Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Palimelon]

Quote

the GOP here, have raged about “cancel culture”

The GOP created "cancel culture" when they went after The Chicks in the 2000s.

[Orcinus orca]

Following the stages of grieving and now wavering between disbelief and depression.  When anger hits I my head might explode. 

Enjoy these last two months of a democracy because Project 2025 will soon be our "constitution".

[bluegirl147]

8 minutes ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

Trump just shows a cruelty and vileness that is not present in other politicians I disagree with.

I predict we are going to see more.

8 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

The GOP created "cancel culture" when they went after The Chicks in the 2000s.

It's true.  I remember them having those CD burning parties. They also went after Colin Kapernik. But they cheer that 49er who wore a MAGA hat last week.  

[Anela]

30 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

The GOP created "cancel culture" when they went after The Chicks in the 2000s.

Yep. but they’re allowed to.  It’s the same thing with “we can believe things, and still be friends.” Uh, maybe a long time ago? But those same people will expect to be able to say anything they want to, and have you be fine with it, then turn around and cut someone off if they believe in vaccines or mask mandates, or say anything against the man they worship.  The same man who wanted credit for one of the Covid vaccines.  

[peacheslatour]

3 minutes ago, Anela said:

Yep. but they’re allowed to.  It’s the same thing with “we can believe things, and still be friends.” Uh, maybe a long time ago? But those same people will expect to be able to say anything they want to, and have you be fine with it, then turn around and cut someone off if they believe in vaccines or mask mandates, or say anything against the man they worship.  The same man who wanted credit for one of the Covid vaccines.  

He said something positive about the vaccines at one of his rallies and he was roundly booed. The cult doesn't want to hear that shit so the coward never mentioned them again.

[Anela]

6 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

He said something positive about the vaccines at one of his rallies and he was roundly booed. The cult doesn't want to hear that shit so the coward never mentioned them again.

The woman I mentioned a few years ago, when I was really upset, had been really cruel to me out of nowhere, because I countered something she posted about the vaccines.  I think it was when a lot of people caught Covid, in a New England State, and she tried to use it as proof that the vaccines didn’t work.  I pointed out that they kept the people from being hospitalized, and she blew up on me.  She’s the one who hated trump, eight years ago, but was considering voting for him, because RFK Jr, asked her to. All of his supporters.  

Edited Thursday at 06:41 PM by Anela

[PRgal]

I think the whole idea of CRT and DEI, coming from a "minority"/"non-white" female who is a child of immigrants is that from what I've seen/experienced, it's very much a "my way (of thinking) or the highway" view.  And anyone with DIFFERENT experiences, such as saying they can relate to XYZ even if they aren't from the same cultural background is "lying" (yes, I've heard that) or that if their experience as a child of immigrants doesn't fit that stereotypical experience, then they're being self-centred or "centre-ing" (I don't even know what that means).  I was told to "shut up"/was gaslighted more than once when I opened up and talked about growing up in the suburbs/how most of the circle of people who come from well-educated, English-speaking households who were ALSO children of immigrants.  All I was offering was my experience and trying to diversify their knowledge of what being a child of immigrants is like.  They often think immigrant = poor and non-English speaking (many of us might have grandparents who don't speak English, but parents are usually fluent - and not to mention, educated...as in a university degree.  At least the dads, anyway).  There's a whole group of us (I'm specifically talking about Canadian-born/raised GenXers and Millennials whose parents are from HK) who don't fall into that category and grew up with advantages that well-meaning (and usually White/Anglo-Protestants whose families have been here for decades/more than a century) people don't seem to realize.  They often sweep ALL non-whites into one single category, often thinking that we ALL have the SAME kind of experiences.  Instead, they think people like me are "unique."  Ha!  Not if you take a look at my high school graduating class!!!

Some of my experiences came LONG before DE&I seminars, but when I was an undergrad back in the last closing years of the previous century/beginning of the current one.  One teaching assistant in a women's studies class talked about how patriarchy and patriarchal society was due to colonialism - NOT REALIZING that Confucianism, a philosophy that ORIGINATED IN CHINA some 2500 years before.  She dismissed me when I brought up China and that country's influence on their neighbours (Korea, Japan and Vietnam, anyway).  I don't remember if I was the only Asian student in the seminar or not, but no one came to my defence.  At all.  This was a class that I never attended lectures for because of this kind of view (and with 100 kids, it's not like they took attendance).  Seminars were the classes that mattered, so I thought that going to a seminar would allow me to speak up.  Have a voice that may be different.  Nope, gaslighting.  This has happened over and over for me, and it's to the point that I've given up.  I'll do it in writing on a blog or in children's books, writing about my own experiences/experiences of my family.  And whether people like it or not?  Well, that's their thing to deal with.

[bluegirl147]

9 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

He said something positive about the vaccines at one of his rallies and he was roundly booed. The cult doesn't want to hear that shit so the coward never mentioned them again.

And this is why as much as he is a problem it's his base that is a huge problem.  He takes his cues from them. If they push back on what he says (and that is rare) he will change his tune.  He did it with abortion ballot initiative. He was against it then he was for it. Then he just gave up and stopped talking about it. 

[Anela]

@PRgal, DEI has been used as a slur in this country.  It has just become another insult.  This year, everything wrong was down to someone being a DEI hire.  According to some people.  The people complaining about CRT here, were the result of conspiracies around it being taught.  

Edited Thursday at 06:49 PM by Anela

[heatherchandler]

On 11/6/2024 at 1:01 PM, PRgal said:

If we keep on telling boys and young men that they have male privilege and that they shouldn't complain then yes, there will be issues.  Because not all boys are privileged, not even White, Christian boys.  Do we know what's going on at home?  Maybe they're on welfare.  Maybe they have trouble learning.  A lot of boys are pinned for learning issues before girls are (and yes, that's another problem in itself - girls who are ASD aren't being flagged enough.  Including yours truly).  If you're interested on this topic, there's a new book by Ruth Whippman called BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity

I agree.

There are a lot of white, Christian boys who are on welfare.  And they don’t have anything, maybe home life is volatile.  And they are feeling left behind, like they don’t have a future.  And the world says to them: stop complaining, you are privileged.  But that’s subjective!  They are the ones voting for Trump.  They are feeling like they are being vilified for what they have, when they really have nothing.

I’m not saying, feel bad for these people, but if you’re trying to understand what is happening, that’s the first step.  Dems need to make everyone feel included.  That’s how it was years ago, and there was a swell of support.  Let everyone stand together.

Edited Thursday at 07:13 PM by heatherchandler

[heatherchandler]

10 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Didn't she thought? She was the first candidate to drop out of the 2020 presidential race. And when Biden decided not to run, he handed her the nomination. She didn't have to do anything to earn that nomination.  

A lot of people are now realizing that they should have had a primary.  Let the people pick.  Instead there was a decision made (some saying Biden was part of this group, maybe Pelosi) and they picked a candidate who had never made it very far in the past election.  It’s easy to see how that was the wrong move.

[bluegirl147]

11 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

Dems need to make everyone feel included

I don't have a problem with that. However what sometimes happens is those wanting to be included want the party to change for them.   Such as abortion rights.  If you want to be an anti choice Democrat that is fine. Just don't expect the party to add anti choice legislation to their platform.   

[PRgal]

13 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I don't have a problem with that. However what sometimes happens is those wanting to be included want the party to change for them.   Such as abortion rights.  If you want to be an anti choice Democrat that is fine. Just don't expect the party to add anti choice legislation to their platform.   

At the same time, one shouldn't be shamed for having certain views.  Which DOES happen.  A LOT more often than one might think (see my previous rant).

[Ohiopirate02]

30 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

I agree.

There are a lot of white, Christian boys who are on welfare.  And they don’t have anything, maybe home life is volatile.  And they are feeling left behind, like they don’t have a future.  And the world says to them: stop complaining, you are privileged.  But that’s subjective!  They are the ones voting for Trump.  They are feeling like they are being vilified for what they have, when they really have nothing.

I’m not saying, feel bad for these people, but if you’re trying to understand what is happening, that’s the first step.  Dems need to make everyone feel included.  That’s how it was years ago, and there was a swell of support.  Let everyone stand together.

The problem is those straight white cisgender males still want to be the focus, and not just a part of the coalition. What's best for everyone in America is not necessarily what's best for that demographic and they need to recognize this. 

[bluegirl147]

17 minutes ago, PRgal said:

At the same time, one shouldn't be shamed for having certain views.  Which DOES happen.  A LOT more often than one might think (see my previous rant).

The problem is we aren't just talking about political differences anymore. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on whether the debt ceiling should be raised.  But now we have people marching in the streets saying Jews will not replace us and saying well that is just their views.  And politicians saying they were very fine people. 

15 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The problem is those straight white cisgender males still want to be the focus, and not just a part of the coalition. What's best for everyone in America is not necessarily what's best for that demographic and they need to recognize this. 

Just to use as an example, how many times do we have hear how surprised people are when a movie that isn't made for and marketed for men (usually men 15-25) does well at the box office?  Females have voices too and they like to be heard.

[FilmTVGeek80]

7 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

That is the Democrats problem right now. They don't have one. But they better find them quick and plan for 3vyears from now when the process starts again. 

I think the Democrats have a great bench of talent right now. Finding someone who speaks to the mentality of the kind of people who vote for that odious puss bag, but don’t want to hear the truth just someone who can make them feel better might be tough. But, my biggest worry is the process won’t start again. That thing still knows that his best shot of avoiding prison is the presidency. The Supreme Court is already in his back pocket and given him the powers of a king. What’s to stop them from throwing out more rules and saying he can run until infinity?

I think even if we do have another election - the Rs may have just as big a problem. If these elections keep being about people wanting a change, then they can be in trouble - especially if everything the Racist-in-Chief promised doesn’t come to pass. A constant worry has been that if someone as dumb as that orange gas bag can win, that if the Rs can find someone who is smarter and slicker, will they appeal to more people? I don’t know. A lot of people say that the R-i-C has charisma. I don’t see it, but obviously others do and he has his cult. Can that smarter and slicker Republican appeal to the masses like he does? I guess it depends if the country continues to become more and more like Texas (no defense to anyone who lives there). It’s clear that many people there will vote for anyone with an R beside their name (though I know that has a lot to do with gerrymandering). If a charisma-free zone like Ted Cruz can keep winning maybe charm isn’t an issue - at least on that side of things.

. 

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

And this is why as much as he is a problem it's his base that is a huge problem.  He takes his cues from them. If they push back on what he says (and that is rare) he will change his tune.  He did it with abortion ballot initiative. He was against it then he was for it. Then he just gave up and stopped talking about it. 

That’s one of the many scary things about this situation. There’s obviously a cult-like mentality with a large percentage of his base. He got “shot” and covered it up with a ridiculously large bandage and some strapped Kotex pads to their ears. That’s a scary level of deranged. But, I think there are limits. Like on another board I’m at we sometimes wonder is there anything that would make them turn against him. If he came out as a gay, would they turn against him. I doubt it. But transgender, probably. If he came out and suddenly said he wanted any gun safety laws, I think they would attack just like they did about the vaccines. A lot of people have always said, even if Kamala won, this problem wasn’t going away. The way these people think and how it’s infected so many, is the root issue.

Edited Thursday at 08:35 PM by FilmTVGeek80

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I will be shocked if prices come down.  If he gets to implement his tariffs our prices will go up.  But there will people who believe that isn't his fault.   That is one thing that has always bothered. No matter what the man does he doesn't take the blame and his voters don't blame him.   Should I be surprised though?  There are people who believe President Obama was to blame for the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina.  You know that hurricane that hit New Orleans before Obama ran for office.

Back in 2019, I worked at a tax preparation place for a time. I was the receptioinist, I didn't handle the tax side of things. But the business was this one room office in our local mall, and the front desk where I sat was just a few short steps away from where my boss would sit and help people with their taxes. 

So I got to hear much of their conversations as a result. And I remember so many people coming in to get their taxes done, only to be shocked to learn that they were going to pay MORE in taxes, not less. They really thought that Trump's tax cuts from 2017 were going to benefit them, and now here they were, two years later, realizing that no, they were still going to pay more than they thought they would. 

And I'm just sitting there quietly thinking, "Gosh, Trump passing a tax cut that benefits the rich and continues to screw over your average citizen? Who could've seen that coming?" 

I just wonder how those who voted for him under the incredibly mistaken belief that he will somehow make things cheaper willl react when it's two years later and they're STILL paying out the wazoo for stuff, while Trump's rich buddies continue to live on easy street. Who will they look to to blame besides Trump then? 

Also, regarding the other conversation here, what the hell is with the right ant their weird fixation on people eating other humans? 

Quote

 

I can remember when people voted for the candidate who's policies aligned with theirs.  But then GWB came on the scene and it became about who you would want to have a beer with.   A big criticism of Hillary in 2016 was she wasn't likable enough.  Meanwhile you had Trump making fun of a disabled reporter.  Trashing a Gold Star family.  Bragging about sexual assaulting women and the list goes on and on and voters were like "I like him. He is a real guy". 

For as long as I live I will never fully comprehend why this has happened.

 

This. Kamala wasn't likeable and relatable enough to voters, but THIS asshole was? What does it say about our country that someone who talks the way Trump does about people is seen as "relatable"? 

To  say nothing of how people think Trump is just like them when the guy is literally part of the very elite they're always railing about. 

But this is what I meant with my earlier post. Does the Democrats' messaging even matter at this point when shit like this is what wins elections? They could run on making voters "feel good" all they want and they could still lose to someone who says vile things about women and minorities, because that candidate is just "telling it like it is" and they're "relatable". 

[FilmTVGeek80]

59 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

A lot of people are now realizing that they should have had a primary.  Let the people pick.  Instead there was a decision made (some saying Biden was part of this group, maybe Pelosi) and they picked a candidate who had never made it very far in the past election.  It’s easy to see how that was the wrong move.

We did have a primary and Biden was chosen. I will always believe he never should have stepped aside in the first place. But when he did he was wise to make sure that Harris was going to be the candidate. When people voted for Biden they were voting for her, too. She’s his VP. If he steps down, she’s the logical choice. And having some ridiculously short, contentious primary two months before early voting would have been madness. 

[Ohiopirate02]

8 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I just wonder how those who voted for him under the incredibly mistaken belief that he will somehow make things cheaper willl react when it's two years later and they're STILL paying out the wazoo for stuff, while Trump's rich buddies continue to live on easy street. Who will they look to to blame besides Trump then? 

In their eyes, it will never be Trump. They will blame his advisors and Congress just in time for the 2026 election. If you take a look back to his first administration, Trump went through a lot of senior staffers who were either let go or quit.

[Annber03]

That's the other part of all of this that pisses me off. Trump will never, ever be held accountable for anything he does. Ever. He's got a Supreme Court that says he can do whatever he wants as president. He's got the courts stacked in his favor to either kick his legal battles down the road or dismiss them entirely. He'll now have a Congress that will do his bidding as well. People looked at what he did on January 6th* and not only did they reelect him, he got the fucking popular vote this time as well. If that doesn't send a message to him that he's Teflon, I don't know what does. 

Even after he's gone, we'll never be completely rid of his presence, because the damage he leaves behind is stuff we'll still be dealing with and having to try and pick up the pieces of for years and decades to come. 

I wanted nothing more than for this election to be the opportunity for him to finally go away once and for all. And now we'll never, ever get that. Now he'll never have to face any consequences for anything he says and does. He gets away with everything and that's okay. 

It's absolutely infuriating. No other politiician would be able to skate by like this. 

*He'll also be able to pardon those who were involved in the violent attack on the Capitol once he takes office, so that's another thing we can brace ourselves for. 

Thanks, America. Thanks for giving him that kind of immunity. Really appreciate it. 

Edited Thursday at 08:46 PM by Annber03

[Anela]

59 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The problem is those straight white cisgender males still want to be the focus, and not just a part of the coalition. What's best for everyone in America is not necessarily what's best for that demographic and they need to recognize this. 

Exactly. Plus, Trump largely ran on hate, fear, and exclusion, not inclusiveness for everyone.

[bluegirl147]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

They will blame his advisors and Congress just in time for the 2026 election.

Or Democrats.  We heard that a lot from 2017-2019 when Trump had both the House and Senate.  It was the Democrats fault the wall wasn't built. It was the Democrats fault the ACA wasn't repealed.  On and on it went.  And the things Trump did admit to like one of the government shut downs his base said nope not his fault. 

[Palimelon]

Quote

They will blame his advisors and Congress just in time for the 2026 election

Yes but only after they blame - in any random order - (liberal) women, brown people, Asians, queer people, immigrants (but not the ones who voted for him...mostly, and not the ones from "white" countries, unless they are queer), coastal elites (not the Trumpian or billionaire elites, natch), Hollywood liberals, the MSM, the deep state cabal, the Teletubbies...only after that will they blame his advisors and Congress.

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Anela said:

Exactly. Plus, Trump largely ran on hate, fear, and exclusion, not inclusiveness for everyone.

Like I said before, why is it always on the Democrats to learn how to reach across the aisle and be inclusive, to mind their language lest they alienate potential voters? Why doesn't the right ever get that lecture? 

[Bastet]

18 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

It was about the astounding hypocrisy of some people judging Harris for what they assumed was her sleeping her way to the top versus shrugging off a disgusting pervert accused multiple times of sexual assault (including being found liable for it in court.)

Yes, the hypocrisy is off the charts, but the "slept her way to the top" allegation is chart-defyingly stupid (and sexist) to begin with.  Many people get jobs partly due to a relationship they have with someone at that company/organization.  The job to which Willie Brown (who mentored Harris and later briefly dated her) appointed Harris back in 1994?  A seat on California's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.  Like they said on The Daily Show:  "That's a very normal type of cronyism.  And besides, it was an unemployment insurance appeals board.  Do not act like you wanted that job.  Grow up." 

She'd already served as a DDA in San Francisco, he didn't pluck her out of obscurity and give her a job to get in her pants (which, if he had, would have been a gross offense by him, given the power and age difference).  When she went on to her next job - another oh-so-glamorous post, which came with a $20k reduction in salary, this time on the California Medical Assistance Commission - the person Brown appointed to replace her was a longtime friend and business associate.  A man.  No one batted an eye at that relationship, because that's how jobs often happen, especially in politics.

So, thirty years ago, a personal connection helped her - who had been in public service since she was recruited by the DA's office out of law school - get a job on a minor state board. 

Four years later, the DA recruited her back as an ADA, where she led a high-profile division.  Four years after that, she became DA.  She served two terms, running unopposed for the second.  At that point, she successfully campaigned for CA's Attorney General position.  She was again re-elected, and served until she took her seat in the US Senate in 2017.  She served there until she was elected Vice President.

Kamala Harris's career is not because she briefly dated the Speaker of the California Assembly back in 1994.

Edited Friday at 02:15 AM by Bastet

[FilmTVGeek80]

36 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

This. Kamala wasn't likeable and relatable enough to voters, but THIS asshole was? What does it say about our country that someone who talks the way Trump does about people is seen as "relatable"? 

To  say nothing of how people think Trump is just like them when the guy is literally part of the very elite they're always railing about. 

Yep! I will never understand this. Is it the McDonald’s thing? That’s the only non-hateful thing I can think of that would cause so many to think he’s relatable. He’s an alleged billionaire, but somehow people think he’s not part of the elite. Is it because his thinking and language is - to put it kindly - on the 3rd grade level?

[Dimity]

24 minutes ago, Anela said:

Exactly. Plus, Trump largely ran on hate, fear, and exclusion, not inclusiveness for everyone.

Also he ran on idea  that Biden/Harris are to blame for the economy and he can fix it.  We're experiencing exactly the same thing here in Canada - and doubtless in most countries around the world.  Trying to get back to normal post-pandemic when prices have gone crazy has given the parties not in power the opportunity to play the blame game and to benefit from that.  I know people who voted for Trump because they are convinced he will get grocery and house prices back to what they were 30 years ago.

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Yep! I will never understand this. Is it the McDonald’s thing? That’s the only non-hateful thing I can think of that would cause so many to think he’s relatable. He’s an alleged billionaire, but somehow people think he’s not part of the elite. Is it because his thinking and language is - to put it kindly - on the 3rd grade level?

That's because Trump has never been a part of the NYC elite. He's too vulgar to have ever been invited into that group. The man's taste has always been suspect and rather emblematic of what the lower classes think of as rich and also what they would deploy if they suddenly got millions. All the gold, just all the gold. I remember walking by Trump Tower when I was in New York and just marveling at how ugly the building is.

[Dimity]

36 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

*He'll also be able to pardon those who were involved in the violent attack on the Capitol once he takes office, so that's another thing we can brace ourselves for. 

I hate this too but at least most of those convicted did spend time in jail.  Unlike the convicted felon.  Sigh.

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I do appreciate all these people fleeing socialism don't seem to mind potentially living under fascism.

 

4 hours ago, PRgal said:

I completely understand why some would be voting red rather than blue.  Polls don't typically include Asians (though they really should, and broken down into South and East as well), but China (for example) faced the Cultural Revolution in the 60s and into the 70s.  Leading up to that came suppression of the freedom of expression for years (including the forced destruction of traditional culture and artifacts.  In other words, one of the biggest cancel culture campaigns (if not THE biggest) in modern history). There was also a human-created famine during that time.  I don't know how East Asians/Chinese Americans with recent ties to mainland voted, but many don't want to see this/see the suppression of expression/defending the right NOT to destroy historical artifacts that may be tied to enslavement or colonialism.  Many are of the school where you should LEARN from history without DESTROYING/HIDING rather than just ignoring/perceived/marketed as ignoring.  I don't have direct ties to those who experienced the Cultural Revolution - both sets of grandparents were safely in Hong Kong and raising kids (i.e. my parents, uncles and aunts) by the time the Cultural Revolution began, but I do have extended family who did.  On my dad's side, my very educated great aunt (this woman had a master's degree in economics!!!  She was born in the 1920s!!!!!) lived in hiding for years because they were after people who were educated (and since I found out her grandfather (my great-great grandfather, in other words) owned a small newspaper, I wonder if being a descendant of someone who worked in MEDIA had anything to do with it as well).  In other words, she was seen by Mao and his people as "elite."  Why didn't she go to Hong Kong or Macao?  Not everyone was ABLE to escape.  

 

Coming from a country that had socialism for 40 years, I can totally sympathize with people who escape such regimes, it is hell. What saddens me is that politicians use their trauma to make them vote for a party that at this point IMO resembles those regimes a lot more. I know people in my country who favored Republicans because of Reagan and his firm stance against communism and the USSR and they are disgusted by Trump, especially because of his admiration for brutal dictators and his talk about ending the war in Ukraine (I really do not want to find out what he means by that). I would 100% support Democrats if I lived in the US, but honestly I kind of had a better opinion about some Republicans. I understand wanting to have a smaller government or being conservative and patriotic and having tough stance on crime, those are all topics that people could discuss in a civil way (although I really don't understand how one wants a smaller government and then is ok with that government controlling people's private lives so much when it comes to abortion or LGBTQ+ rights). But how is Trump selling your secrets to foreign agents not a deal breaker? It's treason. Wouldn't this make McCain or Reagan spin in their graves? Where are all the principled Republicans who talked about being loyal to the party and the country but not to Trump? How is anyone who calls themselves a patriot accepting this person?

Regarding immigrant voters, I wonder how much it is a result of people throwing around some words willy-nilly, regardless of their actual meaning. Democrats are not going to install a socialist dictatorship because they want free healthcare and education - most European countries have that and are still democracies. You can say a word like socialism to 10 different people and they will have at least 6 different ideas of what you mean by that. From what I've seen of US politics, I would be a lot more scared of Republicans trying to install some non-democratic regime at this point. Left or right doesn't mean much to me, when they move farther from the centre their tactics resemble each other more and more. And objectively, Republicans are IMO more to the right than Democrats are to the left - I keep saying that most of them would be centre or centre-right in many European countries from economic perspective. Sure, there is a far left element there and I for one would not dismiss their extremism, but it seems to me that there is not really that many of them (at least I hope), they are just too loud and annoying and as I said before, social media pushes people more to the extremes. And from what we have seen with the protest non-voting, these people don't even identify as Democrats, they keep shouting how both sides are just as bad and from what I gather from some of their posts I keep seeing (I am on Tumblr now and that place has a serious far-left problem) they apparently want things get so bad that a glorious revolution will errupt that will somehow solve all problems, make everyone equal, blah blah. Yeah, I have bad news for you, that is not gonna happen and thank your Gods for that - we have seen many times how that goes and surprise, the utopia somehow never comes, only misery and more inequality. It seems they are now spinning this to say that people have shown they reject both parties and want a big change - IMO it shows the opposite, that people want to get back to the status quo before the terrible things like the pandemic and the wars and inflation happened and social unrest would not be seen favorably by them.

What I tried to say with this long wall of text is that I don't think that Democrats are the danger to freedom and democracy and it disgusts me that Republicans get any votes from immigrants or their families with such claims. But they keep showing that one tactic they excel at is fearmongering - socialism to the families of some immigrants, Democrats turning kids trans to conservatives, war on Christmas and other culture wars to Christians, etc. It is absolutely disgusting but you can't say it's not working. I wish it was called out more, but how to do that if people refuse to listen even to their friends and families and prefer influencers and conspiratorial echo chambers? (And this is not limited to the US, we have these problems everywhere, it's just that US is the most influential country so it matters more to everyone.)

 

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

I think the whole idea of CRT and DEI, coming from a "minority"/"non-white" female who is a child of immigrants is that from what I've seen/experienced, it's very much a "my way (of thinking) or the highway" view.  And anyone with DIFFERENT experiences, such as saying they can relate to XYZ even if they aren't from the same cultural background is "lying" (yes, I've heard that) or that if their experience as a child of immigrants doesn't fit that stereotypical experience, then they're being self-centred or "centre-ing" (I don't even know what that means).  I was told to "shut up"/was gaslighted more than once when I opened up and talked about growing up in the suburbs/how most of the circle of people who come from well-educated, English-speaking households who were ALSO children of immigrants.  All I was offering was my experience and trying to diversify their knowledge of what being a child of immigrants is like.  They often think immigrant = poor and non-English speaking (many of us might have grandparents who don't speak English, but parents are usually fluent - and not to mention, educated...as in a university degree.  At least the dads, anyway).  There's a whole group of us (I'm specifically talking about Canadian-born/raised GenXers and Millennials whose parents are from HK) who don't fall into that category and grew up with advantages that well-meaning (and usually White/Anglo-Protestants whose families have been here for decades/more than a century) people don't seem to realize.  They often sweep ALL non-whites into one single category, often thinking that we ALL have the SAME kind of experiences.  Instead, they think people like me are "unique."  Ha!  Not if you take a look at my high school graduating class!!!

Some of my experiences came LONG before DE&I seminars, but when I was an undergrad back in the last closing years of the previous century/beginning of the current one.  One teaching assistant in a women's studies class talked about how patriarchy and patriarchal society was due to colonialism - NOT REALIZING that Confucianism, a philosophy that ORIGINATED IN CHINA some 2500 years before.  She dismissed me when I brought up China and that country's influence on their neighbours (Korea, Japan and Vietnam, anyway).  I don't remember if I was the only Asian student in the seminar or not, but no one came to my defence.  At all.  This was a class that I never attended lectures for because of this kind of view (and with 100 kids, it's not like they took attendance).  Seminars were the classes that mattered, so I thought that going to a seminar would allow me to speak up.  Have a voice that may be different.  Nope, gaslighting.  This has happened over and over for me, and it's to the point that I've given up.  I'll do it in writing on a blog or in children's books, writing about my own experiences/experiences of my family.  And whether people like it or not?  Well, that's their thing to deal with.

I don't view favorably some initiatives such as installing quotas for any group at universities instead of basing it on merit. Yes, some people have had more opportunities growing up but this is IMO not the way to deal with that, you can have other means like offering scholarships. We have had something like that during the socialism era when only people from "working class" background could get higher education and certain jobs and those from rich or any "bourgeoisie" background could not, no matter how smart they were. As I said above, it's a far stretch but it can be weaponized by some to turn people from politicians who support such initiatives.

I also want to say that I always appreciate your comments and showing a different perspective. I am also used to face some backlash when I try to call out far left ideology on the internet and I'm used to having my experience and the experiences of Central and Eastern Europeans dismissed, especially when we call out authoritarianism, imperialism and colonialism of countries that are not USA or not what we call the West. Even if those are the bigger threat nowadays. 

 

18 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

For the record (and this is my last comment on the subject), I personally do NOT fear any segment of LGBTQ+.  My only point is how it relates to sports (which btw not a huge sports fanatic either) and how some people might feel that pitting a bio male against a bio women is completely unfair. 

IOW, it's about competition, not fear. If you can't understand that's how some people view the issue, then there's really no point in any further discussion.

This is why the weaponisation of trans topics is so frustrating to watch. How many people do professional sports? Yes, there need to be discussions about the inclusion of trans athletes, but those are probably better left to the people who understand those sports and not the general public, and dealt on case-by-case basis. (Seriously, people complained about darts or chess - how do men/AMAB people have any advantage in those? Why are those even separated by sex? As a member of the general public, I have no idea.) But why should any trans people who are not interested in doing professional sports suffer because of this panic? Why should strangers care so much about their private lives? Having a free and democratic society should mean that we leave them alone as long as they don't harm anyone. Even if people don't understand or approve of what they do, what is it to them? 

 

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Why should strangers care so much about their private lives? Having a free and democratic society should mean that we leave them alone as long as they don't harm anyone. Even if people don't understand or approve of what they do, what is it to them? 

One of the memes that came out during this election spoke to this and I loved it. "Mind your own damned business".   

[partofme]

17 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I hate this too but at least most of those convicted did spend time in jail.  Unlike the convicted felon.  Sigh.

I am so mad that New York is unlikely to sentence him to prison now.  I really wanted him to get some prison time because actions are supposed to have consequences.  This man attempted to overthrow the government, not to mention all of the crimes he committed while in office. But he’s going to get away with it all and that sets a really bad precedent, others will try to do what he did and think they can get away with it, and why shouldn’t they, we basically live in a lawless society now.   I really wish the NY judge could sentence him to jail and make him be president from his jail cell.  

[kittykat]

6 hours ago, Yeah No said:

The Dems. need to find someone that makes the average person feel good about themselves and like they can give them the future they so long for. Tressie was right that the Dems. have only targeted women and minorities this way and they need to broaden it to everyone else. I was originally not on board with replacing Biden with her because I didn't think she seemed as regular and relatable as he was to the broader American public including the working class. I think THAT's what got Joe the presidency in 2020 - that he seemed like the level headed regular, straight talking roll up your shirtsleeves regular guy type that could stop the insanity and wouldn't take no BS from Trump. Next to Trump he seemed like the medium happy that more people might have confidence in to help them out. I think Harris's choice of Tim Walz was an effort to try to bolster that image for her but I don't think it was enough.

Unfortunately the DNC is going to need a complete overhaul of how they take on the GOP these next few years.  Now that the shine has washed off I definitely see clear flaws in Harris' campaign.

Her platform should have been the Economy and Immigration as the main bullet points with Women/abortion rights as the third point.  She chose to make Women's rights the headliner for her platform and, look, I appreciate it but it also polarized would be party converts and fringe voters who were looking more for solutions on combating inflation and working class problems, which is why the vague "what is she about" narrative remains.  I know most of us know she had a smart platform that would have been more effective than Trump but perception is key.  If word on the street is that her ideas were vague that's a problem and feeds into the discourse that Democrats don't know how to connect with working class voters.

How to get Democrats back in touch with their roots and reconnect with young and farther left voters is going to be a rough road.  Instead of picking the next person off the Democratic Candidate Conveyor Belt (pretty sure Buttigieg is on deck next), hold an actual primary like in 2008 and let the voters decide instead of leaving it to the super delegates.

[Calvada]

I have so many feelings - anger, disgust, sorrow, and fear.  I don't know if America, the Constitution, and my heart can survive another four years of this.  And now he has the Senate, most likely the House, and the Supreme Court.  

Another four years of being embarrassed to admit I'm from Wisconsin.  Our incumbent senator barely won her race by the closest margin she's had and this was the first race when the opponent made an issue of her being gay loudly and clearly in ads, by claiming her partner is a conflict because she works on Wall Street.  And her opponent is a millionaire banker who only lives part-time in Wisconsin.  

I'm thinking of Harris and her husband having to welcome Vance and his wife to the VP's residence for the traditional tour.  Can you imagine having to be nice to someone who called you trash?  And I'm still waiting to hear the outrage from people about the Republican candidate saying he's going to have to "hit" a former First Lady. 

I hope all the people agonizing over the cost of eggs enjoy paying for things when the tariffs are imposed.  Look at the labels on your clothes - how many of them are made in America?  Where's that new furnace or refrigerator you need being manufactured?  Or the parts for your car?  How about your TV?  Phone?  Computer?   

[Dimity]

1 minute ago, Calvada said:

I hope all the people agonizing over the cost of eggs enjoy paying for things when the tariffs are imposed.  Look at the labels on your clothes - how many of them are made in America?  Where's that new furnace or refrigerator you need being manufactured?  Or the parts for your car?  How about your TV?  Phone?  Computer?   

This.  The only bright spot for me (and please nobody rain on my parade) is knowing that you guys have yet another election in two years and traditionally the party in power doesn't perform well.  And since we all know damn well that Trump isn't going to be able to deliver on those campaign promises with regard to the economy those who only voted for him because of that may take their anger out on the republicans whose seats are up for grabs then.

[partofme]

Yes the Democrats may have some issues getting their message across but the bigger issue is FOX News and right wing radio/podcasts that are allowed to lie with immunity since Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980’s.  

[Dimity]

23 minutes ago, partofme said:

Yes the Democrats may have some issues getting their message across but the bigger issue is FOX News and right wing radio/podcasts that are allowed to lie with immunity since Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980’s.

This.  But also for all the Republican's crying about the unfairness of the 'lamestream' media they, for the most part totally sanewashed Trump. 

I don't know how much difference it would have made but if the only people (aside from his followers) who  were seeing and hearing most of his speeches *in their entirety*  were the people watching Colbert or MSNBC then that wasn't good enough.  

Edited Thursday at 10:34 PM by Dimity

[Anela]

49 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

 

Coming from a country that had socialism for 40 years, I can totally sympathize with people who escape such regimes, it is hell. What saddens me is that politicians use their trauma to make them vote for a party that at this point IMO resembles those regimes a lot more. I know people in my country who favored Republicans because of Reagan and his firm stance against communism and the USSR and they are disgusted by Trump, especially because of his admiration for brutal dictators and his talk about ending the war in Ukraine (I really do not want to find out what he means by that). I would 100% support Democrats if I lived in the US, but honestly I kind of had a better opinion about some Republicans. I understand wanting to have a smaller government or being conservative and patriotic and having tough stance on crime, those are all topics that people could discuss in a civil way (although I really don't understand how one wants a smaller government and then is ok with that government controlling people's private lives so much when it comes to abortion or LGBTQ+ rights). But how is Trump selling your secrets to foreign agents not a deal breaker? It's treason. Wouldn't this make McCain or Reagan spin in their graves? Where are all the principled Republicans who talked about being loyal to the party and the country but not to Trump? How is anyone who calls themselves a patriot accepting this person?

Regarding immigrant voters, I wonder how much it is a result of people throwing around some words willy-nilly, regardless of their actual meaning. Democrats are not going to install a socialist dictatorship because they want free healthcare and education - most European countries have that and are still democracies. You can say a word like socialism to 10 different people and they will have at least 6 different ideas of what you mean by that. From what I've seen of US politics, I would be a lot more scared of Republicans trying to install some non-democratic regime at this point. Left or right doesn't mean much to me, when they move farther from the centre their tactics resemble each other more and more. And objectively, Republicans are IMO more to the right than Democrats are to the left - I keep saying that most of them would be centre or centre-right in many European countries from economic perspective. Sure, there is a far left element there and I for one would not dismiss their extremism, but it seems to me that there is not really that many of them (at least I hope), they are just too loud and annoying and as I said before, social media pushes people more to the extremes. And from what we have seen with the protest non-voting, these people don't even identify as Democrats, they keep shouting how both sides are just as bad and from what I gather from some of their posts I keep seeing (I am on Tumblr now and that place has a serious far-left problem) they apparently want things get so bad that a glorious revolution will errupt that will somehow solve all problems, make everyone equal, blah blah. Yeah, I have bad news for you, that is not gonna happen and thank your Gods for that - we have seen many times how that goes and surprise, the utopia somehow never comes, only misery and more inequality. It seems they are now spinning this to say that people have shown they reject both parties and want a big change - IMO it shows the opposite, that people want to get back to the status quo before the terrible things like the pandemic and the wars and inflation happened and social unrest would not be seen favorably by them.

What I tried to say with this long wall of text is that I don't think that Democrats are the danger to freedom and democracy and it disgusts me that Republicans get any votes from immigrants or their families with such claims. But they keep showing that one tactic they excel at is fearmongering - socialism to the families of some immigrants, Democrats turning kids trans to conservatives, war on Christmas and other culture wars to Christians, etc. It is absolutely disgusting but you can't say it's not working. I wish it was called out more, but how to do that if people refuse to listen even to their friends and families and prefer influencers and conspiratorial echo chambers? (And this is not limited to the US, we have these problems everywhere, it's just that US is the most influential country so it matters more to everyone.)

 

I don't view favorably some initiatives such as installing quotas for any group at universities instead of basing it on merit. Yes, some people have had more opportunities growing up but this is IMO not the way to deal with that, you can have other means like offering scholarships. We have had something like that during the socialism era when only people from "working class" background could get higher education and certain jobs and those from rich or any "bourgeoisie" background could not, no matter how smart they were. As I said above, it's a far stretch but it can be weaponized by some to turn people from politicians who support such initiatives.

I also want to say that I always appreciate your comments and showing a different perspective. I am also used to face some backlash when I try to call out far left ideology on the internet and I'm used to having my experience and the experiences of Central and Eastern Europeans dismissed, especially when we call out authoritarianism, imperialism and colonialism of countries that are not USA or not what we call the West. Even if those are the bigger threat nowadays. 

 

This is why the weaponisation of trans topics is so frustrating to watch. How many people do professional sports? Yes, there need to be discussions about the inclusion of trans athletes, but those are probably better left to the people who understand those sports and not the general public, and dealt on case-by-case basis. (Seriously, people complained about darts or chess - how do men/AMAB people have any advantage in those? Why are those even separated by sex? As a member of the general public, I have no idea.) But why should any trans people who are not interested in doing professional sports suffer because of this panic? Why should strangers care so much about their private lives? Having a free and democratic society should mean that we leave them alone as long as they don't harm anyone. Even if people don't understand or approve of what they do, what is it to them? 

 

I'm one of the far-left who voted for Kamala, because I'm not a "burn it all down" far-left. Most of us just want health care, and people to be fed and housed. 

Kamala courted conservatives too much for my liking, along with dismissing progressives. they removed things like abolishing the death penalty, from their list of things they would try to do. That was one thing I wanted them to do. People are equally bad about making assumptions about us lefties, as MAGA are about liberals in general. And courting the republicans didn't help us at all. I think all of the people speaking up, were out of office. They didn't try for re-election, because they were against the Emperor with no clothes.

Edited Thursday at 10:19 PM by Anela

[kittykat]

Kamala had to make a calculated guess on who to court.  She had two paths, court the far left Bernie holdouts at the risk of alienating center right convert voters, or court the centrists and alienate the far left because she was never going to win both.  She chose the latter, and unfortunately it was the wrong choice.  I wish she had gone with reaching out to the younger left voters.  Nothing radical in wanting universal healthcare and affordable education.

That does not excuse the 13-15 million voters that stayed home out of either protest or privilege.  In these trying times it's fucking unforgivable.  I can be angry at those who voted for Trump but, at the end of the day, they exercised their Constitutional right to make that choice.  

And if you look at the current popular vote only about 5-6 million would have needed to show up.

Edited Thursday at 10:49 PM by kittykat

[Calvada]

31 minutes ago, Dimity said:

This.  But also for all the Republican's crying about the unfairness of the 'lamestream' media they, for the most part totally sanewashed Trump.  I don't know how much difference it would have made but if the only people (aside from his followers) were seeing and hearing most of his speeches at his rallies were watching Colbert or MSNBC then that wasn't good enough.  

When the people in the media who most closely fact check and question Trump's statements and policies are the late night hosts, there's a problem. 

Edited Thursday at 10:46 PM by Calvada

[DrSpaceman73]

2 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

We did have a primary and Biden was chosen. I will always believe he never should have stepped aside in the first place. But when he did he was wise to make sure that Harris was going to be the candidate. When people voted for Biden they were voting for her, too. She’s his VP. If he steps down, she’s the logical choice. And having some ridiculously short, contentious primary two months before early voting would have been madness. 

I disagree with you here. 

First he never should have run in the primaries.  It was obvious he could not do another 4 years. 

Second when he did step aside harris was a bad choice.  Even as vp she had many gaffer and mis steps before she was nominated. Plus she made an easy target for criticism of the current economy and as a 'California liberal'   back before the was chosen shen Biden ended his campaign I never thought she'd win

 

I voted for her without hesitation. But she was a poor choice and they botched the whole process

Yes she was 'next in line' as VP. That was the same logic for Hillary in 2016.  It failed too. 

You pick the best candidate. Not just someone who 'deserves' it based on positioning.  

[Annber03]

56 minutes ago, Calvada said:

I'm thinking of Harris and her husband having to welcome Vance and his wife to the VP's residence for the traditional tour.  Can you imagine having to be nice to someone who called you trash? 

Reminds me of the Obamas having to sit there and watch the man who spent eight years pushing racist birther conspiracies about Barack enter the White House. They have far, FARr more class and composure than I think I could ever manage if I were in their shoes. 

Quote

 

I hope all the people agonizing over the cost of eggs enjoy paying for things when the tariffs are imposed.  Look at the labels on your clothes - how many of them are made in America?  Where's that new furnace or refrigerator you need being manufactured?  Or the parts for your car?  How about your TV?  Phone?  Computer?   

 

Look at how much Trump has sold out our country to his dictator buddies thus far. He will sell America to the highest bitdder if it means he gets a nice golf course out of the deal. 

But sure. He totlally plans to help bring jobs back to people here. 

[PRgal]

Regarding the immigrant vote:  I think a lot of it comes from ethnic media.  Keep in mind that many don't even consume mainstream media due to language challenges.  Here in the Toronto area, a Cantonese speaker can totally get by in Markham (where nearly HALF the population is (ethnic) Chinese) can get by without hearing English AT ALL for an entire month.

@JustHereForFood I'm not a fan of quotas for some groups either.  They're opening a new medical school here and priority is going to be given to Black, Indigenous and "equity deserving" kids. Equity Deserving includes all non-white applications, but at the same time could also mean "middle class East and South Asians need not apply" since they're not really demographically marginalized at medical schools.  Funny thing is that the campus will be in Brampton, a suburb that has a large MIDDLE CLASS South Asian demographic.

Edited Thursday at 11:26 PM by PRgal

[FilmTVGeek80]

32 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I disagree with you here. 

First he never should have run in the primaries.  It was obvious he could not do another 4 years. 

Second when he did step aside harris was a bad choice.  Even as vp she had many gaffer and mis steps before she was nominated. Plus she made an easy target for criticism of the current economy and as a 'California liberal'   back before the was chosen shen Biden ended his campaign I never thought she'd win

 

I voted for her without hesitation. But she was a poor choice and they botched the whole process

Yes she was 'next in line' as VP. That was the same logic for Hillary in 2016.  It failed too. 

You pick the best candidate. Not just someone who 'deserves' it based on positioning.  

I disagree he couldn’t have made it another four years and even if he couldn’t, so what, he had a more than competent VP and administration. The comparison to Clinton, in this situation, doesn’t work IMO because the situations were completely different. She was the logical choice because she was next in line (and if you think leapfrogging over a Black woman would have had a different result in this election - I seriously doubt it) and because of the amount of time left before early voting. Biden dropped out with two months left to go before early voting. Was there supposed to be a contentious primary which would probably leave whoever was picked a month to campaign before early voting? Kamala had gaffes and mistakes? Okay. Which ones and what possible other person up for the job wouldn’t have also had their own gaffes and mistakes? Unless you’re picking some neophyte who has no political experience (basically another Drumpf).

[DrSpaceman73]

30 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

I disagree he couldn’t have made it another four years and even if he couldn’t, so what, he had a more than competent VP and administration. The comparison to Clinton, in this situation, doesn’t work IMO because the situations were completely different. She was the logical choice because she was next in line (and if you think leapfrogging over a Black woman would have had a different result in this election - I seriously doubt it) and because of the amount of time left before early voting. Biden dropped out with two months left to go before early voting. Was there supposed to be a contentious primary which would probably leave whoever was picked a month to campaign before early voting? Kamala had gaffes and mistakes? Okay. Which ones and what possible other person up for the job wouldn’t have also had their own gaffes and mistakes? Unless you’re picking some neophyte who has no political experience (basically another Drumpf).

Having an obviously demented person continue another 4 years as head of the country and you say 'so what'?

Parties shouldn't be running candidates with obvious dementia.  

One it's just morally wrong for the country

Two he was never going to win after the debate he couldnt even make it through. 

If democrats had no other choices but between harris and political neophytes that's a bigger problem. 

 

He dropped out before the convention.  They could have had a real actual brokered convention to see who came out on top, who rose to the occasion rather than just giving it to her.   There were other choices.  

And yes I realize regean had dementia but the past examples don't justify poor future decisions. 

[FilmTVGeek80]

22 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Having an obviously demented person continue another 4 years as head of the country and you say 'so what'?

Parties shouldn't be running candidates with obvious dementia.  

One it's just morally wrong for the country

Two he was never going to win after the debate he couldnt even make it through. 

If democrats had no other choices but between harris and political neophytes that's a bigger problem. 

 

He dropped out before the convention.  They could have had a real actual brokered convention to see who came out on top, who rose to the occasion rather than just giving it to her.   There were other choices.  

And yes I realize regean had dementia but the past examples don't justify poor future decisions. 

He was not an obviously demented person. That’s your opinion. Unless you have a crystal ball I’m unaware of you have no idea if he could have won or not (and I’m not sure what debate you were watching but I’m pretty sure I recall him finishing it).

I wasn’t saying if there were any actual problems he should remain president. If he really could not go on after elected, he would step aside (like he did) and his competent VP would take over. That is the whole point of the vice president - to take over if the president can’t complete their term.

i already said the Democrats have an extremely talented roster to chose from. I’m not saying it was a choice between Harris and a neophyte. What I was saying is you were the one who said Harris was a poor choice because she made gaffes and mistakes. My point is that unless you think the candidate should be some political newcomer EVERY politician has gaffes and mistakes that can be used against them.

I know Pelosi, freaking Clooney, and the news media were salivating at the idea of a brokered convention, but history shows that that is not necessarily the way to pick a winning campaign. And, like I said, if you think Black women (who are the backbone of the Democratic Party) were to just going to stand aside and watch the qualified Black woman who was second in line get pushed aside, I don’t know what to tell you. With the time that was left, the best choice possible was made. We can Monday morning quarterback it for years, but no one really knows the answers. 

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

We can Monday morning quarterback it for years, but no one really knows the answers. 

What is interesting is that people are already Monday morning quarterbacking and saying Harris was a poor choice and they knew it all along and yet after Trump's loss in 2020 this really didn't happen to him (clearly!).  So once again one rule for the dems and another for the republicans.  And I don't know if that will ever change.

[precious pupp]

I am so sad that younger women will have less rights than I've had.  I am a later Boomer, and I was so excited for this election and to possibly see a woman president in my lifetime.  Now, I am afraid that elections may be a thing of the past, and that other rights especially for women and the LGBTQ+ community will gradually (or not) be done away with.

Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings and fears in this forum.  

[Annber03]

15 minutes ago, Dimity said:

What is interesting is that people are already Monday morning quarterbacking and saying Harris was a poor choice and they knew it all along and yet after Trump's loss in 2020 this really didn't happen to him (clearly!).  So once again one rule for the dems and another for the republicans.  And I don't know if that will ever change.

Yeah, remember how people were thinking, after January 6th, "Well, surely the GOP is going to have to pivot from Trump now, he's radioactive waste."

And yet they didn't. And nobody ever bothered to ask them why they didn't want to go with someone else, why they kept insisting on hitching their wagon to a guy who, back in 2018 and 2020, was costing their party votes, and who, again, tried to violently overthrow a democratic election. 

Nope, instead the media just acted like it was totally normal that this guy who attempted a coup could run again, and obsessed over Biden's age and gaffes while shrugging off Trump's 'cause, "That's just Trump for ya!" 

No scrutiny for the Republicans and their choices. None. Not even when they do lose, like they did in 2020. But boy, people will happily go on at length with all the "coulda, shoulda, woulda"s for the Democrats. 

[dargosmydaddy]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Parties shouldn't be running candidates with obvious dementia.  

No, they really shouldn't, should they...