domain:jessesingal.substack.com
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
9hr ago
Because I don’t honestly think she was cheating. There just aren’t any statistical red flags of cheating that I’m aware of in any direction. There are no wild swings that don’t match the polling data, there aren’t any places with oddly high turnout. Even in the other direction, the places she lost match perfectly with the places with high Pro-Palestinian sentiment who might well have chosen not to vote for her out of anger over her tepid support of Israel. Those numbers are pretty consistent with ordinary population growth.
hydroacetylene
9hr ago
Breastfeeding has not received quite as much cultural attention as childbirth, for reasons I can only guess at.
Yes, yes it has. Screaming about breastfeeding has been A Thing for a while now.
07mk
9hr ago
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.
I've noticed that trans advocacy seemed to be copying along with the successful gay marriage advocacy of the past, and this looks like another possible example. Back in 2008, when presidential candidate Barack Obama came out explicitly against gay marriage, it was considered just common knowledge among my peers that he was lying in order to help the good guys gain power. Obama's stance on gay marriage hasn't been relevant in a long time, but as of the last time I talked about it with friends, they seemed to still believe that Obama had been lying at the time, rather than that his position changed at some point while he was in office.
I have no idea how many people actually believed his lie, assuming that it was a lie, but certainly telling such lies in order to sneak in more "extreme" positions wasn't disapproved of and, by my perceptions, quite lauded. So it does seem reasonable to suspect similar things going on with trans advocacy. However, this doesn't seem to be working in this case for a variety of reasons, including the fundamental physical differences between what gay marriage and trans advocacy demand. There seems to be a sort of cruel cosmic joke here with trans advocates trying to follow in the successful footsteps of the gay marriage movement but as a cargo cult just copying along the superficial aspects.
yofuckreddit
9hr ago
On one hand I agree.
On the other this took serious intent from AOC or her Twitter admin. It only took seconds, but why remove it at all? Thousands of software suites have been updated to allow pronouns and gender spectrums whenever dealing with people. They fought so hard for this - why back down on the signal?
SteveKirk
9hr ago
we had a professor banned from teaching first-year mandatory courses because he donated to the Republican party in 2012,
Do you have a link for this? I want to use it next time the "there's no discrimination, conservatives are just too stupid for academia" card gets played.
Ben___Garrison
Voltaire's Viceroy
9hr ago
It's just that afterwards they can still be friends / work together, and arguably the fight helps to facilitate that to begin with.
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").
celluloid_dream
9hr ago
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.
Ben___Garrison
Voltaire's Viceroy
9hr ago
"Past peak" only means the first derivative has turned negative, not that there will be no new examples.
AppleyOrange
10hr ago
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?
johnfabian
10hr ago
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.
2rafa
10hr ago
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.
roystgnr
10hr ago
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.
HaroldWilson
10hr ago
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.
mrvanillasky
10hr ago
You can't have any tolerance for mass migration
mrvanillasky
10hr ago
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 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.
Templexious
10hr ago
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.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
10hr ago
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.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
11hr ago
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.
jkf
11hr ago
I believe the accepted phrase is "Women! Can't live with em..."
<awkward silence>
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11hr ago
Check the immediately preceding top level post before you celebrate.
TokenTransGirl
11hr ago
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.
Quantumfreakonomics
11hr ago
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.
ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
11hr ago
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.
Is it, though? The law says that she is entitled to some percentage of what he earned/acquired during the marriage. But that law presumably was not written with billionaires in mind.
As far as I understand divorce law (admitting it varies between states), the goal is to ensure that the less endowed spouse is not left destitute and is given enough support to live approximately the lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage for the foreseeable future. Punishing the other spouse is not really part of the calculation.
I think $100 mil would be more than sufficient for that purpose. Maybe you disagree.
And regardless, the message this sends to guys is that they can lose enormous chunks of wealth in a divorce (and thanks to no-fault, the cheating part is optional!) and so they probably shouldn't risk getting married if their assets are considerable.
More options
Context Copy link