So the reason why they’re so against women, gay, drag, trans was that they want to be the only drama queens around?
You hit the nail on the head.
Projection is a requirement to be part of the GOP
Voter and voted are not the same.
It shows that the ones who are so against women, gay, drag, trans were easily distracted by superficial showmanship. It’s actually sad that they can’t perceive inner values.
Nominate a woman that people actually want to be president and then maybe we can talk.
AOC, for example, is filling football stadiums in red states.
Oh ya know… It’s not her turn. There’s like 6 people you’ve never heard of ahead of her.
Taking turns and democracy are directly opposed.
And make sure they’re not flagrantly carrying water for a genocidal ethnostate during the run up to the election. Preferably they will be sane and won’t support that kind of thing at all. But this is America, we’re currently being led by a dementia addled gameshow host. Sanity is sadly not a prerequisite for the job.
Though she was also pressured successfully into largely adopting talking points from zionist apologia. “Right to defend itself” and all that.
To be fair, AoC wasn’t eligible yet until last October.
I can’t help but think that her beauty wouldn’t steal some votes at the very least. I’m not trying to be sexist, but I acknowledge that sexist views exist. And even on a base human level, I’d rather look at AOC than trump. That’s before looking into their “souls”. So if someone were to be in my fucking face 24/7 on all networks, I’d much rather it be a beautiful woman with intelligence and morals than a toxin-covered toad man with no personality other than grabby little hands.
To the credit of AOC, I was able to read all about her opinions and politics before I found out she was hot.
Right? Her opinions are a large part of what makes her sexy to me. I’m not trying to emphasize that, but I find empathy attractive.
Indeed.
Consecutive terms should be eliminated.
If there is no “incumbency advantage”, there will be no excuses to “we cant hold a primary because we ‘lose the advantage’” bullshit.
There’s really no excuse here, incumbency or no.
They knew Clinton was unpopular because she first lost to Obama and they had to rig her primary against Sanders. Harris couldn’t even beat out Tulsi Gabbard in a primary and the president demanding that she be crowned the candidate has evident dementia.
Say what you will about Donald (and I don’t like him either), but he wasn’t so weak that he had to forego the primaries)
Say what you will about Donald (and I don’t like him either), but he wasn’t so weak that he had to forego the primaries)
That’s because their base is already in the cult and bought into proaganda, they already knew the conclusion, the primary is a de facto sham election to show off trumps popularity.
All the more reason not to make stupid decisions in a presidential race.
Just make primaries mandatory. Banning consecutive terms is not going to accomplish anything worthwhile. The good things it does are more than matched by the bad, plus it’s a literal limit being placed on democratic choice.
Americans are still searching for simple answers in the form of rules. 'If only we had this rule, then Trump wouldn’t have happened. '. Trump or someone like him was the inevitable result of festering sicknesses in American culture. There are no rules you can come up with that can protect you from that without addressing root causes.
Just make primaries mandatory.
Democrats did technically held a primary (abeit it’s de facto for show only) in 2024, so that legal requirement wouldn’t have mattered.
Right. And to be clear, you can have insincere boring male candidates just the same. Look at old Biden (VP Biden is somewhat different). Or look at Tim Kaine. No authenticity. No charisma. No backbone.
My car has no charisma but its got years of character.
I drive a Nissan Charisma, which has no personality whatsoever.
Gotta wait for a few years for the character to suddenly show up. LOL.
The problem with AOC though is her name sounds like an acronym, which makes her sound like an institution (like a super PAC). It’s a dumb thing to complain about but affects people’s first impressions if they aren’t obsessively researching candidates.
AOC is literally an acronym. That is not her name.
Why isn’t she called by her name then like every other candidate (and most other people)?
Because she’s cool. People shorten to initials for particularly noteworthy/successful people that they talk about a lot. I imagine it’s a positive indicator for a politician, but interested to hear counter examples.
They reached the most sensible, logical conclusion: deport musk and impeach trump.
Fuck it. Impeach Elon, and deport trump as well, while we’re at it. Deport them both to Afghanistan, since that wouldn’t be cruel or anything, right? Just sending people wherever you feel like it.
Didn’t one of Trump’s grand or great grandparent come here illegally? Sounds like he needs to visit El Salvador
His wife would be illegal by current ICE standards so her and her anchor baby Barron should be deported or sent to El Salvador.
I think sending him to cecot is chefs kiss
Send him to lay rest next to Bin Laden. He’s done far, FAR more damage to this country than Osama ever could have dreamt.
He is family of them. So it tracks with current policy.
send them both to the moon
I’d send them anywhere that they can’t ruin society anymore.
Deport them to the Antarctic Pole of Inaccessibility.
“Imagine how much worse it would have been if it was women?”
(edit:)
— voters who choose GOPWhy do you choose to be a misogynistic dick when you could just shut your mouth?Alright, Gotcha, and I appreciate your position
The written word is tricky, it loses nuance
edited for clarity
Gotcha
To be fair, your response was entirely appropriate for actual misogyny. Sorry for the false alarm.
It’s great to see healthy interactions here
It’s so much better than the cesspit of neckbeards that is reddit!
I don’t normally upvote shit like…
But this, I upvoted everyone because I saw the whole fallout afterward and I like the interaction.
“Oops no fr I fucked up not indicating I was joking”
“Oh cool that’s all? Nbd.”
I’m here for that shit: if that’s what Lemmy was as a whole, the world would be a better place, legit.
Damned right
I think we forget to reinforce the positive, because we’re so used to being negative
Even the neckbeards are leaving reddit now
It’s mostly just bots
You can’t even be sure you’re arguing with real idiots anymore, there’s a decent chance you’re just arguing with a prompt spat out by Claude or one of the GPTs intending to get you arguing in the comments
I can’t imagine.
Can you mansplain?edited for clarity
cheers, I abhor the ‘/s’ tag, but it would have clicked here.
Used to be that satire could be understood or determined from the context but not now. Satire is policy for some people. Always need to use /s to show that you are sane and rational.
Helps many neurodivergents follow and chuckle along
POV: When you attempt sarcasm without the tag: ⬆️
misogynist w a female cat? hmmm
I’m proud that the misogyny was called out so quickly and strongly. It should never be tolerated.
I wouldn’t elect you for any reason whatsoever.
oops, I dropped my
/sIf those "s were already in your comment, you shouldn’t have needed it :/ satire on the internet is getting harder to make I guess
It’s not just satire on the internet, it’s satire anywhere. It is now very clear that a good proportion of the public actually are that bad, so it is hard to tell if the person making the statement is saying it satirically or is actually one of those people
While thats also true, Im talking about reading comprehension, not Poe’s Law.
If you’re using "s, it indicates that it’s not something you’re actually saying. You’re quoting somebody else, including a hypothetical person that you’re satirising. It’s explicitly saying they’re not your real words.
That’s an issue of reading skill, and while we can certainly work to make writing more accessible for those that aren’t great at it, I don’t appreciate how people blame the writer for the treatment they receive for what is, at best, a mutual misunderstanding.
It’s gotten bad enough that I can say in the comment the person I am satirising, and again in a concluding statement. But without the ‘/s’, people still accuse me of being a monster for believing a heinous thing I deliberately used provocative language to describe.
This is true
ooof.
If Elon said that about epstien that means he knew the entire time and chose not to say anything
Anger isn’t an emotion - it’s alpha male psychology, or something? Honestly I lost track while laughing as two of the worst people on Earth started going at each other like a pair of angry cats.
How is anger not an emotion?
That was sarcasm.
You know how parts of the manosohere like to claim men are the voice of reason incarnate and women shouldn’t be trusted with any responsibility because they’re too emotional?
Part of that facade is to act like anger isn’t an emotion, because when they suppress “unmanly” emotions like sadness and fear, they tend to channel them into anger instead.
Well fuck, when you put it that way, I will not only upvote this, but change my previous down vote to an upvote as well, and then jerk off. That last part is unrelated to your explanation, just thought you’d like my schedule for the day, starting now.
I like you.
Earlier today my wife sent me a link to an article about the Trump/Elon drama and compared it to our teenager’s high school bullshit level feuds.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head.
compared it to our teenager’s high school bullshit level feuds.
Pretty accurate, these losers never mentally matured past the age of 14.
It’s just awful.
I had to look up what TDS is and for others, it’s short for “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, an epithet MAGA put on people they don’t like to insinuate that they fear Trump and his ilk.
I assumed it was some ketamine side effect.
They also wanted to define this as an actual mental illness, because psychiatric care already isn’t weaponized against people with politically inconvenient views in the US enough.
because psychiatric care already isn’t weaponized against people with politically inconvenient views in the US enough
Holy shit I have never seen another person acknowledge this before, wild! And I should have by now considering I bring it up a decent bit (it’s actually the biggest reason I don’t support “mental health checks” for gun purchases, as it would be weaponized against trans people immediately like they already do with purchase/carry permits against black people. And don’t think Dems are going to help with that at all, they’ll actively help the republicans suppress minority gun rights just because “gun bad,” doubly so because they also have recently abandoned trans people. And imo trans would only be first, who knows what group would be next.) It just gives them another avenue to deny rights to people they don’t like.
Being trans alone = “mental illness.” I had a voluntary stay upgraded to involuntary when I tried to leave (after realizing that they had no intention of actually helping me.)
“Oh, you are feeling suicidal because the president is a FUCKING RAPIST? Let’s get you fired from your job and lock you in a room where people can misgender and physically assault you.”
Exactly.
Isn’t it wonderful?
I need mental health care because I have PTSD from “mental health care.” I was tortured in a troubled teen facility and almost twenty years later spend my nightmares there. But seeking mental health care is a trap. It’s amazing that asking for help in December only made my PTSD worse - that now I can flash back to assaults when I was 14 and when I was 30.
I thought it was tiny dick syndrome
They’re trying to redefine Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome, like Disney “on ice”
self-destruction
To be fair, I feel like almost everyone I’ve ever met would be too emotional to be president.
We failed pretty horrifically at screening the bullshit out though. Like, god damn.
The greatest illusion of humanity is that reason is a default state.
We are hormonal meat beasts that require decades to tame to any productive end and even still we are all literally one phone call away from losing our shit completely.
There’s no way I can handle a phone call of any kind. Honestly even a mildly annoying Teams message would probably be enough to send me off the deep end.
Yeah this is why facts and evidence aren’t that persuasive. We’re all emotional first. All of us
It’s funny because just last week I had a work call with middle management were we ended up screaming at each other.
Removed by mod
Eh, Patil of India was allegedly pretty corrupt, using government money to build a retirement home among other things. Park Geun-Hye (S. Korea) was jailed for corruption. We’ve had corrupt female corporate heads in the US, like Elizabeth Holmes. I’m not trying to butwhatabout at all, just that people in power are susceptible to corruption and fuckery regardless of being a woman or man. Per-capita, women are probably better, they’ve often had to work harder than men to reach higher office and don’t want to give anyone more fuel to muckrake on them.
dont think holmes count, and also its based on mysogyny why corporation put females as ceos just before the company is failing or collapses, there was aterm on reddit someone explained how the male BODs place a female in charge so she takes the blame for it. She dint become the ceo on her own, it was with another man is the reason why she was there in the first place.
It’s called the “glass cliff”
I don’t think Holmes qualifies for a pass, but yes, women can be used as the fall guy for corporations in trouble.
yea that was the term im looking for, dint want to sound like the comment came from a sexist source.
I literally never seen anybody say this outside of left wing people online complaining about people supposedly saying it like it’s an epidemic.
If the only takeaway that the Democrats have from the 2024 election is that they lost because of racism and sexism then they’re cooked.
Your life experiences don’t necessarily reflect those of everyone else, FYI. I’ve seen and heard this or some other "women are too emotional/illogical/irrational/cryptic/ect too many times.
There are relatively recent studies/surveys, like this one (PDF) that suggest that a pretty significant portion of the population still feel women are too emotional to be in politics. 13% as of 2019 in that one.
While I’d think—or at least hope—that this is still going down overall, the rise in conservativism is definitely slowing the decline.
But your study proves my point though. The percentage was 13% across all demographics back in 2018 when the study was conducted. If you actually look at at the graphs, they all show a pretty significant and stead drop over the decades. Well, 2018 was 7 years ago, so if project the data to the modern day, it’s very likely that figure is in the single digits now.
Even if we assume that the data remained steady since then, which it probably hasn’t, then that means at least 87% of the population don’t hold this view. That’s not just a majority, that’s an overwhelming majority. So while my experience is ancedotal, this shows that my experiences are actually unique but a part of much bigger societal trend.
If you actually look at at the graphs, they all show a pretty significant and stead drop over the decades.
if you actually read my comment, I’ve already mentioned its decline. maybe you need a refresher. :)
means at least 87% of the population don’t hold this view.
thanks. believe it or not, I do know how percentages work. But at no point did I claim that most of the population feels this way.
A group of people doesn’t have to be a majority to be statistically significant. If 13% of people suddenly woke up with arms growing from the tops of their heads, you’d be noticng them all the damn time, unless you’re a recluse.
This absolutely has a real-world effect on who is voted into office, especially when you also consider which demographics vote. And consequently, less exposure to women in politics in office = a slower rate of acceptance of them.
Not to mention, again, the rise of conservatism that is certainly not helping the matter.
So while my experience is ancedotal, this shows
Yeah so as I mentioned, I’ve had a different experience. Are you a woman? Do you frequently seek out discussions about/research on/history of women? gender studies? inequality?
Because otherwise, there’s no wonder why you haven’t experienced what I have.
Your experience doesn’t show anything. Neither does mine, because anecdotes are not, nor ever will be, valid evidence of anything useful in discussions about social or political issues.
A group of people doesn’t have to be a majority to be statistically significant. If 13% of people suddenly woke up with arms growing from the tops of their heads, you’d be noticng them all the damn time, unless you’re a recluse.
The central issue issue here revolves around whether or not this is percentage is significant. You specifically said that this figure is statistically significant, which means it’s calculated somewhere, right? Is this something that’s calculated in the report? Did you calculate yourself? If so what was the chosen neutral baseline?
If there are no calculations and this is just your opinion, then I gotta say that I disagree with you. Your making the assumption that the 13% behave as a bloc, which doesn’t sound likely.
For example, it is highly unlikely that everybody who holds this opinion is a registered or active voter. According to the Census Bureau, in the 2024 election, 73.6% of eligible voters were registered and only 65.3% were registered to vote. It’s also likely that many of the people who hold this opinion are still willing to vote for women candidates even if they prefer male candidates. According to a 2019 Gallup survey, 94% of Americans were willing to vote for a female president.
This conclusion is further strengthened by the survey you shared because it showed that this 13% isn’t made up of just a few demographics, but rather it’s spread across all demographics. Considering how different demographics vote very differently in elections, it is very unlikely that this 13% has the ability to sway elections as you seem to imply… unless you have evidence to show that it does.
Your experience doesn’t show anything. Neither does mine, because anecdotes are not, nor ever will be, valid evidence of anything useful in discussions about social or political issues.
Okay, that is fair. However, we’re using actual data now, and the data seems to indicate that my original assumption is correct. This is something that’s rare in our society.
deleted by creator
Who is still making that argument? Seems like an out dated straw man.
