(Please, no claims that "real feminism is the Republican version"...it may be, but if it is then the question is trivial.) It's difficult to see how voters could remain in the party if their primary, core political value was feminism. Many Republican platform planks and candidates appear to be reactions against feminism, so a Republican feminist probably has many reasons for remaining in the party that have nothing to do with feminism. In that case, the feminist is more likely to vote Republican.
Of course. Because the Republican party doesn’t acutally serve citizens.They serve individual and corporate wealth. For the past 40 years, that is all that they do. And fool working class people into voting for them with the virtually unlimited funds they get from billionaires and corporations to serve their interests.Wealth inequality has never been worse. The benefits of our capitalistic society are going to fewer and fewer people, and to fewer and fewer wealthy corporations. They not only are capturing the lion’s share of our economy, but they then use that money to lobby our government and thanks to Citizens United, to directly buy elections. Wealthy corporations and billionaires are trying to downsize the government and convince people the government has no role to play, when in fact a strong government is the only thing standing in the way of complete domination by corporations and billionaires.Money and wealth is getting more concentrated. And more powerful. Not just economically, but in controlling our democracy.As long as Republicans fool working class people into voting Republican, things are only going to get worse. And I see no evidence that working class and poor republican voters have figured out they are being conned.
Why do people think they HAVE to vote for either a Republican or a Democrat?
Because they are stupid, uninformed, and unable to make decisions on their own. They rely on the media to pick the candidates for them and the media is a 'for profit' enterprise so we can see how that works out. Also, many of them are hardcore band wagoners and have no sense of honor to speak of. They seem to think that voting for a loser is a waste of a vote...yet you'll NEVER get your view across if the candidate that portrays your view is never in a position to win. Therefore they help to continue the status quo of politics that do NOT benefit them because they'd rather vote for a winner than vote who will represent them. In practice, this is called the death of democracy. Please quote me in 30 years. We are finished.
Would people vote for a Moderate Republican?
I wouldn't vote for you based on just 2 of those issues. It seems clear to me you don't understand firearms ownership in the US. UPDATE: Zach, currently you cannot legally buy a firearm without a check. If you go to a buy a firearm, the seller has to call into the BATF and do a background check. A universal background check requires the government to be involved with every transfer. This would include things like a wife using her husbands firearm. Or a father giving his rifle to his son when he dies. There isn't a way to regulate it, and it makes criminals of innocent people. Criminals don't follow the current gun laws. In the state of Illinois a state legislator wanted to make a list of all firearms owners public knowledge. Guess what? Now bad guys know who to rob for firearms when they aren't home. Legal firearms ownership is private business. I'm 40yrs old. a vet, and have been in the NRA since I was a child. What I own (legally) isn't your, or anyones business. My other issue is the gay marriage. It is an issue best left to the state. What is good for the people of CA may not be good for the people of AL. Also marriage isn't the business of the government. Gay people can have civil union. You can't redefine the meaning of marriage to suit the needs of 10% of the population. There are heterosexuals that aren't religious currently don't care about and live together anyway. Marriage is a religious institution. Based on these 2 alone you would not advance in the party. As a Libertarian I ran for 2 offices as a Republican. Committeeman, and State Delegate. I won both. I was never able to advance in the party once they found out I was a Libertarian. Corruption is big in both parties. You need the backing of the party to advance. You have people from one party run in the other just to mess things up for their own party. For example when Hillary was running against Obama you had Rep. supporting Hillary in elections because they knew a Rep. could beat her instead of Obama. The Democrats want to see Christy as the GOP candidate because they know he can't beat Hillary.
Why do people believe blacks vote for Obama because he is black?
first... you're talking percentages of registered voters vs. actual numbers of voters... for example, more blacks in traditional Republican strongholds like South Carolina voted than in the previous decades... Why was that? but here's the thing... ...In the wake of his 2008 victory, there were a couple university studies on race and the elections... quite interestingly, all these studies focused on how many people voted AGAINST Obama because of his race... As far as I know, not a single study was reported in the mass media that presented the number of people who said they voted FOR Obama with race as a primary factor... ...now why was that? Certainly as an impartial study, that number would be interesting...but it wouldn't ever be "impartial" would it? And there's the problem... That this study was never done... or if done, never reported...exposes some legitimate questions about the decisions being made for you by academics and the media.
American Christians who vote Republican, how do you reconcile things like this?
There is an old saying - if you give someone a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Unfortunately the current system we have in the US for "helping the poor" does not do it. It traps them so that they rarely get out. Why do you look for a job if someone is giving you money every month? It is NOT showing mercy on a person to keep them in poverty. The Bible also says " For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The Bible required that if a person was hungry, he had to go into the fields and gleam, pick up whatever had been dropped there, left behind, etc. In the Bible, when the Jews were in the wilderness, they had to go out every morning and work to gather the manna or they went hungry. They had to plant their fields six out of every seven years, r they went hungry. Even in the New Testament, the apostle Paul held down a job as a tent maker in addition to his traveling and preaching. He wrote that Christians were to work with their hands so that they would have to give to others. So whatever it meant by "having mercy on the poor", it was not developing a wellfare system where people are rewarded for doing nothing. That is not "Christian". Yes, there are times when everyone needs some help. And the church (not the government) should be providing it. Otherwise it is not a "Christian" act. But we are not to be supporting people cradle to grave. That is morally wrong. Try actually reading the Bible some time and what it has to say about work, and the sin of laziness.