Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Voidwalkin]

As we've already established when it comes to leftists, ideals shouldn't get in the way of the correct vote. Right?

This is the reason I'm voting for Kamala Harris despite distaste over how subcultures influential on the left have evolved this past decade, yes.

It's weird where some actions have consequences but other ones seemingly don't

You do not want some things spoken of, seemingly in any circumstance, and are fine with imposition of scorn on the speaker if you find their expression distasteful. Acceptable to me, and consistent with a free society.

You become a speaker in the process, and receive scorn in return, from those that disagree either with your principle itself or intensity of the reaction(the latter being most common). Acceptable to me, and consistent with a free society.

 

[Narz]

Saying someone's attractive isn't a bug deal. It's how you say it, when, where etc.

When you're famous people gonna praise and blame every physical and character trait about you. Just comes w the territory.

And the line between private and public is blurred only. Basically you have to assume anything you say online is public.

But some people like to treat it more casually like they're speaking to their friends w randos standing around evesdropping.

 

[Gorbles]

You do not want some things spoken of, seemingly in any circumstance, and are fine with imposition of scorn on the speaker if you find their expression distasteful. Acceptable to me, and consistent with a free society.

Everybody has at least one thing they don't want spoken of. Even absolute 100% all-speech-is-allowed types are often found to have limits. I don't think I've found a single person online, or IRL, ever, who doesn't have some kind of a limit on what people should say.

Using this as "but this will cause certain men to not vote" gets, from me, the tiniest of violins. The causal link is so weak, so devoid of both personal introspection and a consistent approach to ideals over practicalities, that I laugh at it as a hypothetical. As your hypothetical.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Actually, water isn't wet, but there you go.

Semantics. (yes, I went and looked up the arguement. rather amusing actually)

Feel free to change it to any other "Captain Obvious" type statements.

Q: "How can you tell if a politician is lying?"

A: "Their lips are moving"

 

[aelf]

I do think that the serious countries putting an end to the idea of US hegemony on the world wish the Democrats remain in government. They do more foreign policy mistakes. They're wasting its remaining capabilities and its credibility faster than Trump would. But the Democrats are also mode dangerous because of that incompetence. They could march right into WW III due to pure hubris.

You say this because the Democrats were the ones who led the US into Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest US military misadventures of the 21st century so far, the latter by manufacturing evidence of WMDs?

Moderator Action: *SNIP* Flaming. -lymond

He downplayed COVID initially because he thought it would mostly hurt Blue cities!

I think you're talking to a guy who subscribes to at least some COVID conspiracy theories.

Moderator Action: *SNIP* Flaming. - lymond

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

 

[Cutlass]

Left media lies about the right. Right media lies about the left.
water is wet.

"The Media" Lies.
Period. Dot.

(btw, the quote above?, that is exactly what the left is doing.)

oh, and that list a few posts up? Someone needs to do one on the current pres.
I'm not going to go through each line and find the ones are silly, which are lies, and which are indeed true.

/shrug

The important point to note about that is that there is no significant left media outlets in the US. There is nothing leftist in media that gets a fraction of the attention of the NY Post. And Fox is watched by 100million more people than are ever even aware of a left media outlet's existence.

 

[Samson]

538 has some interesting graphs, but they tell you little surprising. The main thing you can get from them is they have no idea who is going to win.

Spoiler Some graphs :

 

[EnglishEdward]

Oh well, back to the..

 

[Sommerswerd]

Leftists get chided for their choice of votes all the time.

Everyone gets chided for their vote choices, but yes... some might even say... "browbeaten" amirite?

Using this as "but this will cause certain men to not vote" gets, from me, the tiniest of violins.

Also yes... well put

Joking ("chiding") aside, I agree with what seems to be your larger point, that folks should realize/recognize that not everyone is going to agree/accept/enjoy their statements, including their political positions, and nobody owes it to them to stay quiet about their disagreements, criticisms, etc., just to protect their feelings. People can say what they find socially acceptable and what they don't. Everyone isn't going to agree on everything.

As for the specific topic(s), I usually don't personally mind people talking about the beauty, attractiveness, hotness, whatever of others, generally. I admit that I do it myself sometimes, about men and women... However I also recognize that some others find those kinds of comments creepy, weird, off-putting, cringey, and similar and I don't have any problem with them saying so when they feel that way. Depending on the context, (circumstances, speaker, setting, subject) I will myself occasionally find such comments awkward, cringe-worthy, creepy and so on. Its not an exact science.

With the matter of guys claiming that they've essentially been reverse-snowflaked into voting for Trump because someone criticized them and called something they said offensive, thus triggering them into being "fed up with" all these snowflakes/feminists/SJWs and similar "on the left". The layers and layers to unpeel in that kind of thinking is... I'll call it... ironic. The point is that I agree with what I think your overall sentiment is. I'm not buying that as an excuse. People have their reasons for voting for Trump. "Someone hurt my feelings by criticizing something I said" isn't a credible one.

 

[GenMarshall]

The over the top prissiness of a vocal minority of the left has certainly given the grifters on the right stuff to latch onto. Some of it is so absurd I can't help but wonder if they're double agents.

I wouldn’t call it “prissiness”, I’d see it as more puritanical and prudish no different than the moralistic Christian Fundamentalists of the 1980s & 1990s who'd freak out over an attractive woman at the beach wearing a bikini.

Trump was busy feeding the fires of of his war on America from within. He has continuously stoked the flames of division and hate between USians. He doesn't care about International affairs unless he can personally benefit. He does care about keeping his cultists well fed with the red meat of fascism and racial hatred.

IIRC, he’s been doing that since his Birther Stick during the Obama Administration. I honestly feel that Trump, ether directly or indirectly, took advantage of the frustrated male gamers in Gamergate to his own end and into a rabbit hole that lead into his cult.

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC, he’s been doing that since his Birther Stick during the Obama Administration. I honestly feel that Trump, ether directly or indirectly, took advantage of the frustrated male gamers in Gamergate to his own end and into a rabbit hole that lead into his cult.

There are still many men who liked what Trump said on the Access Hollywood tape, even if they won't say it out loud. They will vote for it though.

 

[GenMarshall]

There are still many men who liked what Trump said on the Access Hollywood tape, even if they won't say it out loud. They will vote for it though.

Ahh yes, the Access Hollywood tape. Frustratingly, what should have been something considered a scandalous political suicide, did nothing to tip the scales of Trump to put him in a disadvantage in 2016. It's an astonishing feet that something that would ruin a Hollywood actor's career, has no effect on Trump (To be fair, He did lose the popular vote in 2016). I'll be honest, I was never fully plugged into the political atmosphere back in 2016 (I voted third party, I don't recall who the candidate was) and only learned of the Access Hollywood tapes later down the road.

In retrospect, even looking back at the Hillary v. Trump debates (More specifically the third debate), there's something that I'd never expect to have come out of my mouth (rather, fingertips) that's going to make me look like an SJW; if Hillary was a man, we wouldn't be bringing up Clinton's Sex Scandal. Unfortunately, it took me eight years to have this dawn on me with Harris v. Trump. Of course, my younger chuddyer self is going to be calling me a "snowflake SJW now".

 

[Sommerswerd]

That Trump didn't start any new wars is a function of opportunity more than anything else. If Hamas's attack last year happened while Trump was president he'd have been enthusiastically bombing whoever Israel wanted, I guarantee it.

JD Vance was on with Jake Tapper today and he did a good job defending Trump despite Tapper having none of it and continuously fact checking his lies and spin. It was a very contentious exchange. Two main points, relevant to your post:

1. Vance had a pretty good bit of spin on the recent criticism by General Kelly, Trumps former Chief of staff that Trump is a fascist, admires Hitler, etc. Vance's angle, which I had not heard him use before, is that the reason Trump didn't get along with Kelly, is because Kelly (and pretty much every member of Trump's administration that resigned and/or was ousted) was a warmonger who wanted Trump to get the US into "ridiculous wars". Vance kept leaning hard into characterizing the Trump presidency as peaceful, in contrast to the Biden presidency and Obama presidency.

2. Which brings up the second angle Vance was spinning, which is generally pushing Trump as a POTUS of peace. This line actually gets used a lot by Trump's campaign, the notion that Trump "didn't start any wars" and that Trump's Presidency was peaceful for the US.

What occurs to me, is that media rarely or almost never pushes back against this farce and Jake Tapper didn't today, because he treated it as an attempt to change the subject from the point of his interview, which was to confront JD Vance about the statements Trump's former Chief of staff had attributed to Trump and the fact that he called him a fascist and unfit for office.

What Trump's campaign keeps glossing over, is that the US was at war in Afghanistan every single day of the Trump Presidency and Trump never withdrew from Afghanistan despite having every opportunity to do so. Instead, he sandbagged Biden with a treaty to potentially withdraw, which Biden then decided to follow through on and take the heat for. So Biden was the one who actually ended the longest US war in history. Also worth mentioning is that it was the prior Republican POTUS, Baby Bush, who started both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and it was Obama who withdrew the US from the war in Iraq. So Trump's campaign constantly touting that Trump somehow presided over a period of peace for the US is completely deceptive. Not to mention the fact that Trump kept vetoing Congressional attempts to de-escalate US involvement in the war in Yemen.

That's even putting aside that Trump presided over a period of historic, sustained domestic unrest, and that his mismanagement and malfeasance in the handling of the COVID pandemic, killed many times over more Americans than any of the wars during Biden or Obama's presidencies.

 

[choxorn]

As for the specific topic(s), I usually don't personally mind people talking about the beauty, attractiveness, hotness, whatever of others, generally. I admit that I do it myself sometimes, about men and women... However I also recognize that some others find those kinds of comments creepy, weird, off-putting, cringey, and similar and I don't have any problem with them saying so when they feel that way. Depending on the context, (circumstances, speaker, setting, subject) I will myself occasionally find such comments awkward, cringe-worthy, creepy and so on. Its not an exact science.

It's the "depending on the context" part that's key here and that some posters in this thread don't seem to be getting.

Look, I won't deny that there's a handful of genuinely prissy puritans wrapping up their general discomfort around sex in progressive-sounding language to object to any and all talk about sex and what kinds of things you find hot or attractive, but that group is like, a handful of weirdos on Twitter, not any kind of serious societal threat. Nobody reasonable is going to complain about you talking with a friend in a casual setting and saying "I think person x is pretty," what's going to get you in trouble is stuff like drooling about the person you find attractive like they're a piece of meat, or being super raunchy in a setting that's supposed to be formal or professional, or having the talk in a situation where the person you're talking to can't end the conversation if they're feeling uncomfortable with it.

 

[danjuno]

Didn't this start a couple pages back when Farmboy said AOC was hot or something? I'm very confused.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Didn't this start a couple pages back when Farmboy said AOC was hot or something? I'm very confused.

It was brought up that young men are moving right and women moving left.

Some speculation as to why. Things flow from there. It'll be discussed ad nauseum in the years to come, unless polling is very incorrect.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Vance is counting on Trump winning and then having to step down as president when his health fails. Vance's goal is to be president without having to be at the top of the ticket. Billionaires are funding his desire.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There are still many men who liked what Trump said on the Access Hollywood tape, even if they won't say it out loud. They will vote for it though.

This is somewhat related and I can't remember if I've posted this before, but there is a satirical rock song that was released by German political satirist and comedian/tv host Jan Boehermann. The song is extremely catchy and dripping with irony. It reminds me of Springsteen's Born in the USA or Creedence Clearwater Revival's iconic Fortunate Son, in that the song is decidedly hostile towards the US and/or protesting the US, but the style is so catchy and iconically American that you can't help but like it, so much so that both Born in the USA and Fortunate Son have become iconic American patriotic anthems.

This song by Boehermann, "Grab us By the *****" is very reminiscent, in that the song brutally drags Trump and the US/Muricans in general, but with a kickin rock riff, and all sorts of iconic, inspiring, classic Murican imagery. When the drum beat and guitar hits and the hull of the Air Force one scrolls by with the "United States of America" across the side, you can't help but feel all Murican inside.

One of the most ironic things about the song, is it juxtaposes the typical/stereotypical Murican attitude (that folks have been discussing recently) that we can say/do whatever we want, with Trump's infamous comments on the Access Hollywood tape.

It reminds me that in reality, freedom, is the only real, universal American value... the notion that we can think whatever we want, say what ever we want, go wherever we want, love whoever we want, worship (or not) however we want, vote however we want. "You can do anything" is kind of our jam. Anyway, the song/video is worth a look. I'd love to hear other's thoughts.

Spoiler NSFW :

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Sommerswerd Spot on!

 

[Kyriakos]

There's no shortage of geniuses in the US, that's for sure ^^

Celebrities are more involved in elections there. In a way it is positive, since it implies people do care about voting, then again if you are influenced by them it's not a good look.