site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 251286 results for

domain:natesilver.net

At least some of the post-mortem analyses and interviews with swing voters I've seen make the case that Trump did this on trans issues specifically - there's a reason "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" was statistically and anecdotally their most effective advertisement.

If you wanted to astroturf, going for a neutral to semi hostile media network might convince a Trump voter or two.

This is straightforwardly true, but the problem is the dem candidates. Kamala Harris had no real policies or positions, and could only really exist in a controlled and managed media environment that was willing to give her campaign editorial control over the finished product. She had so much negative baggage that she just wouldn't be able to answer without offending some part of her coalition, and she was a charisma void that meant she couldn't find ways around that. If she was forced to expose her personality and thinking for a solid three hours with no assistance, she would have tanked the campaign harder than she actually did.

When your candidate is so unappealing that they cause voters to peel off whenever they talk in an uncontrolled environment (Kamala even had trouble in extremely friendly environments too), you can only make appearances on friendly media, in friendly spaces. The correct answer is to run a real candidate who is speaking to people's issues and has an actual competent understanding of the world and social context - but when you have to advocate for policies which actively harm your constituents and provide a return on investment for all the lobbyists and donors who financed your campaign, you can't run a genuine candidate, so you're stuck with the kinds of disingenuous empty suits that ran the republican party before Trump showed up and still run the democrat party.

I'm not certain if you're arguing that she was a critical part of creating the wealth and therefore deserves a large cut (i.e. he wouldn't have succeeded if he wasn't married to her) or if you're just saying that the law states she gets a chunk as long as they were married long enough.

The position "a woman can be married to you a long time and then leave and take a huge chunk of your wealth with her" isn't very encouraging, on its own.

meritocracy

Oh god, please don't bring up this word with OP, we're about to get a lecture about how meritocracy necessarily means open borders to high-talent immigrants, even if it means economic ruin for existing residents...

schools are forcing uninterested, non-consenting children into transition

I certainly never claimed that, so I won't be championing it. You may not take my statements, make an exaggerated looney version of them and then foist that wild view onto me.

Whether these are valid medical treatments for minors or horrific butchery that we will look back on like elective lobotomies for strange children is the matter under dispute.

I actually don't! I think without a parent involved in the decisions, malicious actors could convince a child to get any surgery or take any drugs. And sometimes even then!

So no, I do not believe a child can consent to any of those things, which is why parents make those decisions for them.

It ought to be. It's the only outlet for mythmaking that we're still allowed and the United States was explicitly founded on the free and liberal exercise of the natural right to make up ridiculous tall tales.

I say this without a hint of irony: Alex Jones is here being unjustly persecuted for his religious beliefs.

I suppose it will be updated, it was sections for Jan 6 and Covid. 2024 tomfoolery as seen by the right focused on down ballot.

It's harder to get away with a lie the second time.

And if you believe that this event was used to squeeze a substantial sum of ballots into the count, how did Harris similarily squeeze a substantial sum of ballots into the count in 2024 without anyone noticing? She did better than Biden by 75k votes.

Can you elaborate on what you want me to respond to? Are you referring to singers who in the past were castrated for their singing voices? I don't think that was a morally good practice.

I obviously would agree that 'abduction of minors for sinister purposes' is bad, you literally put sinister in the description. I suspect we disagree on what sinister purposes refers to, so you need to describe something more specific if you want to prompt my thoughts to see our differences of opinion.

Ballot counting stopped in Fulton County on election night 2020 because of claims of a burst pipe that later turned out to be false. But after poll watchers went home ballot counting continued and the next morning the largest pro-Biden ballot drop of the entire election was delivered.

Ballot counting stopped in Fulton County on election night 2020 because of claims of a burst pipe that later turned out to be false. But after poll watchers went home ballot counting continued and the next morning the largest pro-Biden ballot drop of the entire election was delivered.

They do a good piece every now and then, but all the best content that people still talk about seems to come from a 10-year period that ended somewhere in Obama's first term.

That is a preposterous and insane analogy to make so it's no wonder that's what your conclusion is.

Frankly I find it more preposterious and insane that you don't see removing parental authority as the salient category.

What's your position on castrati? Willing undertaking of medical procedure or abduction of minors for sinister purposes?

As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.

Yeah, that tracks.

They are the dog that caught the car. Cultural victory is very bad for a humor publication. Pro-regime propaganda is never funny. And neither is the Onion, not for a long time now.

Probably the pendulum will swing again at some point.

I will repeat: do you think children can consent to surgery for appendicitis? treatment via antidepressants? Antibiotics?

I think putting 'mothers breastfeeding their children' in the same category as cholera, dysentery and smallpox is a bridge too far.

Technical interventions that remove lethal diseases aren't the same as qualitative shifts in the operation.

You are correct, I perceive no difference between children "consenting" to sex or "consenting" to sterilization.

Do you actually not understand the difference or did you just want to get a cheap dig in?

Do you see all medical interventions in under-18's as 'grooming'? No? Just the one you already have a prior about not liking?

If I'm wrong please tell me how. There's a huge host of reasons why they are different, but I'm only going to bother explaining them if you're not going to respond with another sarcastic one liner that is indistinguishable from an inflamed partisan spouting nonsense about 'the transgenders grooming my kids to want to be raped'.

Your right, i forgot to include the priest telling some wild yarn about how the kids actually want it. Despite everything we know about kids not being able to consent to that. Good call. Now its perfect.

Dems must really be counting on Trump crashing the economy to go with Newsom

He is also Gay

That loses too much of the crucial black and Latino vote.

I would bet more on Whitmer. They really want a female president, it’s pretty clear. They’re itching for it.

Wouldn’t Obama count as coastal due to his Hawaiian roots?

Yes, I agree. I am just saying that looking dangerous is also usually necessary to get good deals.

I didn't follow this closely, but didn't he order withdrawl from Afghanistan and Syria, but the generals slow-played it?