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
9mo ago
I mean, you still have freedom of association in your personal life - some people in fact, call that 'cancel culture' when some people don't want to associate with other people due to their personal views, but yes, if you want the privileges and success that can come with being a business owner in America and all the advantages that has thanks to centuries of work by men and women of all colors and creeds, you don't get to make that business a private club for your own kind.
Or to quote a current Presidential candidate, you didn't just fall out of a coconut tree.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
Sure, in their own personal life, maybe. Not being told that by right-wingers who want to ban abortion as they're calling Kamala a DEI candidate.
But hey, as a left-wing social democrat, I can only hope the Republican campaign becomes all about Willie Brown, how Kamala is a DEI candidate, and so on.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
No, it's even easier - Kamala can say she's prosecuted sex criminals and frauds like Trump before, and no, the Willie Brown attack is not going to work outside of the Republican base.
However, if you want suburban women to vote 75-25 for Harris, then go ahead and do that attack.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
If you don't think there's any anxiety in intra-left/center-left arguments about health care, I guess you weren't around those arguments in the mid-to-late 2000s.
But regardless, the issues you care about are real and true and matter, while yours are fake and just surface level.
Now, it is true that no, if you truly think we need to limit women's ability to get a college education/heavily tax childless people or think it was a bad idea to let the Irish or Italian's in, or the only people correct about the 2020 election are people who support Donald Trump, then yeah, I don't want to argue with you about this. But, I do actually wish those people had louder voices, because as we're seeing with abortion, the actual right-wing view on these issues - not even the Trump view, but the actual hard-right view is highly unpopular amongst normie people. It's why for example, in states where even the GOP did well, pro-"2020 was a stolen election" candidates for offices like Secretary of State ran behind basically all other GOP candidates.
Sometimes, the best argument is just letting people put forth their actual views, and letting other people react accordingly.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
Yeah - like, there's an argument on this thread about leftists not wanting to argue.
But, this isn't true - go to a Democratic/left-leaning well-educated group of political types and ask them about health care, taxes, etc. and they'll be a bunch of different ideas thrown around.
It's just yes, I don't have much interest in arguing about why the 2020 election wasn't stolen, why the Jew's don't actually control everything, how smart or not specific racial groups are, and how much we have to limit women's freedom to get them to make more babies, and start having them earlier.
Note, even controversial stuff is fine if it's based in actual reality - if somebody wants to argue we should stay out of Ukraine because America shouldn't involve itself in European power politics or something like that, OK. But, if it's arguing about how America helped an illegal coup in 2014, and Ukraine is full of Nazi's, then yeah, there's not much to talk about.
Same thing on immigration - if you want to talk about economics versus culture, or criminal rates or whatever, again, we'll probably disagree heavily, but there's something there. If your belief is well, immigration has basically been too high since anywhere from 1830 to 1970 depending on the poster, and our racial mix has been terrible since then, then there's not much to talk about.
In general, when I try to get involved here is when something is insanely wrong on a basic thing, when I think the actual left-wing view is being wrongly thought out, or something like that. But in general, this place is less interesting, not because it's more right-wing, but I already know the responses to anything the moment an issue or story gets brought up.
Which, I'm sure one could say about left-leaning forums or arguments, but y'know, we're right and you're wrong. More seriously though, on the issues I care about and don't have 100% firm opinions on, like health care, taxes, spending, foreign policy, and so on, there are plenty of conversations going on in left-wing, center-left, and centrist spaces. But, if you're only interest is proving social freedom of women has gone too far and we need to IQ test everybody to put them in their proper place in society, then yeah, left-leaning spaces probably do similar.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
I highly, highly, highly doubt this. For all the talk online about men finding more pliant traditional women in foreign countries, in real life, in a very blue city, no women even in a roundabout way is upset about it happening. Some sympathy for the women who don't know the type of guy they're marrying, but that's it.
I hate to break this to you, but most of the men who have to order in wives from poorer, less successful countries have to do so for a reason.
In a country w/ 350 million people, even allowing all of the women from foreign countries who want to come in is not going to affect the ratio, as much as you think. That's not even getting to the part where it turns out, all the foreign women moving here aren't going to be 9/10 tradwives who want to become homemakers and raise good traditional children.
Outlaw83
2yr ago
Here's the difference - yes, life was rough for men as well, but there were actually "mad men"-style accountants, there were brave slaves who became powerful in the Roman Empire, there was even the occasional peasant who became a knight, and leaders of worker's revolutions, and such. Sure, it was not incredibly likely, but it was still a much greater chance than anything happening for women.
Meanwhile, with women, unless you were born into power until basically last week historically, you weren't going to be much of anything, no matter how much some people try to push, no actually, women had secret power in the past within families - ignore the part where they had basically zero legal rights.
Outlaw83
2yr ago
What you call a conspiracy in the Democratic primaries is called...people of the same general political ideology getting behind whom they believed was the strongest candidate. The moderates actually got along, while Bernie got knifed in the gut by Warren staying in the race. Even though, actual polling showed Biden as the 2nd choice of many Warren voters.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
Because "straight white guys" aren't a group. Now, even in my deep blue super-SJW city, there are Irish festivals, there are Polish festivals, there are Norwegian festivals, where all the things those people did as immigrant groups or whatever can be hailed.
Also, you fall into the problem that a lot of straight white males don't have any interest in the "cultural traditions" a lot of other straight white males do, unlike say, African-American's, where even very conservative religious African-American men like Tim Scott are a tick to the left of all of his fellow Republican's on how great the police are.
The reason why white straight men aren't allowed to organize as a group is the same reason why brunettes don't - because they're not an actual cultural group.
As far as building a civilization goes, it turns out, a lot of people have differing views on what that actually means, and in a world with less gatekeeping, people with more varied views can gain a voice, as oppose to those who want to give all the credit to a small group.
Outlaw83
2yr ago
As a leftist mostly open borders, we mostly just don't care, dude.
Like, by the standards of the supposed secret left-wing plan to import a new citizenry to outvote the Old Stock, or whatever, because of the drop in support for the Democrat's among Hispanic voters, there should be some shift in support for amnesty, immigration reform, refugee status, etc., but there hasn't been.
Outside of a few jokes about since Florida is gone, Biden should reverse the Cuban import ban and invited Raul Castro to a state dinner next year, there's been no shift in elected or non-elected support, which seems odd if we're all in on a plan to get rid of whitey.
OTOH, if it turns out we're all bleeding-heart lefties who think America is, has, and always been a land of immigrants where the Old Stock freaked out over being "replaced" since approximately 1776, then there should be no surprise. The Anglo Stock got replaced by the Germans, Swedes, and such who came over. Then those people got scared of the Irish and Italians. Then, those people are currently scared of the Hispanic's and Asian's. In another 40 years, there will be El Savadoran's and Hmong Republican's scaring people about I don't know, Bangladeshi and Cameroonian immigrants taking their jobs, or whatever. As is tradition.
Outlaw83
10mo ago
I mean, I'd actually bet that in 2024, the life of say, a 19-year old female psychology major at a mid-tier state school (aka, the average American college student) is actually less hedonistic in many ways the median non-college educated 19-year old in the United States, working a low wage job.
Also, well I'd question the actual type of person you described actually has the qualities you describe of if it's all anecdotal just-so stories based on cultural preference, the reality is by time those rural farm kids hit 40, it's extremely likely the supposedly hedonistic college kids are ahead of them by every standard that matters, including a lot of hedonistic measures, outside of those that increasingly smaller amounts of social conservatives care about deeply - ie. how many kids you have.
Now, I do think in reality, the actual best preforming person is probably the type of person much of this comment section would despise - a serious female high school athlete who goes to college but stops playing athletics and ends up being the type of corporate girlboss that has her eggs frozen at 40, but is married and successful economically, and indeed, probably doesn't have much of a hedonistic life unless not having as many children as you can is now considered hedonistic.
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
11mo ago
This is legitimate logical argument in theory, except it appeals to nobody outside of like, nineteen people in a Discord, because both pro-life and basically 98% of pro-choice people think forcing a woman to have an abortion via pressure is a terrible thing to do.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
I mean, sure, nothing works 100% of the time. There are still people upset over Brown vs. Board of Education out there after all.
But, I'm not talking about woke self-hating white liberals like myself celebrating the end of the white majority or whatever.
I'm talking about the fact that your median Texan exurban Trump voter in a middle class neighborhood is far less likely to freak out over non-white people moving to their neighborhood than frankly, even pretty centrist to center-left European's when it comes to Muslim's or hell, Romani people. If you look at polling, even now in a fairly anti-immigrant swing of thermostatic opinion, there's still fairly decent numbers of Trump voters about immigrants in society and such, and even now, the less/more/same numbers on immigration are still far better in the US than basically anywhere in Europe.
The same thing happened with gay people - it went from only freaks in San Francisco or whatever to oh hey, that's sad that gay people are dying to oh yeah, my cousin's daughter is a lesbian to oh, Dave in the office is gay - weird, he didn't seem it to Mary & Alice bought the Newman's house and so on.
Integration is key, and ironically, America is much better at it than Europe in a variety of ways. In part because we just got a whole lot more non-white people, but also because we're not wedded to 'my family has lived within 10 miles of this village since before basically recorded history and that's the only true way to be x' or whatever the Euros have their hang ups about. Meanwhile, in America - show up, pay taxes, get a job, and learn to cheer or boo the Cowboys depending on where you live, and welcome to America. Pass the burger. We even threw on some veggie ones for Vivek and Priya even though I'd never eat any.
Same thing will and is already happening with trans people. At an accelerated pace, but partly because the numbers are so small, only conservatives stuck in very blue areas and grifting online right-wing entertainers care all that much in reality. Polling showed in a post-mid-2022 midterms that it was the least important issue among Republican voters.
Outlaw83
11mo ago
I mean, this is how minorities of all kinds have eventually grown their public support, even as people opposed to it are upset - by being parts of various communities, big and small. In a world without an hierarchical society imposed on-high from either an authoritarian government or religion, it turns out continued interactions with people different from you tend to make you friendlier to that group of people.
The big jump that eventually causes the loss of widespread opposition to a minority groups isn't "I love these group of people and embrace them" grows to a majority, it's "I met x, they're a y, and they're fine, so you're weird for being so freaked out" grows to a majority.
That's why even among Trump voters, their actually less harsh on immigration than even some centrist Europeans, because they've grown in a far more multicultural society than most Europeans have.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
But simply having too many cultures, too many languages, religions, ethnicities in a country (to the point they, put together, outnumber the former dominant group) is bound to make it weaker, IMO, because there will no longer be a consensus on values.
I mean, this has been the reality in American urban areas for the past 150 years at a minimum.
Also, "consensus on values" happen after lots of arguing and sometimes blood over what that consensus actually is. Go ask a WASP on the Upper East Side and and a Italian in Brooklyn in 1869 if there's a consensus on values in New York City.
If that makes America corpse of a country, it's been one since the 1850s
Now I know the response to this from some is, "well, we stopped immigration for forty years," but I don't think that's the reason for what people think happened. If there was truly this massive assimilation, it's more due to the Depression followed up by World War II than a lack of new immigrants from Eastern Europe or China showing up in 1934.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
As a leftist/social democratic, there are no puppet masters. It's always weird when people assume the other side are these insane puppet master, wielding superpowers that can't be stopped. The left was like this for a long time as well, and it was annoying then. Karl Rove wasn't some Sith Lord, he was just pretty good at his job.
Like guys, there is no secret decoder ring. If anything, we on the left complain about how bad we're at politics as much as you guys do, because neither side thinks they're winning.
it would have been 2008 with Trump taking the L for COVID happening in his watch just like 2008 was a blowout
I'm always interested when people assume this - in every other country, regardless of ideology, the incumbent leadership gained a huge advantage, and many of them won big electoral victories. Now, inflation and other issues have run some of those politicians aground, but in 2020, they were all very popular. The only reason Trump didn't get that was not that the left would not give him any credit (see various Republican governors who had insanely high approval ratings during COVID), it's he did a terrible job, outside of the one thing his base now hates (Operation Warp Speed).
I do think a non-COVID 2020 election would've been interesting, because Trump would've had a good economy, but it was basically just the late-era Obama economy continuing, there would've been no checks going out to low-info voters, and many things people on this forum like Trump that normies don't would've been a bigger deal. I also think there might've been a bigger move among the center-right to basically sit out things, especially the people who got radicalized by COVID and then supported Trump/DeSantis/etc. harder than they would've before.
I don't mean famous people, but the owner of a HVAC company in suburban Michigan whose kind of annoyed by Trump, dislikes immigration, but also dislikes that he tired to repeal Obamacare, but hated that the country was shut down, and like the PPP loan he got. Without the latter, maybe he doesn't vote for Biden, but does he turn out for Trump?
Outlaw83
1yr ago
No, Trump is legitimately popular among the base. WTA delegate rules are dumb, though.
But, by "party scheming," you mean Obama called up people and said, "hey, sure seems you all agree with each other, so support Joe since he's our best shot." Like, Twitter joked about moderate voltron when MSNBC did it in polling, then was very mad when it happened. The Iowa & SC is just whining - the number of people shifted by Pete "winning" as opposed to Bernie couldn't fill up a Starbucks, and again, yes, you have to appeal to actual voters in a state to win, and guess what in South Carolina, that's the supposed "uneducated" black voters.
That just shows, and I say this, as a left-wing social democrat, how united the moderate wing was, and how weak and divided the left-wing of the party was, and how much a failure Bernie was, when between 2016 & 2020, he lost support in many working class areas he'd won in 2016 and failed to reach out to black voters in the South, that he needed to win.
Also, by fundamental calendar changes, you mean, making more contests actual democratic primaries instead of weird caucuses, yeah, they did that, and that was a good thing if you think the party nominee should actually have popular support.
The actual problem dead-enders who still think Bernie was screwed over don't get is that a lot of people like Bernie, but they liked Biden too, but they made a choice they thought Biden had a better chance of winning.
The median Bernie voter is the girl from this news story - (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/10/19/boston-woman-dunkies-fenway-voting-video/) - who said she was voting for Joe Biden. She said she would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders but “it’s a team sport," not upset doomer blackpilled folks on Twitter.
I say this all as somebody who voted for Bernie twice, but both times, saw massive flaws in how he and his team were approaching the primary, including his manager saying all they needed to worry about was winning 1/3 of the vote.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
This is a bit of a ramble, but bare with me.
I honestly think what Tinder mostly did was give men definitive no's when they could've maybe dreamed in a perfect world, they could convince a woman they're the right match.
I'll put it this way - back in 1995, your random guy working a decent mid-level job at Microsoft in Seattle wasn't hooking up with the cute rock chicks hanging out in still super cheap 'n' grungy Capitol Hill, but the fantasy could still exist. Now, that same guy knows for sure it's a 'no.' Now, I do think one thing that maybe should be pushed slightly more is unless the other person has a photographic memory, you have a really terrible profile they'd remember, or you have terrible luck, it's probably fine to try to hit on somebody that swiped left on you six months ago if you come across them. Now, the issue there is you shouldn't probably remember the person you didn't match with six months ago, and that's a sign of deeper issues.
There's no actual good evidence of greater hypergamy among women of this actual hoovering up of all the women by Chad's that people on Twitter and the Internet claim is happening. The reality is, despite what some people on this very site claim is happening, you random average-looking office worker in suburban Des Moines is not swiping no on everybody who doesn't make six figures, isn't six feet, or at least "six inches." Now, maybe this is happening in very specific situations that people online are overrepresented in - ie. San Francisco - but most things people complain about Tinder, have been complained about dating since it became something more than what your parents decided you were going to do.
Now, you can maybe make some arguments about the drop of in-person meeting and such, but I do honestly think the results of Tinder have been overstated because two groups of people that Tinder causes issues in totally separate ways - women who get tons of matches on Tinder and dudes who get zero matches on Tinder, both have outsized voices in their own bubbles. I also firmly believe that there are a lot of dead profiles on Tinder or profiles that (mostly) women leave active to be another form of social media that gives them positive feedback in the form of likes. Now, that might be bad, but that's not a fault of women, since men would largely do the same thing if they could.
Tinder, porn, and general changes in dating are thing people are an '8' on a 1-10 scale and will lead to massive scales of societal destruction, but in reality, they're probably a '3' or '4' and nobody actually talks up the positives. Like, knowing say, whether your partner would be OK w/ an abortion or has drastically different views on their future is actually something that's probably stopped bad marriages, divorces, and terrible custody cases. That's not even getting into the fact the actual big society wide changes aren't so-much US going from people getting married at 24 and having 2.3 kids to getting married at 34 and having 1.8 kids, it's that even places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most of Africa are having plummeting birthrate drops.
Outlaw83
9mo ago
There is no such thing as assimilation resistance at least the way it actually matters in society, as opposed to being upset there's more aspects of cultural group x in American life. There's no evidence of the usual pattern changing - first gen speaking mother tongue, second gen speaking mixture, third gen speaking English and a little bit of the mother tongue, fourth gen not knowing the mother tongue. OK, the last part is a joke.
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
1yr ago
The part about Boebert is what your described is an underlying reason why we're seeing such shifts in college educated suburbs outside of the other more obvious factors.
Like, I'm sure there have been a lot of right-wing representatives in the past who actually worried about constituent needs - one example off hand is Thad Cochoran of Mississippi didn't need a single black vote to win easily in the state, but nonetheless, he was well known for having good constuent services, even in overwhelmingly black areas of the state, and not surprisingly, while he didn't do fantastic in the black belt regions, he did much better than Trent Lott did who was the other Senator at the time, even pre-Strom Thurmond praise.
Hell, Brian Kemp has passed a fairly strict abortion ban, passed trans laws close to Florida, passed a strict voter ID law, passed the usual tax cuts, and done a lot of stuff I don't like as a left-wing social democrat, but he has a 65% approval rating in Georgia because he said, "nah, Biden won, you weirdos," then he and his Secretary of State easily curbstomped a primary challenge.
The problem for the modern hard-right/far-right/dissident right, whatever people want to call themselves is that there's zero appeal unless you're either a partisan Republican or you're obsessed with the the Culture War issues of the day, but if you're even a somewhat serious person, they all seem like weirdos. Again, I know some won't like this, but look up how AOC questions people in Congressional panels versus Freedom Caucus types. You don't have to like her questions, or agree with her premises even, but she's well prepared and has follow up questions.
Obviously, not every member of the Squad is like that, but the median member of the Progressive Caucus is more serious about actually doing the work of legislating as opposed to trying to get a hit on Fox News or Newsmax than the median member of the Freedom Caucus, and in the long run, swing voters given the choice of having to use certain genders they don't get and some more immigrants speaking Spanish but actually getting stuff done versus chaos, abortion bans, and weird obsessions with issues they've never heard about, they'll back the woke side, even if they heavily disagree.
Outlaw83
1yr ago
Because all the efficiency isn't going to the very wealthy?
Again, the only study that has shown any sort of long-term wage depression for workers was in the immediacy of the Mariel boatlift in Miami-Dade, but that's an equivalent amount of immigration nationwide that would never happen, short of Bryan Caplan somehow becoming dictator. Yes, things don't go positively for 100% of people, but most of the actual economic downturn in certain parts of the country is actually due to outside competition from China, not immigration into the US.
Also, fertility is linked to women's education. America could become a fortress with zero immigration, and TFR will keep on going down, as long as birth control and highly educated women with expansive freedom exist.
There's literally a whole society of conservative lawyers. There are indeed plenty of Federalist Society lawyers out there. They likely didn't take the case for the same reason there were people in Trump's White House telling him he lost the election.
Beyond that, the main reason it seems like Trump has had issues keeping good lawyers pre-President is just like in the rest of his business dealings, he's terrible at actually paying people.
More options
Context Copy link