Are G.O.P. Voters Tiring of the War on ‘Wokeness’?

BidenPresident said:
New polling shows national Republicans and Iowa Republican caucusgoers were more interested in “law and order” than battling “woke” schools, media and corporations.

Gov. Ron DeSantis last year used the word five times in 19 seconds, substituting “woke” for Nazis as he cribbed from Winston Churchill’s famous vow to battle a threatened German invasion in 1940.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/us/politics/woke-republicans-poll.html
Click to expand...

Not easy to stay in a fight when you have no clear idea what it's about.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I dont give a flying fuck what you think you need.

I need to have a reason to spend time with your first... you NOT being a DICK would help.
Click to expand...

I'm not being a "dick." I'm trying to get empirical evidence of where you stand on various ideas and issues. I can't do that with vague, subjective statements. That's why I asked the questions I did as I did.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This is likely going to be one of the greatest tragedies in human history.
Click to expand...

Probably.

We are going to witness the downfall of entire nations.

I'm not sure which ones will survive, which will fall, or which ones will rise up.

I imagine nations with stricter controls will be able to handle it better.

China, North Korea, Vietnam, possibly Russia, maybe the three most northern European states of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Nation states such as Greenland or Iceland should be fine also.

Most of western Europe is in for trouble though along with the United States. Canada will also get hit after we start to collapse. Australia will collapse for sure and probably most of indo china.

We will see the Middle East and Africa deteriorate although Israel may hold in there.

This is when the anti-christ will show up to bring world peace.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Probably.

We are going to witness the downfall of entire nations.

I'm not sure which ones will survive, which will fall, or which ones will rise up.

I imagine nations with stricter controls will be able to handle it better.

China, North Korea, Vietnam, possibly Russia, maybe the three most northern European states of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Nation states such as Greenland or Iceland should be fine also.

Most of western Europe is in for trouble though along with the United States. Canada will also get hit after we start to collapse. Australia will collapse for sure and probably most of indo china.

We will see the Middle East and Africa deteriorate although Israel may hold in there.

This is when the anti-christ will show up to bring world peace.
Click to expand...

In the New World Order nations only decide the trivial, everything of importance is decided by the New Mandarin Class, the managers of the serfs.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
The Republiclowns have been throwing The Woke against the wall for years and just now do they realize it's not sticking?

No wonder in the last 30 years of presidential elections, the Republiclowns have only won the popular vote ONCE.
Click to expand...

????......what difference does it make that the populations of California and New York massively favor the left?.....
 
BidenPresident said:
New polling shows national Republicans and Iowa Republican caucusgoers were more interested in “law and order” than battling “woke” schools, media and corporations.

Gov. Ron DeSantis last year used the word five times in 19 seconds, substituting “woke” for Nazis as he cribbed from Winston Churchill’s famous vow to battle a threatened German invasion in 1940.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/us/politics/woke-republicans-poll.html
Click to expand...

Woke = nazi
 
Tinkerpeach said:
That is exactly why.

Learn some US history.

In order to ratify the Constitution the smaller states demanded equal representation.

This is why we have the electoral college, why each state gets two senators.
Click to expand...

That's right, but it wasn't because the population of more populous states was considered "not representative of the nation" any more or less than smaller states were considered not representative of the nation. It was about balance of self consideration.
 
martin said:
That's right, but it wasn't because the population of more populous states was considered "not representative of the nation" any more or less than smaller states were considered not representative of the nation. It was about balance of self consideration.
Click to expand...

Really not seeing your point here.

The reason we don't have a popular vote is because it's not representative of the nation.

We don't want the four most populous states deciding all of our elections.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Really not seeing your point here.

The reason we don't have a popular vote is because it's not representative of the nation.

We don't want the four most populous states deciding all of our elections.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't want states to decide them at all. On national matters the citizen residents of California should have voices equal to the voices of citizen residents of South Dakota. The reason they do not is the compromise made with smaller colonies to bring them into a single nation.
 
martin said:
We shouldn't want states to decide them at all. On national matters the citizen residents of California should have voices equal to the voices of citizen residents of South Dakota. The reason they do not is the compromise made with smaller colonies to bring them into a single nation.
Click to expand...

They do by the electors awarded to each state based on population. California has far more than South Dakota has yet South Dakota still has a say with their electors because it kind of balances it out.

This means that a candidate can win the bigger states but still lose if the smaller states vote against him.

It's a brilliant system actually.

There is also another factor to consider.

If we had a popular vote then politicians would spend all their time and money in the most populous states, they would have no reason to ever visit South Dakota meaning that the citizens of small states would not get their specific issues heard.

A candidate isn't going to care what issues are going on in a small state, they will only care about the issues in the bigger states because they need the votes.

People in South Dakota have far different issues then people in California do.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The popular vote is irrelevant, it's determined by a few very populous states and is not representative of the nation.

That is why we don't use it to determine the presidential election.
Click to expand...

Popular vote is not irrelevant. It is a good metric to see what political direction the public is trending.

Over the last eight presidential elections, the Dems have won all but one (2004) of the popular vote. That's seven out of eight.
If that doesn't tell you America is trending center-left, then you continue to delude yourself.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Popular vote is not irrelevant. It is a good metric to see what political direction the public is trending.

Over the last eight presidential elections, the Dems have won all but one (2004) of the popular vote. That's seven out of eight.
If that doesn't tell you America is trending center-left, then you continue to delude yourself.
Click to expand...

No, it means a few big states are trending left which we already know.

It doesn't tell us how the midwest or the south is trending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top