I have very bad news for you. Women will continue to vote, and there is nothing you can do about it, because your ideology does not have much appeal. Well, women will continue to vote at least until a possible Muslim takeover, at which point European women and also men will probably emigrate to Australia, Canada, the US and some other countries.
I've long moved past having an "ideology "of any kind actually. In a world where Scandinavian women are pictured holding up signs saying refugees welcome who subsequently go back packing to Morocco where they are gang raped for more than a week before having their heads sawn off with knives and crying for mama and the pictures being sent to their parents social media page resulting in zero negative opinion to Muslim males it's pointless. Can anyone imagine if a far right male had done something similar to that?The calls to ban his organisation would be defeaning white women of the western world who have contributed zip nada nothing to it's advancement other than have children with men of their race would rather adhere to their privileged feminist status and see nations they inhabit swamped by predatory immigrants than stand for any collective identity
Like all of the Scandinavian countries the" mood" of Denmark is formed by women. This gives us the extreme pro immigration females holding up signs saying "refugees welcome "and though that cohort may be a minority it's sure to be a large one and the number advocating zero immigration is probably miniscule. This leaves with the majority who favour continued immigration probably at a higher rate than currently. And it begs the question if only women could vote would there be any controls at all?
In 2016, Trump got the majority of the White women's vote. Now, whether Trump restricted immigration is another story, but that was his campaign platform. Also, the thing to understand is that if the electorate changed, the parties would change to appeal to the new electorate, and a lot of the process would probably involve just framing the same policies differently, because we know that framing can change support for policies.
Of course Trump restricted immigration. You just need to look at the 11 15 or 18 million illegals admitted to the US by the Democrats in response!Which is designed to.....change the electorate
The number of non-Ukrainian asylum seekers has fallen, and that was the source of the immigrants who cause a lot of problems, the question then is whether the new Asian immigrants are Muslims or Chinese and Indians? If the new immigrants are Chinese and Indians, then not only are they better immigrants, but they also have lower fertility than natives, which would be consistent with data showing that in Denmark natives have higher fertility than immigrants. In order to assess whether the Danish Social Democrats have failed to restrict immigration of immigrants who cause a lot of problems, we need at the very least data on the national origin of new immigrants versus past immigrants.
As for the total population of non-Western immigrants having increased, that was inevitable due to the younger age structure, even if they do not have higher fertility. The policies of these other parties talk about making it easier to deport criminals, which is good, but it is hard to see how this would decrease the total population of non-Western immigrants. Any direction toward more restrictive immigration and citizenship policies is good, but immigrants with Danish citizenship or even long-term legal residency who do not commit crimes will probably never be deported, regardless of which parties comes into government.
Regarding the total immigrant population, yeah, the number is large, but immigrants like Poles and Ukrainians will probably intermarry with Danes and be absorbed in two generations or less.
There is not one country in the West that is controlling immigration to the degree necessary to avert their destruction.
And while women have the vote that's all that can be expected
I have very bad news for you. Women will continue to vote, and there is nothing you can do about it, because your ideology does not have much appeal. Well, women will continue to vote at least until a possible Muslim takeover, at which point European women and also men will probably emigrate to Australia, Canada, the US and some other countries.
I've long moved past having an "ideology "of any kind actually. In a world where Scandinavian women are pictured holding up signs saying refugees welcome who subsequently go back packing to Morocco where they are gang raped for more than a week before having their heads sawn off with knives and crying for mama and the pictures being sent to their parents social media page resulting in zero negative opinion to Muslim males it's pointless. Can anyone imagine if a far right male had done something similar to that?The calls to ban his organisation would be defeaning white women of the western world who have contributed zip nada nothing to it's advancement other than have children with men of their race would rather adhere to their privileged feminist status and see nations they inhabit swamped by predatory immigrants than stand for any collective identity
The nationalist parties have 15%. Are 85% of the voters women?
Like all of the Scandinavian countries the" mood" of Denmark is formed by women. This gives us the extreme pro immigration females holding up signs saying "refugees welcome "and though that cohort may be a minority it's sure to be a large one and the number advocating zero immigration is probably miniscule. This leaves with the majority who favour continued immigration probably at a higher rate than currently. And it begs the question if only women could vote would there be any controls at all?
In 2016, Trump got the majority of the White women's vote. Now, whether Trump restricted immigration is another story, but that was his campaign platform. Also, the thing to understand is that if the electorate changed, the parties would change to appeal to the new electorate, and a lot of the process would probably involve just framing the same policies differently, because we know that framing can change support for policies.
Of course Trump restricted immigration. You just need to look at the 11 15 or 18 million illegals admitted to the US by the Democrats in response!Which is designed to.....change the electorate
The number of non-Ukrainian asylum seekers has fallen, and that was the source of the immigrants who cause a lot of problems, the question then is whether the new Asian immigrants are Muslims or Chinese and Indians? If the new immigrants are Chinese and Indians, then not only are they better immigrants, but they also have lower fertility than natives, which would be consistent with data showing that in Denmark natives have higher fertility than immigrants. In order to assess whether the Danish Social Democrats have failed to restrict immigration of immigrants who cause a lot of problems, we need at the very least data on the national origin of new immigrants versus past immigrants.
As for the total population of non-Western immigrants having increased, that was inevitable due to the younger age structure, even if they do not have higher fertility. The policies of these other parties talk about making it easier to deport criminals, which is good, but it is hard to see how this would decrease the total population of non-Western immigrants. Any direction toward more restrictive immigration and citizenship policies is good, but immigrants with Danish citizenship or even long-term legal residency who do not commit crimes will probably never be deported, regardless of which parties comes into government.
Regarding the total immigrant population, yeah, the number is large, but immigrants like Poles and Ukrainians will probably intermarry with Danes and be absorbed in two generations or less.