@BHG I hate to burst your bubble but that's not going to happen.
The reason we go so hard with TWRA isn't just because of ending the welfare state. It's because:
1. Women have BIOLOGICAL imperative to be taken care of and because of this will NEVER choose freedom > security en masse.
2. Birthrates will plummet leading to demographic replacement even if they did vote for the right candidate.
3. Women in the workforce is terrible because it lowers wages and creates undue drama/stress
▶️
@BHG
>maybe the pro freedom right needs to unite behind candidates who make the ladies' panties moist.
The reason why this will never work is that the second they realize the candidate will reduce the welfare state they'll be dropped like a bad habit.
Remeber that feminism is only possible with the men's taxes and set asides to women.
In a true free marke this nonsense would never work and they know it.
@BHG
>There have been libertarian-ish governors elected in the USA in my lifetime
In post-civil war america the states can't really do much anyway.
#TWRA is the ONLY way because it was the way God intended.
Notice how in any prosperous society there are NO female leaders?
That's because the ones with female leaders got wiped out!
In a competitive environment feminism is the death of your country because male leadership is superior in every way. (Less mood swings, more logical etc.)
@BHG @basedbagel Also, it is a glaring issue that we need to play the emotional game of picking a more "attractive" candidate to appeal to women. This shows that we cannot win them over with logic, which means we cannot address other issues unless we cater to their whims at every single turn. This means we are at best slow to solve problems. But usually it means we do not solve any problems at all.
@houseoftolstoy @BHG
Exactly!
>This shows that we cannot win them over with logic
This used to be well understood just a little over a century ago.
The problem I see is that @BHG is trying to figure out a way to win within the current rule set while @basedbagel points out that the current rule set is rigged against being able to actually solve the problem. You have to bend over backwards too much just to get inferior results when you confine yourself to the rigged rule set.