Posted on 03/02/2022 9:34:57 PM PST by doug from upland
Hillary Clinton. Barbara Mikulski. Dianne Feinstein. Nancy Pelosi. Samantha Power. Janet Reno. Donna Shalala**. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Barbara Boxer. What do all of these women have in common? They are Democrats. And they are butt ugly. Mere statistics alone would suggest if you got a dozen or so Democrat women politicians together there would be some glimmer of attractiveness, no matter how dim, somewhere. But you would be wrong. However, now, thanks to SCIENCE, we know why: Research has found that being attractive influences many things in a person’s life — their salary, their popularity and grades in school, even the prison sentences they receive. So why not their politics?
A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics. They find that politicians on the right are more good looking in Europe, the United States and Australia.
The study shows correlation, not causation, but the researchers float a simple economic explanation for why this might happen. Numerous studies have shown that good-looking people are likely to earn more, and that people who earn more are typically more opposed to redistributive policies, like the progressive taxes and welfare programs favored by the left.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
feminism is sexual socialism, basically
I don’t buy it... There are a lot of beautiful people in the entertainment industry that are about as ding bat left as you can get.
One of the reasons so many of these women insisted that everyone wear a mask. They really liked covering their faces.
the science is settled
ok...ill start...first off, they are that certain type of women who are pissed that they are women. They resent deeply that they are thought of sexually....they have severe cases of penis envy. Usually, but not always, they are not really attractive...which only drives them to be more less attractive, i.e, no make-up etc....im just scrapping the surface..
you never see them without the make up
Yes, another example: Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib
Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro was a very pretty young lady in her early twenties, IMHO.
The article was about real people, not plastic silicone tramps.
Fly a quail past those broads and most of them would point.
It is the makeup and plastic surgery.
The outer reflects the inner.
I don’t think I’d call it penis envy. I think it’s more that they don’t think it’s fair that their looks matter - to their disadvantage. As for the Hollywood loons - I think it’s going along with the crowd, they want to go with whatever seems popular.
Well...life isn’t fair.
But I had a really cute friend who grew up in an affluent family and married the same. She was always feeling sorry for those less fortunate - it seemed to be baked into her. Some sort of guilt for being lucky.
Probably just the inner ugly showing through.
Babs Boxer wasn’t always completely hideous, iirc.
You’re right... I could name fifty off the top of my head.
As a corollary to this, Dennis Prager once posed the question why intellectuals are liberals, Marxists, anti-democratic and despise Western Civilization and the hoi polloi in general.
His answer is that they have a deep resentment toward the modern world because they feel it insufficiently rewards them since they perceive themselves as being superior.
I don’t think it has to do with money. The democrats are the party of the rich. I think the reason is part Dorian Grey, and part bitterness at being ugly, so anger and hate and getting even is their main pleasure.
I always thought Donna Shalala was just Robert Reich in drag ( they were the same height ). I never saw them in the same room at the same time.
A dumbass liberal guy I knew awhile back was a one-hit wonder on accuracy in his worldly observations in our liberal pit of hell here.
There’s an event regionally known as the Oregon Country Fair. It’s the singular event where women - 100% libs, some men, too - happily parade around topless (or worse) among the crowds.
I write worse (not referencing the lower extremities) on the basis of his astute aphorism:
A woman’s subjective beauty is inversely proportional to the amount of clothes she wore (generally speaking, he was referring to certain female assets).
“Swing low, sweet chariot.”
And, yes, he said the condition of the hubcaps was consistent with the hood, fenders and carpet alike.
Needless to say, I’ve never been to the fair; there are some things I take on faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.