[Rei Murasame]

I will have a 'who has more credit?' competition with Rei in front of the Far Right any day.

I think I already won that when fascists and Nazis gave me the nod of approval in actual real life.

3. Churches aren't supposed to oppose other ethnicities.

I rest my case.

the traditionalists are represented by that angry old white guy who's name i forget

Given that Far-Right Sage and myself are in agreement about 85% of time - attempts to divide us are not going to work.

For example this thread here: [Link]

We spend an awful lot of time agreeing with each other.

[Sithsaber]

How is this a ego boost for you? But anyway the traditional alliance between traditional european fascists and imperial japanese is essentially based on circumstance; as soon as significant groups of you get into proximity you will immediately turn on each other as is the nature of supremacists. You hate each other as well, you just got half a hemisphere to distract you from this.

After skimming that thread i am reminded of the dangers of thule society esque mysticism. Do you classify yourself as Aryan as well and do the mystic beings still occasionally interfere in the realm of man? (yet again i skimmed it) The Vril are not to be trusted, and the ultimate eradication of free will is something that i believe even Christianity demands be fought against.

[Rei Murasame]

You're just voicing a sort of wishful thinking now. Maybe you wish that European fascists wouldn't talk to me or give me the time of day, but the fact is that they do.

[Sithsaber]

No I'm just spouting common sense. Of course traditional fascists would like you as a curiosity, this is like 3rd worldists supporting the zapatistas and the naxalites.

[Rei Murasame]

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you can't speak belief into being reality. The sure sign that a line of discussion is dead, is when the opposition starts trying to debate whether the person they are arguing with is conforming to what they imagine that fascists are supposed to think.

The movement in Europe is a not-fully-formed movement, and as such it has contradictions and different groups within it, and the final product is still being worked out over time.

'Traditional fascists' are literally dead people. Literally. As in, buried in the ground and not here to see the last 70 years of events. So if no one lines up exactly with what they thought back then, that's not surprising.

Liberals don't line up exactly with what liberals thought in 1945 either.

[Rainbow Crow]

This kind of trend is not limited to the United States. Rei imagines social liberals will all become fascists and kill the more numerous, more cohesive, richer social conservatives. The reality is that social liberals are dysfunctional people who are dying out. They rely upon crazy second sons and attention whores from the conservative populations to join their agendas in order to maintain their numbers. This of course isn't enough to keep social liberals from diminishing relative to the population as a whole.

But wait, you may say: the attitudes of the parents don't determine what ideology or political party their offspring will adopt as their own. Yet they usually do.

Political scientists have long found that 4 out of 5 people with a party preference grow up to vote the way their parents voted. In fact, while many people experience a temporary rejection of their parents' politics in very early adulthood, virtually nothing is more predictive of your political ideology than that of your parents -- it's more of a determining factor than income, education or any other societal yardstick.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/R ... z2KyGSf6FX

[Travesty]

This kind of trend is not limited to the United States. Rei imagines social liberals will all become fascists and kill the more numerous, more cohesive, richer social conservatives. The reality is that social liberals are dysfunctional people who are dying out. They rely upon crazy second sons and attention whores from the conservative populations to join their agendas in order to maintain their numbers. This of course isn't enough to keep social liberals from diminishing relative to the population as a whole.

First of all there is no such thing as "social liberal" or "social conservative". Your joke American political system invented those terms to lend legitimacy to nonsensical political debates over nonsensical political issues like abortion to hide the fact that economically there is no difference between social conservatives and social liberals (Democrats vs Republicans) as they both represent the corporate class and fuck the common man.

Second of all those states that have the highest fertility rates dont mean anything. They also take in the most federal subsidies excluding Texas but they have oil. Having a high population doesn't really mean squat so I dont know what you're getting at.

[Rainbow Crow]

Nonsense, the entire point of the distinction is so that we can also separate between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. We don't distinguish between the issues so that one can subsume the other. People care about social issues as well as fiscal issues.

A growing population means a lot of things since it tells us, when compared to shrinking populations, what the people of the world are going to be like in the future.

[Travesty]

What the hell is a fiscal conservative?! Just say Republicans vs. Democrats. The desire to balance the US budget is not an ideological distinction. And who represents Fiscal liberals vs. Fiscal Conservatives? Judging by actions and history one can conclude that both parties are fiscal liberals since they both can't help but rake up the debt but judging by rhetric you would conclude that both are fically conservative.

A growing population means a lot of things since it tells us, when compared to shrinking populations, what the people of the world are going to be like in the future.

What? What does a growing population tell us? Idaho and Kansas will never surpass states like Florida or New York.

[Rainbow Crow]

Were you from Russia? You don't seem to understand how the electoral college works or the ideological distinctions that exist between different camps in the US. I assure you that they exist even if you don't understand them, just as growing vs. shrinking populations matter when counting votes.

[Travesty]

Were you from Russia? You don't seem to understand how the electoral college works or the ideological distinctions that exist between different camps in the US. I assure you that they are there even if you don't understand them, just as growing vs. shrinking populations matter when counting votes.

What does this have to do with the electoral college?

They wont stay in Kansas. They will move to New York or someshit where there is opportunities. This is nothing special poorer regions always have higher fertility rates.

[Rainbow Crow]

A lot of them stay in their home state and build new things instead of moving to a place like New York that is already overcrowded. Moving to New York does not make them change their voting preferences either; my article already addressed this by pointing out that 4 out of 5 vote the way their parents did.

My article is from the San Francisco gate. This is not conservative propaganda, it's a concern that some people on the American left are realizing.

[Travesty]

A lot of them stay in their home state and build new things instead of moving to a place like New York that is already overcrowded.

Ok so what if some of them stay in Kansas . So what? They have like 6 votes as opposed to states like California Or New York. And most will move go to university and become liberals and stay in Blue States..

Your argument seems to be that Liberals (Democrats) are in some sort of Demographic decline and that will impact the electoral college in the future. When the opposite is true at least in the short to medium term.

Republicans have lost important minorities like Latino's/ Blacks etc. In Florida Puerto Ricans are now a larger demographic than Cubans and they vote for Democrats and even the younger generation of Cubans don't vote for Republcians like their parents did. If you look at the number of electoral votes and the states needed to win then things are looking worse for Republicans after each election year.

[Rainbow Crow]

No, most won't become liberals, the article (and many other sources if you had the courage do some actual research) covers this. And we are talking about a lot more than just Kansas and New York. Your denial is kind of sad.

Latinos are already socially conservative so that doesn't concern people in the social conservative camp.

[Travesty]

Use Kansas as an example. By how much did their population change in 10 years, whats the rate of natural increase??

Latinos are already socially conservative so that doesn't concern people in the social conservative camp.

Oh sure, they still won't vote the way you want them too.

[Rainbow Crow]

There's no reason to use Kansas as an example since I'm talking about a world-wide trend here. We might as well compare Texas to Vermont if we are going to cherry pick.

[Travesty]

I like your political strategy. We will outbreed Liberals at a rate of 0.5 per decade. Maybe in a few hundred years you'll get there. Ofcourse by then Social Conservatism itself will change because its a self defeating ideology. 60 years ago the dominant issue was segregation inter racial marriage, Creation vs. Evolution in schools etc. Today the dominant issues are gay marriage and the drug war. In 50 years social conservatives will be arguing as to why legalizing cocaine might not be a good idea.

[Rainbow Crow]

I think the rate is higher than that. In extreme cases there's a 30% gap in fertility rates within the US. Fertility increases further as total population increases as well. Latino outreach is also a big part of the GOP's plan going forward.

There is nothing self-defeating about social conservatism. It's an ideology that is proven to lead to reproductive and economic success. The facts obviously infuriate you, bring up some studies if you can, otherwise I'm bored with shooting down your assertions.

[Rei Murasame]

Social conservatism:

• Wait for liberals to make a move.
• Conserve whatever it is that they have done with all the rhetoric at your disposal.
• Wait for liberals to make a move.
• Conserve whatever it is that they have done with all the rhetoric at your disposal.
• Wait for liberals to make a move.
• Conserve whatever it is that they have done with all the rhetoric at your disposal.
• Wait for liberals to make a move.
• Conserve whatever it is that they have done with all the rhetoric at your disposal.
• Wait for liberals to make a move.

Looks self-defeating to me.

[Travesty]

I think the rate is higher than that. In extreme cases there's a 30% gap in fertility rates within the US. Latino outreach is also a big part of the GOP's plan going forward.

Great, but Red States won't outbreed Blue State like You suggest. The only thing you've got going for you is that the overall population is aging and the elderly tend to be more conservative.

There is nothing self-defeating about social conservatism. It's an ideology that is proven to lead to reproductive and economic success. The facts obviously infuriate you, bring up some studies if you can, otherwise I'm bored with shooting down your assertions.

Economic policy and Demographics have nothing to do with soicial conservativism.