Ted, listen. Maybe if you weren’t a horrible legislator, and an even worse excuse for a human, people would not feel the need to slightly inconvenience you at the airport.
I honestly don’t even know why this upsets me so much. I am 50 and all set. I don’t have children and barely any debt. I never considered myself particularly patriotic but somehow this whole thing gets under my skin. I guess it sours my achievements and fruits of decades of struggle (it took three generations of planning and hustle to get us out of poverty). It’s like being a kid having a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese by yourself while all your kids are locked outside and you can see them through the glass windows.
It gets under my skin because the west was on the right trajectory; improving wealth equality, quality of life, work life balance, etc — Then Capitalists killed all those gains using Conservatism, Neoliberalism, and a bastardised version of Libertarianism — just to enrich a tiny percentage the human population and return the rest of humanity to feudalism.
Why should they own all the gains from humanities collective efforts, when all of us have a rightful claim to a share of those gains?
And that’s because they are stupid. They are not educated becasause the education they received was garbage. All by design from your “trickle down” bringing republikkkans. Working as planned.
We live in the most effectively propagandized society ever created. It hasn’t been until more recently that it’s started to slip. A lot of folks still believe in the old lies and believe that everything would work if we just got rid of the immigrants, Jews, and corrupt politicians. Still I think more people are waking up to the reality that this system is broken not the people in it.
My parents are in their 80’s and working for DoorDash. They are lucky they at least paid off their home, because they didn’t save enough and this country is sucking every penny it can get from them.
I bought a condo that I love, have almost all my debt paid off, and am saving for what I hope will be an early retirement. It breaks my heart to see people struggling everywhere, and if I had Elon Musk money, I wouldn’t be blowing it on a vanity space program.
I’m so glad my Dad, also in his 80s, programs COBOL. My parents have owned their home since 86, but I’m sure that without the random COBOL job they’d have to do door dash or something as well.
Because there were not enough justices for a quorum—the court needs at least six and only Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson remained—the court affirmed the judgment of a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Clever. Appearing to do the right thing at face value coincides nicely with getting the case against you dropped. It’s likely impossible to sue a majority of the Supreme Court if they don’t care to be sued.
Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
If the best decision available was to sit out on the ruling, then why’d they agree to hear the case in the first place? Now it’s been ruled on and can’t be revisited.
So any four justices can do this. And it’s not a coincidence they didn’t pull this out of their sleeves until there was only 3 non conservative justices.
Conservatives can make their own quorum, and they don’t expect to lose that majority for a very long time even worst case scenario.
The whole system is broken. One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it’s broken.
One party exploits it and one tries to ignore it’s broken.
Why are you “both sides”-ing this? One party is exploiting the flaws of the system…full stop. The system is flawed, one side doesn’t want it to work, and the other doesn’t have the numbers to change the system.
Why do you redirect the conversation rather than answering the question directly and specifically both here and in their other reply to you?
Do you have an agenda to both sides every comment critical of conservatives?
That’s the only way this makes sense to me. I’m just curious what’s going on here.
Edit: I don’t have a stake in this but you don’t actually answer the question, instead you attack the other user. You both need to actually read and understand what’s going on in this case, the whole thing is frivolous and clickbait you both swallowed.
I don’t want this conversation twice. Just asking a follow up question to your comment. Since this response has no substance, I’ll assume your other response is better and engage there.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Statement could go like this:
“There are not enough sitting justices to adjudicate important issues before the court as demonstrated by the recent actions of honorable recusals. Therefore I calling for the addition of new seats on the court to supplement the body so it can carry out its important work as a check on Legislative and Executive branches of our government, just as the framers intended. We will begin confirmation hearings for new justices next week”
It’s one of the few promises Biden will make that he actually intends to follow through with if he wins, but he won’t, not with how much people are struggling economically.
To be fair it was my main reason for voting for him. I wanted government to go back to boring and the clown show to be over. I assume a lot of people felt the same way I did. Was kinda hoping he could fix at least one major problem as well, still waiting for that to happen
I voted for him too, in full knowledge he wouldn’t do anything he promised.
I thought that, maybe, a cultural win against fascism might stem the tide, but I was wrong. Biden is just as useless as every other Democrat we’ve elected since LBJ.
Also sounds like a good justification for Biden to increase the number of Justices.
Biden has had ample reason to seat additional justices, particularly in the wake of the ACB nomination. But he’s far too friendly with the US Senate to try such a thing.
If you want someone willing to break ranks on this question, you’re ultimately going to need to wait for a governor. If DeSantis had a shot in hell of being president and taking a Senate majority in the process, I could see him trying to pack the court out of spite after losing a few court cases. If a guy like Sanders was a governor and not a Senate buddy-buddy with Schumer and Graham, maybe he would have tried it (but even then I wouldn’t bet on it). I could absolutely see Trump pulling this shit if someone whispered it into his ear at the right moment, but he’d fumble the bag without McConnell sheepdogging the candidate through.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is an inventor of “Tele-Sex or Tele-Mining on Jupiter and other planets of the Solar System,” and appears to assert a claim for copyright infringement and constitutional violations.
In his brief, Plaintiff makes fantastical allegations, stating, for example, that “Defendants are dangerous liars, criminals, traitors and co-conspirators.” Dkt. 18 at 31. He further states that Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett “deserve the death penalty or at least to be disbenched from the U.S. Supreme Court.” Dkt. 18 at 40.
This is a tactic Oregon representatives use quite often. So we voted on a bill stating that if you miss 10 or more sessions you’re in eligible to run for office again.
I don’t think anyone in this community is going to argue that Trump didn’t break the law, egregiously and many many times. What everyone doubts is that there will be any real consequences for the wealthy elite, especially this one.
There will be none. There will be a fine sure but there will be a banking institution somewhere that will loan him the money and he will just set up shop somewhere else and continue as he has always done.
There will be none. There will be a fine sure but there will be a banking institution somewhere that will loan him the money and he will just set up shop somewhere else and continue as he has always done.
“Ok he’s under investigation but they’ll let him slide.”
“Ok, he’s been charged, but they’ll never convict him.”
The Trump organization is already criminally convicted of fraud and Weiselberg already spent time at Rikers Island.
Trump has already been found liable for rape and defamation, and another case for that act is going to add to his millions in damages that he will have to pay.
His business in New York is already a dead man walking. He’s going to have to liquidate nearly everything to pay off the damages that the Judge will decide from this trial in December, if not earlier, depending on witnesses the defense calls.
There are likely going to be criminal fraud charges brought for the same actions and intent being uncovered in this case.
In March, the Federal criminal case begins for election interference and obstruction. Those charges will put him in prison before the '24 election. After that, Fulton Co. GA and Federal docs case will go forward and he will get more convictions and more time.
We all want the wheels of justice to turn faster on blatant fucks like this, but that’s not how the system works.
Trump is going to die in prison if he doesn’t off himself first.
That’s if he doesn’t get elected president first. If he’s on the ballot, he still stands a good chance of getting elected and then those charges may not stick. That’s why he keeps pushing for further dates on his trials. Let’s hope the wheels of justice move quickly this time.
You are an amazing optimist in this situation. I think I’m a pretty damn optimistic person, but I still fear this man will walk away without ever seeing the inside of a jail cell.
I think you believe what all of us want to happen actually will. You believe what would happen to any non-rich elite will happen to Trump, because the justice system will prevail and has him dead to rights. But the rest of us won’t believe it until we see it with our own eyes.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, which was the point of my comment to begin with.
You’re simply ignorant of the system and making assumptions based on emotion. You need to absorb actual information on the proceedings from reputable news sources. I can suggest a number of lawyers who moonlight with podcasts if you’d like.
With your level of conviction to willful ignorance, you may as well grab a maga hat. Or you can go fucking learn something about the legal system instead.
The NY case is going to end up with hundreds of millions of fines and the dismantling of Trump’s real estate business. Which is a pretty big deal.
There is a common sentiment of “just send him to jail already” but that’s not how due process works. He’s not going to get sentenced to jail before he’s been convicted in the Georgia case or the federal cases.
And despite the common sentiment, people aren’t generally thrown in jail for the first violation of a gag order, or even the second one. They generally get fined a few thousand dollars the first few times, which is exactly what happened to Trump.
Jailing Trump for two gag order violations might be briefly satisfying, but it would be immediately reversed on appeal and throw the whole case into question. So the judges need to do everything by the book.
Trump is going to die in prison if he doesn’t off himself first.
Or he will flee to Russia, a magical land where Enemies of the State™ tend to fall out of windows.
The thing that I wonder about is this: trump will eventually die. Either in prison, or from having too many hamburgers, or from a sudden momentum transfer into concrete. When that happens, then what? Nobody likes his coked out children, and none of the other GQP hopefuls are as popular.
I’ve long expected him to run off to Russia and I’m continually surprised he hasn’t. Maybe he still somehow thinks he’ll skate or otherwise knows he doesn’t have a way in? Maybe that’s why he’s been buttering them up in his speeches.
And to the other point, absolutely agree. That’s been the one thing that’s kept me more optimistic, that once he’s put away or buried under a piss-covered headstone, there’s no one capable of controlling the cult. The craziest of the crazies will go on with doomsday conspiracies with miraculous returns that never happen, but the head of the magatshitsnake will be cut off.
I don’t believe most of this to be realistic but I appreciate your optimism. Meanwhile Trump is leading in polling in many swing states because apparently inflation is way worse than fascism.
I don’t care what you “believe.” You don’t understand the justice system. This isn’t a critique, it’s a fact.
I also don’t give the slightest shit about polling. Polls have been consistently incorrect for the last decade, and are incessantly spun to create controversy.
It’s not a fact. You’re predicting events of the future that haven’t yet happened. I don’t care what you know about the legal system, you absolutely cannot call it fact.
You are not a supreme being with the power of knowing or influencing the future. That’s just nonsense.
I’m not an optimist. I’m a realist with experience in the the legal system that is absolutely fucking sick and tired of unbridled cynicism from people that fundamentally do not understand how the legal system works.
I’m really hoping that it all turns out that way and he does die in prison, a broken, pathetic man, but suppose those cases get delayed just enough, through blatant fuckery by Trump & his lawyers to put it past the election, and then suppose Trump still wins? I wish it wasn’t so, but that he’s still somehow neck & neck with Biden in the polls is astounding, in a sane world it wouldn’t even be this close. What kind of chaos does the US Government get thrown into when a President-Elect is getting charged with multiple felonies and facing jail time? Or suppose Trump does go to jail and still runs for President (this has happened before) and actually wins? How does the system cope with that without just letting Trump out of prison? Or suppose something happens to Biden and the Democrats really don’t have any viable replacement?
I went into the 2016 election thinking, “There’s no chance in hell he gets elected,” and yet, he still won. We can’t really trust our fellow Americans to make the right choice anymore. That millions of people are still ready to vote for Trump despite all the available evidence really doesn’t bode well for the country, even if Biden still wins in 2024.
I appreciate your certainty and optimism, but at the end of the day it’s going to come down to the jurors. I don’t have any faith that a mostly random group of 12 people isn’t going to have at least 1 MAGAt. Just look at the grand jury votes to indict. They weren’t unanimous, because there were people that refused to believe Trump and Co could do wrong.
The minimum that will happen here is the $250 million fine. That’s because he’s already been found guilty of the top count. The current trial is to determine if he’s guilty of the other counts, and how much more Trump will be fined. He could also lose his ability to operate any of his businesses in NYS (this may have already happened, I can’t remember.)
This is also a bench trial, since his attorneys forgot to ask for a jury trial. That means the judge will decide if he’s guilty of the further counts, and what the punishments will be. The same judge that he’s been screaming at from the stand, threatening on social media, and whose staffers trump has also been threatening and doxxing.
Eliyahu also voices his objection during the interview to allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza, saying “we wouldn’t hand the Nazis humanitarian aid,”
The Nazis never had nukes or the backing of the United States. They didn’t have a state religion. They weren’t dispatching military assets to settle their neighboring territories. Zionism is worse than naziism.
They didn’t have a state religion, but not for lack of trying. Most of Germany was Christian in some way, and that was exploited by the Nazis, but they generally wanted their people to be Nazis first and anything else second. If Nazi Germany had continued, I’m sure Nazism would have been the state religion.
They weren’t dispatching military assets to settle their neighboring territories
So, what exactly would you call what they did during WW2? I'm with you on everything else you said, but this statement makes me think you know very little about history.
If you committed a crime because of the perception of an individual falling under a protected class, it should qualify as a hate crime. I believe this is considered a bias incident and it is treated as a hate crime in NYC.
Of course it qualifies as a hate crime. Hate crime legislation is entirely about what you think inside your head as you commit some other crime - hence the word “hate”.
It’s not entirely about what you think, it can also be about what any reasonable person might think. You could genuinely think you’re just joking, but if it’s so bad that no one else would reasonably think it was a joke you could still be found guilty.
So in a conversation about someone commiting a hate crime based on someones genetalia you decide to use a term specifically used to debase people by calling them female genetalia and it seems people even upvote you for it. Great. And you even think you are being supportive.
look, it’s a word most american women don’t hear directed at themselves outside of really hateful or abusive contexts. i have been called “bitch” in the grocery store. i was called “cunt” by my abuser, and only by him.
the person who challenged you has a good point - the use of that word in american culture is intended to be particularly dehumanizing and degrading to women.
compare - if you had used “n…” you would have likely been challenged there as well, regardless of your intent in using that word or your own identity.
IIRC NY is a transfer of intent state, that is to say if you intended to kill X person but fucked up and killed Y person instead, you’re still guilty of 1st degree murder, because you still intended to do a murder
I took a trip out to the Rockies earlier this year, and booked an AirBnB. The listing was for the basement of a house where a lovely old retired couple lived. The basement was decorated and furnished beautifully, and we got to chat with the couple every now and then. They gave us recommendations to a farmer’s market which was pretty cool.
It was the first time I’ve ever booked an Airbnb that was true to its original mission. This is what AirBnb should be - renting out spare rooms - and not a turn-an-apartment-unit-into-a-hotel thing.
If you look at the comment I replied to, it said they have a full furnished basement that they airbnb out.
I said it should be a house for someone to live in.
I’m not exactly sure where you’re getting “should they be compelled to sell part of their lifelong home outright” or “I don’t think any reasonable person would call me a landlord for renting out my apartment for a week while I take a trip” in my comments, it seems you’re either inventing something to get mad at or you have a guilty conscience.
Because that’s the standard of living? A basement?
Fully furnished? I own a home, my guest room is fully furnished in that it has a bed, desk, side tables, and a TV.
Listen to yourself. Fully furnished doesn’t mean the same as configured with separate utilities, a separate entrance, a separate kitchen, or separate bathing facilities.
I’m glad you’re housing secure with a guest room, it must be nice.
Some people would kill for a full furnished basement and instead of being rented out short term it could be housing someone instead and leave the short term to hotels.
I really don’t understand why this is such a controversial view.
In this specific instance, I suspect it is because there is every indication that the basement room rented by OP was not, in fact, a fully self contained suite within a house, but was a guest room.
How do you physically get into these “basement suites” in your part of the world? When I lived in a townhouse, access to the cellar was via a door in the middle of the property leading off the kitchen. There would be no practical way to split the cellar off from the main property as a separate dwelling. But having guests sleep down there every so often was no big deal.
Interesting. Here, when conversions happen to make cellars into self-contained units, I’d argue they are frequently only suitable for short term lets, on the basis that no-one should have to live like that. In converting properties whose lower ground floors were never meant to be used for residential purposes into housing, we get stuff like this.
Rental Opportunity of the Week: A Remodelled Crypt, for GothsYour own windowless basement in London Bridge, for just £2,000 a month.
It goes for £2000 a month ($2500) and is in Zone 1, a 25 minute stroll from the London Stock Exchange. You aren’t going homeless if you have £2000 a month to spend on rent, and Zone 2 is one stop away on the Jubilee line. You’re moving to Zone 2/3, or moving into a flatshare. Or out of London.
Given the location, pricing and finish I suspect it’s more likely to be used as a pied a terre – a second (weekday) home – for someone in the City.
Ah stop, I get the intention but b&b’s are a thing and always have been. Wanting to sporadically have a visitor in your retirement shouldn’t require becoming a permanent landlord.
Where I’m from basement suites are pretty popular. It’s a fully contained suite in the house.
What used to be fairly cheap accommodations are now being rented out as hotels and it’s causing a lot of housing problems. If it’s just a room in a basement that’s one thing but it doesn’t sound like it is.
I understand that. OP expressly described this basement experience as “renting out spare rooms”, though, so I hope you’ll understand why I’m treating this as a spare room being rented out.
I live in London and am very familiar with the issue of affordable self-contained accommodation being flipped into overpriced Airbnb units, and I would agree with you that such units should be retained as residential housing.
It’s so fucking obnoxious the way people try to make outlier situations as if it invalidates the argument. You know god damn well the situations you’re describing are an extremely tiny percentage of airbnb usage (honestly if any at all). Don’t be daft.
Expecting someone to debate this shit right here? There’s absolutely no need. There’s no way you’re saying this seriously. If you are, the onus is on you to explain why this isn’t you being facetious or just shitposting
First explain your initial point, fully. You will do this first, on your next comment to me, or i will read your comment as “im shitposting and kind of new to trolling”
Since i think ive already seen your best, this is probably goodbye.
Houses should be used by home owners as they see fit a long as it isn’t endangering anyone. Houses shouldn’t be purchased as an investment to solely be used as hotels.
They literally say “Houses should be used by home owners as they see fit a long as it isn’t endangering anyone.” but “Houses shouldn’t be purchased as an investment to solely be used as hotels.” which isn’t what you are saying there.
Sure let’s force people to rent out for furnished rooms now. I have two and sometimes guests stay here but if I wanted to set up a b&b and have someone here a few times a year it sure shit doesn’t mean o have to rent it out permanently. The idea of being forced to live with strangers permanently disgusts me. This is my house and I need my privacy. It’s the government’s job who gets my tax money to fix housing not mine.
Agree about the government needing to fix the housing crunch. To be clear I’m not proposing to forcibly rent your basement. What I object to is allowing residential stock to be used for vacation rentals. It’s turned homes into financial instruments, and as to often happens with such, it benefits a few at the cost of many.
And really I don’t know how you got from what I said to forcing out your extra rooms. On a personal note: maby you should examine why having others near you is disgusting. I understand wanting privacy, but that’s some strong language you used.
in a case of a house shortage, maybe… but The issue is not that there is a house shortage. It is that the houses are not being used as houses. There are more than enough houses in almost every city to home everyone and several times over to house the homeless. But that isn’t what the houses are being used for. If they were then yeah, they’d have the space likely to rent out like an Airbnb. But there should be no homeless anywhere if there’s enough rooms to pull off Airbnb. But no one is looking at the homeless as an issue before starting an Airbnb.
Airbnb is unchecked capitalism that got way out of hand. It’s very fucked up to call this a society anymore. This is hell.
As a queer person, extending the acronym past what is necessary feels like pandering in the best light, and purposely trying to bait ridicule in the worst. The whole point of LGBT was to include anyone on the spectrum that was gay or trans, and the Q was supposed to include anyone who considers themselves queer, even if they don't meed those parameters. I can understand wanting to include I because intersex people are often left out of the conversation, and I even understand A because there is a lot of debate even within the LGBTQ community itself as to whether asexuals are considered queer or not. But when you start incorporating numbers, symbols, or extending past 5 letters within the acronym, you are defeating the purpose of having an acronym, creating confusion, baiting ridicule, and even making people not explicitly represented in the acronym feel excluded.
And there is already a single, all encompassing, inclusive, one syllable word that describes the community and all who occupy it: "Queer." It's easier to say, remember, and hell, even type if you are typing LGBTQ past 5 letters. But because of it being appropriated and used as a slur, there are many even within the community who are even afraid to utter it, let alone identify with it. Which is a god damned shame there is nothing inherently wrong the word, cause even in its original meaning, it meant someone who was outside the norm or otherworldly, and in literature has been used to describe characters like Gandalf, and characters in Shakespeare.
It describes me without having to explain or justify how or why. It describes how I feel as a person, how others see me, how I interact and relate to others. Its an adjective that can be verbed and adverbed. It's sharp and provocative, yet also warm and natural, like a forest green. People who have adopted and embraced the word for themselves feel the love within the word, and can extend it to others. And even for those outside the community, those who are brave enough to use it when talking in our defense come off as more decisive and confrontational, than the person who thinks adding another letter or number to the acronym will make them seem more legitimate.
It's time we stop fearing our word. It's time we recognize the difference between queer as an insult, and queer as a description of who we are, and we need to extend that to people who are willing to talk about us and our struggles or come to our defense. The word is only as evil as we are willing to reject it, and I will be dead in the ground before I let our word be the domain of queerphobes and bigots.
edit: It's late and I'm going to bed. Apparently some people think I'm a self hating queer for thinking the acronym should be dropped for an all inclusive term, and so be it. It's late and I want to get some sleep. And a lot of the people making this argument I know haven't read past the first paragraph, much less to here. Anything clarification they could want can be found here and in my other posts here. Otherwise, if they are not going to put in the effort to read, I'm not going to put in the effort to respond.
edit 2: I wanted to make a separate inclusion because I have had a chance to sleep and cool off, and I wanted to address some of the more combative posts in my replies: I get it. We as a community suffer attacks constantly, even from within the community, so I understand why so many here are on guard and skeptical of my intentions. And I'll admit, my post probably could be better written. I'm not exactly the best at articulating my thoughts. But the point of my post is not to exclude anyone from the community, but rather embrace a word that includes everyone. I would like to hear counterpoints to my argument, because maybe what I need is a different perspective on the issue. I would love to hear from people who prefer the acronym, and why they feel it maybe more inclusive. I am a flawed human being with many faults. I grew up in a conservative background, and my life up to this point has been trying to unlearn a lot of that. But I did not write this with the intention of excluding or singling out anyone. Forgive me I have done so.
Two spirit is a native cultural thing and I think acknowledging it is a good idea. It used to just be LGBT, why should we stop expanding inclusion the moment you find a word you’re personally comfortable with?
Better question: What makes you think they are not included in LGBT or Queer? Also, I know the inclusion of two spirits within the LGBT acronym is contentious with many native Americans as well. It's why the pride flag with the native American feathers is frowned upon at many queer events.
If everyone is included in queer why be anything other than the Q community? What elevates some queerness to a place where it deserves recognition on its own and why is some queerness relegated to a bucket labelled “Miscellaneous”?
In case you missed it, we don't need the acronym at all. We already have one word that describes us all in any form that takes, and making an acronym that is overly long and extends/contracts depending on the whims of the writer is overly complicated and defeats the purpose of having an acronym.
Also, funny how you aren't going to argue the point that the inclusion of two spirits is controversial within the native American community itself, when that was the point you jumped at me with.
Controversial in a community other than my own means that two spirit isn’t my point to argue for or against. I led with it because it was the thing that was there after the Q, which seemed to be where you were drawing the line in the sand. I’ll concede that point.
The only thing I’d say about adopting “queer” as an umbrella term for all of us is that, as a term of abuse, a lot of us have strong negative associations with it and would hesitate to self-apply it. I use it, I like stealing power back from the bullies in that way, but I’m not gonna force someone to self-apply a slur that dredges up memories of being physically beaten, or their friends killed. An umbrella term could work, but maybe not that one as long as that trauma is still present in the community.
I think you and I agree on more than we may think. At the end of the day, I want everyone in the community to feel not only included, but unified as well.
I understand the word still hurts others, but so do so many other words commonly used within queer spaces. Gay is still used as a slur and pejorative and yet is still used universally amongst the gay community. I think part of the reclamation process is not only using the word whenever you can, but taking pride in the word as you do it. I do mean it when I say I feel warmth and love in the word queer, and I try to extend that to anyone I use it to describe. If someone within the community expressed discomfort in the word though, I wouldn't use it for them.
And I think at the end of the day you and I can agree we need an all encompassing term. Something that is inclusive, easy to say, versatile, and if possible, steeped in tradition within the queer community, I personally feel queer is the best candidate for that term, but I would be welcoming to better suggestions.
Queer makes me think of weird. Odd. Not normal. I wish gay meant more than just homosexual lol. I mean I don’t identify with a gender, I don’t have preferences and if I had to label myself that way it would be longer than my name. But I also don’t feel like I’m different or abnormal for not caring if my SO were male, female or whatever they want to be, I’m not abnormal for being part of a spectrum where I don’t see things as feminine or masculine. I don’t feel like I need to be labeled but I also have an easy time blending in with those whose religion and culture is limiting them from who they are. I guess once more people get comfortable with the fact that it’s normal to be who you are then they’ll start being themselves and lgbt+++++ will just be everyone.
I mean going on your second point, I think it demonstrates the difference between a slur and a descriptor is how it’s used as a word.
Like transgender is neutral term but we see it becoming a scare word by fascists recently by changing how its used in speech. Like “transgendered”, “transgenderism” or “transing” (as a note, it’s kinda scary how the first two no longer set off window’s spellcheck). Basically turning trans as a state of being adjective into a verb makes it seem like an act you can do to someone or have happen to you.
I mean, I don’t identify as queer and plenty of my friends don’t. One of my exes did and great for him but this just seems like the wrong argument. There likely just needs to be a technical, non-inflammatory term.
I like it, even tho usually I include a “R” there for romantic minorities(eg people who might not be a sexual minority but are a romantic one) when discussing this with other people, but I guess it could be argued that they still fit into “sexual”.
R or not, I like that it includes everyone without any identity being shoved into a letter or a “+” along with lots of others as if they’re an afterthought, not as important as the ones that get to show up as their own letters.
Literally your entire first paragraph is you trying to explain why you get to decide which parts belong, based only on how YOU feel about it. It’s weird you can’t read what you wrote.
I said I understand why people feel the need to include terms that are already covered by the Q in LGBTQ, but overextending the acronym and including symbols and numbers causes confusion, defeats the purpose of the acronym, and makes people who are not included feel left out.
The whole point of my argument was I think queer should be the go to term cause it covers everyone and leaves nobody out.
I have nothing to hide. I'm a dumb irresponsible formerly conservative queer person who is still learning and who says stupid shit all the time, some of it I even come to regret. It's all there for anyone who wants to judge my character. Happy reading. Hopefully your assessment of me is more forgiving than @Hyperi0n.
You’re like “ I want to hear counterpoints to my argument”.
Okay, well not everyone likes or associates with the general term “queer”.
You say “ I want to support and include people who need it”.
Then act like it my guy, here’s your chance to attempt to understand something separate from yourself that wants to be included and supported. You got this!
Extending the acronym to cover everyone is becoming ridiculous. I think we just need a word that covers all the bases rather than trying to shoe horn one more letter/number/symbol/wingding that’s already becoming difficult to keep track of. It doesn’t bring attention to any one group, nor does it help individual groups as a whole when you’re summed up into a letter.
I hate labels in general. I’m in the Q part (enby) and I’m completely fine with it, I don’t need my own letter, nor do I need to identify with anything.
I had a teacher in highschool (04-08) whose name was B Gay. In his lifetime Gay want from “happy” to a slur. Machine shop was the best because of him too
Can we apply this logic to the flag as well? I thought the rainbow of the pride flag was meant to represent diversity and cover all orientations…like how a rainbow spectrum of light literally covers all colours. Now specific groups are being added and people are finding ways to add another line to represent something. The flag is a mess.
I tend to think of the Progress flag as a product of the times, not as a replacement for the rainbow Pride flag. We added these additional signifiers specifically because those groups were under-represented or under particular attack, not because they aren't included in the Pride rainbow.
How to defeat a slur, take it as your own. It’s simply as easy as that.
Growing up I was fat as fuck, people made fun of me all the time. One day I decided it was enough, I started making fun of myself for being fat, suddenly everyone left me alone because it no longer got the response they were trying to get.
Ignoring / getting angry is what they want, turn around and happily scream yeah I’m queer, ya looking for a good time? (For example) ya know what’s gonna happen? Their gonna start stammering and come up with another way to bother you, and when you don’t give in and don’t show a reaction they will end up storming away angrily. Then you have something to laugh at for the rest of the day.
What the fuck do you think pride parades are for?
My grandfather got caught downtown Toronto in one and spent 2 hours throwing slurs. Ya think a single person in that parade cared?
My biggest qualm is a qualm I have with any acronym/abbreviation. If you’re going to introduce a letter that is unknown to many, then define your term. Otherwise, I’m going to assume it’s a typo, or I going to not recognize it.
All acronyms and abbreviations, or at least those that aren’t commonplace, should be defined somewhere adjacent to their use, or else you are excluding people.
Speech/text is only useful if you’re using it in a way that appropriately conveys a message to it’s intended audience.
I’ve come to realize that whatever it is that causes people to have alternative sexual preferences, I’ve got a little bit of it. However, I’m heterosexual, so I don’t really identify with the community. I could accept the queer label, though.
I think Tim Walz is very important, because he shows that “regular,” working class, middle aged men don’t HAVE to be conservative. We don’t have to believe in baseless conspiracy theories, we don’t have to reject scientific evidence, we don’t have to divorce ourselves from reality. We don’t have to believe that vaccines are evil, that climate change is a hoax, or that the 2020 election was stolen. Maybe we don’t agree with everything the liberals say and do, but that doesn’t mean we have to go full ding dong and start listening to Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro. There are other options and Tim Walz is representative of at least one of those alternatives.
And being masculine while openly giving support to the less fortunate. Contrasting with the might-makes-right view that these alt-right “masculine” types subscribe to.
That’s a really important point. For some reason, many men think it’s somehow a sign of weakness to be wrong about something, or to admit that someone knows more about something than you do. I think you look weak if you refuse to admit when you’re wrong and double down on some ignorant position out of stubbornness.
The fact that so many blue collar people are conservative when they could just as easily be liberals amazes me. Democrats are the ones who want unions, better environment, better labor rights, better working conditions, but somehow the conservatives are really good at lying and making propaganda.
A large part of the issue is that the Democratic Party (and Labour in the UK, and the Liberals in Canada) really drank the third-way neoliberal koolaid in the 1990s and have done a poor job of speaking to the anxieties and concerns of the poor.
The political right has talked to those anxieties, albeit in a dishonest, manipulative and disingenuous way, but they do talk to it and–not only do they talk to it, they deliver results. Again, dishonest, manipulative and self-serving results, but if you don’t look to closely it looks like they’re taking action.
I’m hoping Harris and Walz mark a new era, but after witnessing Trudeau in Canada and Starmer in the UK continuing to make the mistakes of the 1990s, I’m not holding my breath.
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again. Of all the Republican weirdness in recent years, I truly don’t understand why they seem to have made a conscious decision to become the biggest-asshole-in-the-room party.
It used to be that those guys were on the fringes of the party. Nixon was a crook, but he established the EPA and OSHA. That was just a normal thing for a Republican to do in the 1970s.
The GOP is a big tent party, and so they’ve always had room for the extreme right wing. These days, the tent is getting smaller, and unless you’re an out-and-out fascist you’re not really welcome. Unfortunately, half the country feels a stronger tie to that party than to their country, so they’re squeezing into that smaller tent.
It’s different though. Even W and his admin at least felt that they had to keep up a certain decorum. Trump said shit every day that Bush would have probably considered political suicide to even get caught saying in private, if a recording got out.
Nixon resigned when things were looking bad for him, Trump just doubles down. Like this entire campaign is pretty much him trying to get a crown because, for a while at least, it looked like that would be his only way of avoiding consequences for some of the shit he’s done. Though, to be fair, Nixon resigning might have been his way of avoiding the consequences because he knew he was getting a pardon. But even that shows a difference because Nixon never seriously considered just trying to pardon himself, at least not in public, while it was a big topic during Trump’s presidency.
Also Nixon resigned because he knew impeachment was a real possibility because even his own party wouldn’t risk their own political careers to protect a criminal president. With Trump, my pov is the rules need a complete overhaul because they can’t handle the level of bad faith present in the government now.
In hindsight, it was naive to rely on gentlemen’s rules to keep the government running smoothly, but those rules were at least followed in appearance until 2016 (though the conservatives did start using them in bad faith before that, like with Obama’s supreme court nomination).
Oh yeah it’s different; I said as much. They have to keep upping the ante to remain edgy, in their cold white fascist way. Trump didn’t give a shit about the subtlety though, he was like “I can steal this all away from these weak assholes and all I have to do is give the crowd what they really want”
Now we have a narcissist whose ego has been stroked by what he perceives to be the whole world. Very dangerous with all the secrets and codes, let alone everything else.
Seriously an all too common overlap on the venn diagram. I might also add receiving public assistance. Yet they vote for the party trying to limit or stop that assistance 🤦♂️
“Of all the Republican weirdness in recent years, I truly don’t understand why they seem to have made a conscious decision to become the biggest-asshole-in-the-room party.”
Recent? They’ve been doing this shtick since at least Newt Gingrich in the 90s.
The thing is, I was alive and an adult then, and I knew otherwise OK people who were single issue voters who therefore voted republican. I may have disagreed with them on a thing or three, but we could get along OK. It either wasn’t as pervasive, or somehow didn’t hit my sphere. (And I was living in the south at the time)
Now - everyone who I know is a republican is just a raging confrontational asshole.
I made the comment because Gingrich took confrontational politics and brought it to the National level. The era of Fox News and the 24hr news cycle was starting and he was the architect of the sensational hyper partisan angry Republicanism that we see today on right wing media. I don’t think Gingrich actually believed what he is pushing. He pushed it because it got the results he wanted.
Fast forward 30 years and now we have social media and the internet all vying for attention. Only the most extreme views that are controversial enough get noticed and commented on.
Some of the people I know who were Republicans have moderate enough views that they don’t feel the party is in step with them anymore. But I know Republicans who are true MAGA supporters and just parrot the grievances of their party. They all seem to emulate that anger
Trump showed them that giving in to your base desires and letting your asshole flag fly gets you great success and makes you a good person. In their eyes anyway. Unfortunately.
Speaking as another older adult in Canada and witnessing the slide in both countries my controversial opinion is it’s not about politics at all. Politics are simply a symptom of an underlying problem with the society we have built.
What you’re seeing is classic behaviour of when a person is unheard, stressed and angry. It is scientifically proven when you experience those struggles you are less likely to think clearly and what options you have become limited. You start looking at every problem like a nail and you’re a hammer.
Individually we all deal with adversity different and I’d argue one party is heavily weighed with those who struggle with dealing with the adversity meanwhile since the 60’s governments have been doing nothing to improve life and lessen the adversity people deal with.
Then you have all those people struggling… And you throw in predators taking advantage of them, feeding into their struggles and weaponizing them.
At some point we all need to acknowledge we can’t fix this overnight and these people for the most part aren’t crazy. They’re you just a few medical bills behind or a few months laid off from your job. Hurt people hurt people.
And that’s where I disagree. I don’t think they’re stupid. I think they aren’t coping and because of all the stress and hatred in them it’s affecting their ability to think critically. People are not dumb. Decades of stress around food, job, health, etc security have negatively impacted people’s ability to make adult decisions.
That’s a very compassionate view, and one I should try to incorporate into my own views on the matter. However, I want to be very clear about one thing:
I’d argue one party is heavily weighed with those who struggle with dealing with the adversity meanwhile since the 60’s governments have been doing nothing to improve life and lessen the adversity people deal with.
People in both parties are suffering. Many in both parties. This behavior comes from the party who insists that they are the only ones struggling, and is directed against the party that proposes solutions that would help everyone. I realize that sounds very one sided, and there absolutely are assholes on “both sides”, but only one party claims to have a monopoly on suffering and/or the only valid suffering, only one party is trying to interfere in the medical decisions and sexuality of people not like them, only one party is banning books, and only that party obstructs all attempts to improve the lot of everyone. Democrats are NOT PERFECT by far, but they are either trying, or doing a credible job of appearing to try. R does nothing but blame, obstruct, and ostracize.
Nonetheless, it’s become too easy to vilify these people (what with the constant examples of their asshattery) and that is something unhealthy that I should probably try to get a handle on, so I appreciate your viewpoint even if I think you are making some assumptions that don’t quite mesh with what I see around me.
This should be class “warfare” not D vs R, but it never will be while R focuses on attacking LGBTQ, women’s rights, etc.
I may not have been fully clear. You are right people in both parties are struggling. My argument is those more rational people are better positioned to handle adversity so they’re still using all their options when drawing their political decisions.
That said, it may sound compassionate but I don’t necessarily practice what I preached there all the time. I think the people with “Fuck Trudeau” stickers are fucking morons.
Thanks for the clarification, and I regret that I typify the US stereotype at least in so far as I don’t know enough about your political spectrum to have any opinion at all, though I’m aware you’ve got your version of Trumpers (and - actual Trumpers? I’ve heard once or twice?) up there as well.
It’s the natural conclusion of the strategy republicans set into motion to manipulate their base.
It started just after Watergate. Nixon was facing massive calls for justice from both sides. Republican think tanks realized that their base of conservatives consumed news from all sources that informed their mostly unbiased decision to hold their guy accountable. So those republican think tanks devised a plan to create a conservative news outlet that explicitly demonized other news so that the conservative base would never turn on one of their own again. That strategy was realized in the 90’s with the creation of Fox News.
Since then, conservative media has been slowly transforming politics from the perspective of the average conservative into a team sport, where the main motivation isn’t “who runs the country better” but rather “my team is better than yours”.
It wasn’t so pervasive 20 years ago, but conservative media has found themselves with a base that now only responds to the outrage they’ve been conditioning them with, and that has created the raging confrontational assholes you see today.
Being a conservative doesn’t mean what it used to. And that’s because the Republican leadership robbed conservatives of that in order to maintain control of their base.
He says such outlandish shit on the regular now that this isn’t getting anywhere near the coverage it should be. Everyone needs to have a mental reset on what’s actually normal for a politician to say, and then come back to this speech again.
This is what I find disturbing about America … it’s not so much that insane politicians have been allowed to take positions of high office … it’s that the majority of the American population just accepts it all and does either very little or nothing about it all.
It’s one thing to call out a liar or charlatan … it’s quite another to have a large group of people who actively want to listen to the same charlatan for years and years and eventually accept them as reasonable and even honest.
The American political system isn’t falling apart … the entire country is falling apart.
It’s quite something to watch, coming from someone that lives in the UK. Sometimes I look at our political system (especially over recent years) and wonder “wtf are we doing?”, but then I think about the US and am immediately given a reality check. It makes us look normal.
I saw a documentary a while ago about how Trump is meticulously appealing to the Christian voting base - they view him as a heavenly figure and are actually beginning to class non-Trump voters and the Democrats as ‘demons’. He’s beyond a politician in their minds, I don’t think cult of personality quite cuts it any more, this is something different.
I don’t know if it’s something in the water over there or what, but they’ve gotta cut it out now.
Both countries look like their electorates are composed mostly of ignorant deranged wilfully misinformed lunatics.
(Though, to be fair, the UK does seem to have less outspoken fundamentalist religious nutjobs, and your fascists seem to tend to mostly stay in the closet, so maybe it does make you look somewhat less worst, if definitely not anything resembling normal…)
I’d also add to this that a whole bunch of us have at least a few extended family members that we heard spouting similarly insane takes for as long as we can remember. But because they were the patriarchs or were unhinged enough that they’d ruin the family reunion or Thanksgiving for everyone, we all learned it was in our own best interest to never challenge them.
We were conditioned from a early age to ignore it at go on with our lives, and they were conditioned that they could say more and more unhinged things and really never be challenged on it.
Rumour has it that Trump shits his pants, or at least pisses his pants. There was a whole “real men wear nappies” thing in support of him when it was around.
Now we just need to get Trump to step down. Then we can have a less insane election.
If that hands the GOP nomination to Vance, then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run. This was obvious on watching about a minute of Vance’s VP acceptance speech on the news. Dems should be careful what they ask for.
Oh I thought he was a huge liability being absolutely full of baggage. Insane things he’s said, including that trump is America’s Hitler (mind you that’s only insane to cultists)
then Vance would completely destroy any of the Democrats who the Dem establishment could possibly let run.
Well…
In February, during an episode of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vance said that he cared more about the security of the US southern border than the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine. “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” Vance said.
““Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is a fake holiday created to sow division. Of course Joe Biden is the first president to pay it any attention.”
“I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality.”
“There are dozens of people who protested on J6 who haven’t even been charged with a crime yet are being mistreated in DC prisons. A friend suggested the below link if you’re able to support them.”
Vance said that Trump should “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” in the US government and “replace them with our people.” If the courts attempt to stop this, Vance says, Trump should simply ignore the law. “You stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it,” he declares. The President Jackson quote is likely apocryphal, but the history is real. Vance is referring to an 1832 case, Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the US government needed to respect Native legal rights to land ownership. Jackson ignored the ruling, and continued a policy of allowing whites to take what belonged to Natives. The end result was the ethnic cleansing of about 60,000 Natives — an event we now call the Trail of Tears.
Yeah, Democrats will sure have a tough time with him…
Well, maybe you’re right, I had basically never heard of Vance until Trump picked him. But his acceptance speech was written to eat the Democrats’ lunch, since they weren’t willing to eat it themselves. And that stuff you quoted will delight Trump supporters, and maybe not bother too many Democrats.
“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler” - JD Vance
He’s no different from Ted Cruz. Was against Trump, then later supported him. Both of these guys grew a beard after flipping to be huge Trump supporters too.
“I know I will respect the limits of presidential power as I have for the three-and-a-half years, but any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law,”
“Yes we may be in a steel cage wrestling match. But I’m still going to follow gentlemens rules. Those tables, chairs and ladders are off-limits to me; My moral superiority will win the day.”
I mean, he also clearly has dementia. Like, we know what he used to look and sound like, he was VP for 8 years, recently. The change in lucidity and articulation from then to now is staggering. If he were my grandfather, seeing him like this would make me cry. I’ll never vote for that traitorous, narcissistic, felonious piece of trash running against him, but goddam if this isn’t the most pathetic presidential ballot in my lifetime by a massive margin.
No no, you see: water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Hydrogen is a key component of nukes, and nukes destroy magnets. Trump was telling us in code, because the baby-eating Dems are looking for an excuse to have him replaced with a body double so he can’t give obvious messages.
It really is that bad. Watch the videos of Biden from the Democratic convention in 2008 if anyone has any doubts.
I remember in 2015 I thought the most pathetic ballot would be Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush because it would be like we lived in a hereditary monarchy. I had no idea how bad Trump was and underestimated him bigly.
Still, since we know fascism is characterized by the near worship of a strongman leader, I’m perfectly fine taking the opposite approach. If Biden is in cognitive decline, so what? As long as his administration continues to do good work, his administration gets my vote.
Biden is just old, and the cold did him no favors. He was also I think completely unprepared for the firehose of just straight up disprovable lies coming at him while also trying to actually convey his talking points. Even if well I don’t think it’s a great medium for an 81 yr old man. Listen to him elsewhere though and it’s clear he still has his marbles, unlike Trump who is on a fast decline and unable to even explain an idea. The man isn’t as young as he was clearly, and probably should have just retired long ago. But having known family and others with dementia, I don’t think Biden has dementia at all, he’s just old and debates like an 81 yr old.
How could he possibly be unprepared for Trump to lie, that’s literally all he does. Three of my four grandparents had dementia, my father has the early stages already, I’ve worked in hospitals and group homes, I know the glassy-eyed stair of senility well. If he’s too old to hold a planned discussion in the absolute optimal conditions, he’s definitely too old to be president. Like I said, I’ll end up voting for him, because why the fuck not, can’t be worse than the alternative. But seriously, the thought of him having civilization-shaping meetings with other heads-of-state looking and sounding like that is unnerving to me.
Well like I’ve said in one of these threads, it really was the perfect storm for him. That was about as bad as he has looked and sounded in his almost 4 year term. I saw video of him at a campaign stop the next day and it was like night and day. He was still old, and still had a cold, but he looked more alive - for lack of a better word.
But I 100% agree that the party’s only choice shouldn’t be a rich white senior citizen. The minimum age requirement is 35, and we should be shooting for closer to that, rather than well past “retirement age”.
Biden clearly does not have dementia. He has some other serious problems, but his mind is there. Once you decode his halting delivery, the ideas behind his positions are sound. You can tell his mind is still sharp, it’s his body that is betraying him.
Regardless, he’s been “betrayed” and I’d really rather not have to describe the only possible reasonable candidate for President of the United States that way. Sorry?
You are correct, of course. And that’s why this movement to get him to step aside is gaining so much traction. The more I see key Democrats defending him in public, the more I think the private conversations are getting heated.
There is so much riding on this election that we can’t just call a mulligan and say “we laid an egg this time, we’ll try again in 2028”.
To me, it looked like the problem was not his brain, it was between his brain and his mouth. His brain knew what it wanted to say, his mouth took the long road to get there. And when you only have a minute or two to make your point, every second counts.
I am not saying that to try and gloss over the problem. But I’ve watched older relatives succumb to Alzheimer’s and dementia over the years, and this is not it. It’s different. It’s still bad for any older person, though, much less a President.
You claimed Biden “clearly has dementia” which either means you’re lying because you know he doesn’t, or you don’t know what dementia is. I’ve had plenty of moments like he had in this debate but even as a young neurotypical child, and most people have. Sometimes under pressure people lose their train of thought. Obviously we want a president that is not prone to that, but the other option is someone of basically the same age but is additionally a huge piece of shit
How could I “know he doesn’t”? Literally no one can “know” he doesn’t, not even him. But based on the hundreds of hours I’ve spent working with people with many varying degrees of dementia, it really really really looks like dementia. Sorry, I don’t want him to have it either, but those glassy eyes are very familiar to me, and it’s not a look I’ve ever gotten from “a young nerotypical child,” whatever that has to do with anything.
Okay, so there would not have been a way to know you have first hand medical experience that you’re now claiming. The pushback was against the wording “clearly” because that’s obviously meant to say that this is cut and dried which I highly doubt it would be – medical opinion and whatnot.
Are you really saying that dementia is a binary condition? My understanding is that it’s something that slowly comes on. While you could easily say “this looks like dementia setting in” and get no pushback, saying “this is clearly dementia” has an incredibly different ring to it. To me that wording implies if you asked him his name he would either not know or would struggle. I never really thought my grandparents had “dementia” because despite being slower and forgetting things, they never seem to have lost their core knowledge or personality. And Biden was probably much more on his toes than they were. So yeah, I can’t say I agree with this snap assessment even if he “clearly” presents some symptoms.
I mean she could have spent a weekend in Michigan. That was an unforced error.
She could have addressed her relationship with Goldman Sachs, and all the other banks that fucked over the entirety of the American people during the housing crisis that she earned millions upon millions giving “speeches” to.
She could have made an olive branch to the progressive caucus.
She could have not said “Sit down and shut up” to BLM activists.
I think she would’ve won regardless of everything else, but it would’ve been closer. Really the mistake from the primaries is that she didn’t really try to incorporate any of Bernie’s ideas into her platform, or even work with him at all. She treated him as an opponent and obstacle, not as a rival and peer.
This is where Biden was successful however – he didn’t dismiss Bernie nor his platform ideas. He did incorporate some into presidency, most obviously the climate change policies and student debt forgiveness where possible.
And where I sincerely believe this difference came down to – Biden was friendly to Bernie in the Senate and made an effort to be friendly colleagues, if not work friends. Clinton didn’t. It shows the power of cooperation allying together with progressives, instead of allying together with “moderate” Republicans.
Maybe, but it happened right before the election. I observed noticeable shift in attitude. That’s not good evidence, I know, but Clinton’s polls which had been steady, took a 3% dip at the time and stayed down through election day.
People talked about the polls being off compared to the election, but the election matched the post-Comey polls pretty well. It’s only the polls that mixed pre-Comey data that were too high for Clinton.
If you are interested in doing a more detailed analysis of this, I can supply you with some boiler plate code. 538 has pretty detailed polling data that’s free to download. I’m going to be getting into it later in June for my monthly polling update.
I was considering calculating Trumps polling error differential from 2016 and seeing how it changed to 2020. I did a map of his differential polling error for 2020 for my update two weeks ago.
I’m also considering of taking the differential polling result for just swing states, applying it to current polling, and mapping out a series of ‘pathways’ to 270 for each candidate, highlighting where the pressure points are.
I think a trying to model the impact of a single news story could be pretty interesting.
Voters decided against her for mishandling classified documents, right? So these same voters, who think things through with consistency and integrity, will decide against someone who stole boxes of documents and got CIA agents killed selling state secrets to Russia, right?
Everyone talks about his base as an unmoving monolith. But to get elected, he needs more than his base. He needs the fence sitters. Many of these people may be very ill informed about all the corruption in his original administration and his business dealings. This result will make a big difference to them because it's simple to understand. He's a convicted felon.
Cult/ Cargo cult level “They will never support another candidate again” is what I mean. They’ll write him in. They’ll have wild conspiracy theories. Not need to push. It will happen it on its own.
I would guess its around 25-30% of Republican voters. Its the conspiracy theory mind-set cutting backwards against those that seed it. There is no undoing this.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !gamestopstock
If Donald could please just die and they continue writing in his name for all future votes that would be great. They are the most ignorant and racist people within a party wholly committed to cultivating ignorant and racist voters.
A few months ago? Jesus Christ, I remember that dumb shit from the numerology crew and I had kinda lost track of them for a couple of years. This country would be so much better if they would throw their ballots in the trash. Here’s hoping.
I suspect some people will mental gymnastics themselves into thinking this isn’t a serious crime, and stipulating an abstract ‘serious crime’ yields more extreme results than we’ll see as a result of this verdict.
But a few percentage point swing in a few key states is enough to ensure a Biden victory, so it may be enough.
The fact of the matter is for a lot of white Americans it’s either support the republican nominee or those scary minorities will take over. To them, a white criminal is preferable to what they see as guliable saps at best or race traitors at worst.
The end of the article after discussing the failure of the impeachment of Clinton to actually change polls despite a difference in the hypothetical poll question before it occurred:
“It’s possible for people to say a conviction would change their minds, but when/if [a conviction] happens, it’s possible (even likely) that it won’t matter at all."
My gut feeling is there’s nothing in this world that will sway his core supporters. Those rabid mouth-breathing dumbass kool-aid drinking dipshits would disown their own children if they thought one of them voted for a democrat.
However, I think it could sway a lot of swing voters away from Trump. In American elections for POTUS, swing voters are extremely important.
Unfortunately, Biden is fucking up so bad on foreign policy (Gaza) that will lose Biden a lot of swing voters, too. Still anybody’s race is my guess.
This is just all my gut. It’s hard to trust polls anymore.
Anyone who gives a shit about Gaza probably should try to ensure the country doesn’t elect a Muslim Ban guy who wants to accelerate the genocide and deport anyone protesting it.
FYI: Those leftists are right wing trolls under a false flag, exactly like those “Biden takes 100% blame for Israel’s every action” guys. They come from /pol and Telegram.
Maybe his core supporters, but past elections have shown that he can’t win the popular vote. He is dependent on swing states where there are more people on the fence, and this might be enough.
I doubt Biden would use this as an excuse to drop out of the debate. His campaign thinks the debate will help him more than Trump, and they’re probably right. Outside of his diehard supporters and people keeping up with politics, most voters haven’t heard Trump speak at length since the end of his presidency. The debate is an opportunity to remind them how fucking weird he is.
I think this will only strengthen his core supporters because they’ll view him as a martyr. It might push away some people on the fence. But I think the martyrdom angle and the increased media spotlight could pull some people back in. Personally I think it probably won’t make a difference overall. All publicity is good publicity.
Anecdotal… we drove through rural Ohio a few weeks ago. In several hours of travel we only saw ONE trump sign. The same place in 2016 or 2020 would have been full of them. Regardless of the impact of this, the enthusiasm is dead. There might be “maga guys” on Twitter but they’re largely disengaged in real life.
I rode the MABDR last week which for me involves traveling through a wide swath of rural Pennsylvania. Nearly all of the Trump paraphernalia is gone from people’s yards. I used to see hundreds of Trump signs and flags, confederate flags, the works. Now there are only a few dedicated nutters left. They know who they are.
The Stan Clark Military Books store on 30 west of Gettysburg that has a massive “Don’t Blame Us, We Voted For Trump/Pence” sign (notably, still including Pence!) right out front of their business. Here it is on Street View. As an extra slap in the face, this is right on the edge of the Gettysburg battlefield and memorial.
The twerp in Biglerville who has his tiny front yard fenced off with chicken wire and used to have a life sized Trump mannequin in his lawn dressed up in propaganda T-shirts all the time. I thought for sure he moved since all was subdued there for a few months last year, but now he’s got all kinds of Trump and alt-right flags all over his lawn and porch. His place was looking comparatively tame last year.
The marquee on what I assume is the old bank building in Red Lion which has a marquee on it that reads “If Biden is the answer, how stupid was the question?” Street View link here.. The sides of it read “Frauds of 2020” and "Pause for enlightenment."
The guy on 896 just south of Ninepoints with the giant “Trump Not Bought Or Sold” sign (except by the Russians, of course). He has another massive sign next to it with some anti-Biden thing on it but I can’t remember what it says offhand. Alas, his Street View photo was apparently taken in 2019 which was before the signs went up.
The remainder of these dillweeds seem to be… curiously silent compared to previously. It’s kind of weird.
All the people in my development that had them up still have the signs from 2020 going strong… It’s still pretty split from talking with neighbors. One person near me is in business selling heavy equipment and they’re looking forward to trump because they feel they sell more equipment when republicans are in office. I guess that’s a viewpoint… For sure.
Wait… But Biden passed a massive infrastructure law. There’s a lot of people who could feel like he didn’t really do anything to improve their economic outlook, but a guy who sells heavy equipment shouldn’t be one of them.
If you sneak into their safe spaces online you can definitely tell they are unmotivated compared to 4-8 years ago.
They liked Trump because he bullied others publicly. They don’t want to side with the guy currently getting bullied, goes against their survival instinct.
I think a lot of his supporters are mostly burnt out on him. Even the hardliners are really just in this for the Wrestlemania storyline quality and this guy isn’t entertaining anymore, he just has legal bullshit around him, he says the same catchphrases all the time, he’s looking older and more haggard than we’ve ever seen, and conservatives are super fixated on superficial appearances.
I don’t think we’re “safe” by any means, but I think a lot of people are going to fall off and it might make a large difference.
I wish you were right. I live in Trumpistan and this will only make people like him more. The only way we can stop this madness is actually have him in an actual jail. Even then I’m not so sure.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.