|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined.
As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice.
|
On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference.
The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens.
If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified.
I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her.
That double standard is where the sexism is.
|
On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice.
Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances.
You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever.
|
Northern Ireland26595 Posts
On April 15 2026 01:09 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 19:23 Luolis wrote:On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk. Why does that environment exist? To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since. That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly. "Return to equality" and its the largest overton window movement to the right as possible lmao. Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote:
Those accustomed to dominance view equality as oppression. It applies. Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 18:37 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk. Why does that environment exist? To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since. That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly. Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams. You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated. To siphon through the bolded in sequence - I wasn’t. Bush was a thing, my own country had a centre-right government for 14 years. - What equality are you referring to? - I can, and will join Hillary Clinton in doing so. - Half of which aren’t especially popular at all We may see a carrying of the day nonetheless. But Hillary didn’t lose to like Jeb Bush, she lost to Donald Trump. And a Donald who got a second term. I’m not sure who the ‘you’ is here, but hey. The idea that it’s some domain of policy particulars these days is fanciful to me. They elected an idiot first time around, they elected a Fascist strongman who’d precipitated an insurrection attempt the second time around. Strong candidate there Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 20:02 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 14:18 Introvert wrote:On April 14 2026 13:22 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 12:47 dyhb wrote:On April 14 2026 11:44 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 11:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk. Why does that environment exist? To misquote somebody on something else, it’s the death rattle of the historic majority, and it’s a destructive one. It’s shaped a lot of politics since. That feels more apt to fall on the post-Obama world. You were used to dominance in center-left to left-wing political policies, that the thought of Clinton losing to Trump seemed unthinkable. Now, the return to equality feels bad. You can't just dismiss segments of the country as deplorables, or point and shriek at the Republican *everything*, or shove in a Biden replacement candidate at the last second in a presidential race: you've actually got to pitch the American people on your ideas. And do so consistently and repeatedly. Whether that's single payer, or a more progressive tax rate, green energy subsidies, or student loan debt subsidies or porgrams. You didn't lose because of America being sexist about women, and you're not going to lose with a minority non-Christian candidate because America is bigoted against minorities and non-Christians. You will lose if you have a bad candidate in candidate quality and message. The moderate candidate appeal is not losing a lot of winnable votes right out of the gate. Democrats have a few that are likely 2028 candidates and I hope one of that crowd is nominated. The great success of finally having elected a half-black man to the presidency is that any time a Democrat doesn't win after that, it obviously means democracy failed and racism won again. The Democrat party broke the glass ceiling only to fall through it. Yes,Obama cleaned up with the white working class,Trump flipped a bunch of Obama voters, but clearly the story is anger over a black man. Meanwhile in 2016 his primary win (which was competitive for a long while) brought in new voters. Somehow they voted for Obama twice but were angry and so went back to the old white guy. It couldn't be for any other reason. And it couldn't be that people were warning that Hillaey Clinton was a bad candidate for *years* or that Kamala had underperformed in every election she ever ran in (even in a deep blue state, which is its own problem and will hamper Newsom, God willing). Hey remember when a President had to deal with conspiracies about where they were born and if they were eligible for the Presidency (including from the current President) that totally had nothing to do with their skin colour at all? Or how the Republican Party has gone insane post Obama, or how some of its base are now so obsessed with ‘DEI’ etc? Obviously the glass ceiling of a black President being broken had all positive impacts, and negative ones are impossible to consider. Racism stopped being a thing in 2008. It also can’t it simultaneously the case that a candidate can have flaws that explain their failure, but that sexism was also a factor in some way? We’ve also solved sexism too, I can’t put as precise a date on it as when we sorted racism, but it’s sorted. Not a factor anymore, phew. Man if only I could emigrate to this glorious land of equality I mean I don’t think the post-Obama backlash is remotely entirely racist in nature, nor Clinton and especially Harris’ failure is necessarily down to sexism. Merely a factor The conversation you're having in the second post is why I do think you've been accustomed to dominance, and the retreat from that cultural and political dominance is the true cause of all this deflection to alleged racism and sexism. It's been enough years. Let's talk about the major contributors to defeats in a way that can correct them, and leave the "But I have three news stories here that totally show the undercurrent had a noticeable impact stop dismissing me" to the people intent on losing 2028. I don't want to see that crew's self-serving justifications if Dems manage to throw 2028, because I wager it will make today's majoring in the minors feel quaint. Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I said “compared to Trump”. She is smart, she is eloquent, she has tons of experience. Eloquent compared to Trump is like saying sober compared to a Kennedy. Of all Democratic presidential candidates for the last 30 years, Kamala rated in the bottom if not absolute last in terms of eloquence. Al Gore could give her a run in that competition, and I don't want to be unfair to him. Wooden delivery, similar awkwardness, but less vague, and more able to translate ideas into complete sentences.
The thread dissected this ad nauseam in those elections, I don’t recall sexism featuring very prominently in people’s various takes on contributory factors.
I wouldn’t even necessarily claim it meaningfully swung things, merely that it was likely there. Nor was it a particular blanket sexism either, but I suspect a certain type of person doesn’t like a certain type of woman, but is A-OK with a man who has the same characteristics.
Again, I stress, I don’t think it’s why either Clinton or Harris lost. Merely that hey sexism is well, still a thing. Especially the higher up the chain of power one goes.
How would you characterise the prior cultural dominance that is currently being retreated from? I don’t want to make assumptions here.
To expand on Kwark’s earlier, signature blunt point, I don’t think the election of Obama = there was a backswing and people became massive racists or whatever. But it’s a handy arbitrary event and quite symbolic of subsequent events.
Part one, shit has hit the fan for many people in very real, tangible ways. Financial crashes, pandemics, and generally negative trends of wealth inequality continuing, all that good stuff.
Secondly, even if it’s a perceptual thing, traditionally dominant groups tend to view their station in the world as the natural, default state of affairs and down to their own merits. When they start to lose that somewhat artificial leg-up they have, they frequently react badly and become resentful at the other groups now on a more playing field, or the wider processes that do that.
It’s not a wholly linear process either. Things tend to start at overt oppression, generally improve and then can revert back when some kind of tipping point is reached.
To take my native land in semi-recent times. When it became apparent that the Catholic/Irish community had bridged various gaps in education and employment, and more importantly could now start winning elections, suddenly the backlash from certain segments of the other side of the aisle (mine incidentally) intensified in some meaningful ways, although not across the board.
Nor is this a uniquely American phenomenon, I think it’s something you’re seeing all across the West, to varying degrees and differing depending on culture or demographics perhaps.
I don’t think it’s a purely, or even particularly racial thing. It’s more an anger that people like me aren’t calling all the shots anymore thing, or catering expressly to me anymore thing. A rural/metropolitan divide and frequent bidirectional resentment is a common factor in many places, and that’s not generally a racial one to take one example.
I mean it is also worth remembering that quite a lot of things have changed since Obama 1.0 too. More LGBT enfranchisement, be it in actual legal rights, but also in cultural presence. Trans people were simply not on the radar at all then. Not to as extreme an extent but women have made some reasonable cultural gains since too.
Throw it all into a blender and you get well, what we’ve seen.
I do wonder if we had only one of crisis of capitalism/big cultural shifts if the landscape may look rather different.
Solely the former, you could perhaps conceivably see a bigger resurgence of left economics. Solely the latter and I don’t think you see near the same backlash as people are less materially disenfranchised and thus looking for avenues to express that.
I do hate adding a million caveats, but anyhoof. I don’t think this is necessarily the case for say, a traditionally purple kinda voter who went Trump, but absolutely does drive the real committed MAGA core.
|
On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is.
Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd.
Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft?
If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head.
On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever.
He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him.
|
On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:
He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him.
He did. It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and it died in committee because Senate Republicans said they would filibuster it.
|
On April 15 2026 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:
He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. He did. It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and it died in committee because Senate Republicans said they would filibuster it.
Two little details:
1) The bill wouldn't have passed a filibuster threat because of the "resources" or because of the AMNESTY? Come on.
2) When the minority party in the Senate kills a bill, it is the MINORITY party's fault?
Since when?
You blamed the last 3 shutdowns on the majority Republicans not funding the government when their spending was blocked from the 60 vote threshold for cloture by a Democrat minority.
Who exactly do you think you are fooling?
|
On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is. Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd. Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft? If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head. Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever. He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him.
Don’t make yourself dumber that you are, you understand my point perfectly. You, and the maga crowd accept things from Trump you would never accept from a woman.
The bar for Trump is grotesquely low, but it emphasizes how different the standard of behavior that can be tolerated is.
My mum married three times, it’s fine for me too. Why don’t you read the whole sentence. Make an effort oblade.
|
Northern Ireland26595 Posts
On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice.
It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication.
The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies.
If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot
It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot.
Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all.
Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue.
Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions.
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit.
2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful
And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is.
If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man.
For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable.
But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there.
Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem.
I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction.
|
On April 15 2026 03:23 LightSpectra wrote:
If he were slightly less stupid, I would hypothesize he's trying to deny oil specifically to Europe to punish them for not being good little vassals. Although again, that implies some kind of master plan and not winging it based on a demented 80-year-old's mood swings. Most of Europes oil doesn't pass through the strait so that doesn't really work. (not that that has ever stopped Trump)
|
On April 15 2026 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is. Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd. Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft? If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head. On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever. He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. Don’t make yourself dumber that you are, you understand my point perfectly. You, and the maga crowd accept things from Trump you would never accept from a woman. The bar for Trump is grotesquely low, but it emphasizes how different the standard of behavior that can be tolerated is. My mum married three times, it’s fine for me too. Why don’t you read the whole sentence. Make an effort oblade.
"You voted for a man who eats pizza and tortures kittens to death."
"There's nothing wrong with eating pizza and the other stuff is BS."
"My mom eats pizza, read the whole sentence. You would never vote for a WOMAN who tortures kittens to death."
"There are no women on the ballot even accused of kitten torturing and I already told you we simply disagree about the kitten allegations. Nobody is in favor of kitten torturing. Also why the fuck did you bring up pizza then?"
I understood your point. Your problem is not realizing the reason your hypothetical doesn't exist is tied to a deeper truth. People accept different things from men and women in general by virtue of them being different to begin with. However objective or dispassionate you can claim to be, the physical biological and psychological reactions are different. Instinctually.
You show me a woman who was a fixture and icon of American culture and society for 40 years and when she runs for president I'll watch the made-up controversies bounce off of her like flubber. You show me a female or male candidate for president who nobody knew 2 months ago I won't be surprised they don't get the same benefit of the doubt.
Better evidence of no double standard is probing in a different dimension other than male/female, which is I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense.
|
On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction.
Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding.
|
Northern Ireland26595 Posts
On April 15 2026 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is. Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd. Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft? If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head. On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever. He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. Don’t make yourself dumber that you are, you understand my point perfectly. You, and the maga crowd accept things from Trump you would never accept from a woman. The bar for Trump is grotesquely low, but it emphasizes how different the standard of behavior that can be tolerated is. My mum married three times, it’s fine for me too. Why don’t you read the whole sentence. Make an effort oblade.
Oh they do make an effort, but it’s mostly in contortions and obfuscations. But it is effort, indeed one has to put a lot in to make arguments in this vein.
|
On April 15 2026 04:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:
He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. He did. It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and it died in committee because Senate Republicans said they would filibuster it. Two little details: 1) The bill wouldn't have passed a filibuster threat because of the "resources" or because of the AMNESTY? Come on.
Republicans decided they'd rather have four/eight more years of the border insecure, which was supposedly a crisis, because they wanted to campaign on it. It's not my fault that's incredibly dumb.
2) When the minority party in the Senate kills a bill, it is the MINORITY party's fault?
Since when?
You blamed the last 3 shutdowns on the majority Republicans not funding the government when their spending was blocked from the 60 vote threshold for cloture by a Democrat minority.
Who exactly do you think you are fooling?
If you don't have 60 votes for cloture, you have to negotiate with the minority party. There was no shutdown when Biden was president because he made good-faith concessions to Republicans despite the things they asked for negatively impacting Republican voters.
|
On April 15 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:21 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:
He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. He did. It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and it died in committee because Senate Republicans said they would filibuster it. Two little details: 1) The bill wouldn't have passed a filibuster threat because of the "resources" or because of the AMNESTY? Come on. Republicans decided they'd rather have four/eight more years of the border insecure, which was supposedly a crisis, because they wanted to campaign on it. It's not my fault that's incredibly dumb.
It is your fault you can't man up and say that because the Trump administration was able to secure the border in 1 month, ending the crisis of 5k and 10k a day average crossings and 15k a day peaks, without any new law, that the Biden administration had the same power, and therefore were ignoring it on purpose because of either or a combination of a) it's policy they wanted and b) not solving it allowed it to be a hostage in other negotiations (=sure we pinky promise we'll close the border, just vote for this law that's 10% closing the border wink wink and 90% amnesty and other stuff you completely oppose)
On April 15 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +2) When the minority party in the Senate kills a bill, it is the MINORITY party's fault?
Since when?
You blamed the last 3 shutdowns on the majority Republicans not funding the government when their spending was blocked from the 60 vote threshold for cloture by a Democrat minority.
Who exactly do you think you are fooling? If you don't have 60 votes for cloture, you have to negotiate with the minority party. There was no shutdown when Biden was president because he made good-faith concessions to Republicans despite the things they asked for negatively impacting Republican voters.
I have to do a lot of dot connecting for you but it's almost working.
Where was said negotiation in the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021? Perhaps some good-faith removing amnesty from the bill and not holding the border hostage as a bargaining chip would have gotten it through.
|
Republicans evidently didn't actually think there was a crisis. Imagine an actual crisis like a nuclear meltdown or something, and Ted Cruz is out there saying "a few years of radioactive fallout is fine because we intend to win the election on that issue." They'd look insane.
So it is with "the insecure border is destroying America but we'll happily wait four/eight years to fix it". They think their voters are morons. To be fair, you're proving them right.
|
On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style.
|
On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is. Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd. Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft? If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head. On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever. He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. Don’t make yourself dumber that you are, you understand my point perfectly. You, and the maga crowd accept things from Trump you would never accept from a woman. The bar for Trump is grotesquely low, but it emphasizes how different the standard of behavior that can be tolerated is. My mum married three times, it’s fine for me too. Why don’t you read the whole sentence. Make an effort oblade. "You voted for a man who eats pizza and tortures kittens to death.""There's nothing wrong with eating pizza and the other stuff is BS." "My mom eats pizza, read the whole sentence. You would never vote for a WOMAN who tortures kittens to death.""There are no women on the ballot even accused of kitten torturing and I already told you we simply disagree about the kitten allegations. Nobody is in favor of kitten torturing. Also why the fuck did you bring up pizza then?" I understood your point. Your problem is not realizing the reason your hypothetical doesn't exist is tied to a deeper truth. People accept different things from men and women in general by virtue of them being different to begin with. However objective or dispassionate you can claim to be, the physical biological and psychological reactions are different. Instinctually. You show me a woman who was a fixture and icon of American culture and society for 40 years and when she runs for president I'll watch the made-up controversies bounce off of her like flubber. You show me a female or male candidate for president who nobody knew 2 months ago I won't be surprised they don't get the same benefit of the doubt. Better evidence of no double standard is probing in a different dimension other than male/female, which is I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense.
What exactly is the torturing kitten analogy referring to here ? Because the rest of what he said is perfectly true, Trump has cheated on all his wives, and he did pay hush money to a porn star and he also did brag about grabbing women by the pussy. Unless you're gonna argue in bad faith and say that technically his lawyer paid the hush money etc.
|
On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that.
|
On April 15 2026 06:42 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2026 03:54 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:
You're not a sexist because your preferred candidate wasn't a woman. You're a sexist because you voted for a guy that bragged about casually sexually assaulting women and have quadrupled down at every possible opportunity. I'm not a sexist because I'm not a sexist. Neither am I a political issue. The discussion is about whether muh sexism is the dominating force behind Democrat electoral disappointment. You can think Kamala was a great candidate. To think she's perfect would be delusion. But if you get for example 75 million votes and only need 1% more to win the electoral college, it's certainly a possibility that the Democrat voter base is too sexist to put a woman over the finish line, but I find it more likely that they just weren't anywhere close enough to maxing out the "good candidate" thing that would deliver the extra 1% vote required to win. Imagine how little better of a candidate you would need to make up that difference. The problem is that i don’t think you see where the sexism happens. If a candidate was a woman that had had three husbands, had cheated on all of them including with a male pornstar that she has paid hush money to and had bragged on record about grabbing young men she has power over by the dick, you would have been fucking horrified. I know your standards are pretty abysmally low, but i think you wouldn’t have voted for her. That double standard is where the sexism is. Firstly, even in the wokest of conceptions I find the insinuation that marrying more than once should be a horrifying fact, to be absurd. Otherwise what is this, I have a double standard because I allegedly wouldn't vote for a woman that doesn't exist and you had to theorycraft? If you recognized that men and women are different, you would probably see why your character doesn't exist. But on the other hand there were women candidates who, say, married a cheater, or who built their career on putting single/homeless moms in jail or going after their husband's accusers instead of #Believingallwomen and says here I didn't vote for them. Perhaps I think every single controversy is bullshit in all 3 of their cases and have voted for different reasons altogether. Perhaps you would know that if you had asked me instead of starting with calling me sexist for not being willing to vote for a candidate that doesn't fucking exist except in your head. On April 15 2026 03:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. Shameless gaslighting once again. Biden asked for more resources to secure the border and Congressional Republicans literally said, aloud, they wouldn't do that because it would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You can lie until you're blue in the face but it's on the Internet, in multiple sources, forever. He should have gotten his valuable "resources" in the first half of his term when Democrats controlled Congress. Especially since it was such a priority for him. Don’t make yourself dumber that you are, you understand my point perfectly. You, and the maga crowd accept things from Trump you would never accept from a woman. The bar for Trump is grotesquely low, but it emphasizes how different the standard of behavior that can be tolerated is. My mum married three times, it’s fine for me too. Why don’t you read the whole sentence. Make an effort oblade. "You voted for a man who eats pizza and tortures kittens to death.""There's nothing wrong with eating pizza and the other stuff is BS." "My mom eats pizza, read the whole sentence. You would never vote for a WOMAN who tortures kittens to death.""There are no women on the ballot even accused of kitten torturing and I already told you we simply disagree about the kitten allegations. Nobody is in favor of kitten torturing. Also why the fuck did you bring up pizza then?" I understood your point. Your problem is not realizing the reason your hypothetical doesn't exist is tied to a deeper truth. People accept different things from men and women in general by virtue of them being different to begin with. However objective or dispassionate you can claim to be, the physical biological and psychological reactions are different. Instinctually. You show me a woman who was a fixture and icon of American culture and society for 40 years and when she runs for president I'll watch the made-up controversies bounce off of her like flubber. You show me a female or male candidate for president who nobody knew 2 months ago I won't be surprised they don't get the same benefit of the doubt. Better evidence of no double standard is probing in a different dimension other than male/female, which is I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. What exactly is the torturing kitten analogy referring to here ? Because the rest of what he said is perfectly true, Trump has cheated on all his wives, and he did pay hush money to a porn star and he also did brag about grabbing women by the pussy. Unless you're gonna argue in bad faith and say that technically his lawyer paid the hush money etc.
Yeah it's pretty crummy to handwave all the rest and merely call it "BS".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
