re: True or False: the Left is Only Ever in Power Because of Women

quote:

---

she also expresses desire for less government in many instances

---

And advocates for lots bigger government in just as many, if not more. Think government-forced employer provided child care, for example.

That's not being a "libertarian," that's just being a populist.

quote:

---

Libertarian views are just diametrically opposed to big government

---

Which is, in and of itself, a radical notion in 2026.

quote:

---

they can be left or right of center

---

Not really. Those charts can tell you how Libertarian you are, and on what issues you are or aren't libertarian, but the notion that someone who advocates for low taxes and wants no social safety nets but wants to keep prostitution illegal is a "right leaning Libertarian," and someone else who wants no restrictions on immigration or drugs but wants to expand social services is a "left leaning Libertarian" isn't much of a useful distinction to me.

Neither are consistent enough to me to be considered "Libertarians" in my estimation. Both still want intrusive government, they just want government to intrude for their pet interests.

Aren’t they all?

Can I have an example of someone I worship?

This is a time wasting request. You’ll just deny or haggle over the term “worship”. You know you’re a far left person, so all the people you fully support and follow who peddle this shite to you.

I don’t know this, although I’m told this constantly here. No one can say exactly what makes me far left but you’re sure I’m far left.


Now you’re just being dishonest but it does illustrate a fascinating feature of your type. For as loyal as you guys are you’re always embarrassed to admit what you are. This is pervasive among leftists all the way up to the ruling class.

quote:

---

Good grief. That's the whole point. The whole point is that you are assuming a necessary equivalence between voting and power and I'm telling you that doing that is a myopic and largely incorrect assumption

---

Yeah, I realize you are telling me that, and I’m sure that is another example in your mind of you “showing me to be wrong”. But in actual debate your assertions are not proof. Instead I’ll rely on the common sense of anyone reading this: The right to vote radically increases one’s power. You have refuted this, even asserting that the right to vote decreased women’s power. That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read on this board. If you really believe it you should obviously quit voting.

quote:

---

And that is obvious because if that is considered power then women have always had power


They always have

---

There was always a random Abigail Adams, whose husband was generous enough to allow her to flourish, but that was unusual. Women were chattel to their husbands and fathers. Their power wasn’t absolutely zero, but it was inconsequential compared to that of men who ran the show. Men did all the voting, men held almost all the wealth, men owned all the businesses and men held all of the political offices.

But yeah, women had real power according to you. In fact, and according to you, they were more powerful then than they are now.

quote:

---

You are now making the same mistake that the guy made way earlier in the thread by hearing, "When the left gains power, is that all because of women," and turning it into, "If women have political power we will always have the left in power."

---

I don’t believe that, and I didn’t assert it. I’m sure women would put the left in power, but I’d guess they’d rebel when the left invariably screwed up the economy.

quote:

---

Back to my point. Marxism was invented by men, and it was foisted upon Russia almost completely by men. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Beria; it is a long list before anyone gets to a woman.


That was not your point, nor was it the argument you made. Being dishonest about this is as natural as breathing to you, apparently.

Your point was that women necessarily could not be responsible for the left attaining power because they couldn't vote "during Marxism's heyday."

---

I’d say both of those describe my point. Nothing dishonest there. But you seem to have a problem with the ad hominem. You often assume dishonesty in your opponent. I don’t think you’re dishonest; I just think you made some insupportable assertions, like women being less powerful now than when they couldn’t vote.

White women like 4cubs are a major problem in this nation.