domain:link.springer.com
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.
This is mainly a vent.
I find myself withdrawing from 'trying' with women, socially. I used to attempt to strike up friendly conversations with with people in general, but naturally with an emphasis on not-unattractive women. Not in a particularly flirty way, either.
And I find myself constantly disappointed that they keep finding a way to get in a reddit-y snark along the lines of "Men, Amirite?" I try to be non-argumentative in this context, but I increasingly have the urge to go meta-therapist and say something like "I feel like there's a lot of implicit hostility in that statement. I have my own frustrations with, you know, girls and stuff, but I'd consider it rude and a bad look to bring it up in conversation with a stranger. Are you trying to hint I should go away, or do you just think this is how people talk in #currentyear? Because I really can't tell anymore."
Dark Knight Rises
Even the trans community has been somewhat bothered by the "pronouns in bio/email" stuff, so I'm not surprised to see it fading. There were a lot of complaints that, in practice, it just drew attention to the least gender conforming people in the office - plus it's not a fun question when you're still in the closet (do you lie? are you comfortable lying?)
We already live in a world where Democrats sanctioned (...) putting them on a path towards mutilation and sterilization.
I really doubt you can find anything from a major politician that supports that claim. This isn't even "making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike", it's just plain making things up.
they still have to deal with the fact that they're on the same team.
They do this by being cordial publicly, but ridiculing Trump privately. Most R senators think Trump is a buffoon, but they do what he wants since he has a long track record of crusading against Republicans who defy him. A good example is how R senators all voted against the Trump candidate for Senate Majority Leader, but they only did so because it was a private ballot and Trump can't accurately retaliate against any of them.
Vance was oppose him originally and now he's his VP?
While Trump can hold grudges, they're not permanent since he gets distracted easily. He's willing to go further on grudges than almost anything else, but even that has a limit of 1-3 years, by which point Trump's either usually succeeded or failed at harming them. Vance's transgressions in 2016 likely don't paint him well in Trump's eyes, but it's sufficiently long enough ago that he can portray it as ancient history.
I mean, the original claim from token_progressive was "anti-gay-marriage party", which seems true?
But your claim was that Trump is pro-gay, not merely an absence of anti-gay.
Anti-Indian sentiment within the Anglosphere seems mostly confined to Canada and the UK
I haven't really seen much Anti-Indian sentiment in the UK (outside of hardcore EDL types, who don't like anyone not British). I don't have the numbers to hand but I'm pretty sure they're one of the highest earning, least criminal demographics over here.
There are all these newspaper headlines coming out of India about animals being raped to death, women who go there instantly regretting their decision.
I thought that was Pakistan, and I thought that was shown to be a hoax?
I've long since lost the reference, but probably 6 years ago I saw some segment on The Hill about a study done by a trans advocacy group. And basically it was a policy document pointing out that putting penises in women only spaces, especially women only spaces with minors, is about the most unpopular policy you can possibly run on. So what needs to happen is that trans friendly politicians need to lie, and then quietly do it anyways. Don't worry, trans friendly advocates in media, and trust and safety teams on social media will cover for you.
No matter what mouth sounds Democrats make, I will never trust them on this subject ever again. And unfortunately for them, until all my children are over 18, it's literally my number one priority. We already live in a world where Democrats sanctioned the state taking kids away from parents, and putting them on a path towards mutilation and sterilization. You don't just get to walk away from that and hope nobody brings up all those children you sterilized.
The things she has said in regards to the Ukraine war are textbook Russian talking points. What else is there to say? Let's hope that that the senate doesn't actually confirm her appointment .
The consequence was that a bunch of striving students, including many Indians and Chinese but of course also ambitious whites, who had no connection to conservatism and don’t really care about ideology, are now joining fedsocs for the career boost.
This is still a good thing, most of those people will probably end up earnestly believing those things eventually.
But how does adding yet another pro-Harris post to a sub-reddit that is already 100% full of pro-Harris posts drive turnout? It makes no sense.
It's like a guy adding a 17th Harris/Walz yard sign to a yard that already has 16. It doesn't make his neighbors want to go vote for Harris. It just makes him look like a crazy person.
It's the same mistake that mass media outlets like ABC make. You can make a choice to burn a small amount of credibility in exchange for partisan politics. But at some point, the credibility is gone and then your endorsements actually hurt the candidate.
Democrats who look at the front page of Reddit will say "holy shit, what a bunch of crazy people" and think "maybe I'll stay home on Tuesday".
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.
More options
Context Copy link