Outlaw83
9mo ago
Again, the reactionaries are actually basically right - women's education (and I mean, like basic education, not whatever you think the evil modern western college is) + available contraception = a dramatic drop in birth rates no matter what else you actually try. Iran & Saudi Arabia are having big drops, and as noted, even places like Mongolia are dropping and Hungary's attempts largely failed unless judged on a curve.
Also, as noted, because contraception is much better than even 20 years ago thanks to IUD's, teen pregnancy have fallen off a cliff in the US - something everybody to the right of Stalin was praising as a worthy goal 20 years ago. The Christian Right got what it wanted - far less pregnant single teen girls.
The difference is, as opposed to the reactionaries, I think it's good women have the right to control their own reproduction.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
From the outside, the problem is all the supposedly "better" right-wing candidates fail more spectacularly, at least in the US in elections that aren't in blood-red areas.
Or at least ones that people of your political persuasion would agree with.
But J.D. Vance underran the entire Republican ticket in Ohio in 2022. Blake Masters lost a winnable Senate race. All of the other politicians somewhat friendly to your sort of arguments are in deep red seats a corpse could win reelection too. Hell, I wouldn't say Mark Robinson is on your side, but he's a populist right-winger of a sort and he's losing by 10 in North Carolina. Maybe I can give you DeSantis, but he fell on his face on the national stage.
Obviously, this would not be the real result, but they polled a Harris-Vance race, and it was 59-37 Harris. That's with the guy among current politicians, I'd argue, is the most normie-friendly of your set.
Trump's celebrity + Hillary running + COVID helping Trump like it did every other incumbent politician (only he was incompetent enough to blow the COVID boost basically all incumbents got worldwide) gave a sheen on Trump's political popularity that gave you guys the idea that people liked your ideas than they really did.
If the choice for the median voter is an HR lady stomping on their face forever telling them to put their gender in their bio and calling people by their chosen name or whatever you guys are selling, until you find somebody far better at selling yourself to normies, not online weirdos (I say this as an online weirdo of another political ideology), the HR ladies are going to keep winning, at least in the US.
Yes, with a dip in the economy, a Brian Kemp/Joni Ernest ticket in 2028 could totally win if Trump eats one too many Big Mac's, but that's not what the online right want
So, a couple of months ago (I think - time is a flat circle), there was a conversation and some slight complaining about how center-right parties in Europe never work with "far-right" parties, and how that's proof that the elite are against the votes, etc. and it's actually unfair the center-right aligns with the center-left instead of the far-right and there was even some talk it was somehow undemocratic.
Well, I just saw a poll about voting preference for Kamala Harris among German voters that shows something important about the underlying feelings of actual electorate-
https://x.com/ElectsWorld/status/1818288736549159376
% who would vote for Vice President Harris (D):
Grüne: 99 %
SPD: 92 %
CDU/CSU: 89 %
FDP: 85 %
BSW: 52 %
AfD: 26 %
Forsa, 26/07/24
Obviously, the SPD, Green, and AfD numbers all make sense. For those unaware, BSW is the new anti-immigrant economically left-wing party recent created by a former prominent Die Lienke member, so they're sort of cross-pressured on this, ironically.
But, the important number to show is the CDU/CSU & FDP numbers. This is why these center-right parties end up aligning w/ the center-left because on the big issues of the day, the CDU/CSU & FDP voter is closer to the SPD or Green Party than the AfD
Obviously, yes, the chances are some of that 15% in the FDP or 11% in the CDU/CSU will eventually also move to the AfD and obviously, another chunk of the voters if they actually lived in the US would end up voting for Trump the same way a lot of normal Republican's who have voted for Republican's their whole life end up voting for Trump, but this isn't a case of some Elite spitting in the face of their voters and aligning in some globalist conspiracy against the voters.
No, the voters are with the leadership for the most part on this. This isn't going to be correct for every country, but this is also why most of the center felt closer to Communist's than the former National Front in the French parliamentary elections as well. As I've said before, people want harsh immigration policies, they're just not willing to accept the rest of the right-wing culture war and lack of competence that comes with it when it comes to current far-right parties like the AfD.
If you truly think Muslim immigration is the worst problem facing Europe, then that person needs to accept LGBT rights, a massive welfare state, supporting Ukraine, and so on, and you might get somewhere.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
Terrible training, mostly.
The median European cop spends far more time training than the median American officer.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
The problem for Trump is neither of these been have been obvious Democrat's. From what I can tell, Ford didn't get any huge approval bump from his two attempts from weirdos like Squeaky Fromme and even for Hinckley, the reason Reagan got sympathy is he dealt with it with good humor and sympathy for people like Brady who got killed.
From what's been revealed, this guy is a weirdo swing voter who voted for Trump in 2016, went to Bernie & Tulsi in 2020, is pro-Ukraine, but anti-vax, and is was trying for a Haley/Vivek ticket. That's not a political ideology you can stick on Democrat's.
Plus, there is the small matter that the moment voters outside of the 40-45% Republican hard limit listen to Trump, they like him less.
Outlaw83
10mo ago
Because all the "good" libertarian stuff is taken up by one of the two parties - Trump pretends to be anti-war and pro-gun, Democrat's are pro-LGBT, pro-abortion, and pro-weed, and nobody outside of rich people and dorks actually like libertarian economics. So, the libertarian party becomes a breeding ground for weirdos complaining about having to have driver license's, legalizing heroin and selling it at 7/11, and knowing way too much about age of consent laws.
As pointed out, their nominee is actually a consistent libertarian, which means the weirdo culture war libertarian types don't like him, but also any left-leaning people upset with Kamala over foreign policy would be turned off by his economic standards.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
1.) If you would've told a British person they were basically the same as a Serb or Bulgarian in I don't know, 1851, they likely would've punched you and called you some weird slur nobody knows anymore. But, also, the whole "these ethnic groups are all similar too each other so that immigration was OK, it's just these people won't be able to do it," is literally the same argument made against Italians, Jews, Slavs, and hell, the Swedes at one time. This weird 'we're all white and should have solidarity' is a thing that never existed. As I've might've said before, as the descendent of Pole's, it's actually far more likely some ancestor of current non-college educated half-German guy in rural Ohio did a bit of light war crimes of ancestors of mine, as far as nothing bad has been done to my ancestors by non-European immigrants, so why should I, as argued below, have solidarity with them on racial lines?
2.) I'm quite sure the ole' American assimilation process (which continues largely the same way it always has despite protests to the contrary) will do it's work on Salvadorans, Venezuelans, and whomever else is the scary migrant group of the week. Yes, yes, the culture will change around that - welcome to being in the position of Bill the Butcher in 1863 upset the Irish were changing things or whatever. We're not some European country where people stay on the same patch of land for 9,000 generations. Things shift and change, and whatever you think was the perfect time that we globalists ruined was a time of ruin and destruction for some a generation or two older than you.
As far as imparting cultural sentiments, I don't know, Trump seems to be winning over Hispanic's fine. A little economic success leading to ladder pulling does not know color. It's an American tradition.
3.) Which is probably my inherent bedrock disagreement on where we don't agree - America's not getting worse to me. There are issues, as always, but in the long run, even with Trump, things continue to progress bit by bit.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
The true problem for 'it's inherent for women to want to have babies' arguments isn't PMC girlbosses in suburban Virginia or whatever people may think are destroying society. It's that even in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women continue to be very socially conservative in a variety of other ways - marrying early, openly religious, and so on, are also happily controlling their own reproduction instead of just jumping into babies as quickly as possible.
Outlaw83
10mo ago
Speaking as somebody who lives in one of these cities that are supposedly falling apart, this just isn't true. Sure, Bill Gates home is in a small suburb on the eastside in a suburb Seattle on the other side of the water, but there are plenty of well-off people living in parts of Seattle not far away from the 'bad parts.' There are brand new $2000/month apartments blocks away from homeless services buildings and so on.
Hell, there are streets that wouldn't look out of place in any American suburb a block or two away from Aurora, the street that's been well known for prostitution and various other petty crime since the 70s in Seattle, and the values of those homes only continue to go up.
It's nice to blame wealthy leftists for it all, but the reality is, the median voter in a large city is less uncomfortable with chaos and disorder than many other people are, at least compared to the style of crackdown people here want. They won't vote for out and out police abolitionists or whatever, but they're not voting for a Guliani-type anytime soon. Even in NYC, part of the reason Eric Adams won is because along with talking about crime, he also had the legitimacy of having issues w/ the NYPD before.
Outlaw83
8mo ago
As a partisan Democrat, if we can rig things so easily, I've always wondered why we didn't say, rig things in the very close Wisconsin Senate race in 2022 if we obviously rigged it for Biden in 2020 or why didn't we keep rigging things for Gillum and Nelson. Or did the rigging only start after 2016? Because if so, even then, it might've been smart to rig a few more Senate races so we likely weren't going to lose the Senate even if Kamala wins.
Outlaw83
8mo ago
As you can see from the below responses, there is no reaction that people who will accept other than their admittance they're trying to steal it, despite no actual evidence of widespread fraud or anything close to it. Or I guess, letting every nut be with zero evidence, but lots of claims equal to actual evidence because they agree with the nut that it was bad Joe Biden is President.
The good news is, as seen in the 2022 midterms, is the median voter in purple states find these argument completely "weird" and are happy to vote against people in the important governmental positions so them having any sort of power that may effect the Presidential election.
Yes, 30-35% of the country will continue to be reactionaries who want the clock to be turned back, whether it's 2004 or 1904, but that's always been true. It's slightly worse that as opposed to past periods, they're all in the same party, but this is not a historical shift. Conservatives have basically thought every win since Clinton, and by some measures, JFK, was basically illegitimate, it just used to be the purview of talk show hosts and dog whistling as opposed to open statements.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
Huge Dem's aren't Vivek fanboys. He's only a 'huge Dem' by the standards that anybody who isn't 100% for Trump a 'huge Dem.' He's like many, many people, a weirdo with ping-pong political opinions and obvious mental issues.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
I know this is a typical argument from dissident righties that world is a failing state and everything is collapsing, but conservatively, the world is a better place for approximately 70% of the world's population. Even using a purely American perspective, the median American city is still wealthier and for instance, has less crime than broad swathes of the 70's and 80's. Yes, if you truly think the fact there are more non-white people and that non-straight people of all sorts are open about it is truly a disastrous thing, OK, but this happened to Gerald Ford in '76.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
A pro-union NLRB, support for expanded health care access, a plan to increase manufacturing that actually creates jobs as opposed to just increase tariffs, an IRS that goes after billionaire and millionaire tax cheats, stopping various Republican attempts to deregulate environmental, labor, and other sorts of law or cut social spending, putting Democratic judges on the bench, attempts at student loan forgiveness and reform, criminal justice reform, and since I'm a social progressive like the vast majority of social democrats outside of stupidpol, support for immigration, abortion, LGBT rights, feminism, and action against climate change.
Joe Biden has been the best President of my lifetime, and Kamala will likely be even be better because she won't be as wedded to being nice to Republican's or as abashedly pro-Zionist.
Regardless of what edgy rich left-wing podcasters in Brooklyn may claim, there are differences between the two parties, which is despite being to the left of 95% of the population, I am a partisan Democratic party supporter. Give me STV or proportional voting and I'll shift, but in a FPTP EC-based system, changing the Democratic Party form within is the only way for the goals I support to have a chance.
Outlaw83
10mo ago
As I've said before, the problem is the core of the anti-immigration people aren't willing to give up some of their other right-wing policy goals.
Meloni in Italy seems to be doing fine, if not doing as much as perhaps she promised (like all politicians), but there's no deep state plot to remove her or whatever people claim about anti-immigration politicians, because she's pro-NATO and acts like a normal politician within the Overton Window of Italian politics.
But also, there was a super anti-immigration party on the ballot for the UK. Eighty six percent of the population chose somebody else. That 14% doesn't get veto power via rioting, and that's why you see strong support among the populace for harsh measures for the rioters.
Outlaw83
8mo ago
Speaking as a left-leaning social democrat who dislikes all the Republican judges for obvious reaosns, Gorsuch is the only one who actually seemingly has an identifiable philosophy ala Scalia (except actually better) that I can at least respect, even though I think it's personally terrible. Maybe Thomas did 20 years ago, but he's fallen into a FOX News brained duo alongside Alito for basically the entirety of the Trump era.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
You basically hit on all the major parts. An erotic thriller was an actual big deal, even in 1991, especially if you were say a married middle-class man who couldn't really get away to watch porn on your own, while today, that same married middle class guy has a world of porn at his fingertips. But also yes, if you're selling to a worldwide audience, you can't upset anybody.
I will point on the celebrity thing, another thing is if you're a famous woman, you have alternatives to be sexual, where you make the money. For instance, instead of posting for Rolling Stone or whatever, Rhianna makes her own lingerie line, is one of the models for it, and so on. The actual reality is, the actual amount of nudity and sexuality among famous women is about the same as in 1993, it's just centered about celebrities who actually want to do it, as oppose to those felt they are forced to do it to get a roll.
Which explains Game of Thrones or more accurately, many cable dramas. There'll be far more sex scenes and nudity in the first season or two, because the actresses don't have the power to say no to a gratuitous nude scene. Even if you aren't well-paid by the 2nd or 3rd season, you're now plot important to a show that has a plan, so you have the leverage to say no. Also, even putting that aside, there's no need for the random nudity to bring people in at that point.
Outlaw83
10mo ago
The Democrat base, the casual never-Trumpers, maybe even the grillpillers? They’re just glad to have a candidate under the retirement age.
Yes, this is what polling showed consistently through the entirety of the election and hell, Nikki Haley said on stage the first party to not nominate an old man would win. Of course, she was being self-affacing with that argument and now denies that, but it may turnout to be true.
I think to a certain extent, people want to turn the page of the Trump-era of politics and Harris just has to be a reasonable choice to swing voters. Who don't deeply care about the things many rightists here do, but also don't care deeply about the stuff I do as a social democrat.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
Every single "Ripped from the Headlines" Law & Order story in many cases is more salacious than the actual case is almost 100% of the time. Because even 'ripped from the headlines' stories are sometimes not tight stories for a 43-minute show on network TV.
The only reason you're seemingly upset about this portrayal, which from your description, is no less over the top than other 'ripped from the headlines' story I remember from when I watched the show, as opposed to the other portrayals of criminals, is you don't think Daniel Perry is a criminal and is instead, a hero. Welcome to being for criminal justice reform then, I guess.
Also, the actual reason Law & Order moved from more realistic crime stories in it's first couple of seasons to basically ripped from the headlines and rich people doing terrible stuff wasn't wokeness - it's that the over the top stuff got more viewers.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
Putting aside the weird "save the white and Asian race from dominance by the scary blacks and browns" at the end, I think here's the issue why the people in this thread aren't getting it.
There's the population of women.
There's the population of women that are OK w/ the pain of childbirth (or maybe they're lucky it's less painful for them) and the worries, because they enjoy being a mother that much more, and so on.
Then there's the population of women that thinks the pain is too much, doesn't want children, whatever.
It used to be the latter population was basically forced to be mothers, because that was their only option in society, outside of spinsterhood. Now, they don't, or maybe instead of having five by 27, they have one at 37.
Nobody among the latter group is saying the former group should stop having children. They just don't want to be forced (or "forced") to have more children by the state or society. Group B always existed in one form or another - they just never had a voice before, and if you're used to a society where all women either legitimately or have to act like they want to be mothers, it can sound fake or like some plot or whatever.
I mean, yes, I think any form of education that's more than just 'be happy and have babies' for young women will lead to this, when there's any sort of political and societal freedom for women, along with access to consistent birth control.
Now, I know people will point to say, the 50's or early 20th century or whenever about educated women going happily into marriage, but again, if you actually look at what well-educated wives of lawyers, doctors, and so on actually did, they actually didn't dote on their five kids or whatever. I bet in reality, the median middle to upper middle class woman spent far less time actually parenting her four or five children did than the median PMC girlboss does today - no, she handed the kids off to servants, than went to the League of Women Voters, Women's Temperance Union, or whatever - aka, a bunch of things that are basically non-profit NGO's do today, run by basically the same groups of women.
You can prefer the set-up, but the college-educated women weren't happy housewives sitting at home, and I bet you the vast majority of them would've happily taken the pill...because massive amounts of their children and grandchildren did, before any real cultural revolution started. As far as the vaunted post-WWII period, look at what came as a result of having millions of college-educated women in suburbs with nothing to do - massive bits of activism on both the right and left, because a bunch of college-educated women were bored and not happy - both Betty Friedman and Phyllis Schlafly basically came from that millueu.
Also, I don't think there's really a "problem" so there's nothing to solve. Also, by all measures, my 'view' is the standard view outside of maybe the right-most 5-10%, that 18 year old unmarried girls having less babies is a positive for society, so yeah, I think secularism should be loud and proud - we did that.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
I think those studies are severely flawed, not that they're being fudges or anything but in that they assume those numbers women say are what they really want in their heart of hearts. Like, I say, I want to lose x pounds, but you know what I continue to do? Eat donuts and burritos because they're yummy, and I care about that more than losing weight. I think a lot of women say they want say three babies, and may even continue to say that after they have a kid, but when they faced with the mental cost of doing so, or other changes they'd have to make, they say no, even though they still might say they want three kids if asked in a stufy, but they also don't want to give up x, y, and z about their current life either.
After all, the American people claim they want a smaller deficit, but a majority is against any kind of specific spending cut. Note, as a dirty leftist I'm fair about this - the American people also want a larger welfare state, but no rise in taxes on anybody but very, very rich people.
I think if you did everything reasonable pro-natalists want - you might push things up .2 or .3. But, short of massive restrictions on women's contraception, you're not getting any massive shifts, because has been pointed out, a lot of the actual change over the past 20 years is a massive drop in teen pregnancy that 90% of society was behind at the time.
As far limiting access, I'm not a woman whose ability to control her own reproduction would be affected, so I'm going to claim what would be better for that woman, even though I'm aware much of this site thinks they know what's best for women and shockingly, it lines up with their general political beliefs.
Outlaw83
7mo ago
Yes, among actual voters, sure.
But, Republican's voted against various pro-birth control bills on both the state and local level.
Then, you've got members of The Heritage Foundation, who wrote Project 2025 talking about returning consequentiality to sex - https://x.com/Heritage/status/1662534135762624520
Project 2025 also says the morning after bill is an abortion bill and the coverage of it should be eliminated and there's also been talk about the Comstock Act.
Outlaw83
8mo ago
Why wasn't the 2022 Wisconsin Senate race rigged? Why weren't more House races in close districts rigged when the GOP only won by 4 seats? Hell, why didn't they rig the 2018 Florida Governor race? It's weird how we're only successful at rigging some of the time, when in other countries, with actual governments that rig elections (that many of the people who are very worried about rigging in American elections prefer to the American govenrment) are always successful.
So, there's some talk downthread about Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants and such. Putting aside I guarantee in the late 19th century there was in fact plenty of examples of massive population changes, even in more rural parts of the country. Ironically, many of the same people who put forth those population changes are now the ones scared of immigration, so in 50 years, as is American tradition, these Haitian immigrants will be saying we shouldn't be letting in the Bangladeshi's or whomever.
But, the interesting thing is the questions about "why" anybody puts up with them and well, at least according to local business owners, because they're more likely to show up to do the job and not fail a drug test than the righteous pure American's currently living there.
https://youtube.com/watch?si=nke3DETnGvcaAHE4&v=FA80DOcJnu8&feature=youtu.be - Youtube video
https://x.com/otis_reid/status/1833578554778374462 - Quote from the factory owner.
Of course, 2016 J.D. Vance would probably agree with this factory owner about the get up 'n' go of this socioeconomic group of people instead of defending them from economic competition from supposedly mentally deficient Haitians.
Now, to quote a lot of Twitter, it is true the Haitians are ruining that community's traditions, by actually getting to work and not showing up high.
More options
Context Copy link