Oh I should've said "ideologues" instead of "ideologes". Namely, the people who keep hammering this shit in newspapers

But to address your points

> human rights of LGBT people

Most of the contention here is around the T. I don't really have an opinion. I'm not changing my voting pattern because of such a small demographic

> protection of women from sexual abuse and coersion

And now we're living in the world of guilty until proven innocent. E.g. donglegate. Enough is enough

> justice for minorities

Which in practice means officially racist and sexist policies directed towards white and Asian men because they're considered "less favorable" demographics. I think the fundamentally dishonest way this issue in particular is framed is enough to completely delegitimize anything else they're saying. Consider me a single issue voter on this issue moving forward

> For example, "unhinged illegal immigration' is a characterization of the right

Well, it's technically illegal, right? And compared to other Western countries who actually have borders, it's technically unhinged. "Undocumented migrants" - what does this mean? It's just a dishonest euphemism that tries to legitimize the situation

What are your solutions to these issues? All I see is ranting at others, which doesn't solve the problems.

Regarding "unhinged" immigration, you haven't said anything that indicates people on the left support it (whatever it is - the hyperbole masks any real meaning).

> other Western countries who actually have borders

Other Western countries have similar immigration problems - it's a major issue in the EU, for example.

> What are your solutions to these issues?

I don't see issues, I see "issues". What people have done to solve them is a bigger issue for me than what they're trying to solve. E.g. affirmative action, another cute euphemism

> you haven't said anything that indicates people on the left support it

It's common knowledge? The summary left position in the US is to give a path to legal status, it creates a moral hazard that incentivizes more illegal immigration. And the typical rhetorical strategy is to try to play dumb or downplay that this will happen

> it's a major issue in the EU, for example.

Which, for the most part (e.g. Germany, the one in the news right now) is legal immigration

> I don't see issues, I see "issues".

That's convenient, but there's not much support for it. For example, abuse, exclusion, widespread discrimination against minorities and women is well-established. It's just a lazy argument - called reactionaryism - to deny it all without offering a better solution.

I think most reactionaries know they are wrong, and know that analysis and solutions on the left are probably accurate and optimal, and then choose to let people die or suffer rather than do any hard work or stand for anything. Look at Kennedy denying measles as significant.

You can't really use statistics to determine for me what's an issue to me. It's pretty subjective. That's not reactionaryism, that's me as a voter doing a cost benefit analysis. Which frankly is the only rational way to vote

Frankly I think this insistence that people vote against their own self interest more reactionary than the alternative. Like insisting that people reject sense for nonsense. Religion essentially

I didn't use statistics or suggest using them.

> that's me as a voter doing a cost benefit analysis. Which frankly is the only rational way to vote

Great. As I said, abuse, exclusion, widespread discrimination against minorities and women is well-established, for example. Those are very high costs.