There is still time for Biden to do the right thing and step down, but the window is closing fast. If this is such an important election where we choose democracy over fascism, you’d think they would act to preserve the nation’s best interests.
It’s also extremely dangerous at this late juncture…Hillary isn’t the only frightful replacement being bandied about by the establishment right now. I’ve also seen calls for Kamala or Jeffries to step in, which would be disastrous in both cases.
The issue with Kamala is people can now say she’s known about Joe for a while and kept it hidden for selfish reasons. I think there are lot of Dems that could do better than Biden, but there isn’t much time left like you said. The sooner, it shows that Biden himself isn’t just power hungry, and people will be empathetic given what they saw during the debate. I don’t see how it would hurt the odds for a party to do what is right for once.
If he had what it takes to root out fascism he’d already be in motion using the Supreme Court ruling saying hes immune from anything he does in an official capacity. Dems in general are too tepid to even try. I really hope I’m wrong but leaving options on the table unused is the democratic way.
dude federal authorities should totally investigate this fucker’s laptop. i bet there’s all sorts of illegal fucked up shit in there. sex is all he thinks about all day every day. there’s no way he has normal porn habits.
I will yet again say that your browser histories should be public information if you’re going to run for office, or at the very least once you get elected. With heavy penalties if it turns out you’re hiding anything.
I’m an elected state official in Florida at the extremely local level. Fuck off with that. People don’t need to know my browsing history. It’s entirely possible to judge someone’s fitness by the acts they take in office alone.
My browsing history is my business, not yours or anyone else’s. You may as well start asking for my correspondence history, a record of the content of my private conversations, etc…
I understand the danger that bad actors posing as normal candidates pose. Trust me, I’ve dealt with it first hand. But throwing out huge swathes of otherwise qualified candidates because they aren’t willing to share every piece of their personal life is not the remedy.
Dude, I normally agree with you, but not on this. You’re trying to set up a purity test for office. You might not use it that way, but the Repuglicans will.
Also do you really want to see your daughter’s entire browser history because you raised her well, and she decides to become a civil servant? Or worse, have it plastered all over the news? Think hard on that one.
If she did something nefarious that the public should know about? Absolutely I do. I’m not why you think I would consider family a special case and I’m sorry you think that I’m that sort of hypocrite because I sure have never indicated I am.
(Also, I don’t know why people insist on telling me they normally agree with me when they disagree with me, but it happens all the time.)
Nah dude, I wasn’t calling you a hypocrite. I was trying to reframe it so that you could see how whatever her sexuality is would be weaponized against her. It’s a bad idea, for people that "have nothing to hide.
Would you want the world to know all the porn you ever looked at? Cause I wouldn’t, and from what I can tell, I’m into some pretty tame shit.
I wouldn’t run for office. And if you’re worried about that sort of thing and don’t want people to know about it, maybe you shouldn’t either. Because if they learn, you’ll be in a world of shit of your own making when you could have avoided it.
The result of this is that the only people who can get into office are literally perfect or they’re very good at hiding their activities. You leave no room for normal people with varying levels of flaws and foibles and ‘weird’ interests to participate.
So let’s push normal people out of public office, and make sure to only have sociopaths who have no shame?
For example, I looked up a spider monkey’s vagina because a book about sexuality my partner was reading said they have large external clitoris coming out of their butt.
I can bet you all my wealth that it would be used by Republicans to say I’m into bestiality and a sexual deviant.
FS is a weird one. Did you know he didn’t know that online coupons existed? like, at all? It started in a topic about Domino’s pizza (yes, he never knew Domino’s Pizza had coupons), and turns out it expanded to anything online, as he listed a bunch of websites that he was certain, just like Domino’s, didn’t have coupons. I’m not discrediting everything about him, but between this “privacy shouldn’t exist” stance and “everyone else is at fault for me never knowing that coupons existed on the internet”, I’m starting to wonder.
That’s okay, according to @ASeriesOfPoorChoices, it’s because I am “going insane.” Gotta love an ableist. (I actually have mental illness, so I always love people who use it as a weapon.)
What could possibly be in your browser history that you don’t want people to see?
I’m sorry, do you live in the same world as the rest of us? Seems like half the country wants to murder gay people and thinks porn should be illegal and you can’t fathom why someone might want to hide perfectly acceptable parts of their identity?
This would basically disallow any closeted gay/trans person from ever running for office, for example. People deserve their privacy.
are you seriously one of those “if you have nothing to hide then you don’t need privacy” bullshit artists? Jeeeezus I knew you were going insane, but this is full right-wing nutjobbery right here.
dude federal authorities should totally investigate this fucker’s laptop.
Its frustrating, because a Bush USA would have been so far up Ron’s ass he wouldn’t need those lifts in his shoes. But Obama and Biden just kinda shrug at this and let it slide.
That’s why you go with a credit union and not a bank. (When I said ‘bank account,’ it was a general term that people assume includes credit unions most of the time.) The overdraft “fee” on my checking account is “keep some money in your savings account to cover it.”
I agree, U.S. banks are insanely predatory. But there is a perfectly good alternative that many people simply don’t look into taking. Sometimes being a credit union member requires you to be affiliated with an institution (I got my account while working for a university), that isn’t always necessary.
I guess that’s why I’m not planning to move to the US any time soon. The whole “you’re scammed by default” thing. I don’t want to be an expert on 30 different things just so that I don’t get seriously fucked over every other day.
I used to live in a country that was similar in some ways, you had to triple check everything because every glorified “small business owner” was scummy, and the regulator was asleep at the wheel. I like my peace and quiet now.
I don’t blame you. There are a lot of reasons I wouldn’t move here if I didn’t already live here, not the least of which being my massive medical debts.
I was just saying that there is an alternative to that particular problem and I wish more people knew about it and took it. Banks should not be for-profit entities in the first place in my opinion.
I’m more disgusted with how long this became common american history knowledge. I’ve grown up in the MO,KS,OK,AR area, and even lived in Tulsa for a number of years, and only started hearing about this 4 years ago.
law requiring all reading be ‘developmentally appropriate’
I hate that I have to keep saying this, even to some people on Lemmy.
There are people who go to graduate school to get a degree which includes instruction on finding developmentally appropriate books for children. They spend a whole lot of money on their educations to do this as a profession.
They’re called librarians.
If librarians can’t be trusted like they suggest, they should call for an end to the job as an educated profession. Weirdly, they never do. I’ve never seen Moms for Liberty demand that the University of Illinois stop offering its library science degree.
If they were really serious about this issue, they’d tackle the problem of schools not getting the funding to hire people with library science degrees and going with someone with an education degree who they can pay less.
I feel that “normalizing assault” might paint an inaccurate picture of what the article contains.
I, a trans woman living in the American South, am already living under the sword of damoclese when it comes to the threat of unprovoked physical assault. I personally prefer not to add onto this stress with misconceptions.
Verbal assault is still assault. If you want to differentiate between verbal and physical assault, I can’t argue with that. But this was clearly a verbal assault. I don’t know what else you could call making deeply offensive and hurtful statements in front of marginalized groups with the clear purpose of being hurtful.
Hey Hon, I don’t have anything to contribute to this talk, but I see you talking about your fears. So just wanted to give you a lil internet hug and tell you how important, valued and brave you are. I’m sorry it’s like this, but for what it’s worth, I’ll keep you in my thoughts. ♥
Gunna preface this as “knowledge few outside the trans community and even some inside aren’t aware of” so please don’t feel like you did anything at all wrong because this is DEEP lore and like, we know you’re good. This is just my PSA attempt to make future support avoid a potential trigger and be more effective.
Inside the more toxic aspects of the trans fem community “Hon” is a derogatory slur used to refer to non-passing trans women with the implication to belittle or condescend.
Well, I am trans, active in the community and I am aware of the concept you are talking about. But I also know it’s incel / 4chan language, specifically with being a “passoid” or “non-passoid hon”, as a deviation from referring to women as “femoids”. So right off the bat, it’s not something I take too seriously purely because I don’t care too much what they say on the worst part of the net.
But more to the point, I go to a lot of meet up events with trans folk and the conversation has been brought up a few times. I’ve yet to meet someone who is actually upset by it. Few people aware of it, as you said its a deep lore type thing, but even of those that know most don’t seem to care.
I see it kind of like the whole “Queer vs LGBTQIA2S+” debate, where to my mind Queer is more ecompassing, easier to say and commonly considered a reclaimed word for the queer community. But, there are absolutely some people have had “Queer” used derisively against them and do not feel comfortable using it as a label. I entirely respect and support that, and if I know that a person feels that way, I will go out of my way NOT to use the word Queer around them. So, if I upset you or the person I was originally replying to with my word choice, I sincerely apologize.
Apologies, I wasn’t sure where it was coming from and it’s one of those things that strikes me as something people outside the 2SLGBTQIA+ say without realizing that it’s even a thing. I do know folk who still have a pretty visceral reaction to it… I think it depends on what part of the community you have a history on interfacing with as some folk found their initial community in places which were very solidly terrible and unlike “queer” there’s never really been a solid attempt to reclaim “hon”.
only seven of the top 20 most prominent figures in election coverage have been women
That stat only makes sense if compared with the ratio of women vs men in politics. It’s either legitimate, or it’s like someone saying “100% of the coverage in the US presidential election goes to male candidates”. I’m not saying it’s as it should be, it’s just maybe the problem is one level deeper, that there aren’t enough women in politics, not that they don’t get covered.
That said, just based on experience with other nations’ politics (I don’t know enough about the UK), it looks like progressives elect whoever based on policy, and it may be a man or a woman, but conservatives in general like their strong men, so in aggregate there are just more men.
My point is, maybe it just goes back to “let’s fix politics”. And all that said, more coverage may get more women elected, but on the other hand, maybe it all should be more about policy, lest we get more Thatchers.
Where did I say that? All I’m saying is that while the problem that women are underrepresented in politics is a real problem and we should elect more women, since women’s issues also are usually underrepresented, we shouldn’t elect or even cover people because of what’s between their legs.
The Thatcher thing is that for example if the choice is between US Jewish Space Lasers Lady (just so that it’s not the same person again) and her opponent, “voting for the woman” might get you an opposite effect that you expect on for example women’s rights or the over all sanity of politics.
There are a ton of great women in politics, like Sanna Marin, elect more of them. But elect them because of their work, not their genitalia.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.