Avaleigh

I wasn't alive then, so I couldn't say what the general mood was like, but maybe the Moon Landing?

Still going back and forth between feelings of anger and sadness. They're literally not even hiding it anymore. Whatever veneer or sliver remained where they'd pretend that they aren't that bad--it's totally gone and has been ever since he was re-elected. This all just reinforces for me how very much I am in agreement that people have every right to be concerned about the direction this coutry is headed. I know I should be past surprise at this point, but this really did shock me.

I'm torn between choosing anger or tears, but right now it's anger. It's so disgraceful, I can't even. Worse, people are already making excuses for it.

I understand that it isn't reasonable to expect every topic to be able to be discussed without the discussion turning heated. I think when it comes to minor topics like the ones I mentioned, I think that's where I'm hopeful that everyone would be able to weigh in without it turning into a metaphorical knife fight.

This is one of the reasons why I didn't understand why this word made the list of banned words. It should be okay for people to question stuff like this without people automatically suspecting that you're an advocate for the other side.

I understand where you are coming from. I've had it happen to me just by simply questioning the wisdom of certain pushes. One of the topics I remember getting blasted about online years ago was when Brandeis University came up with their list of oppressive language. I thought that this was an example of the sort of changes that aren't really necessary in terms of advocating for social justice. Words like picnic, freshman, victim, etc were on the list, and I thought this was an example of unnecessary criticism on language that gives the rightwing supporters ammunition to pounce on the so-called ridiculousness of so-called "woke" ideology. (I refuse to use the word woke unless it's in reference to other people using it because it's meaning has been completely warped, and they're essentially doing the same thing to DEI.) My argument was that silly stuff like this ends up getting us sidetracked from the social justice issues that are genuinely important. These lists of oppressive language were exactly the sort of thing that would make some people roll their eyes, and my concern was that we'd lose sight of the larger picture if we started infighting over nonsense like this. Being critical of minor issues like this should be okay without people behaving as though it means you're carrrying water for the other side. When I argued that maybe we should try to not focus on stuff like this, it was as if I'd said that I was voting for Trump. At least I felt a little validated when Brandeis eventually removed the list of oppressive language from their site (afaik), but the real reason this incident is memorable for me is because I was stunned at the lack of tolerance from people who indentify as socially liberal. It didn't matter either if the POV was from a woman or a minority or a person who votes like they do. I want my party to at least be open to hearing different points of view. Ideally too, my side is going to be okay with people having a different take on a minor topic without it turning into this thing where they're questioning their basic humanity. If I vote the way that you do, support the same causes, advocate for the same political issues, is it really that big of a deal if we're not necessarily on the same page in terms of, say, what strategy I think the party should use for the midterm or if I think it's unnecessary to push a ban on words like picnic? As long as a person is in step on the bread and butter issues, that should be enough to keep people from making comments that indicate they think you're essentially supporting a party that doesn't care about the things you value. I'm honestly nervous about even posting this just because of that experience when I made the choice to wade into this topic. At the end of the day though I feel like people are more tolerant here than some other places, so that's what's giving me the courage.

They will blame Democrats/liberals/leftists--whichever word they think fits best. The cult like mentality means that it can never be Trump's fault. Some might even blame various people in Trump's administration, but they won't blame him. They've never held him to task for not hiring "the best people" or not following through on the other stuff he says he's going to do.

I don't think it's good for us as a country to have one half hating the other and vice versa. Political discussion for average people where both sides feel they can have a voice and be treated respectfully seems to be a rare thing. Both sides seem to prefer their respective echo chambers and this wasn't always the case, and it isn't as though there weren't serious political issues at play 10 to 50 years ago. There were people at different ends of the political spectrum who could still be friends, even spouses. They could come together in areas where they did have common ground. Through love, sports, faith, business, food, travel, etc. There are a lot of people on both sides who essentially want the same things: a place to live, health and safety for their family, friends, and themselves. They want life to be affordable, they want to be protected from crime, they want freedom from persecution, etc. We just have different ideas of what it will take to get those things. Yes, of course, there are also people on the right who are racist, misogynistic, transphobic, you name it. It's the most troubling aspect of the MAGA movement. Trump has essentially made being all of those things and more socially acceptable, and that's what a lot of people including myself are unable to get past. All that being said, I've seen some posters try to politely explain to you @Soapy Goddess why they're upset that our country elected Donald Trump again, given everything that happened during his first term, and given everything that he has promised to deliver on for his second term. Much earlier in the thread, there were a couple of posters who took their comments to you too far and those posts had to be removed. Ideally, if people want to explain why they disagree with your POV, they will do so in a respectful manner. I've had some sympathy for you because I know from personal experience that it isn't easy when it feels like a pile on, and I've acknowledged that I have friends and family who voted for Trump and wouldn't want them to be made to feel that they are terrible people because they (IMO) mistakenly believe that Trump will help make their lives better. All this being said, I have yet to see you genuinely acknowledge why people find the idea of a second Trump term to be upsetting. There are people who are worried that they will lose their healthcare. There are women who are worried that they could be prevented from seeking healthcare, even if their lives are at risk, if they happen to live in the wrong state. There are couples who are worried that their IVF could be disrupted. There are people who are worried that their marriages will become invalid. There are people who are concerned about the SCOTUS potentially reinterpretting birthright citizenship. There are people who are worried about their friends and relatives in Ukraine and elsewhere, and know that Trump is unlikely to be sympathetic to their side. There are also people who are barely making ends meet as it is,and worry that things will become even more unaffordable because Trump's priority seems to be to make sure the ultra wealthy get even more money. It might not be wrong for people to celebrate winning, but it does come across as insensitive given the gravity of the issues that some people will be dealing with once he takes office. It's not the same as, say, celebrating your favorite sports team winning. For the losing team, life pretty much continues as normal. When it comes to politics, the consequences of losing can be a lot more severe, so celebrations can feel a bit like salt in an open wound. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that celebrating is "better" than the posts from people who are openly upset about what they fear will happen because this thread has been about a lot more than that. If nothing else, I hope you've noticed how many posters have continued to have a sense of humor, have continued to share valuable information, have continued to be sympathetic to certain posters, have continued to have hope, and have continued to emotionally support the people who find it challenging to feel positive given everything that's happening. There's a lot of good to be found here and I think that's why people find the thread comforting even if they don't necessarily receive support from other posters or even if they don't necessarily agree with every point that has been made. This thread has been a good example of why PT is still a solid community.

This is yet another reason why every state should permit people to vote by mail.

I don't have an issue with some proof being required to show that a person is in the correct polling place. Whether it is a bill or a check from your employer or a work or student ID--as long as people have multiple options apart from the option of a government ID, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. What isn't reasonable is forcing people to stand in long ass lines when people should be allowed to vote by mail. Every state should have this as an option in my opinion. It's convenient and it saves time for everyone. Also, just to be clear, I don't want polling places to be taken away, I just think that mail in voting should be accessible to every citizen, in every state, plus DC. Regarding having a government issued ID--leaving aside the issue of whether or not people should need one to vote (I've already opined that I don't think a government ID should be necessary to vote), I really think that people should be doing everything in their power to make sure that they have a government ID for their own benefit. People who have no ID can't legally drive. You need an ID to have a job in most places. You need an ID for taxes. I've frequently needed an ID for certain medical appointments mainly if it's at a new doctor's office. You need an ID to have a social life for the most part. Even if you don't drink, you still need an ID if you want to dance at a club. You need an ID to travel even if it's simply domestic travel. You need one at the airport, you need one to rent a car, and you need one when you check into a hotel. I just can't understand not getting one if it's in a person's power to do so. Even if it meant spending hours at the DMV (which many of us have done at some point in our lives including myself), even if it means walking to get there or getting someone to give you a ride, even if it means having to make a temporary cut your budget in order to pay for it--whatever it takes--just get an ID for the love of heaven. A government ID should be something that is accessible to everyone. To me, politicians who care about people's rights should also be finding ways to make sure that having an ID is something that is accessible to everyone. It shouldn't be something that is seen as a luxury and it certainly shouldn't have to be seen as an impediment to a person casting their vote.

Adding to what you said, when I see people use the word "cackle" to describe the laughter of people like Kamala and Hillary, whether intended or not, it feels like there's a misogynistic vibe in describing it that way. Men are rarely, if ever, described as having cackling laughter aside from the occasional cartoon villain. It also comes across as a little dehumanizing. The inference is that Kamala is a witch and doesn't laugh the way typical people do.

It's true. This isn't an exaggeration. I witness it on a regular basis with people I actually know. Relatives, friends, co-workers, friends of my mom and stepdad, etc. The father of one of my best friends is a fairly typical Trump supporter from a red area of California. My friend and I noticed it years ago, but any time we questioned our parents on the Trump and/or right wing ideology, they would give the exact same talking points! Sometimes verbatim. To me, that's a huge sign that it's a cult like mindset. If we mentioned January 6th, they'd bring up the rioting that happened after the George Floyd murder. If we mentioned any of Trump's many crimes, then the cult line was what about Hunter and the Biden crime family. It's alarming to realize a loved one is up to their neck in a cult, especially when you realize you can't do anything about it. It comes up in ways I don't expect. For example, my mom and stepdad received slippers from friends that are from the my pillow guy. They loved them so much that over the holidays they decided to get my pillow products for me, my sister, her bf, and my hubby. So my husband and I both have these slippers from this douchebag Lindell, but feel like it would be rude to not accept them. A few months back, one of my colleagues actually went to see Ramaswamy speak because some Trump supporters from her church were going. Based on other stuff she's said in the past, she doesn't read books at all, but because of the magic power of the cult, she was willing to go out of her way and take time out of her schedule to watch this guy plug his book *and* buy it because he has the MAGA seal of approval. We're currently dealing with two massive fires in SoCal, one is just four miles from where we live. So we've been hearing from my husband's family from back east to check on how we are. One of his aunts made some sort of comment about how hopefully the only homes that would get hit would be homes of the people from "Hollyweird". 🙄 At that point I just kind of started to rush off the call, but not before I gently said that I hope that they'd be able to contain the fires asap because I don't think anyone deserves to lose their home and belongings. So she's like, 'Oh, I agree, of course! I just meant that if homes have to be lost hopefully it'll just be the homes of liberals who've run their state into the ground." I mention this because even when it comes to a disaster like this, there are some Trump supporters who can't let up on the political rhetoric, not even to have a standard amount of sympathy for people who are dealing with something that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I didn't have power last night for about 5 hours and did not have any this morning/afternoon until about an hour ago. Had to cook dinner by candlelight for my family. We're quite lucky we have a gas stove that I can light by hand. We gave a couple of our candles to a neighbor because he didn't have anything to tide him over. We're all trying to help each other and it's sad to know that there are people in this country who are happy that this is happening to us because we live in a blue state. I'm mostly able to ignore it, but sometimes stuff like this really stings.

It's nice to read a comment like this because I sometimes feel like the old style ice dancers don't get enough love. Klimova and Ponomarenko were brilliant, and I don't think their programs have aged poorly at all. I frequently read comments about how anything pre 2006 or even pre 2010 is "boring" or hasn't aged well or something along those lines, and I don't agree at all. Even more recent top tier teams like Davis and White get these sorts of comments e.g. their Bollywood program. When I think of teams of the old style that I like, Klimova and Ponomarenko, Krylova and Ovsyannikov, Torvill and Dean, the Duchesnays, and Anissina and Peizerat are at the top of my list. Ice dancing is the most subjective of all the disciplines, and sometimes I can find myself not responding to a team that I can acknowledge is skilled, but for whatever reason they just don't do it for me. I feel that way about Grishuk and Platov. Most people raved about them for years, but they didn't connect for me.

I definitely can't rely on my memory here, but didn't he skate a perfect long program? IIRC it was the short program he botched, but it's possible I'm not remembering it correctly. Also, IIRC, he hit the most difficult part of his short program (triple axel triple toe) but then fell on the triple flip(?) At the time, I remember being shocked. It was the first Olympics I remember watching, and I remember feeling terrible for him.

You're correct that I don't know these people. It's not like I've been to their houses or anything. That being said, I don't think that personal interactions and observations are meaningless, and my personal interactions and observations are how I formed my opinion. (Isn't that how most people form opinions?) If you have a positive interaction with someone, regardless if it's a meet and greet or something similar, are you not allowed to come away with a positive, indifferent, or negative opinion based on that lived experience? I've been lucky enough to meet Kurt both as a child and as an adult, and I found him to be warm, kind, and, in my impression, sincere when exuding that warmth and kindness. Alissa, I have only met once, but have also observed on several occasions and there was nothing that gave me the impression that she wasn't a nice person. She seemed friendly to her fellow competitors, and seemed gracious even after having a bad skate. Also, it's not like this isn't a sport that doesn't have its fair number of jackholes. Based on my personal interactions, I found Silvia Fontana to be an unfriendly, rude person who thinks a lot of herself. Straight up. It wasn't at all surprising to me when hard facts came out to support my negative opinion of her. That goes double for Lloyd Eisler. Sure, maybe Kurt and Alissa aren't great people. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that, but anything is possible. I'd be shocked if this turned out to be the case, but you never know. That being said, I will continue to think well of them unless evidence comes out to change my opinion.