap to include factors such as education help explain the gap? Maybe it is not as big of a problem as it seems?"
The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions. It doesn't explain where the initial 80 or 83% gap come from. Like I mentioned earlier, the way the pay gap was originally calculated was by taking the total wages earned by each gender and then dividing it by the total full time employees in that gender. You're starting with flawed data from the beginning because it's true that men are more likely to work overtime and more likely to get into higher paying industries.
 
Back
Top