domain:apollomindset.substack.com
It's frustrating to me, and I think other Canadians, that our government allowed this to happen. I can't stress enough how much it didn't have to be this way. We had a good thing going. We were a pro-immigrant country. We liked newcomers.
You see bar charts like this and it's just baffling. Even at the vastly increased rate of immigration over the last 4 years, you'd see less backlash if those bars had been kept more even.
"Past peak" only means the first derivative has turned negative, not that there will be no new examples.
In 2020, Biden got 2,473,633 votes in Georgia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United _States_presidential_election_in_Georgia
In 2024, Harris got 2,548,014 votes in Georgia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia
I hear that Republicans stopped the democrats from stealing the election again with their superior election observation efforts this year.
But how come we haven't seen any evidence of the fraud Harris had to perpetuate to maintain and improve on Biden's 2020 numbers in Georgia?
I think it kind of smacks of desperation to take a politician changing her twitter profile as some kind of great paradigm shift. This reaction alone makes me think we have not yet reached "peak woke."
Aren't lots of high-profile people leaving twitter anyways? It might be more of a prelude to her jumping ship off the platform than anything else.
Yeah they’re gonna run in 2028 on “man isn’t all this culture war shit about abortion and god and deporting random Mexicans kind of lame and cringe and try hard? Why not just, like, be chill, live and let live maaan”…and it’s going to work. The public has a short memory.
explicitly talking about why crying in front of border fences was good then but doesn't conflict with an immigration stance that isn't "open borders" now.
If AOC had been running this year, she could have threaded the needle between "we don't need to enforce our borders" and "Trump's border enforcement was nothing to cry about" by asserting that Trump just did it badly. Harp on things like kids unable to be reunified with families because they didn't collect enough data when separating them.
How well that plays in four years will depend on how badly Trump's border policy is carried out over his second term, but since the worst case for her is "Trump's Executive Orders don't make any big photogenic mistakes and the civil service who has to carry out his orders also don't make any big photogenic mistakes", I'm betting she still ends up with some swing-voter-friendly territory to stake out.
On the other hand, the "I'll do what you want but I won't screw it up" card works in any player's hand. Even if Trump does end up taking the blame for any big problems, he won't be the one running in 2028, and it'll be easy enough for any Republican (except Vance) to simply say "well, he had good goals, and I'll be the one to achieve them, without any mistakes this time."
Harris tried, and while it wasn't the only argument against, plenty of Trump campaign hay was reaped from her stated 2020 policy positions and Senate votes.
It was a pretty good argument against. "My values have not changed" probably sounded like a tough focus-group-approved thing to memorize out of context, but without some explanation for Harris' changing positions it was just an obvious attempt to weasel out of an incredibly important question when she was asked about the changes. When someone is obviously trying to mislead you, the only safe thing to believe is that an honest answer would be the one you didn't want to hear, so it wasn't too crazy that many moderates and progressives concluded that Harris wasn't to be trusted.
Not because of that, just that she is pretty far off the reservation as far as apologia for Putin, Assad etc. goes, even relative to Trump, having blamed America for the invasion of Ukraine. Seems unlikely the more hawkish Republicans are willing to swallow this one.
You can't have any tolerance for mass migration
America was a leftist project which got started by Anglo puritans, it was never supposed to be this way and having more people is a sure shot way of causing conflict.
If america were to raid India or China or Israel, will people of the respective ethnicities not have a very high chance of siding with nations they come from?
Demographics matter, they matter as much as policy or maybe far more or less. America is it's people.
And unfortunately for them, until all my children are over 18, it's literally my number one priority.
Agreed. This is more than people with dicks dominating women's sports. And it's more than a few perverts stealing women's underwear or using women's locker rooms.
Those stories understandably get the most engagement, but they are relatively rare.
The much bigger issue is how the spread of trans ideology has resulted in some pretty huge number of children getting placed onto the trans gender track which, if not quickly arrested, results in awful life outcomes. I think the best comparison is anorexia, which is similarly terrible for one's health and mostly the result of social contagion.
In my mind, Democrats are permanently tainted on this issue. We need more than a minor pullback in wokeness. We need investigations. We need groomers to get fired and potentially prosecuted. And we need clinics performing gender surgery on minors to be shut down, their owners sued into bankruptcy, and their practitioners delicensed.
Assuming that instead of trans advocates losing ground, it's shadow-speak, or fingers crossed in the background.
Seems like a particularly miserable way of viewing the world. It's a victory for your team. Take the W.
Sure. And there are people with all kinds of strange fetishes. I've frequently dated girls with white boy fetishes, tbh, because I'm kinda exactly what they're typically looking for.
But in the grand scheme of things, the impact of race is much smaller than the impact of being in shape, being rich, being confident.
I guess I'm not a political consultant, so I might be very wrong (then again, so are the consultants sometimes), but my visceral feeling here is that politicians that have previously staked out now-seen-as-extreme positions won't be able to just sweep history under the rug. Harris tried, and while it wasn't the only argument against, plenty of Trump campaign hay was reaped from her stated 2020 policy positions and Senate votes. I can't see AOC winning without a huge vibe shift back to 2016-2020 Democrats' values (not impossible if the next term goes very poorly, I suppose) or explicitly talking about why crying in front of border fences was good then but doesn't conflict with an immigration stance that isn't "open borders" now.
But of her generation of left-leaning politicians, I don't find her the worst.
I believe the accepted phrase is "Women! Can't live with em..."
<awkward silence>
Check the immediately preceding top level post before you celebrate.
There is a political party that is pro child mutilation
No major politician or political party supports this, unless you're talking about religious stuff like Jewish circumcision.
AOC is gearing up early for a 2028 run. It’s obvious how the Democratic Party can increase its appeal to young men. Stop trying to overthink it.
Her being anti-lgbt, with a track record of policies that would otherwise be fairly progressive, she seems like a standard, good pick for almost any position in ... any president's cabinet?
Having had a quick look at her wikipedia page, I'm not sure I'd describe her as anti-lgbt. Also, There are many presidents/potential presidents for whom being ant-lgbt would disqualify you from a position in their cabinet.
But I personally would rather spend my day on my computer than outdoors on a pickup truck,...
...and I think the Republicans are equally braindead as the Democrats, just less trigger-happy about their stupid plans.
why I have more in common with the other blue-grey people than I do with the pure red people.
Sounds like you are more of an indoors type of person rather than outdoors, and has the scorn for the politicians that some of us remember from the last century before it became a team sport.
you are red tribe.
Well, like I said, I don't know enough about any of these people to even make a vibes-based guess as to whether you or I am right, but if nothing else the grudge mechanics you're proposing are complicated, and what I put forward is simple.
Also, I think you're misunderstanding my position. "Guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" isn't about "tough publicly, cordial privately" (or vice versa as you say later). When guys fight, it's a real fight. It's just that afterwards they can still be friends / work together, and arguably the fight helps to facilitate that to begin with.
Have you tried going "women amirite"? In a joking tone, of course.
How exactly do men wanting to breastfeed cause a problem here? Are they doing big group lactation sessions and don't want men to see their breasts? Is it a budgetary issue? The article just assumes this is Clearly A Bad Thing because Men, but it never actually articulates any specific objections.
It's one more iota of evidence that we're past peak woke.
I was a little worried after the election that leftists would see it as vindication that moderation doesn't work, given how Harris had pivoted to the center. But overall that doesn't seem to be the case. Thank goodness.
OK, I did misinterpret that a bit, but I don't think it changes much. "Fighting it out" then working together later isn't how Trumpworld works, as Trump is quick to hold grudges. Sometimes if figures are particularly powerful like McConnell then Trump restrains himself somewhat, but usually Trump becomes very bitter when he thinks someone has "betrayed" him (with a very loose definition of "betrayal").
More options
Context Copy link