Help me understand Republican women in their 30s and 40s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Residents in Democratic-voting states." Huh. That's an odd way to put it. Why not just say Democrats? Unless...

Looking into it...Ah, yes indeed, it turns out that this formulation was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality that, yes, Republicans live longer Democrats. (This shouldn't be that surprising because life expectancy is correlated with income and attractiveness.)

Here's Dr. Fauci's agency again, confirming that Republicans live longer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37874332/

It's kind of funny that Democrats ignore the science and falsely imagine that they are richer, better-looking, and longer-lived on average than Republicans.

I am a hard core democrat, live in a deep blue area and have to agree that Republican women are better looking.

Do you have a fetish for women who have double chins and wear Duck Dynasty trucker hats?

Recognizing beauty does not equal to a fetish, you pervert.

"Yes, you too can put on an extra 40 pounds, buy some camo gear and be recognized as a beauty!"
Great sales pitch. Notify Madison Avenue!

You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

You compare pro-palestine protesters defacing statues and mentally unwell men with erect penises in women's changing rooms to everyday Democrats, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT a like/like or even remotely legitimate comparison. If you don't like having unfair comparisons dished out at you then maybe you need to stop doing it yourself.

Unfortunately the Biden administration enshrined those penises in there by changing Title 9. I'm a Dem and I'm extremely embarrassed by some of the far left insanity our party has aligned with recently.

That's actually false. The revisions to Title IX don't mention transwomen anywhere.

I'd challenge you to cite the specific language where it does.

NY Times:
Republican attorneys general challenging the law have argued, and Judge Doughty agreed, that the rule could violate the privacy and safety of female students by allowing “biological men who identify as a female” into facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.

The rule broadly holds that instances where schools deny students that access, or where staff members do not observe transgender students’ preferred pronouns or chosen gender identity, could create a hostile environment that the Education Department could investigate.

Fail. Try again. Cite the specific language. Not what some deranged Republican AG or what some activist Trump-appointed judge said.

Cite the specific Title IX language.

It was understood from day one that school bathroom bans were being blocked Biden’s order

https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-bathroom-bans-645b5564ce227a9efe2c05f883609ae8#

Read the order in full. It’s online including the section in hostile environment around page 202. The judge isn’t being an activist, he is acknowledging that the executive can’t rewrite gender identity into a bill that says sex. They are two different things and a rewrite requires congress.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

It DOES NOT specifically say that. That's only the selective interpretation that activists came up with on their own.

Cite the specific language actually in Biden's Title IX revisions that guarantees males can do things like strut around buck naked with erect penises in shared womens changing rooms.

I'm still waiting.

Biden’s own advisor said it in court! You are really reaching here.

Bullshit.
You're the one who still can't manage to cite the specific language.

Cite the language. I'm STILL waiting.

READ THE ORDER. He is changing sex to gender identity and all that is associated with that so a student can now pursue a hostile environment claim he couldn’t previously if not allowed to use the bathroom of his gender identity. No one here is confused except you. Not Biden’s advisors, not the media, not the judge.

So in other words you still got nothing. Just some handwaving and blathering. Got it. I'm not confused one bit - you're the one who clearly cannot come through with any specific language. Instead you're peddling a partisan Trump-appointed judge's contorted interpretation of it rather than being able to cite the language itself. How revealing of your dishonesty.

It’s not my fault you can’t read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Residents in Democratic-voting states." Huh. That's an odd way to put it. Why not just say Democrats? Unless...

Looking into it...Ah, yes indeed, it turns out that this formulation was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality that, yes, Republicans live longer Democrats. (This shouldn't be that surprising because life expectancy is correlated with income and attractiveness.)

Here's Dr. Fauci's agency again, confirming that Republicans live longer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37874332/

It's kind of funny that Democrats ignore the science and falsely imagine that they are richer, better-looking, and longer-lived on average than Republicans.

I am a hard core democrat, live in a deep blue area and have to agree that Republican women are better looking.

Do you have a fetish for women who have double chins and wear Duck Dynasty trucker hats?

Recognizing beauty does not equal to a fetish, you pervert.

"Yes, you too can put on an extra 40 pounds, buy some camo gear and be recognized as a beauty!"
Great sales pitch. Notify Madison Avenue!

You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

You compare pro-palestine protesters defacing statues and mentally unwell men with erect penises in women's changing rooms to everyday Democrats, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT a like/like or even remotely legitimate comparison. If you don't like having unfair comparisons dished out at you then maybe you need to stop doing it yourself.

Unfortunately the Biden administration enshrined those penises in there by changing Title 9. I'm a Dem and I'm extremely embarrassed by some of the far left insanity our party has aligned with recently.

Enough already. I will give you that there are 2, maybe 3 folks that will vote on this issue but that is it. Discuss something else for a change.

I disagree strongly. Plenty of people, men and women don’t want men playing women’s sports or changing in women’s locker rooms.

There are certainly people who agree with you, and they're vocal. But people who disagree make their voices heard when it counts. Pat McCrory, Republican governor of North Carolina, signed a bill in 2016 that required people to use the bathroom matching their birth certificate at public facilities. He lost to a Democrat even though he shared a ballot with Trump, who won the state.

That is a stupid bill. Forget about the 7 transgender individuals it addresses. Hundreds, maybe thousands of women use the men's room all the time when the women's room line gets way too long.

And even when women's room lines aren't long, biological females are starting to be thrown out of them by obnoxious self-appointed bathroom-police Karens for any number of dumb reasons, like their hair is short or they wear jeans or have a blocky build or whatever else. How nice of you to stick up for your fellow females by not letting other biological women pee in peace just because they don't meet your own deranged and arbitrary standard of appearance.

What are you ranting about? If you want to stand in a long slow line for the women's room suit yourself. Try just walking into the men's room, taking care of business and going on your way. No one really cares.

Wasn't a "rant" unless you're out of touch with reality and somehow reality is now coming to you as a shock. It was about the very real increase in biological women being harassed and thrown out for using the women's bathrooms.

Quit frothing about this issue and put your effort into shutting down pu$$y grabber before he can do more damage to women. Trump is a menace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Residents in Democratic-voting states." Huh. That's an odd way to put it. Why not just say Democrats? Unless...

Looking into it...Ah, yes indeed, it turns out that this formulation was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality that, yes, Republicans live longer Democrats. (This shouldn't be that surprising because life expectancy is correlated with income and attractiveness.)

Here's Dr. Fauci's agency again, confirming that Republicans live longer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37874332/

It's kind of funny that Democrats ignore the science and falsely imagine that they are richer, better-looking, and longer-lived on average than Republicans.

I am a hard core democrat, live in a deep blue area and have to agree that Republican women are better looking.

Do you have a fetish for women who have double chins and wear Duck Dynasty trucker hats?

Recognizing beauty does not equal to a fetish, you pervert.

"Yes, you too can put on an extra 40 pounds, buy some camo gear and be recognized as a beauty!"
Great sales pitch. Notify Madison Avenue!

You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

You compare pro-palestine protesters defacing statues and mentally unwell men with erect penises in women's changing rooms to everyday Democrats, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT a like/like or even remotely legitimate comparison. If you don't like having unfair comparisons dished out at you then maybe you need to stop doing it yourself.

Unfortunately the Biden administration enshrined those penises in there by changing Title 9. I'm a Dem and I'm extremely embarrassed by some of the far left insanity our party has aligned with recently.

That's actually false. The revisions to Title IX don't mention transwomen anywhere.

I'd challenge you to cite the specific language where it does.

NY Times:
Republican attorneys general challenging the law have argued, and Judge Doughty agreed, that the rule could violate the privacy and safety of female students by allowing “biological men who identify as a female” into facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.

The rule broadly holds that instances where schools deny students that access, or where staff members do not observe transgender students’ preferred pronouns or chosen gender identity, could create a hostile environment that the Education Department could investigate.

Fail. Try again. Cite the specific language. Not what some deranged Republican AG or what some activist Trump-appointed judge said.

Cite the specific Title IX language.

It was understood from day one that school bathroom bans were being blocked Biden’s order

https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-bathroom-bans-645b5564ce227a9efe2c05f883609ae8#

Read the order in full. It’s online including the section in hostile environment around page 202. The judge isn’t being an activist, he is acknowledging that the executive can’t rewrite gender identity into a bill that says sex. They are two different things and a rewrite requires congress.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

It DOES NOT specifically say that. That's only the selective interpretation that activists came up with on their own.

Cite the specific language actually in Biden's Title IX revisions that guarantees males can do things like strut around buck naked with erect penises in shared womens changing rooms.

I'm still waiting.

Biden’s own advisor said it in court! You are really reaching here.

Bullshit.
You're the one who still can't manage to cite the specific language.

Cite the language. I'm STILL waiting.

READ THE ORDER. He is changing sex to gender identity and all that is associated with that so a student can now pursue a hostile environment claim he couldn’t previously if not allowed to use the bathroom of his gender identity. No one here is confused except you. Not Biden’s advisors, not the media, not the judge.

Biden's EOs said *NOTHING* about transwomen or bathrooms. Nothing. Anti-trans activists twisted it into being about transwomen and bathrooms. But there is no language whatsoever in the EOs. None.

[Anonymous]

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11175

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Residents in Democratic-voting states." Huh. That's an odd way to put it. Why not just say Democrats? Unless...

Looking into it...Ah, yes indeed, it turns out that this formulation was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality that, yes, Republicans live longer Democrats. (This shouldn't be that surprising because life expectancy is correlated with income and attractiveness.)

Here's Dr. Fauci's agency again, confirming that Republicans live longer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37874332/

It's kind of funny that Democrats ignore the science and falsely imagine that they are richer, better-looking, and longer-lived on average than Republicans.

I am a hard core democrat, live in a deep blue area and have to agree that Republican women are better looking.

Do you have a fetish for women who have double chins and wear Duck Dynasty trucker hats?

Recognizing beauty does not equal to a fetish, you pervert.

"Yes, you too can put on an extra 40 pounds, buy some camo gear and be recognized as a beauty!"
Great sales pitch. Notify Madison Avenue!

You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

You compare pro-palestine protesters defacing statues and mentally unwell men with erect penises in women's changing rooms to everyday Democrats, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT a like/like or even remotely legitimate comparison. If you don't like having unfair comparisons dished out at you then maybe you need to stop doing it yourself.

Unfortunately the Biden administration enshrined those penises in there by changing Title 9. I'm a Dem and I'm extremely embarrassed by some of the far left insanity our party has aligned with recently.

That's actually false. The revisions to Title IX don't mention transwomen anywhere.

I'd challenge you to cite the specific language where it does.

NY Times:
Republican attorneys general challenging the law have argued, and Judge Doughty agreed, that the rule could violate the privacy and safety of female students by allowing “biological men who identify as a female” into facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.

The rule broadly holds that instances where schools deny students that access, or where staff members do not observe transgender students’ preferred pronouns or chosen gender identity, could create a hostile environment that the Education Department could investigate.

Fail. Try again. Cite the specific language. Not what some deranged Republican AG or what some activist Trump-appointed judge said.

Cite the specific Title IX language.

It was understood from day one that school bathroom bans were being blocked Biden’s order

https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-bathroom-bans-645b5564ce227a9efe2c05f883609ae8#

Read the order in full. It’s online including the section in hostile environment around page 202. The judge isn’t being an activist, he is acknowledging that the executive can’t rewrite gender identity into a bill that says sex. They are two different things and a rewrite requires congress.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

It DOES NOT specifically say that. That's only the selective interpretation that activists came up with on their own.

Cite the specific language actually in Biden's Title IX revisions that guarantees males can do things like strut around buck naked with erect penises in shared womens changing rooms.

I'm still waiting.

Biden’s own advisor said it in court! You are really reaching here.

Bullshit.
You're the one who still can't manage to cite the specific language.

Cite the language. I'm STILL waiting.

READ THE ORDER. He is changing sex to gender identity and all that is associated with that so a student can now pursue a hostile environment claim he couldn’t previously if not allowed to use the bathroom of his gender identity. No one here is confused except you. Not Biden’s advisors, not the media, not the judge.

So in other words you still got nothing. Just some handwaving and blathering. Got it. I'm not confused one bit - you're the one who clearly cannot come through with any specific language. Instead you're peddling a partisan Trump-appointed judge's contorted interpretation of it rather than being able to cite the language itself. How revealing of your dishonesty.

It’s not my fault you can’t read.

I can read just fine. Can you? Again, I directly asked you for where the EO cites anything about transwomen or bathrooms. You failed. Repeatedly. Maybe you can read but did you actually read the EOs. There is NO language specific to transwomen or bathrooms or even remotely mentioning anything adjacent to them anywhere in the Biden EOs. None. Making it about transwomen and bathrooms was a work of partisan anti-trans activism and contorting interpretations into that reach. But you refused to admit that fact. How dishonest of you.

[Anonymous]

When you change the meaning of the law to cover gender identity, then you are by definition changing the bathroom laws. No one is confused here by what this order did. You want the word “trans woman” to appear on the order but the lack of that word changes nothing about the content of the order. Biden’s own administration trumpeted the change and would only carve out athletics as an area not to be touched (for now, read, until after he is re elected). Your bad faith in this is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Was every single news outlet that reported on Biden’s ban of school bathroom segregation wrong? Why didn’t his attorneys speak up in court to say hey we don’t mean for this to happen! That’s not what our order is saying!

Oh wait. They said the exact OPPOSITE and tried to defend taking a school’s right to segregate by sex away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Residents in Democratic-voting states." Huh. That's an odd way to put it. Why not just say Democrats? Unless...

Looking into it...Ah, yes indeed, it turns out that this formulation was a deliberate attempt to obscure the reality that, yes, Republicans live longer Democrats. (This shouldn't be that surprising because life expectancy is correlated with income and attractiveness.)

Here's Dr. Fauci's agency again, confirming that Republicans live longer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37874332/

It's kind of funny that Democrats ignore the science and falsely imagine that they are richer, better-looking, and longer-lived on average than Republicans.

I am a hard core democrat, live in a deep blue area and have to agree that Republican women are better looking.

Do you have a fetish for women who have double chins and wear Duck Dynasty trucker hats?

Recognizing beauty does not equal to a fetish, you pervert.

"Yes, you too can put on an extra 40 pounds, buy some camo gear and be recognized as a beauty!"
Great sales pitch. Notify Madison Avenue!

You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

You compare pro-palestine protesters defacing statues and mentally unwell men with erect penises in women's changing rooms to everyday Democrats, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT a like/like or even remotely legitimate comparison. If you don't like having unfair comparisons dished out at you then maybe you need to stop doing it yourself.

Unfortunately the Biden administration enshrined those penises in there by changing Title 9. I'm a Dem and I'm extremely embarrassed by some of the far left insanity our party has aligned with recently.

That's actually false. The revisions to Title IX don't mention transwomen anywhere.

I'd challenge you to cite the specific language where it does.

NY Times:
Republican attorneys general challenging the law have argued, and Judge Doughty agreed, that the rule could violate the privacy and safety of female students by allowing “biological men who identify as a female” into facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity.

The rule broadly holds that instances where schools deny students that access, or where staff members do not observe transgender students’ preferred pronouns or chosen gender identity, could create a hostile environment that the Education Department could investigate.

Fail. Try again. Cite the specific language. Not what some deranged Republican AG or what some activist Trump-appointed judge said.

Cite the specific Title IX language.

It was understood from day one that school bathroom bans were being blocked Biden’s order

https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-transgender-bathroom-bans-645b5564ce227a9efe2c05f883609ae8#

Read the order in full. It’s online including the section in hostile environment around page 202. The judge isn’t being an activist, he is acknowledging that the executive can’t rewrite gender identity into a bill that says sex. They are two different things and a rewrite requires congress.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

It DOES NOT specifically say that. That's only the selective interpretation that activists came up with on their own.

Cite the specific language actually in Biden's Title IX revisions that guarantees males can do things like strut around buck naked with erect penises in shared womens changing rooms.

I'm still waiting.

Biden’s own advisor said it in court! You are really reaching here.

Bullshit.
You're the one who still can't manage to cite the specific language.

Cite the language. I'm STILL waiting.

READ THE ORDER. He is changing sex to gender identity and all that is associated with that so a student can now pursue a hostile environment claim he couldn’t previously if not allowed to use the bathroom of his gender identity. No one here is confused except you. Not Biden’s advisors, not the media, not the judge.

So in other words you still got nothing. Just some handwaving and blathering. Got it. I'm not confused one bit - you're the one who clearly cannot come through with any specific language. Instead you're peddling a partisan Trump-appointed judge's contorted interpretation of it rather than being able to cite the language itself. How revealing of your dishonesty.

It’s not my fault you can’t read.

I can read just fine. Can you? Again, I directly asked you for where the EO cites anything about transwomen or bathrooms. You failed. Repeatedly. Maybe you can read but did you actually read the EOs. There is NO language specific to transwomen or bathrooms or even remotely mentioning anything adjacent to them anywhere in the Biden EOs. None. Making it about transwomen and bathrooms was a work of partisan anti-trans activism and contorting interpretations into that reach. But you refused to admit that fact. How dishonest of you.

You are the one being dishonest.

Gender identity = trans women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

For years, the running joke was Duke girls were ugly because they were northern and UNC girls attractive because they were southern.

I don't think the left/right divide among the higher incomes is sustainable. All the leftist women I know have few children while the conservative wives have a much higher fertility rate. In a generation or two, the problem will solve itself.

Conservative women give birth to liberals every day.

I'd be embarrassed to demonstrate my innumeracy. Rates matter, not exceptions.

Yes you should be embarrassed.The evangelical church is in decline, as is the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

For years, the running joke was Duke girls were ugly because they were northern and UNC girls attractive because they were southern.

I don't think the left/right divide among the higher incomes is sustainable. All the leftist women I know have few children while the conservative wives have a much higher fertility rate. In a generation or two, the problem will solve itself.

Conservative women give birth to liberals every day.

I'd be embarrassed to demonstrate my innumeracy. Rates matter, not exceptions.

Yes you should be embarrassed.The evangelical church is in decline, as is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is growing on all continents except Europe.

“The number of baptized Catholics has increased globally, rising from 1.376 billion in 2021 to 1.390 billion in 2022, with a relative increase of 1.0%.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

For years, the running joke was Duke girls were ugly because they were northern and UNC girls attractive because they were southern.

I don't think the left/right divide among the higher incomes is sustainable. All the leftist women I know have few children while the conservative wives have a much higher fertility rate. In a generation or two, the problem will solve itself.

Conservative women give birth to liberals every day.

I'd be embarrassed to demonstrate my innumeracy. Rates matter, not exceptions.

Yes you should be embarrassed.The evangelical church is in decline, as is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is growing on all continents except Europe.

“The number of baptized Catholics has increased globally, rising from 1.376 billion in 2021 to 1.390 billion in 2022, with a relative increase of 1.0%.”

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

[Anonymous]

^ Christianity in the US in decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Christianity in the US in decline.

More recent Pew report (2024)

Today, 20% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Catholics, according to our latest survey. This percentage has been generally stable since 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're comparing upper income democratic women to lower income Republican women. If you do a like/like comparison of classes, Republican women tend to dress and behave in more typically feminine ways, which men find more alluring. I used to live in a very blue state and now live in a red state. There is much greater pressure in a red state to look beautiful and fashionable.

For years, the running joke was Duke girls were ugly because they were northern and UNC girls attractive because they were southern.

I don't think the left/right divide among the higher incomes is sustainable. All the leftist women I know have few children while the conservative wives have a much higher fertility rate. In a generation or two, the problem will solve itself.

Conservative women give birth to liberals every day.

I'd be embarrassed to demonstrate my innumeracy. Rates matter, not exceptions.

Yes you should be embarrassed.The evangelical church is in decline, as is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic pews are more empty every week. There are no young people.

They literally scold the congregation about abortion every week and tell them to vote for a world class jerk and then wonder why no wants to sit there and give them money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Christianity in the US in decline.

More recent Pew report (2024)

Today, 20% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Catholics, according to our latest survey. This percentage has been generally stable since 2014.

And down from 24% in 2000.
Immigrants are keeping them steady for now, but they are tending away from the church as well.