Just look at deep blue Chicago where “undocumented” immigrants are getting priority over actual residents. People aren’t happy about it nor should they be. Open borders are killing the Dems.
Openness to newcomers is a fundamental American virtue that I hope will be upheld to the same degree as the freedom of speech & religion, regardless of what voters think. You can't vote away the Constitution, and you can't vote closed the gates of heaven.
That doesn't -- surprisingly -- mean I disagree with your first sentence. The so-called progressive - and thus DNC -- attitude toward people who don't agree with their views has been, for quite some time, arrogant sanctimony rather than any attempt at empathy or at winning people over on the merits of the subject.
Democrats-at-large have retreated to a fatal degree from arguing for very many things at all on the merits of the subject. This is because many of their pillars do not in fact stand on any arguable merits. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to bizarre transgenderist pseudomedical practices. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to institutions or to minority groups form affirmative action programs. There is no gosh darn reason that mostly-middle-class student loan debtors should be relieved of their debt over, say, a working-class person with medical debt from an injury or credit card debt from a period of unemployment.
I am of the belief that, one to one, most people of any degree of religious faith can be helped to understand the fairness, benefit & rectitude of a welcoming approach to newcomers to this country. That is NOT, however, the approach of the Democratic-party-at-large, because its young & outspoken members are not politicians willing to discuss & compromise but absolutists who are accustomed to demand & victory. That is how they took the DNC and they very well expect to take the rest of society that way too. The fact that it isn't working doesn't faze them a bit.
You can go and welcome them into your house, you absolute clown. Enjoy the rape, and killers will keep you in nice company. 'Newcomers' lmao, is this the new term you invented for the criminals invading the country? People are being killed, you idiot. Your open border psychosis caused this.
Heaven is kept by St. Peter. Are you he? No - you bar men from this our Eden on the guilt of no crime or misdeed but of their birth!
Vile would-be tyrant over earthly heaven! This is the pride which damns you to misery in life - and after, indeed, hell must take even you, to roast you in some fitting pit.
Oblivion would be my sentence to the hater of his fellow man! Am I then more harsh or merciful than God?
Fundamental questions: 1) Should we have a border? 2) If so, is it our right and responsibility to control that border, to vet those coming in? 3) Does it help anyone when the there is a chaotic free-for-all on that border? This is the essence of common sense.
Rats indeed, we free! Rats who have eaten all your chains and empires and set Liberty the ruler of the world! Sensible to hate us so, who will not give tyranny a moment's peace, but chew at its bindings every second, wherever we can find them! Bring your proudest weapons, worm. It is life and liberty will take the day.
"Fight to save to Democracy... until the majority disagrees with you on a point"
If you want to make an argument for open borders dude that is your perogative but we can absolutely vote our gates closed and have in the past.
Gun rights are far more akin to the fundamental american nature of the rights to free speech and religion you laid out but (correct me if i'm wrong) i doubt you have the same absolutist attitude towards them.
Every attempt to close the gates has resulted in a bittering of factionalism and a taking of sides until all hell breaks loose. This happened before the Civil War when your dim lot tried to bar out Catholics, it happened before the Great Depression when your dim lot tried to bar out Eastern Europeans, and it happened before the turmoil of the 60s when your dim lot tried to bar out Asians & Latin Americans.
New blood disrupts partisanship because newcomers don't have the same sets of preferences. We are seeing this now with Asian-Americans, who prefer a strong government & good social services, but are also in favor of strong policing and selective schools, and are very leery of racialst policies, regardless of who they are intended to help. They thus don't fit cleanly into the existing Democratic or Republican set of preferences. It's the same with Latin Americans, who broadly favor a strong social safety net, but also broadly oppose abortion.
Moreover, on a local level, it's almost always newcomers who start to rejuvenate decayed neighborhoods, starting communities and businesses in places that are too grim for almost any born-here Americans to want to live in.
Those facts aside -- the right to keep and bear arms, being necessary to a well-regulated militia, is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. I think you will agree that regulation of some kind has become necessary, if it was not always, due to the advancement of technology. I think some on the left side of things have fixated on guns as the sole cause of urban violence, and have a fantasy that somehow banning all guns will turn every run-down neighborhood into sunny Sesame Street.
I think that is naive. Depressed areas in other countries are equally run-down and subject to crime. They don't have nearly the same murder rates -- but that indicates that guns aren't the cause of bad neighborhoods, but an aggravating factor that turns violence & street crime into murder. Yet the type of gun matters here least of all. They could be using Civil War revolvers without very much of a change in outcome. All the assault weapons bans in the world won't move the needle on the murder rate in DC -- but many on the left side are in denial about this. They have a firm belief that getting the guns out will "fix" these neighborhoods to their satisfaction, and they stick to it like the dickens, because they don't like considering any of the alternatives.
Some might feel this cold, but gun-related injury is not that high on the list of things that kill Americans. I have seen a few serious car accidents, been in a semi-serious one, and been on a bus that hit a woman, but I've never seen a gun in someone's hand who wasn't a police officer. I haven't lived in the nicest places, either.
If there ever happens to be the political will to clarify, qualify or narrow the 2nd amendment, such an act is definitionally within the Constitutional authority of the people. I don't think that's particularly likely in the near future, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world if it did happen. If your concern is fighting domestic tyranny, consider how the herdsmen of Afghanistan fought us -- homemade bombs. It is basically impossible to prevent people from building weapons of some kind darn quick in a technological society. There are enough supplies in a single Home Depot to equip a very effective resistance for years - take it from a chemistry major.
To return to the subject -- the free equality of a body of men is the fundamental element of a republic. Democracy, by comparison, is an ideal state in which each person in a society has an equal voice. These concepts are, as the mathematicians say, "orthogonal." Perfect democracy is inherently impossible, as some are incapable of registering their opinion, and all societies have made various rules about whose opinion counts - those of minors, felons, and noncitzens don't here, for example.
The attempt to approach as closely as possible to perfect democracy is noble. Yet it stumbles when, as happens with some frequency, the opinion of the majority is to give power to an autocrat. This is where the bands of the republic reinforce democracy. The republic does not permit an autocrat. The intervention of the republic enables the continuance of democracy.
That the free and equal body of men, for its preservation, which is the preservation of liberty itself, is obligated to grow itself as quickly and mightily as it can, the more ably to defend liberty from the tyrants of the world, I assert as a self-evident truth.
They who would constrict and contain the free and equal body of men -- putting it in danger from its enemies -- in some wrongheaded attempt to "keep a slice of the pie" -- apparently forgetting that sliced pie stales quick -- I hold them to be autocrats, small as they might be, and many as they might number.
You'll notice I didn't argue for "open borders." A free & equal body of men is permitted, for its preservation, to make rules about who may be admitted thereto. Those with criminal convictions or proven connections to criminal organizations, it is within the republic's power to bar, as it does citizens convicted of serious crimes.
I do think the barring out of innocent people coming here to work & to participate in our society is a moral wrong, a short-sighted, stupid, and self-harming act, and an affront to the principle of human brotherhood, which is the very basis of free society, and the rock on which rests our entire edifice -- not merely the United States, but the entire English world. It is brotherhood, and not blood, which is our root and pedestal.
My dude i have a double major in history and economics. If you have any academic source which backs up your position that ethnic diversity INCREASES the stability of nations I would LOVE to read it as basically all the academic studies which I have read on this subject say the opposite:
The case to be made for immigration (so far as it exists) is NOT in increasing the diversity of a nation (if you want to se what true diversity produces look up what happened to Yugslavia in the 1990s) the case for immigration is that it can happen WITHOUT increasing diversity. That we can ASSIMILATE the people who come to this nation into "Americans" and this itself can become a coherent ethnicity with a coherent socio-cultural bond. But to celebrate diversity is to celebrate the very thing which pushes against that. It is to celebrate what makes us different rather then what makes us the same, to drive us towards civil strife and ultimately civil war just as it did in the case of the british empire and the french empire and the spanish empire and all the other multi-ethic empires of europe that dies along the exact same axis time and time again: Diversity.
I didn't say anything about ethnic diversity. I said more people. I don't care which people. Europeans don't really reproduce anymore. You're left with other people.
>My dude i have a double major in history and economics
Politicians, for all their stripes, are a breed above, separate, and apart from the arrogant, incapable, ideological absolutists who are trying to replace them. And I do refer to the primitive partisans of both present parties.
Effective absolutists are one thing - these crude and garish goons are quite another. They are a pure embarrassment. And, again, I do refer to both styles of face-paint.
Has no country ever changed its government for the better? Politicians, those wily creatures of election and procedure, are an improvement on dictators and kings, and it really is as simple as that.
Dr. Y, if you had a shred of decency or shame, you would delete the offending comment and apologize. I was simply summarizing an important problem with the deal . . . and you call me a s**teater.
Ok Spiky, if you think that a poem should dictate immigration policy while you go on about your total obsession with transgender issues, you’re even stupider than I thought. Get a life outside substack, dumbass.
Let's call at an even two. Never know when they might have a baby tucked away somewhere. In a *hundred* years, that'll be...200 million people. And China has...*checks notes*...1.5 billion people. Some quick math will show us that that's....not even a drop in the gosh darn bucket.
Sometimes I wonder if you goombas are CCP assets. Your sort of shortsighted, pigheaded, unpatriotic, shallow greed is exactly what will result in China fast becoming the dominant power in the world. America needs more people or China wins. It's not a complicated problem.
We can for now omit the obvious fact that a welcoming posture toward newcomers is the foundation of how the United States became the sole preeminent world power...because I suspect, at root, you resent the fact that Liberty rules the world.
The US House is mostly made up of individuals who spend their two years in office working to get attention and raise money in hopes of being re-elected. That doesn't really allow for reading proposed legislation. Republicans haven't really fully embraced the Democrat strategy of never solving a problem that can be a wedge issue in the next election.
"Are the corperate whores who run our government corperate whores who want to keep the flow of undocumented immigrations coming into the country so they can keep wages low and destroy labor's negotiating power from the labor shortage???"
Acting like there isn't more than enough to go around in America -- of all places -- is the height of gauche. What the average American eats could feed two people. On that alone we could be doubled.
Think about what you're saying. "We should turn away these people so desperate for a better life that they risked everything to get here because....the rest of us might get paid a little less."
Have you considered that they are also workers? What a bizarre excuse for solidarity -- here we see a know-nothing nativist in socialist clothing. He thinks he's people!
The border deal, which would have handed border laws and any future enforcement over to the Democrat-controlled DC courts permanently, enabling an open border? the border deal that did nothing to stop the illegals from coming in and instead would have sped up the process of their Marxist judges allowing them to permanently stay in the country?
'Republicans' what 1 out of touch braindead RINO senator wanted is not what the party or the voters wanted. We'll make sure that traitor has a quick retirement. He can join Turtle Mitch McConnel, who's also retiring, and soon Biden will join them too.
I understand that the Republicans sent a bill to the Senate early in the current session, which has not even been reviewed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. With a Democrat president and Senate, what else do you suggest the Republicans do?
I don't think "vote for a bill you disagree with, because it's the only thing that will pass" is a reasonable compromise. The Republicans could say the same thing about their own bill, by demanding that the Democrats vote for it.
I'm in favor of Congress passing a law that will clear up a lot of open questions about immigration (specifically I would prefer making the legal process much faster and much easier, while making the process for anyone skipping that to be much harder, but I'm open to alternatives that make sense). What I'm not open to is one side demanding the other capitulate on a major issue that motivates their voters. It's a non-starter.
It sounds like you are advocating for a reasonable compromise, something I'm always in favor of. It is my understanding that this *was* a compromise, with Democrats giving Republicans are great deal of what they wanted, while retaining only a few of their own priorities (such as, as you said, making the legal process faster and easier). The bill also makes it faster and easier to kick out people trying to take advantage of asylum, something that we desperately need to be able to do.
We cannot expect Democrats to capitulate either, given that they hold the presidency and a majority in the Senate.
I have not read the bill, of course; it's absurdly long, so I'm aware I may have missed something. What about it struck you as requiring the Republicans to capitulate? What particular things about it were objectionable, in your opinion?
Ever since Rick Perry was Governor, Texas has spent billions of dollars on the border. If the problem still persists, then that suggests they haven’t actually been using that money on the border. According to my friend from Texas, it went to prisons instead. Granted, that’s just one state, but Texas has been under Republican control for decades now. They still haven’t fixed it and they can’t blame that on Democrats. Now imagine that on a national level. Republicans aren’t the ones who have to fix anything because they are the ones who broke it in the first place.
The key is getting those "newcomers" registered to vote in time to overwhelm actual disgruntled citizen voters in the next election. They've done it in California and transformed this state into a one-party fortress.
Democrats (and the GOP until Trump) think "immigrants" are a race. In reality they are many different races, and even when they are the same race current citizens don't necessarily have solidarity with illegal immigrants. Sometimes it's the opposite (illegal immigrants tend to overwhelm immigrant areas first).
The GOP needs to learn this lesson too. For a long time it though amnesty was the key to winning over immigrants, when in reality they vote on domestic issues like everyone else.
Nimbyist Democrats are complaining about a few thousand migrants. What happened to'sanctuary cities'? If the Democrats didn't have hypocrisy, they wouldn't have anything at all.
My sister, a Seattle-area liberal and news junkie, whose husband was a professor at the community college which held a "no White's day" event on campus two years ago, is - surprisingly, only a moderate-left Democrat, a Rutgers New Jersey transplant from 20 years ago. We can, and do, talk politics. She is reasonably acquainted with the 'operative" facts, considers me a loveable, thoughtful racist...etc., but she absolutely HATES Trump. The main point of my observation is simply that these people have moved to the handful of placeswhere these views predominate. She is no Prayapal Progressive, but that doesn't matter in suburban Seattle. (Yes, i know we have our crazies, too - but they are (thank God!) fairly dispersed throughout the 50 states. They don't "huddle" togehter in progressive caves, contemplating how to defeat those they consider 'Neanderrathals'!
I never understood why Trump broke these people. I mean there is nothing wrong with partisanship and plenty of people loathed W and hated Obama, but Trump hate was next level.
The answer is another entry in the annals of "look, just believe them when they describe what they're doing:" when they say he's trying to "trigger the libs," he's trying to trigger (cause trauma-like responses in) the libs (the supporters of his political opponents). The campaign figured out that playing in to the "rapist of America" narrative the media was constructing out of his numerous scandals elicited shrill responses from survivors, and made his supporters feel like they were on a successful offensive. The new stuff about blood and poison, and camps for immigrants, is an attempt to redouble the effort.
A co worker of mine was eating fish sticks. He dipped it in tartar sauce and took a bite. He then dipped it again and said, “Look! This fish stick is retart(d)ed!”
Yep. Dems (especially "progressives") deny reality at their own peril. It's a class thing, in the end: Dems used to be for the workingman; now Dems are for young white rich elite Wokeness. (Actually the Dem party is *not* solely for that but the loud 8% progressive minority who have captured media creates this perception.) Working class voters of all races are fed up with Dems and I don't blame them. Racializing everything and worrying about the .0001% of trans people (mostly rich white kids) and ignoring crime and immigration (which mostly affects working-class and low-income people) is a losing game. People are sick of the constant gaslighting, denial and projection. Time for change. I personally do not like Trump at all; nor do I think he's a solution. But Dems are failing.
Just try asking a so-called progressive if they think the Democratic Party's unblinking adherence to bizarre, barbaric & regressive genderist ideology could *possibbly in any way* be hurting them with any of these groups of voters.
You'll get called a -phobe for even asking the question. Not for advising any policy or reconsideration of doctrine - *merely for asking the question.*
Aside from the fact that the answer to that question seems to be a rather resounding DUH...the point is that, when you aren't even allowed to discuss a subject, what you end up with is called a "blind spot."
Do you think it's troubling that the data-free assertions of Psychologists are apparently, in America, taken as a basis for medical practice in the absence of scientific evidence? Do you think it becomes more troubling when unverifiable Psychological assertions are used as a basis for medical practice despite contradictory scientific evidence?
Do you think it's regressive that "gender" (i.e. sex-based stereotypes) is treated as "real" by purportedly reality-based medicine?
Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?
Are you capable of differentiating norms regarding individual adult behavior (as in, I don't think how you dress or what you do to yourself as an adult on your own initiative is anyone else's business within reasonable limits), and I certainly don't let sexual stereotypes affect my decisions) from the promulgation of purportedly "scientific" medical, Psychological, and institutional doctrines to which ideological adherence is demanded absolutely? Do you understand that acceptance of a prescriptive doctrine as a part of medicine is an entirely different subject from the rights of individuals?
There is a specific reason for that question. But, I'm fine without your answer. I already know what your answer is, as well as the majority of our neighbors too.
Yikes! that's a lot of mischaracterizations! "data-free assertions of psychologists made in absence of scientific evidence" is a quite scary phrase!
Too bad you made it up! Clearly you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion. Trans people aren't going anywhere, you can cry about it all you want! Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!
It's quite bizarre that you care so deeply about an issue which does not materially affect you! Maybe you should look into that.
It's a lot of questions, none of which you attempted to answer.
>Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!
The evidence, as it is finally permitted to come out, seems steadily to be moving policy & consensus in the opposite direction. The few purported lodestars of research justifying these practices - and even then only ever in Psychological terms, rather than evidence of whole-life benefit or a weighing of emotional benefit against physical consequence - have one and all proven not-even-crafty efforts at misrepresentation and distortion of muddled-at-best results *even under the plainly tilted conditions and questions used to conduct the investigations.* Not only was there no good evidence, *contradictory evidence was hidden.* How can that be defended? Why was there a motive for it to be done? Those who hide evidence do it for one reason: it contradicts the finding they would like to reach.
"It generally happens that in every bad cause some information arises out of the evidence of its defenders themselves, which serves to expose in one part or another the weakness of their defence. It is the characteristic of such a cause, that if it be at all gone into, even by its own supporters, it is liable to be ruined by the contradictions in which those who maintain it are for ever involved." - Burke
Lots of things don't materially affect me & yet I care about them because it upsets me to see other people harmed. I'm sorry you don't feel that way & I'm not really sure how you get through life with such a self-centered morality.
As for whether or not this materially affects me, however, let me ask you: when may I mourn for the sister I am told never was? Where does her grave stand & where does her memory lie? In me alone, & I may not speak of her? It will be the end of this nonsense that it has rent her, and many, from reality, sense, happiness, nature, and freedom: what has been done to her & to so many curious, loving & trusting people under color of medicine is a shocking horror that will be written in history books beside eugenics as a perversion of science and beside female genital mutilation as a primitive cultural barbarism. And it will be -- no society can long maintain itself on such cruel error and fundamental wronging of nature. Perhaps, like when people of reason fought & died for emancipation, we may expect some Americans to cling to this new barbarism for shockingly long once it is well ingrained in their thinking. I hope this moral evil is excised less painfully.
You should consider entering the ministry because you're better at preaching than you are at coming up with a coherent argument.
"Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?" is one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen, and yet you wonder why people don't answer you directly?
As someone with a, quote "lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation" I think I'm much more qualified to speak on its effects than you are? HRT is awesome and anybody who wants it should be able to get it :) The "negative effects" you speak of are the desired result for many people, and I've witnessed the life-saving psychological effects it has myself. Your fight against the inevitable is in vain. Trans people have always been here and we will remain. No amount of regressive rhetoric can exterminate us.
Who said anything about validity or needing care? Personally, I am disillusioned with the democratic party because my views, though they have not changed, have gone from radical left in the 1990s to DINO and "transphobic" today. Again, as Dr Y says, questions are not permitted.
My beliefs, if you're curious? I believe that gender dysphoria is real, and that you should get the treatment you need. The treatment should be covered by your insurance, whatever the treatment may be up to and including gender reassignment surgery. You should be able to use the restrooms you wish. However reasonable and accommodating that sounds to me, I am still transphobic because I don't think born-males should be playing in female sports, I think pronouns are absolute horseshit, and don't start with me about men and bleeding. Don't try to tell me who I am, and I won't try to tell you who you are.
The face of your movement doesn't help, either. Ms. Jenner might have been one hell of an athlete but not much of an academic.
Because I'm trans I have to like Caitlyn Jenner? That's genuinely idiotic, no trans person is a monolith. If I have to outright say it I'm not much of a fan of Dylan Mulvaney either lol. If you have a problem with a basic element of the English language, I think the change in your politics came from growing old and bitter, not the Democratic party moving in any direction.
And...what exactly are your credentials that qualify you to review the scientific evidence and conclude that you are right, and the American Psychiatric Association is wrong?
The great part is that I don't have to waste my time doing so, because scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this issue have arrived at a consensus on the issue. Either this "report" represents genuine advancement of scientific knowledge, in which case the scientific consensus will change to reflect that, or it is complete bullshit pseudoscience, in which case it will go down as one more piece of evidence of the Tories' unfitness to govern. I know which way I'm betting.
And in the event I did choose to read the report, I could actually evaluate it critically, because I have an advanced degree in a hard scientific field. How about you?
If you actually think that trans people are mostly rich white kids, it calls everything else you say and think into question. Because it's plainly nonsense, and if you were careful enough to be worth trusting you'd know that.
The trans population, at least in America, is less white than the overall population. And trans people are not well paid.
I think it's worth paying attention to simple facts like this. I don't actually know why the Democrats seem to be failing with nonwhite voters. But I do know how to check basic facts, and that it's not a good idea to trust anyone who doesn't.
your stats are from 2016. but either way the fact is most trans influencers are rich white kids, and they have an oversized role in political representation of trans people, which is a huge problem
Eh idk. I am a non-binary person who…sort of fits the stereotype? I am white. I’m 30, not exactly a kid anymore. A few years ago I got a fairly well paying job and now I do ok, but I haven’t ever really been rich.
I used to work for a camp serving mostly well off suburban kids. There were lots of non-binary people there, mostly rich white kids.
But I also attended a job training program around the same time - most attendees were nonwhite and low income. Just as many non-binary people there, almost all nonwhite. Tbh this surprised me as well. At this point I think the reason so many visible non-binary people are white is just the reality that in America, if you’re white, you’re more likely to be wealthy and much more likely to be well connected.
As a trans woman myself, if there's a party needlessly worrying over me I can assure you it's the party writing hundreds of bills targeting me because they think I'm a 'threat', not the party making virtue signals to people like me while offering 0 substantive legislative recognition.
You also have an overwhelming opposition to other gender-affirming surgery, such as breast implants, lipo, and other surgery that may women may get to appear more feminine right? That's also high on your radar?
Did you know cosmetic plastic surgery for minors occurs at more than 1000x the rate of any sort of transgender surgery in minors?
No teenager should be getting any cosmetic surgery of any kind. Its why in many states laws are passed banning minors from getting tatoos as well (and yes before you ask i aslo support bans on circumcision for minors). I will say on an AESTHETIC level castration in particular is particularly abhorent to me as it seems to have a higher degree of permnant mutilation then many of the other examples you listed.
I'd be the first to call out Trump if he did something I didn't like or betrayed the populist right, but he has not done so; instead, he has been the most committed politician to the cause.
You hate him for the same reasons. We love him. The media hates him for the same reasons we love him.
No you wouldn't. You've drank the Kool-Aid. He bows to some of the worst asset-stripping globalist billionaire owners one can imagine, like Bob Mercer, Paul Singer and Carl Icahn, and you just ignore it.
If trans people dont want to be viewed as a threat maybe they shouldn't directly attempt to antagonize people.
People can have their personal views about the morality of homosexuality but the truth is the REASON homosexuality ultimately got normalized in this country is that homosexual people acted like normal people. They didn't put on their fetish get ups and go read stories to 6 year olds nor did they (for the most part) twerk naked on public streets durring pride month NOR did they try to piss in the same bathroom as people who were made uncomfortable by it.
If Gender really is a "meaningless social construct to you" why do you CARE what bathroom you piss in?
If the difference is """"meaningless"""" to you why not just be polite to people who dont feel the same way??
who is "they" ? You're making up a person to get mad at, when did I say anything about bathrooms? I don't even use the women's, mainly for my own safety so your angry jab didn't even land. I'm polite to the people around me and don't force my identity down people's throats, why should my healthcare be restricted by the government because a few weirdos who also call themselves trans make you uncomfortable?
If a child wants hormones, if their parents are okay with them having hormones, and their doctor says "it is in the best medical interest of this child to be allowed to take hormones"
Why the fuck should the government be allowed to step in and say "no! you CAN'T have hormones"
for the same fucking reason the government should step in to say "NO! You cant have your child fuck adults"
A child can """want""" to be a pirate, a wizard or a Jedi.
An adult understands a child isn't old enough to make serious decisions just as they aren't old enough to decide to fuck yet.
I dont care if parents "are okay" with children cutting their dicks off anymore then i'm okay with parents who "are okay" with children having sex with adults.
Its a degenerate practice and in any decent society it would be punishable by years in prison.
And i am willing to fight and die to ensure it is punishable by years in prison in this country.
Are you?
Would you die for the right of CHILDREN to cutt off their dicks???
You're correct , Sincere AM. Those auto workers are definitely... elitists. Oh, and crimes are down, according to the FBI. But then that doesn't fit your narrative.
You're not being held hostage. As an American citizen you're help would be most appreciated I'm fairly confident. It is odd that even the churches have bad apples, you'd like to believe that pretty much every organization does. But then, some choices are difficult. Tis' simple to compile your own charts to fit whatever it is you'd like it to. I'm too lazy, I'd rather listen to people like you and then move on to my next set of errors.
Why hasn't the FBI arrested a single Epstein client? They have the entire client list, along with recorded videos. You know the answer, but you're too afraid to say it.
I'm afraid to say what? That you're a fucking idiot who has absolutely the worst traits of humanity wrapped up into a shit hole called Ed, who fears to have a profile picture?
Naw, I'm not fearful of anyone's ignorance, though admittedly, I still have empathy for those 900 Jim Jones, Kool aid drinkers and their selfless love for authority.
My vote goes to the guy who hasn't called our POW's losers.
Here’s another one for you. Why did the FBI not only protect Dr Larry Nassar despite numerous accusations of sexual assault by gymnasts, but also changed the testimony of some of the victims?
Nah, crime rates are fine. Far, far lower than they were when I grew up. It's just the media sensationalizing things because they make more money by scaring cowardly little pissants like you.
You are the one who chooses to live in fear. Leave the rest of us out of it.
It actually hit worldwide after that video was public. Wouldn't you imagine that may have an effect on our neighbors, and what they may consider fairness? Look at the 112 individuals trump pardoned in his last year in office. Be honest with yourself. Do any of those pardons bother you in any way? I'm inclined to guess that a good many people are viewing how unfair justice can be, and do things they'd not normally do.
The idea that trans people are mostly rich white kids is new to me. Many famous trans women are black (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock), and so many of the trans women out on the streets are people of color.
Honestly I feel like conservative media is more worried about trans issues than traditional outlets and even most progressive sites. It's certainly a major issue. But my impression is that it's talked about by conservatives more.
Why are you obsessed with such a tiny group of people? And what do you gain by focusing so much vitriol on them? It's not like Democrats are forcing young children to tell their parents they are in a state of distress? Perhaps a walk will calm your nerves.
Modern progressives are naïve philosophical idealists who believe that if a bill is called the “Inflation Reduction” Act then it must just be about reducing inflation. How could it be otherwise? Just as Antifa is solely about opposing fascism and nothing else. What else could it be about?
Obama doubled the debt and Biden has created an un-sustainable fiscal situation. You want to call out the GOP for being hypocrites on spending you 100 percent have a point , but have no illusion about Democrats.
How effective was Trump at smashing the navel-gazing complacency in 2016? From where I'm sitting, his election seemed to make far left progressives more influential and more strident, not less.
Well since 2016, he's helped reveal the corrupt nature of once trusted institutions: mainstream media, Hollywood, education, our justice systems, our healthcare institutions.
He literally made the institution MORE corrupt you absolute fucking troglodyte. The Supreme Court is a fucking shitshow BECAUSE of Trump. I'm so fucking tired of braindead fucks like yourself even having a vote. You retarded fucks need a fucking bullet in the head.
Ahh, dehumanizing. It comes so easy to the left. They are so so empathetic, when you agree with them. And of course, if you don't, it doesn't impact their ethical stance because you're not even evolved yet. It's simple, if you don't agree, you are unevolved, if you are unevolved, you wouldn't understand their position, and as long as they own the media, entertainment, and Hollywood, they can reinforce their self-constructed new dictionary for the dystopia to come. They have achieved such heights, to hate, build systems of hate, institutionalize racism, and yet see themselves as moral pillars. Such a sad irony.
Yes, because the cities of Oakland, SF, Seattle, Baltimore, Chicago, LA and NYC are such ideal role models for the left. People are fleeing those cities because they have failed.
Wait I missed the part where Trump nominated Sotomayor and Jackson. You know, the left wing judges who voted along with the conservatives 9-0 against the lawfare of the Democrats.
So, why do we bother, if everything is corrupt. No need to answer. I'm only curious on my pet problems anywho. Should Clarence Thomas remain on the Supreme Court?
Perhaps you're right. it would be better to have a POTUS who mocks POWs, and has so many advisers and allies sentenced to prison. Or I suppose a threatened bloodbath could sway myself and a few more undecided voters. His promises to drain the swamp might rid the Supreme Court of corruption as well. The fake charity and scamming of college students should show his strength just as well as Putin's fair elections have.
I can see your point, but my opinion, as a neutral outside observer, is that the far left progressives are acting up out of fear for their loss of power, not because Trump made them stronger. That is, while they were totally hegemonic they did not need to be so strident; their stridency is a defensive mechanism against the Trump hammer effect.
That's why as a far leftie myself I'm gladly risking the chance of Trump winning by voting third party! Every election loss the democratic party suffers strengthens the fringes of the party, which I reside in. It's the same process that created Trump, and with enough time we'll see an angry young authoritarian populist leftist arise out of a dying party similar to Trump in 2016.
Kevin, it may become way worse than what Izzy is suggesting. I see compromising and center politics both becoming pasé, sadly. Lies are now misinformation or misspoken. Mocking POWs is normal. Money now controls our last hope, the Supreme Court.
I mean we've gotten people on the left to finally admit that what's happening at the border is a crisis so thats a start.
We also have bipartisan conensus on protectionism to reshore US manufacturing and se China as a threat rather then a partner.
Affirmative Action got rolled back and DEI programs are now facing the chopping block in lawsuit after lawsuit across the country.
Roe v Wade was overturned.
You may not care about any of this as it is it may not be your policy preference but for a person who actually CARES about conservative priorities Trump was basically the best president we've had in 4 decades.
If by "hammer" you mean "reeking diaper geezer" and by "smash the system" you mean "embarrass America to a degree that will take decades to recover from if it ever happens" then...sure!
Stop being a moron. You are literally the other half of the stupidity spiral that is killing this country.
You will defeat ugliness and idiocy by voting for someone with dignity & decency -- you will never do it by voting for a bigger, uglier idiot. The other side will just get uglier and stupider in response. You will be voting for the big mouth's bloated zombie corpse still hoping his dead hand will "smash the system." How were you raised, that you turned out such a vicious little goon?
I'm not telling who you to vote for. I'm telling you who you *are*, if voting for that clown has ever crossed your mind.
I'm not even American, I'm European. I can assure you that Trump doesn't embarrass you as much as the senile man who soiled his pants in an audience with the Pope. Talk about a “reeking diaper geezer”!
Nobody fucking cares what the 70-year-old grandma from Germany thinks of a US president when her only knowledge of the matter comes from the mainstream media that screech nothing but 'orange man baaad' all day and night.
Trump is a hero among the actual people who know a damn; he's the literal symbol of telling the elites to go fuck themselves.
I can tell you dipshit there will be a party in my country when the dementia piece of garbage Biden is defeated and Trump returns to bring back peace and order not just to America but the world.
Still lying about that, I see you are really triggered by the factby the fact that Trump helped working and middle -lass ffamilies. Do't the rich not pay any taxes at aall,according to you mMarxists? Howcan their taxes be cut iifthey are already at 0zero Trump's tax cuts were and still are very popular because they helped eeveryone,unlike BBidenflation,which only helped billionaire multi-nationals tcam Americans away from their hard -arned mmoney.
You Democrat dogs love this trick. You used the same trick to scam half the country out of stimulus checks. Trump wanted to give everyone $1,000 stimulus without exceptions, but you bastards cried day and night, 'Oh, Jeff Bezos shouldn't get $1,000!' Then you made up some insanely stupid metrics and scammed everyone who has a house or any amount of property from the stimulus checks.
Those questions generally ask about “Does President X consider the interests of your country?” or questions with a similar gist. It's one thing to think that a foreign country's leader is disloyal enough to his own people to put you as a foreigner first; it's another thing to think he is a good leader /for his own people/. Look at this: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/06/27/international-views-of-biden-and-u-s-largely-positive/pg_2023-06-27_us-image_00-04/. It's reported as “International Views Of Biden And U.S. Largely Positive” but really it's asking us if we think Biden puts us ahead of his own people. That's not a good thing—unless you're us lol.
So I can tell you that the sentiment has often been that we think Trump is an asshole (true) who doesn't consider Europe's preferences (true), but that we wish we had an asshole like him sticking up for our own country. That kind of question doesn't show up on Pew polling though. Speaking as a statistician myself, I warn you not to be so credulous about the stats you read. They are curated by someone to present the narrative they want.
You've focused on just one of the many questions they discuss on the page. Others ask about whether the president does "the right thing" in general (presumably embarrassing actions would not be considered "the right thing"), and others show that the US is increasingly viewed as more economically powerful than China since Trump left power. I agree that stats can and have been abused, but the "sentiment" you observe in your own social circle is not even data.
And speaking of being credulous... the meme that Biden "soiled his pants" originated purely from a tweet by the former Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman (https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1454389989521907716), who has never presented any evidence of this and has every reason to promote gossip about Biden.
Again, doing “the right thing” is clearly going to be interpreted through a lens of what is right for the respondent's country. As for the economic score, it's strange that you would attribute that to Biden rather than to the collapse in the Chinese economy due in part to their insane anti-covid measures.
On the “soiled his pants” meme, it was first promoted in the US in that tweet but was privately confirmed by Vatican officials to the European media.
Just a little friendly advice from an impartial observer: I don't think your behavior in this thread is winning any converts to your cause. If you wish to help Biden, and I'm sure you're sincere in that, I suggest you be a little less obnoxious about it. As I say, just a little advice: make of it what you will.
Why would they care about converting people? If a person is actually considering voting for Trump they're already a lost cause that is better off 6 feet under the dirt.
Typical marxist, sadly for you, the only one who will be 6 feet under is dementia. Joe will hopefully survive until November and maybe January, so one of his last memories will be losing to Trump and witnessing Trump's heroic historicinauguration.
I don't particularly want to help Biden & I advise you to read more carefully. I like Biden, the man, but the Democratic Party's policies on several subjects are utterly odious. I would prefer him to Trump -- an open enemy of liberty & the constitutional system -- but that is saying very, very little.
It is farcical for anyone who has voiced support for that man to call for civility. The hypocrisy is just plopping out of your wherever. Nasty!
People like you are the reason why more voters are flocking to Trump. All the politicians claiming to be "moral" (whatever that means) or "decent" have driven our country into the ground. Both parties. People don't care about Trump's warts. They agree with his policies. As they should.
Policies like directing a gang of morons to assault Congress? Policies like a psychotic "shaman" in face paint jumping around the sacred halls of Congress? Those sorts of policies?
I just noticed that about 50% of comments in this thread is just you letting your TDS flag fly. That's pretty hilarious. I'm willing to bet that you were a BIG believer in the Russia hoax. I can recognize that energy anywhere.
What is your Trump origin story? What was it that set you off originally? It wasn't the Russia hoax. By that time, you were already gone. So what happened before that that made you say to yourself: I hate Donald Trump?
I'm genuinely curious. I can tell you what made me pay attention to DJT for the first time. He made a joke (?) saying Hillary got shlonged out of the nomination. The best part? He had the nerve to suggest it was in no way sexual. I liked the cut of his jib then there.
But if you can't remember time Before Trump (BT) I understand as well. TDS is a hell of a drug.
Still falling for mainstream media lies eh? The riot at the Capitol was already in progress while Trump was speaking. He authorized up to 100,000 NG troops. Pelosi and Bowser declined. He told people to make their voices heard peacefully. These are all facts.
He's literally on twitter downplaying the event this many years later and denying that it was a breach of law & order. The problem with your boy is, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on every issue, so you and I can both be right about what he's said or insinuated.
I shouldn't focus on Jan 6th. His actual betrayal of the republic is refusing to recognize the results of the election. That is a bit more conceptual of a betrayal, and his voters don't tend to understand the gravity of that act. (And no, it doesn't matter that he says it was "rigged".)
Fortunately, he went and doubled down, then watched on TV while a riot - your word - attempted to storm Congress in his name as it certified an election. Now it's all laid out nice and clear for even the dimmest among us.
Do you know what a President with have an ounce of love for his country would have done?
He would have gone down there in person and told them to stop.
He didn't. He let it happen while he watched TV. Your President!
Odd that the FBI and other intel communities refuse to answer the questions of if and how many intel assets were in the crowd. Odd that 40,000 hours of video were withheld from the sham J6 show trial. Odd that Capitol Police opened the magnetically sealed doors and let people in, waving them in. Odd that Ray Epps wasn't rotting in a cell pre-trial like hundreds of others, some who did nothing but walk into a builiding they were let into. Odd that there wasn't much violence until the police starting shooting gas canisters into the crowd. Odd that the two pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC sat there for over a day while cops just walked around it. Odd that both Pelosi and Bowser rejected Trump's offer of 20,000+ National Guard troops. So very odd.
Ask yourself a simple question: why are Democrats so vehemently against voter ID? After all, I need to show ID when I buy alcohol; when I get a library card, when I board an airplane, when I sometimes use a credit card. You know the answer deep down inside, but you're too ashamed to admit it.
Refusing to recognize the results of the election because it was stolen. And polls show a growing majority of Americans agree. Swing states all stopping the count at midnight; data dump at 3am that went 99% for Biden; states changing election laws illegally to allow mail in and drop off ballots; Republican poll watchers kicked out of polls. Yeah, nothing to see there lol.
embarrass the country? Good lord the worlds on fire due in no small part to out betters in Washington. I'll take the embracing 2016-2020 years and I imagine the hundreds of thousands who have died over the last three would as well.
No one is my better. If you believe you are ruled by your betters, that would explain your desire for autocracy.
You accidentally raise an interesting point: do people with low self-esteem prefer autocracy? If someone doesn't even trust themselves to govern their own life, why would they trust people to govern themselves? The yearning for an autocrat is really the yearning for the simplicity and authority-enforced bounds of childhood.
Understand I'm not being one-sided here. The fundamental error among progressives-at-large today is an autocracy of ideology and idea -- they, feeling lost & powerless, have set the therapist and the Psychologist as their "betters", as the people whose advice is certified to lead to a "happy existence." They seek desperately outside themselves for guidance, rather than looking within, gathering their own information and drawing their own conclusions.
Do understand, I rate the near-fatal problems of the Democratic Party as far more deep-rooted and difficult to excise than that of the Republicans. On the right, one big mouth needs to go. He doesn't have an ideology other than himself & you'll mostly all come of your psychosis when he's gone.
On the left, on the other hand, nearly an entire generation of pseudo-academics, bureaucrats & ideologues has breathed venomous racialist & genderist ideology into nearly an entire young generation. This is a catastrophic injury that will require herculean efforts to mend -- certainly it's like a hydra -- and I expect to spend quite possibly the rest of my adult life arguing with this cult's insipid die-hards & trying to excise their ideology from every crevice it has infiltrated. It's a grim prospect but I'll bear my cross.
The thing is, these people don't make up enough of the Democratic Party to elect a president. They can't agree on any single candidate because they can find a skeleton or at least a smoking toe-bone in any closet if they look hard enough. Biden whupped 'em. When Biden's gone, someone else sane will whup them again. These people are far more dangerous at the local & institutional level by means of takeovers of school boards and corporate/nonprofit boards.
A coherent, competent, conservative Republican is desperately needed by this country, yet you goombas have done your darndest to prevent that from happening. Fortunately, it's not entirely up to you. Our republic is the backstop & guardrail of our democracy, and it operates by firmer oaths.
Trump was a delivery boy for his billionaire owners Bob Mercer, Wilbur Ross, Carl Icahn, and Diane Hendricks; he gave you guys nothing but empty slogans.
When will so-called "conservatives" get back to asking the classic conservative question, "What's in this for me?"?
He didn't drain your swamp, he just changed the monsters.
My man whether you give a shit about or not Donald Trump is the reason affirmative action got overturned.
I KNOW what I got out of voting for him: I got an end to the system of racial apparthied that had been descrminating against people with my color skin since that shit was enacted in the 1960s.
It is no longer legal to racially descriminate against me and that is a benefit for me, and my children and the children they will have one day.
“What's in this for me?” is a paradigmatically liberal question (in the correct sense that Nate understands the word, not the stupid American usage meaning “socialist”).
Young men of all backgrounds are shifting dramatically to Republicans. The podcast ecosphere is filled with young men of diverse background lamenting on Democrat rule.
It was only a matter of time before the charade that the Democrat Party actually cares about people of color would disintegrate. From slavery and the KKK to the horrible Jim Crow laws of the last century the Democrats have a long history of racism and using the underprivileged for political purposes.
Your understanding of American history is lacking. Stop talking about shit you have no fucking clue about.
It's not even that difficult man. The South votes Republican. The South seceded from the Union to continue practicing slavery. Connect the fucking dots you retarded fuck.
in the 1950's and 60's the a significant swath of the Democrat party prioritized race in policy making. In the 2020's a significant swath of the Democrats prioritize race in policy making. Explain how this isn't true? In the 1950's many democrats supported segregation . In 2020 many Democrats reintroduced segregation policies. Explain how that isn't true either.
The Senate and House votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives you the answer. If you completely disregard former confederate states you'll find that Republicans voted against it at a rate of 5:1 compared to Democrats.
Why should we disregard the confederate states? Because damn near every representative from them, Republican or Democrat, voted against it. The vote was not partisan but based on geography. The funny thing to me is that the only representatives from the former confederate states that voted for it, were Democrats. Not a single Republican did.
Representatives vote on legislation in a way to get themselves reelected. Meaning the voters of the former confederate states did not want the Civil Rights Act passed. Who do you think the descendants of those voters are currently voting for? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Democratic Party.
And the legislation you point strives to remove race and color from policymaking. A choice continued in later reforms and reaffirmed multiple times by the courts. The modern Democrat party is quite clear in rejection of this vision in favor of race based polices they believe will be politically beneficial to them. How many Democrats today would vote for a bill that demands race NOT be used as a factor in policy or law?
"The modern Democrat party is quite clear in rejection of this vision in favor of race based polices they believe will be politically beneficial to them.
Let's start with the low hanging fruit of affirmative action programs based on racial preferences. Then we can move on to specifics such as the Biden admins Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government or the adoption of an Executive order for DEI in the work force.
To go further we can look at Democrat strong holds such as California and New York adopting reparations commissions. And you will certainly find on a myriad of race programs on a county and municipal level designed for marginalized or underserved communities not to mention policies and programs on college campuses, technical not government (excepting public colleges) but non-profits in most cases accept cash from the Fed making them subject t regulation. All of these programs and rhetoric flout the idea of a color blind society and we are now at the point that to advocate a color blind society could be considered racist. I stand by my contention the modern Democratic Party wild not support the race neutral concepts of the 64 legislation and if a legislation was introduced in Congress today that people should be judged on their individual worth and merit not their race most Democrats would not vote for it.
You’re right that the party’s history of slavery and Jim Crow are irrelevant to contemporary politics. It’s just historical trivia. But it’s ironic that the party of hatemongering against minorities became the party of hatemongering to minorities.
>But it’s ironic that the party of hatemongering against minorities became the party of hatemongering to minorities.
Even this isn't true. The Southern Democrats split from the actual Democratic Party prior to the 1860 election because of the abolitionist-esque platform they were going to run on.
Biden’s open borders policies are now responsible for a growing measles outbreak in Chicago. Oh, and there’s a diarrhea outbreak at O’hare. Be careful changing planes. He is the gift that keeps on giving.
1. I remember the polling numbers among Blacks looked good for Trump in 2020, but the election results weren't as good. (I will leave aside the question of whether big city fraud was a factor in that.)
2. I live in South Texas. Yet I was blown away by how strong Trump was in the Rio Grande Valley in 2020. He took counties that have gone Democrat since FDR. Hispanics really are realigning. They certainly are in Texas.
On your point #1, Biden's results were strangely variegated. He slightly underperformed in most black areas, but in a handful of black cities in swing states run by strong party machines he won record-breaking totals, mostly from postal votes, vastly exceeding Obama's scores in those black districts.
Just like the red wave in 2022 right? The country is far too polarized for anything like 1980 to happen. Reagan won CA and NY. I mean come on that’s not happening.
The "red wave" was vibes-based and the polls really weren't that bad. Dems overperformed by like 2 or 3 points, but did lose the House after all. I didn't mean the specific states would line up the same, and with polarization the EV probably won't be so lopsided, but some solid blue states could be within single digits.
Even if we aren’t talking specific states, Reagan won 44 states. Trump has won 55 across 2 elections. So if we are talking about landslide I just don’t see it in this political environment.
I agree that the country is too polarized for anything remotely resembling 1980, but I don't know that I'd rely on 2022 as evidence of what will happen in 2024 (any more than relying on 2010 as a predictor of 2012). Democrats now have the highly engaged super-voters who come out for midterms and specials, whereas it used to be the Republicans who did.
I mean fair but Trump winning by 2016 margins (300 electoral votes) to me seems completely possible.
He is polling better then he ever has in a general election and historically, when he was the ballot, he has ALWAYS overperformed his polling average now maybe that wont be true this time but even if there is polling average in Biden's favor the same degree to which there was in 2020 for Trump:
2022 was the worst thing that could happen to you pathetic liberals you can't screech 'OBSUTRCTIONISTS! REPUBLICANS FAUAAALT!' like Obama did for years you have to own Biden's failures
This is a bizarre conclusion based on the primary votes, the first real data we have. Biden kept it locked down -- Trump lost 20-40% to Haley in most states. As for the Republican & MAGAverse response to this inconvenient fact -- talk about denialism!
I think the Trump vs Biden rematch election will have below-average turnout and would be reasonable close & just not that exciting.
That is not, however, the election we are facing. There has never been a better-looking year for a 3rd party or an independent to make a serious run. No Labels will soon be announcing a Unity ticket with a conservative small-R republican for President and a moderate liberal for VP. There's also RFK Jr, obviously, but I think he threw in too early, and the buzz is already fading. (And the vaccines thing is fading into the background somewhat as we move further from covid.)
A real three-plus-way split -- with three or more candidates winning states -- results in a decision by the House among the top-three electoral vote-getters, with each state's delegation voting as a bloc with one vote,
It could be possible, for example, for Romney to run and take nothing but Utah, with Biden & Trump splitting the rest evenly between them, to wind up with a 265-265-10 electoral vote result -- in that case, Romney with 10 electoral votes could quite possibly be the next President, if that's what the House decides.
There hasn't been a contingent election like this since the 1830s, but who knows what could happen! Imagine knowing after this November that this decision was waiting on the docket for the end of December. Now there's two months that might be utterly unpredictable.
I wouldn't bet on a third-party winning any states. Remains a deep longshot. But it could very easily pull Perot-ish numbers and decide the election, probably in Trump's favor.
I mostly agree on your assessment of Trump vs. Biden though. A landslide is very unlikely. Both guys have net disapproval, so few are very excited about voting. The battle lines here are pretty static, with few swing voters, and it's nigh-impossible to pull off those sorts of swings in such an environment.
When 1980 happened, the US had just had a landslide 8 years earlier, and another 8 years before that. We've now gone 40 years without one, and I don't think the time to bet on one is with a guy with net disapproval, who has lost the popular vote twice.
>I wouldn't bet on a third-party winning any states. Remains a deep longshot.
This is always the safe thing to say, so I don't really think it needs to be said.
>But it could very easily pull Perot-ish numbers and decide the election, probably in Trump's favor.
The evidence from the primaries so far shows that vastly more Republicans are looking for an alternative than are Democrats. Democrats-at-large have spent the past two years (at least) hand-wringing in an absolute frenzy over Biden's age and the narrowness of his victory over Trump, & calling for a new candidate in '24.
Where is he? Dean Philips threw his hat in and no one was interested. No other elected Democrats ran - either they didn't see a need, or they didn't have the guts.
This is the first year that No Labels is running a presidential ticket, and their decision to do so has been controversial among their membership. The group is closely associated with the Problem Solvers' Caucus, which has been behind quite a large number of the things that have been *actually accomplished* in Congress in the last decade or so. Their decision to run a Unity ticket rather than endorsing Biden is much more significant than it would seem
I'd urge you to dig into No Labels & into the council of twelve they elected internally yesterday to propose a candidate. The twelve people making the decision are an interesting group - two retired senior military officials, a few former Republican mayors and other officials, one of Martin Luther King Jr's closest proteges....
This is anything but a billionaire's vanity campaign -- whether it has a snowball's chance remains to be seen, but if, say, Joni Ernst accepted the top slot on a Unity ticket -- not crazy, as she broke with Trump hard after Jan 6 but has stayed quiet since -- I think her taking a plurality in Iowa or NH is very plausible. That puts her on the map, so she'll be in contention in a contingent election, if the few states she takes hold Trump & Biden both to under 270. (And she would be the rather obvious compromise candidate in that case, too.)
I suppose I'm skeptical of these sorts of arguments. I don't think they should be judged by the same standard. Voting against a standing incumbent in a primary is a basically a revolt and a vote of no confidence. Voting against a nonincumbent former President can be a lot of things.
We know what a good primary performance is for an incumbent. By that standard, Biden is doing mediocre -- significantly better than Bush did in '92, but to my knowledge worse than all the incumbents since then.
What is a good primary performance for a former President looking for a nonconsecutive second term? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, other than to say he needs to do better than an ordinary competitive primary but we should expect him to do worse than an incumbent's primary. Which is exactly the space he's in. It tells us very little.
I imagine I'll be looking into No Labels more. But I have trouble believing that they can win a state unless their PV comes in significantly ahead of Perot in '92, and that's a tall order. Why should their votes be more geographically concentrated than his? I'd believe it much more for a candidate with extremely regional appeal, like the Dixiecrats of old, but it sounds like they're basically running as a national party.
Try to pick at the numbers however you like. They are what they are & they clearly worry you. They should. Haley's voters were a mix of independents, some Democrats, and a lot of decent Republicans. Most will probably vote for Biden, in a two-way race, and that is exactly your problem. You can't win on Trumpians alone. Trump is a weak candidate & most other Republicans -- Haley included -- would far outperform him in a general election. Doubling down on him is an act of mass stupidity -- or it would be, if any of his voters were actually small-R republican, or if they had a shred of a clue what that word "republic" means. Evidently they have other paramount priorities such as "nuh-uh" and nose-thumbing. Who are we to judge?
Biden, on the other side, outperforms basically every other Democratic candidate (aside from nameless "generic Democrat.") So, despite incessant & very public whining from the worst elements of the party, Democrats have ended up with the strongest of their possible candidates this year, while Republicans have ended up with their weakest.
This would be considered an unfortunate happening for Republican prospects -- if very many Republicans still lived in reality...yet it's merely down to a toss-up because a heck of a lot of the Democratic party has left reality too. Despite Biden's personal moderation, he's increasingly seen as incapable or unwilling to restrain the nutbar people in his party. So Trump vs Biden will be close -- but this year didn't have to be. Haley vs Biden would already be over. You might consider a game getting sent to overtime better than winning, and it is, I suppose, more exciting, but in my consideration that would make you rather an odd bod.
You like to hear yourself (read) right? Writing giant body of text. No matter how much you write and whine and argument, Trump will be POTUS! Deal with it.
As long as Biden refuses to hold extended interviews with serious journalists, not the partisan cable entertainment news crowd and hold long overdue unscripted press conferences how can Democrats expect to turn this around. If the argument is I am not Trump, or the economy which to many working class families have not benefited nearly as much as those fully invested in the stock market then trouble lies ahead. Remember how many working class independents come home and over the dinner table talk about January 6 as opposed to those rising mortgage payments or the cost of living? To attack Trump Democrats will need more than a partisan SOTU speech read off a teleprompter where once Biden went off script he used the offensive term illegals! If Trump did that Katie bar the door.
Turns out that Hispanics don’t like open borders, blacks don’t like defunding the police and Asians don’t like leveling-down educational excellence in the name of “equity.”
More likely, this is part of the realignment where Democrats are becoming more the party of upper middle class educated people, and the Republicans are becoming more the party of working class / lower middle class people.
If you live in a Poor Hispanic Border County you may hate Border Policies simply because of local effects. Besides an "Open Border" is when I get in my Car In Chico & drive to Reno - along the way I pass a sign that says "Welcome to Nevada".
I can't wait to watch Chicago swing when their beloved'sanctuary city' actually has to give'sanctuary''to illegals.
Reminder: It took a few thousand illegals shipped to New York, and Democrats lost their minds, but Texas had to deal with millions of illegals for years. I really hope they are shipped into the liberal haven of New England. Vermont could use some 'diversity' ; maybe send Biden's new Haitian friends over there.
Biden and Democrats haven’t solved the issues that people need them to solve. Inflation was bad. They released a $7tn budget proposal, and funded huge EV incentives which aren’t wanted by the public to name just two. The other issues are crime, homelessness and drug addiction. On top of that immigration. I’m not saying that republicans will do any better- they usually increase spending, cut taxes and fail to fix the immigration system but there’s two parties and one holds the presidency. It’s about policies, not Bidens age or trumps court cases.
There's been a gap starting to open between nonwhite voters and their "community leaders", and especially between them and "community organizers". It was particularly stark in Virginia in 2021. In the city of Richmond, where such organizers are as thick as grass on the ground, McAuliffe's results among minority voters were about as usual. But Youngkin did very well among minority voters outside the city and outside the inner Washington suburbs, where the people who administer the grant programs that benefit community organizers live.
Another point that was made last night on one program is that this minority progress, especially among black voters, is not even. Black women still support Democrats about as they always have done since 1964. But black men, often bearing the brunt of "progressive" social agendas, are shifting, and shifting fast.
There's a new acronym that describes the new base of the Democratic Party: "AWFL" (Affluent White Female Liberals). That is now the group to whom the Democratic Party most caters.
You're definitely right about one thing. The term "liberal" is no longer an accurate description of what is going on in this new Democratic base. The word "progressive" is used, though I dislike its new use when it formerly meant Teddy Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette and, the last example of that movement, Bob Dole. It may not be too much of a stretch to call it "socialist" or "Marxist", though, with only a couple of examples, "Marxist-Leninist" would indeed be a stretch. But this is what is taught in universities across the country. (And I'm a professor in a graduate school where such things are NOT taught.)
Indeed, this one of the reasons why the polls are cooked - large sample hispanic polls do not show massive decline from 2020, large sample black polls don't, large sample young-voter polls also do not.
If Trump wins, it'll be because of white voters and erasing Biden's gains among suburban whites in 2020.
Biden doesn't have the lowest approval rating ever. It's roughly where both Bush and Truman's approval ratings were at at this point in their respective presidencies. And Trump's own approval rating fell below 38 (where Biden is currently) at different times during his presidency
Just look at deep blue Chicago where “undocumented” immigrants are getting priority over actual residents. People aren’t happy about it nor should they be. Open borders are killing the Dems.
Openness to newcomers is a fundamental American virtue that I hope will be upheld to the same degree as the freedom of speech & religion, regardless of what voters think. You can't vote away the Constitution, and you can't vote closed the gates of heaven.
That doesn't -- surprisingly -- mean I disagree with your first sentence. The so-called progressive - and thus DNC -- attitude toward people who don't agree with their views has been, for quite some time, arrogant sanctimony rather than any attempt at empathy or at winning people over on the merits of the subject.
Democrats-at-large have retreated to a fatal degree from arguing for very many things at all on the merits of the subject. This is because many of their pillars do not in fact stand on any arguable merits. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to bizarre transgenderist pseudomedical practices. Nothing has ever shown any long-term benefit to institutions or to minority groups form affirmative action programs. There is no gosh darn reason that mostly-middle-class student loan debtors should be relieved of their debt over, say, a working-class person with medical debt from an injury or credit card debt from a period of unemployment.
I am of the belief that, one to one, most people of any degree of religious faith can be helped to understand the fairness, benefit & rectitude of a welcoming approach to newcomers to this country. That is NOT, however, the approach of the Democratic-party-at-large, because its young & outspoken members are not politicians willing to discuss & compromise but absolutists who are accustomed to demand & victory. That is how they took the DNC and they very well expect to take the rest of society that way too. The fact that it isn't working doesn't faze them a bit.
You can go and welcome them into your house, you absolute clown. Enjoy the rape, and killers will keep you in nice company. 'Newcomers' lmao, is this the new term you invented for the criminals invading the country? People are being killed, you idiot. Your open border psychosis caused this.
Heaven has strict border controls.
Hell has open borders.
Heaven is kept by St. Peter. Are you he? No - you bar men from this our Eden on the guilt of no crime or misdeed but of their birth!
Vile would-be tyrant over earthly heaven! This is the pride which damns you to misery in life - and after, indeed, hell must take even you, to roast you in some fitting pit.
Oblivion would be my sentence to the hater of his fellow man! Am I then more harsh or merciful than God?
Your nick is "RealEuropeanPatriot" and have a photo of an American president.
You are the carnal epithome of Yalta brainwashing.
In other words, you are basically a cuck
Damn, dude. It's enough to just say "I prefer less immigration".
Immigration is a legal process. These savage criminals storming the border are committing a crime. Do not conflate the two.
Fundamental questions: 1) Should we have a border? 2) If so, is it our right and responsibility to control that border, to vet those coming in? 3) Does it help anyone when the there is a chaotic free-for-all on that border? This is the essence of common sense.
Openness to newcomers via _legal and controlled_ immigration, not open borders chaos and insanity.
Just can't get past your third word. Newspeak.
"Newcomer" etymology: from Middle English newe-comere, equivalent to new- + comer. Compare Old English nīwcumen (“new comer, neophyte, novice”).
I read books older than 1984 -- apologies if my archaic language is confusing.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say to facilitate immigration. “Newcomers” are not welcome; they are rats who should be exterminated.
That’s fucking Nazi type language
Rats indeed, we free! Rats who have eaten all your chains and empires and set Liberty the ruler of the world! Sensible to hate us so, who will not give tyranny a moment's peace, but chew at its bindings every second, wherever we can find them! Bring your proudest weapons, worm. It is life and liberty will take the day.
"Fight to save to Democracy... until the majority disagrees with you on a point"
If you want to make an argument for open borders dude that is your perogative but we can absolutely vote our gates closed and have in the past.
Gun rights are far more akin to the fundamental american nature of the rights to free speech and religion you laid out but (correct me if i'm wrong) i doubt you have the same absolutist attitude towards them.
Every attempt to close the gates has resulted in a bittering of factionalism and a taking of sides until all hell breaks loose. This happened before the Civil War when your dim lot tried to bar out Catholics, it happened before the Great Depression when your dim lot tried to bar out Eastern Europeans, and it happened before the turmoil of the 60s when your dim lot tried to bar out Asians & Latin Americans.
New blood disrupts partisanship because newcomers don't have the same sets of preferences. We are seeing this now with Asian-Americans, who prefer a strong government & good social services, but are also in favor of strong policing and selective schools, and are very leery of racialst policies, regardless of who they are intended to help. They thus don't fit cleanly into the existing Democratic or Republican set of preferences. It's the same with Latin Americans, who broadly favor a strong social safety net, but also broadly oppose abortion.
Moreover, on a local level, it's almost always newcomers who start to rejuvenate decayed neighborhoods, starting communities and businesses in places that are too grim for almost any born-here Americans to want to live in.
Those facts aside -- the right to keep and bear arms, being necessary to a well-regulated militia, is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. I think you will agree that regulation of some kind has become necessary, if it was not always, due to the advancement of technology. I think some on the left side of things have fixated on guns as the sole cause of urban violence, and have a fantasy that somehow banning all guns will turn every run-down neighborhood into sunny Sesame Street.
I think that is naive. Depressed areas in other countries are equally run-down and subject to crime. They don't have nearly the same murder rates -- but that indicates that guns aren't the cause of bad neighborhoods, but an aggravating factor that turns violence & street crime into murder. Yet the type of gun matters here least of all. They could be using Civil War revolvers without very much of a change in outcome. All the assault weapons bans in the world won't move the needle on the murder rate in DC -- but many on the left side are in denial about this. They have a firm belief that getting the guns out will "fix" these neighborhoods to their satisfaction, and they stick to it like the dickens, because they don't like considering any of the alternatives.
Some might feel this cold, but gun-related injury is not that high on the list of things that kill Americans. I have seen a few serious car accidents, been in a semi-serious one, and been on a bus that hit a woman, but I've never seen a gun in someone's hand who wasn't a police officer. I haven't lived in the nicest places, either.
If there ever happens to be the political will to clarify, qualify or narrow the 2nd amendment, such an act is definitionally within the Constitutional authority of the people. I don't think that's particularly likely in the near future, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world if it did happen. If your concern is fighting domestic tyranny, consider how the herdsmen of Afghanistan fought us -- homemade bombs. It is basically impossible to prevent people from building weapons of some kind darn quick in a technological society. There are enough supplies in a single Home Depot to equip a very effective resistance for years - take it from a chemistry major.
To return to the subject -- the free equality of a body of men is the fundamental element of a republic. Democracy, by comparison, is an ideal state in which each person in a society has an equal voice. These concepts are, as the mathematicians say, "orthogonal." Perfect democracy is inherently impossible, as some are incapable of registering their opinion, and all societies have made various rules about whose opinion counts - those of minors, felons, and noncitzens don't here, for example.
The attempt to approach as closely as possible to perfect democracy is noble. Yet it stumbles when, as happens with some frequency, the opinion of the majority is to give power to an autocrat. This is where the bands of the republic reinforce democracy. The republic does not permit an autocrat. The intervention of the republic enables the continuance of democracy.
That the free and equal body of men, for its preservation, which is the preservation of liberty itself, is obligated to grow itself as quickly and mightily as it can, the more ably to defend liberty from the tyrants of the world, I assert as a self-evident truth.
They who would constrict and contain the free and equal body of men -- putting it in danger from its enemies -- in some wrongheaded attempt to "keep a slice of the pie" -- apparently forgetting that sliced pie stales quick -- I hold them to be autocrats, small as they might be, and many as they might number.
You'll notice I didn't argue for "open borders." A free & equal body of men is permitted, for its preservation, to make rules about who may be admitted thereto. Those with criminal convictions or proven connections to criminal organizations, it is within the republic's power to bar, as it does citizens convicted of serious crimes.
I do think the barring out of innocent people coming here to work & to participate in our society is a moral wrong, a short-sighted, stupid, and self-harming act, and an affront to the principle of human brotherhood, which is the very basis of free society, and the rock on which rests our entire edifice -- not merely the United States, but the entire English world. It is brotherhood, and not blood, which is our root and pedestal.
My dude i have a double major in history and economics. If you have any academic source which backs up your position that ethnic diversity INCREASES the stability of nations I would LOVE to read it as basically all the academic studies which I have read on this subject say the opposite:
https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332
The case to be made for immigration (so far as it exists) is NOT in increasing the diversity of a nation (if you want to se what true diversity produces look up what happened to Yugslavia in the 1990s) the case for immigration is that it can happen WITHOUT increasing diversity. That we can ASSIMILATE the people who come to this nation into "Americans" and this itself can become a coherent ethnicity with a coherent socio-cultural bond. But to celebrate diversity is to celebrate the very thing which pushes against that. It is to celebrate what makes us different rather then what makes us the same, to drive us towards civil strife and ultimately civil war just as it did in the case of the british empire and the french empire and the spanish empire and all the other multi-ethic empires of europe that dies along the exact same axis time and time again: Diversity.
I didn't say anything about ethnic diversity. I said more people. I don't care which people. Europeans don't really reproduce anymore. You're left with other people.
>My dude i have a double major in history and economics
Shew, don't tell, "my dude."
The older and outspoken members of Congress are politicians....
I'll allow you to complete the above sentence in your own words.
"." -- and I believe that does suffice.
Politicians, for all their stripes, are a breed above, separate, and apart from the arrogant, incapable, ideological absolutists who are trying to replace them. And I do refer to the primitive partisans of both present parties.
Effective absolutists are one thing - these crude and garish goons are quite another. They are a pure embarrassment. And, again, I do refer to both styles of face-paint.
Understand this, Dr. Y. Every single country has the exact type of government, or lack of, that it deserves to have.
Has no country ever changed its government for the better? Politicians, those wily creatures of election and procedure, are an improvement on dictators and kings, and it really is as simple as that.
Republicans killed their own border deal because Trump told them to.
It was a horrible "deal" that would have legalized a lot of what Biden is doing.
Why were Congressional Republicans ready to pass it until Trump gave the order not to? Are they all secretly in league with Biden & the illegals?
Sh*t-swallower.
Yeah, a lot of them are. It was a horrible deal. The immigration restrictionists who aren't MAGA (CIS, Mickey Kaus,etc) all uniformly rejected it.
Nativists all bear the same evil mark.
The claim was that the GOP killed the border deal because of Trump, dumbfuck.
Such a high level of reasoned discussion.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
---
Better? If you had a shred of real education or human sensibility I could speak with you by means of reason, but you don't.
Dr. Y, if you had a shred of decency or shame, you would delete the offending comment and apologize. I was simply summarizing an important problem with the deal . . . and you call me a s**teater.
Eff off, jerk.
Ok Spiky, if you think that a poem should dictate immigration policy while you go on about your total obsession with transgender issues, you’re even stupider than I thought. Get a life outside substack, dumbass.
I was replying to Dr. Y, not ER, to be clear.
There is no reasoning with you retarded fucks.
Dr Y: 5000 illegals a day is over 1.8 million a year. Are you okay with that?
Don't feed the troll. He's made his case ad nauseam, and it lacks merit entirely.
Let's call at an even two. Never know when they might have a baby tucked away somewhere. In a *hundred* years, that'll be...200 million people. And China has...*checks notes*...1.5 billion people. Some quick math will show us that that's....not even a drop in the gosh darn bucket.
Sometimes I wonder if you goombas are CCP assets. Your sort of shortsighted, pigheaded, unpatriotic, shallow greed is exactly what will result in China fast becoming the dominant power in the world. America needs more people or China wins. It's not a complicated problem.
We can for now omit the obvious fact that a welcoming posture toward newcomers is the foundation of how the United States became the sole preeminent world power...because I suspect, at root, you resent the fact that Liberty rules the world.
Wow, you are so incredibly stupid.
You want a couple of billion people here? Fuck you idiot.
That's a myth.
The US House is mostly made up of individuals who spend their two years in office working to get attention and raise money in hopes of being re-elected. That doesn't really allow for reading proposed legislation. Republicans haven't really fully embraced the Democrat strategy of never solving a problem that can be a wedge issue in the next election.
"Are the corperate whores who run our government corperate whores who want to keep the flow of undocumented immigrations coming into the country so they can keep wages low and destroy labor's negotiating power from the labor shortage???"
YES!
Acting like there isn't more than enough to go around in America -- of all places -- is the height of gauche. What the average American eats could feed two people. On that alone we could be doubled.
Think about what you're saying. "We should turn away these people so desperate for a better life that they risked everything to get here because....the rest of us might get paid a little less."
Have you considered that they are also workers? What a bizarre excuse for solidarity -- here we see a know-nothing nativist in socialist clothing. He thinks he's people!
lol tell me you've never been hungry without telling me you've never been hungry.
Not everyone was born in the upper middle class dickhead.
The border deal, which would have handed border laws and any future enforcement over to the Democrat-controlled DC courts permanently, enabling an open border? the border deal that did nothing to stop the illegals from coming in and instead would have sped up the process of their Marxist judges allowing them to permanently stay in the country?
'Republicans' what 1 out of touch braindead RINO senator wanted is not what the party or the voters wanted. We'll make sure that traitor has a quick retirement. He can join Turtle Mitch McConnel, who's also retiring, and soon Biden will join them too.
So what you’re saying is Republicans suck on border policy and refuse to fix it.
I understand that the Republicans sent a bill to the Senate early in the current session, which has not even been reviewed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. With a Democrat president and Senate, what else do you suggest the Republicans do?
I don't think "vote for a bill you disagree with, because it's the only thing that will pass" is a reasonable compromise. The Republicans could say the same thing about their own bill, by demanding that the Democrats vote for it.
I'm in favor of Congress passing a law that will clear up a lot of open questions about immigration (specifically I would prefer making the legal process much faster and much easier, while making the process for anyone skipping that to be much harder, but I'm open to alternatives that make sense). What I'm not open to is one side demanding the other capitulate on a major issue that motivates their voters. It's a non-starter.
Mr. Doolittle,
It sounds like you are advocating for a reasonable compromise, something I'm always in favor of. It is my understanding that this *was* a compromise, with Democrats giving Republicans are great deal of what they wanted, while retaining only a few of their own priorities (such as, as you said, making the legal process faster and easier). The bill also makes it faster and easier to kick out people trying to take advantage of asylum, something that we desperately need to be able to do.
We cannot expect Democrats to capitulate either, given that they hold the presidency and a majority in the Senate.
I have not read the bill, of course; it's absurdly long, so I'm aware I may have missed something. What about it struck you as requiring the Republicans to capitulate? What particular things about it were objectionable, in your opinion?
Why is it the republicans job to fix something Biden broke? Aren't you retards the 'party in power' ? I guess Mike Johnson is the real President.
Ever since Rick Perry was Governor, Texas has spent billions of dollars on the border. If the problem still persists, then that suggests they haven’t actually been using that money on the border. According to my friend from Texas, it went to prisons instead. Granted, that’s just one state, but Texas has been under Republican control for decades now. They still haven’t fixed it and they can’t blame that on Democrats. Now imagine that on a national level. Republicans aren’t the ones who have to fix anything because they are the ones who broke it in the first place.
The key is getting those "newcomers" registered to vote in time to overwhelm actual disgruntled citizen voters in the next election. They've done it in California and transformed this state into a one-party fortress.
Democrats (and the GOP until Trump) think "immigrants" are a race. In reality they are many different races, and even when they are the same race current citizens don't necessarily have solidarity with illegal immigrants. Sometimes it's the opposite (illegal immigrants tend to overwhelm immigrant areas first).
The GOP needs to learn this lesson too. For a long time it though amnesty was the key to winning over immigrants, when in reality they vote on domestic issues like everyone else.
Nimbyist Democrats are complaining about a few thousand migrants. What happened to'sanctuary cities'? If the Democrats didn't have hypocrisy, they wouldn't have anything at all.
Thought Biden used the term illegals which from the President is a major error.
His documentation status should be: Dead by firing squad. The illegal alien scum bastard should be sent to Gitmo at least.
Dude get a life lol.
Open borders and constant war.
My sister, a Seattle-area liberal and news junkie, whose husband was a professor at the community college which held a "no White's day" event on campus two years ago, is - surprisingly, only a moderate-left Democrat, a Rutgers New Jersey transplant from 20 years ago. We can, and do, talk politics. She is reasonably acquainted with the 'operative" facts, considers me a loveable, thoughtful racist...etc., but she absolutely HATES Trump. The main point of my observation is simply that these people have moved to the handful of placeswhere these views predominate. She is no Prayapal Progressive, but that doesn't matter in suburban Seattle. (Yes, i know we have our crazies, too - but they are (thank God!) fairly dispersed throughout the 50 states. They don't "huddle" togehter in progressive caves, contemplating how to defeat those they consider 'Neanderrathals'!
I never understood why Trump broke these people. I mean there is nothing wrong with partisanship and plenty of people loathed W and hated Obama, but Trump hate was next level.
The answer is another entry in the annals of "look, just believe them when they describe what they're doing:" when they say he's trying to "trigger the libs," he's trying to trigger (cause trauma-like responses in) the libs (the supporters of his political opponents). The campaign figured out that playing in to the "rapist of America" narrative the media was constructing out of his numerous scandals elicited shrill responses from survivors, and made his supporters feel like they were on a successful offensive. The new stuff about blood and poison, and camps for immigrants, is an attempt to redouble the effort.
It's true, the modern left is too weak. We really should be rounding up and executing Republican trash like the traitors to America they are.
Illegal aliens*
Does that make them petarded?
A co worker of mine was eating fish sticks. He dipped it in tartar sauce and took a bite. He then dipped it again and said, “Look! This fish stick is retart(d)ed!”
Yep. Dems (especially "progressives") deny reality at their own peril. It's a class thing, in the end: Dems used to be for the workingman; now Dems are for young white rich elite Wokeness. (Actually the Dem party is *not* solely for that but the loud 8% progressive minority who have captured media creates this perception.) Working class voters of all races are fed up with Dems and I don't blame them. Racializing everything and worrying about the .0001% of trans people (mostly rich white kids) and ignoring crime and immigration (which mostly affects working-class and low-income people) is a losing game. People are sick of the constant gaslighting, denial and projection. Time for change. I personally do not like Trump at all; nor do I think he's a solution. But Dems are failing.
I wrote about Black Americans' views re Pew research here (like you said: Not progressive): https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/some-surprising-data-on-black-americans
Michael Mohr
"Sincere American Writing"
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Just try asking a so-called progressive if they think the Democratic Party's unblinking adherence to bizarre, barbaric & regressive genderist ideology could *possibbly in any way* be hurting them with any of these groups of voters.
You'll get called a -phobe for even asking the question. Not for advising any policy or reconsideration of doctrine - *merely for asking the question.*
Aside from the fact that the answer to that question seems to be a rather resounding DUH...the point is that, when you aren't even allowed to discuss a subject, what you end up with is called a "blind spot."
Dr.Y, This 66 year old, queer "so-called progressive" is here ready to discuss. Great profile name, by the way.
Do you think it's troubling that the data-free assertions of Psychologists are apparently, in America, taken as a basis for medical practice in the absence of scientific evidence? Do you think it becomes more troubling when unverifiable Psychological assertions are used as a basis for medical practice despite contradictory scientific evidence?
Do you think it's regressive that "gender" (i.e. sex-based stereotypes) is treated as "real" by purportedly reality-based medicine?
Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?
Are you capable of differentiating norms regarding individual adult behavior (as in, I don't think how you dress or what you do to yourself as an adult on your own initiative is anyone else's business within reasonable limits), and I certainly don't let sexual stereotypes affect my decisions) from the promulgation of purportedly "scientific" medical, Psychological, and institutional doctrines to which ideological adherence is demanded absolutely? Do you understand that acceptance of a prescriptive doctrine as a part of medicine is an entirely different subject from the rights of individuals?
Yes, to all of your questions.
My turn.
Do you think, as a society, we should have registration, permits and some amount of schooling before allowing anyone to become a parent?
I didn't say you get a turn, and you certainly haven't earned one with that silly question.
“Yes” is a pretty clear answer to your questions. Imo give and take is both fair and normal. You ceded your turn when you clicked “post.”
There is a specific reason for that question. But, I'm fine without your answer. I already know what your answer is, as well as the majority of our neighbors too.
Have a most pleasant weekend.
Yikes! that's a lot of mischaracterizations! "data-free assertions of psychologists made in absence of scientific evidence" is a quite scary phrase!
Too bad you made it up! Clearly you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion. Trans people aren't going anywhere, you can cry about it all you want! Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!
It's quite bizarre that you care so deeply about an issue which does not materially affect you! Maybe you should look into that.
>Yikes! that's a lot of mischaracterizations!
It's a lot of questions, none of which you attempted to answer.
>Doctors influence medical policy, not politicians, and if the majority of doctors say trans people are valid and need special care, eventually that'll be the opinion that comes out on top!
The evidence, as it is finally permitted to come out, seems steadily to be moving policy & consensus in the opposite direction. The few purported lodestars of research justifying these practices - and even then only ever in Psychological terms, rather than evidence of whole-life benefit or a weighing of emotional benefit against physical consequence - have one and all proven not-even-crafty efforts at misrepresentation and distortion of muddled-at-best results *even under the plainly tilted conditions and questions used to conduct the investigations.* Not only was there no good evidence, *contradictory evidence was hidden.* How can that be defended? Why was there a motive for it to be done? Those who hide evidence do it for one reason: it contradicts the finding they would like to reach.
"It generally happens that in every bad cause some information arises out of the evidence of its defenders themselves, which serves to expose in one part or another the weakness of their defence. It is the characteristic of such a cause, that if it be at all gone into, even by its own supporters, it is liable to be ruined by the contradictions in which those who maintain it are for ever involved." - Burke
Lots of things don't materially affect me & yet I care about them because it upsets me to see other people harmed. I'm sorry you don't feel that way & I'm not really sure how you get through life with such a self-centered morality.
As for whether or not this materially affects me, however, let me ask you: when may I mourn for the sister I am told never was? Where does her grave stand & where does her memory lie? In me alone, & I may not speak of her? It will be the end of this nonsense that it has rent her, and many, from reality, sense, happiness, nature, and freedom: what has been done to her & to so many curious, loving & trusting people under color of medicine is a shocking horror that will be written in history books beside eugenics as a perversion of science and beside female genital mutilation as a primitive cultural barbarism. And it will be -- no society can long maintain itself on such cruel error and fundamental wronging of nature. Perhaps, like when people of reason fought & died for emancipation, we may expect some Americans to cling to this new barbarism for shockingly long once it is well ingrained in their thinking. I hope this moral evil is excised less painfully.
You should consider entering the ministry because you're better at preaching than you are at coming up with a coherent argument.
"Do you think lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation (and the multitude of negative effects thereof) is a remotely reasonable, proportionate or acceptable consequence for a Psychologically-oriented treatment program with never-more-than-dubious evidence for even Psychological benefit?" is one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen, and yet you wonder why people don't answer you directly?
As someone with a, quote "lifelong dependence on hormonal supplementation" I think I'm much more qualified to speak on its effects than you are? HRT is awesome and anybody who wants it should be able to get it :) The "negative effects" you speak of are the desired result for many people, and I've witnessed the life-saving psychological effects it has myself. Your fight against the inevitable is in vain. Trans people have always been here and we will remain. No amount of regressive rhetoric can exterminate us.
Who said anything about validity or needing care? Personally, I am disillusioned with the democratic party because my views, though they have not changed, have gone from radical left in the 1990s to DINO and "transphobic" today. Again, as Dr Y says, questions are not permitted.
My beliefs, if you're curious? I believe that gender dysphoria is real, and that you should get the treatment you need. The treatment should be covered by your insurance, whatever the treatment may be up to and including gender reassignment surgery. You should be able to use the restrooms you wish. However reasonable and accommodating that sounds to me, I am still transphobic because I don't think born-males should be playing in female sports, I think pronouns are absolute horseshit, and don't start with me about men and bleeding. Don't try to tell me who I am, and I won't try to tell you who you are.
The face of your movement doesn't help, either. Ms. Jenner might have been one hell of an athlete but not much of an academic.
Because I'm trans I have to like Caitlyn Jenner? That's genuinely idiotic, no trans person is a monolith. If I have to outright say it I'm not much of a fan of Dylan Mulvaney either lol. If you have a problem with a basic element of the English language, I think the change in your politics came from growing old and bitter, not the Democratic party moving in any direction.
And...what exactly are your credentials that qualify you to review the scientific evidence and conclude that you are right, and the American Psychiatric Association is wrong?
You may read the reports of the NHS on the subject for yourself.
The great part is that I don't have to waste my time doing so, because scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this issue have arrived at a consensus on the issue. Either this "report" represents genuine advancement of scientific knowledge, in which case the scientific consensus will change to reflect that, or it is complete bullshit pseudoscience, in which case it will go down as one more piece of evidence of the Tories' unfitness to govern. I know which way I'm betting.
And in the event I did choose to read the report, I could actually evaluate it critically, because I have an advanced degree in a hard scientific field. How about you?
If you actually think that trans people are mostly rich white kids, it calls everything else you say and think into question. Because it's plainly nonsense, and if you were careful enough to be worth trusting you'd know that.
The trans population, at least in America, is less white than the overall population. And trans people are not well paid.
I think it's worth paying attention to simple facts like this. I don't actually know why the Democrats seem to be failing with nonwhite voters. But I do know how to check basic facts, and that it's not a good idea to trust anyone who doesn't.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-wage-gap-among-lgbtq-workers-in-the-united-states
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Race-Ethnicity-Trans-Adults-US-Oct-2016.pdf
Trans is a grift for leftist white kids to leap to the top of the progressive stack.
You do not live in the real world.
That might be true of some of the Q+ categories, but I don't think it's generally true of trans people.
your stats are from 2016. but either way the fact is most trans influencers are rich white kids, and they have an oversized role in political representation of trans people, which is a huge problem
turns out it's easier to look good (i am including camera equipment) if you're rich!
Eh idk. I am a non-binary person who…sort of fits the stereotype? I am white. I’m 30, not exactly a kid anymore. A few years ago I got a fairly well paying job and now I do ok, but I haven’t ever really been rich.
I used to work for a camp serving mostly well off suburban kids. There were lots of non-binary people there, mostly rich white kids.
But I also attended a job training program around the same time - most attendees were nonwhite and low income. Just as many non-binary people there, almost all nonwhite. Tbh this surprised me as well. At this point I think the reason so many visible non-binary people are white is just the reality that in America, if you’re white, you’re more likely to be wealthy and much more likely to be well connected.
As a trans woman myself, if there's a party needlessly worrying over me I can assure you it's the party writing hundreds of bills targeting me because they think I'm a 'threat', not the party making virtue signals to people like me while offering 0 substantive legislative recognition.
You are a male with a mental disorder
Ratio
You're a cultist who gibbers in duckspeak.
My dude you literally support an ideology based on convincing the mentally ill to castrate themselves if they think were born "in the wrong body"
You also have an overwhelming opposition to other gender-affirming surgery, such as breast implants, lipo, and other surgery that may women may get to appear more feminine right? That's also high on your radar?
Did you know cosmetic plastic surgery for minors occurs at more than 1000x the rate of any sort of transgender surgery in minors?
Yes you dumb fuck yes.
No teenager should be getting any cosmetic surgery of any kind. Its why in many states laws are passed banning minors from getting tatoos as well (and yes before you ask i aslo support bans on circumcision for minors). I will say on an AESTHETIC level castration in particular is particularly abhorent to me as it seems to have a higher degree of permnant mutilation then many of the other examples you listed.
But on principle i am against all of it.
I think it is all child abuse.
You're in a cult too, one concerned with controlling others' very selves according to your religion.
It's 2024, not 1524.
That shit is beyond played out.
My dude you are literally claiming i am in a cult for supporting a guy who questioned the legitimacy of an election while youe advocate
children.
cutting.
their.
fucking.
dicks.
off.
because.
they.
are.
anxiety.
The fucking irony if fathomless.
I'd be the first to call out Trump if he did something I didn't like or betrayed the populist right, but he has not done so; instead, he has been the most committed politician to the cause.
You hate him for the same reasons. We love him. The media hates him for the same reasons we love him.
No you wouldn't. You've drank the Kool-Aid. He bows to some of the worst asset-stripping globalist billionaire owners one can imagine, like Bob Mercer, Paul Singer and Carl Icahn, and you just ignore it.
If trans people dont want to be viewed as a threat maybe they shouldn't directly attempt to antagonize people.
People can have their personal views about the morality of homosexuality but the truth is the REASON homosexuality ultimately got normalized in this country is that homosexual people acted like normal people. They didn't put on their fetish get ups and go read stories to 6 year olds nor did they (for the most part) twerk naked on public streets durring pride month NOR did they try to piss in the same bathroom as people who were made uncomfortable by it.
If Gender really is a "meaningless social construct to you" why do you CARE what bathroom you piss in?
If the difference is """"meaningless"""" to you why not just be polite to people who dont feel the same way??
who is "they" ? You're making up a person to get mad at, when did I say anything about bathrooms? I don't even use the women's, mainly for my own safety so your angry jab didn't even land. I'm polite to the people around me and don't force my identity down people's throats, why should my healthcare be restricted by the government because a few weirdos who also call themselves trans make you uncomfortable?
As long as your over 18 I dont think it should.
But there is a push in your comunity for it to be extended towards people who are under 18 and that is utterly fucking unacceptable.
It is the moral equivilant of pedophilia.
If a child wants hormones, if their parents are okay with them having hormones, and their doctor says "it is in the best medical interest of this child to be allowed to take hormones"
Why the fuck should the government be allowed to step in and say "no! you CAN'T have hormones"
In answer to your question:
for the same fucking reason the government should step in to say "NO! You cant have your child fuck adults"
A child can """want""" to be a pirate, a wizard or a Jedi.
An adult understands a child isn't old enough to make serious decisions just as they aren't old enough to decide to fuck yet.
I dont care if parents "are okay" with children cutting their dicks off anymore then i'm okay with parents who "are okay" with children having sex with adults.
Its a degenerate practice and in any decent society it would be punishable by years in prison.
And i am willing to fight and die to ensure it is punishable by years in prison in this country.
Are you?
Would you die for the right of CHILDREN to cutt off their dicks???
You're correct , Sincere AM. Those auto workers are definitely... elitists. Oh, and crimes are down, according to the FBI. But then that doesn't fit your narrative.
The same FBI that hasn't arrested a single Epstein client? The same FBI that ignored sexual abuse reports from US gymnasts? Color me shocked.
You're not being held hostage. As an American citizen you're help would be most appreciated I'm fairly confident. It is odd that even the churches have bad apples, you'd like to believe that pretty much every organization does. But then, some choices are difficult. Tis' simple to compile your own charts to fit whatever it is you'd like it to. I'm too lazy, I'd rather listen to people like you and then move on to my next set of errors.
Why hasn't the FBI arrested a single Epstein client? They have the entire client list, along with recorded videos. You know the answer, but you're too afraid to say it.
I'm afraid to say what? That you're a fucking idiot who has absolutely the worst traits of humanity wrapped up into a shit hole called Ed, who fears to have a profile picture?
Naw, I'm not fearful of anyone's ignorance, though admittedly, I still have empathy for those 900 Jim Jones, Kool aid drinkers and their selfless love for authority.
My vote goes to the guy who hasn't called our POW's losers.
Have a marvelous weekend, sweetie.
Here’s another one for you. Why did the FBI not only protect Dr Larry Nassar despite numerous accusations of sexual assault by gymnasts, but also changed the testimony of some of the victims?
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1036968966/gymnasts-nassar-fbi-senate-hearing-simone-biles-aly-raisman-wray
Afraid to answer the question. It’s a simple one. Why hasn’t the FBI arrested a single Epstein client?
Nah, crime rates are fine. Far, far lower than they were when I grew up. It's just the media sensationalizing things because they make more money by scaring cowardly little pissants like you.
You are the one who chooses to live in fear. Leave the rest of us out of it.
It actually hit worldwide after that video was public. Wouldn't you imagine that may have an effect on our neighbors, and what they may consider fairness? Look at the 112 individuals trump pardoned in his last year in office. Be honest with yourself. Do any of those pardons bother you in any way? I'm inclined to guess that a good many people are viewing how unfair justice can be, and do things they'd not normally do.
The idea that trans people are mostly rich white kids is new to me. Many famous trans women are black (Laverne Cox, Janet Mock), and so many of the trans women out on the streets are people of color.
Honestly I feel like conservative media is more worried about trans issues than traditional outlets and even most progressive sites. It's certainly a major issue. But my impression is that it's talked about by conservatives more.
Why are you obsessed with such a tiny group of people? And what do you gain by focusing so much vitriol on them? It's not like Democrats are forcing young children to tell their parents they are in a state of distress? Perhaps a walk will calm your nerves.
Republicans voted against every measure to alleviate inflation.
What measures would those be? Increasing deficit spending worsens inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods.
Modern progressives are naïve philosophical idealists who believe that if a bill is called the “Inflation Reduction” Act then it must just be about reducing inflation. How could it be otherwise? Just as Antifa is solely about opposing fascism and nothing else. What else could it be about?
Wow. How profound.
"Increasing deficit spending worsens inflation."
Yet for the past 40 fucking years, Republican administrations always raise the deficit while Democratic ones lower it. Crazy how that works.
Obama doubled the debt and Biden has created an un-sustainable fiscal situation. You want to call out the GOP for being hypocrites on spending you 100 percent have a point , but have no illusion about Democrats.
You're a braindead partisan hack go shag your DNC donkey body pillow you twat
Sounds like that hit a sore spot. Are you gonna cry?
God, conservatives are so fucking weak.
Hang yourself
Cry more loser
It's actually much more nuanced than that. Deficit spending can also boost supply by helping increase the workforce.
Capping prescription drug costs?
If only we passed 4 trillion more $ for Ukraine then magic fairy godmother Zelensky would have granted our wish of inflation disappearing!
Gotta ask, how much does Putin actually pay you for this? Or are you doing this just for the honor of sucking his tiny manlet dick?
If we tried spending the money in the US, you would be calling it socialism
Trump is a necessary hammer to smash the system out of its navel-gazing complacency.
No one likes getting hit by a hammer. Hammers aren't aesthetically pleasing. But they serve a useful purpose.
How effective was Trump at smashing the navel-gazing complacency in 2016? From where I'm sitting, his election seemed to make far left progressives more influential and more strident, not less.
Well since 2016, he's helped reveal the corrupt nature of once trusted institutions: mainstream media, Hollywood, education, our justice systems, our healthcare institutions.
He literally made the institution MORE corrupt you absolute fucking troglodyte. The Supreme Court is a fucking shitshow BECAUSE of Trump. I'm so fucking tired of braindead fucks like yourself even having a vote. You retarded fucks need a fucking bullet in the head.
Troglodyte, huh? Your communication style doesn’t sound very advanced or civilized.
Ahh, dehumanizing. It comes so easy to the left. They are so so empathetic, when you agree with them. And of course, if you don't, it doesn't impact their ethical stance because you're not even evolved yet. It's simple, if you don't agree, you are unevolved, if you are unevolved, you wouldn't understand their position, and as long as they own the media, entertainment, and Hollywood, they can reinforce their self-constructed new dictionary for the dystopia to come. They have achieved such heights, to hate, build systems of hate, institutionalize racism, and yet see themselves as moral pillars. Such a sad irony.
I'm empathetic of people that deserve empathy. Conservatives, inherently, do not. The world is literally better off without conservatism.
Yes, because the cities of Oakland, SF, Seattle, Baltimore, Chicago, LA and NYC are such ideal role models for the left. People are fleeing those cities because they have failed.
Canada is right across the border dude.
Shut up, Don.
lol.
-t "ardent defender of liberal democracy" ladies and gentlemen
Sounds on point. It was the left that rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. All lefties are authoritarian by nature.
Left, as in today's left? History may not agree.
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties#:~:text=In%201964%2C%20Democratic%20president%20Lyndon,to%20a%20final%2C%20decisive%20switch.
Dude that's been debunked already lol.
Wait I missed the part where Trump nominated Sotomayor and Jackson. You know, the left wing judges who voted along with the conservatives 9-0 against the lawfare of the Democrats.
Interesting. That's not been my impression. How so?
So, why do we bother, if everything is corrupt. No need to answer. I'm only curious on my pet problems anywho. Should Clarence Thomas remain on the Supreme Court?
Because if we give up, then the last nation on earth with the hope of freedom is lost.
Perhaps you're right. it would be better to have a POTUS who mocks POWs, and has so many advisers and allies sentenced to prison. Or I suppose a threatened bloodbath could sway myself and a few more undecided voters. His promises to drain the swamp might rid the Supreme Court of corruption as well. The fake charity and scamming of college students should show his strength just as well as Putin's fair elections have.
I'm convinced. Count me in.
Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally.
Imagine actually thinking this. Just fucking hang yourself you worthless retarded cunt.
Kevin, have a snickers.
I can see your point, but my opinion, as a neutral outside observer, is that the far left progressives are acting up out of fear for their loss of power, not because Trump made them stronger. That is, while they were totally hegemonic they did not need to be so strident; their stridency is a defensive mechanism against the Trump hammer effect.
That's why as a far leftie myself I'm gladly risking the chance of Trump winning by voting third party! Every election loss the democratic party suffers strengthens the fringes of the party, which I reside in. It's the same process that created Trump, and with enough time we'll see an angry young authoritarian populist leftist arise out of a dying party similar to Trump in 2016.
You’re even more retarded than Trump supporters.
Kevin, it may become way worse than what Izzy is suggesting. I see compromising and center politics both becoming pasé, sadly. Lies are now misinformation or misspoken. Mocking POWs is normal. Money now controls our last hope, the Supreme Court.
Civil War is cominggggg, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Which side will you be on?
On the side of the country's supreme law, and the world's longest-running written charter of government.
This is moronic, but I am not surprised. The fringes on both sides are absolutely fucking crazy.
I mean we've gotten people on the left to finally admit that what's happening at the border is a crisis so thats a start.
We also have bipartisan conensus on protectionism to reshore US manufacturing and se China as a threat rather then a partner.
Affirmative Action got rolled back and DEI programs are now facing the chopping block in lawsuit after lawsuit across the country.
Roe v Wade was overturned.
You may not care about any of this as it is it may not be your policy preference but for a person who actually CARES about conservative priorities Trump was basically the best president we've had in 4 decades.
If by "hammer" you mean "reeking diaper geezer" and by "smash the system" you mean "embarrass America to a degree that will take decades to recover from if it ever happens" then...sure!
Stop being a moron. You are literally the other half of the stupidity spiral that is killing this country.
You will defeat ugliness and idiocy by voting for someone with dignity & decency -- you will never do it by voting for a bigger, uglier idiot. The other side will just get uglier and stupider in response. You will be voting for the big mouth's bloated zombie corpse still hoping his dead hand will "smash the system." How were you raised, that you turned out such a vicious little goon?
I'm not telling who you to vote for. I'm telling you who you *are*, if voting for that clown has ever crossed your mind.
I'm not even American, I'm European. I can assure you that Trump doesn't embarrass you as much as the senile man who soiled his pants in an audience with the Pope. Talk about a “reeking diaper geezer”!
This is statistically false; most countries (with the exception of a few like Hungary) have substantially better views of the US now than during the Trump administration, and substantially better views of Biden than of Trump. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/06/27/international-views-of-biden-and-u-s-largely-positive/
Nobody fucking cares what the 70-year-old grandma from Germany thinks of a US president when her only knowledge of the matter comes from the mainstream media that screech nothing but 'orange man baaad' all day and night.
Trump is a hero among the actual people who know a damn; he's the literal symbol of telling the elites to go fuck themselves.
I can tell you dipshit there will be a party in my country when the dementia piece of garbage Biden is defeated and Trump returns to bring back peace and order not just to America but the world.
He's the literal symbol of giving the elites a 2 trillion dollar tax cut
Still lying about that, I see you are really triggered by the factby the fact that Trump helped working and middle -lass ffamilies. Do't the rich not pay any taxes at aall,according to you mMarxists? Howcan their taxes be cut iifthey are already at 0zero Trump's tax cuts were and still are very popular because they helped eeveryone,unlike BBidenflation,which only helped billionaire multi-nationals tcam Americans away from their hard -arned mmoney.
You Democrat dogs love this trick. You used the same trick to scam half the country out of stimulus checks. Trump wanted to give everyone $1,000 stimulus without exceptions, but you bastards cried day and night, 'Oh, Jeff Bezos shouldn't get $1,000!' Then you made up some insanely stupid metrics and scammed everyone who has a house or any amount of property from the stimulus checks.
That tax cut primarily benefited the middle class, as you well know, madame.
LOL, no. Trump is a fucking pussy and he's only a hero to losers even more pathetic than he is.
'Trump is a pussy' The guy who walked across the DMZ into North Korea?
You are clearly projecting it's very sad!
Those questions generally ask about “Does President X consider the interests of your country?” or questions with a similar gist. It's one thing to think that a foreign country's leader is disloyal enough to his own people to put you as a foreigner first; it's another thing to think he is a good leader /for his own people/. Look at this: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/06/27/international-views-of-biden-and-u-s-largely-positive/pg_2023-06-27_us-image_00-04/. It's reported as “International Views Of Biden And U.S. Largely Positive” but really it's asking us if we think Biden puts us ahead of his own people. That's not a good thing—unless you're us lol.
So I can tell you that the sentiment has often been that we think Trump is an asshole (true) who doesn't consider Europe's preferences (true), but that we wish we had an asshole like him sticking up for our own country. That kind of question doesn't show up on Pew polling though. Speaking as a statistician myself, I warn you not to be so credulous about the stats you read. They are curated by someone to present the narrative they want.
You've focused on just one of the many questions they discuss on the page. Others ask about whether the president does "the right thing" in general (presumably embarrassing actions would not be considered "the right thing"), and others show that the US is increasingly viewed as more economically powerful than China since Trump left power. I agree that stats can and have been abused, but the "sentiment" you observe in your own social circle is not even data.
And speaking of being credulous... the meme that Biden "soiled his pants" originated purely from a tweet by the former Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman (https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1454389989521907716), who has never presented any evidence of this and has every reason to promote gossip about Biden.
Again, doing “the right thing” is clearly going to be interpreted through a lens of what is right for the respondent's country. As for the economic score, it's strange that you would attribute that to Biden rather than to the collapse in the Chinese economy due in part to their insane anti-covid measures.
On the “soiled his pants” meme, it was first promoted in the US in that tweet but was privately confirmed by Vatican officials to the European media.
Who'd have guessed that Europeans leaving pro-Trump comments on American politics articles aren't good representatives of Europeans as a whole...
We Americans separated ourselves from your ancient clownish tyrannies for a reason. Kindly return to wallowing in your fetid ancient pomp.
Just a little friendly advice from an impartial observer: I don't think your behavior in this thread is winning any converts to your cause. If you wish to help Biden, and I'm sure you're sincere in that, I suggest you be a little less obnoxious about it. As I say, just a little advice: make of it what you will.
Why would they care about converting people? If a person is actually considering voting for Trump they're already a lost cause that is better off 6 feet under the dirt.
Typical marxist, sadly for you, the only one who will be 6 feet under is dementia. Joe will hopefully survive until November and maybe January, so one of his last memories will be losing to Trump and witnessing Trump's heroic historicinauguration.
Not at all, Kevin. But anyone voting for Biden is irredeemably evil.
I don't particularly want to help Biden & I advise you to read more carefully. I like Biden, the man, but the Democratic Party's policies on several subjects are utterly odious. I would prefer him to Trump -- an open enemy of liberty & the constitutional system -- but that is saying very, very little.
It is farcical for anyone who has voiced support for that man to call for civility. The hypocrisy is just plopping out of your wherever. Nasty!
The constitution is a joke and should be shredded, then burned. America needs an emperor to lead her — Donaldus Trump I.
Nice Trump quote, kudos.
People like you are the reason why more voters are flocking to Trump. All the politicians claiming to be "moral" (whatever that means) or "decent" have driven our country into the ground. Both parties. People don't care about Trump's warts. They agree with his policies. As they should.
Policies like directing a gang of morons to assault Congress? Policies like a psychotic "shaman" in face paint jumping around the sacred halls of Congress? Those sorts of policies?
Insensate, drooling, selfish, crude, piggish, contemptible.
I just noticed that about 50% of comments in this thread is just you letting your TDS flag fly. That's pretty hilarious. I'm willing to bet that you were a BIG believer in the Russia hoax. I can recognize that energy anywhere.
Did the Russians make Trump pull his clown stunt on Jan 6? Thank God if they did -- then he only deserves to be jailed.
What is your Trump origin story? What was it that set you off originally? It wasn't the Russia hoax. By that time, you were already gone. So what happened before that that made you say to yourself: I hate Donald Trump?
I'm genuinely curious. I can tell you what made me pay attention to DJT for the first time. He made a joke (?) saying Hillary got shlonged out of the nomination. The best part? He had the nerve to suggest it was in no way sexual. I liked the cut of his jib then there.
But if you can't remember time Before Trump (BT) I understand as well. TDS is a hell of a drug.
Still falling for mainstream media lies eh? The riot at the Capitol was already in progress while Trump was speaking. He authorized up to 100,000 NG troops. Pelosi and Bowser declined. He told people to make their voices heard peacefully. These are all facts.
He's literally on twitter downplaying the event this many years later and denying that it was a breach of law & order. The problem with your boy is, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on every issue, so you and I can both be right about what he's said or insinuated.
I shouldn't focus on Jan 6th. His actual betrayal of the republic is refusing to recognize the results of the election. That is a bit more conceptual of a betrayal, and his voters don't tend to understand the gravity of that act. (And no, it doesn't matter that he says it was "rigged".)
Fortunately, he went and doubled down, then watched on TV while a riot - your word - attempted to storm Congress in his name as it certified an election. Now it's all laid out nice and clear for even the dimmest among us.
Do you know what a President with have an ounce of love for his country would have done?
He would have gone down there in person and told them to stop.
He didn't. He let it happen while he watched TV. Your President!
Odd that the FBI and other intel communities refuse to answer the questions of if and how many intel assets were in the crowd. Odd that 40,000 hours of video were withheld from the sham J6 show trial. Odd that Capitol Police opened the magnetically sealed doors and let people in, waving them in. Odd that Ray Epps wasn't rotting in a cell pre-trial like hundreds of others, some who did nothing but walk into a builiding they were let into. Odd that there wasn't much violence until the police starting shooting gas canisters into the crowd. Odd that the two pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC sat there for over a day while cops just walked around it. Odd that both Pelosi and Bowser rejected Trump's offer of 20,000+ National Guard troops. So very odd.
Ask yourself a simple question: why are Democrats so vehemently against voter ID? After all, I need to show ID when I buy alcohol; when I get a library card, when I board an airplane, when I sometimes use a credit card. You know the answer deep down inside, but you're too ashamed to admit it.
Refusing to recognize the results of the election because it was stolen. And polls show a growing majority of Americans agree. Swing states all stopping the count at midnight; data dump at 3am that went 99% for Biden; states changing election laws illegally to allow mail in and drop off ballots; Republican poll watchers kicked out of polls. Yeah, nothing to see there lol.
embarrass the country? Good lord the worlds on fire due in no small part to out betters in Washington. I'll take the embracing 2016-2020 years and I imagine the hundreds of thousands who have died over the last three would as well.
No one is my better. If you believe you are ruled by your betters, that would explain your desire for autocracy.
You accidentally raise an interesting point: do people with low self-esteem prefer autocracy? If someone doesn't even trust themselves to govern their own life, why would they trust people to govern themselves? The yearning for an autocrat is really the yearning for the simplicity and authority-enforced bounds of childhood.
Understand I'm not being one-sided here. The fundamental error among progressives-at-large today is an autocracy of ideology and idea -- they, feeling lost & powerless, have set the therapist and the Psychologist as their "betters", as the people whose advice is certified to lead to a "happy existence." They seek desperately outside themselves for guidance, rather than looking within, gathering their own information and drawing their own conclusions.
Do understand, I rate the near-fatal problems of the Democratic Party as far more deep-rooted and difficult to excise than that of the Republicans. On the right, one big mouth needs to go. He doesn't have an ideology other than himself & you'll mostly all come of your psychosis when he's gone.
On the left, on the other hand, nearly an entire generation of pseudo-academics, bureaucrats & ideologues has breathed venomous racialist & genderist ideology into nearly an entire young generation. This is a catastrophic injury that will require herculean efforts to mend -- certainly it's like a hydra -- and I expect to spend quite possibly the rest of my adult life arguing with this cult's insipid die-hards & trying to excise their ideology from every crevice it has infiltrated. It's a grim prospect but I'll bear my cross.
The thing is, these people don't make up enough of the Democratic Party to elect a president. They can't agree on any single candidate because they can find a skeleton or at least a smoking toe-bone in any closet if they look hard enough. Biden whupped 'em. When Biden's gone, someone else sane will whup them again. These people are far more dangerous at the local & institutional level by means of takeovers of school boards and corporate/nonprofit boards.
A coherent, competent, conservative Republican is desperately needed by this country, yet you goombas have done your darndest to prevent that from happening. Fortunately, it's not entirely up to you. Our republic is the backstop & guardrail of our democracy, and it operates by firmer oaths.
Trump was a delivery boy for his billionaire owners Bob Mercer, Wilbur Ross, Carl Icahn, and Diane Hendricks; he gave you guys nothing but empty slogans.
When will so-called "conservatives" get back to asking the classic conservative question, "What's in this for me?"?
He didn't drain your swamp, he just changed the monsters.
My man whether you give a shit about or not Donald Trump is the reason affirmative action got overturned.
I KNOW what I got out of voting for him: I got an end to the system of racial apparthied that had been descrminating against people with my color skin since that shit was enacted in the 1960s.
It is no longer legal to racially descriminate against me and that is a benefit for me, and my children and the children they will have one day.
“What's in this for me?” is a paradigmatically liberal question (in the correct sense that Nate understands the word, not the stupid American usage meaning “socialist”).
It's a fundamentally capitalist question, and conservatives are deeply invested in capitalism.
Young men of all backgrounds are shifting dramatically to Republicans. The podcast ecosphere is filled with young men of diverse background lamenting on Democrat rule.
It was only a matter of time before the charade that the Democrat Party actually cares about people of color would disintegrate. From slavery and the KKK to the horrible Jim Crow laws of the last century the Democrats have a long history of racism and using the underprivileged for political purposes.
Your understanding of American history is lacking. Stop talking about shit you have no fucking clue about.
It's not even that difficult man. The South votes Republican. The South seceded from the Union to continue practicing slavery. Connect the fucking dots you retarded fuck.
in the 1950's and 60's the a significant swath of the Democrat party prioritized race in policy making. In the 2020's a significant swath of the Democrats prioritize race in policy making. Explain how this isn't true? In the 1950's many democrats supported segregation . In 2020 many Democrats reintroduced segregation policies. Explain how that isn't true either.
The Senate and House votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives you the answer. If you completely disregard former confederate states you'll find that Republicans voted against it at a rate of 5:1 compared to Democrats.
Why should we disregard the confederate states? Because damn near every representative from them, Republican or Democrat, voted against it. The vote was not partisan but based on geography. The funny thing to me is that the only representatives from the former confederate states that voted for it, were Democrats. Not a single Republican did.
Representatives vote on legislation in a way to get themselves reelected. Meaning the voters of the former confederate states did not want the Civil Rights Act passed. Who do you think the descendants of those voters are currently voting for? I'll give you a hint, it's not the Democratic Party.
And the legislation you point strives to remove race and color from policymaking. A choice continued in later reforms and reaffirmed multiple times by the courts. The modern Democrat party is quite clear in rejection of this vision in favor of race based polices they believe will be politically beneficial to them. How many Democrats today would vote for a bill that demands race NOT be used as a factor in policy or law?
"The modern Democrat party is quite clear in rejection of this vision in favor of race based polices they believe will be politically beneficial to them.
Such as?
Let's start with the low hanging fruit of affirmative action programs based on racial preferences. Then we can move on to specifics such as the Biden admins Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through the Federal Government or the adoption of an Executive order for DEI in the work force.
To go further we can look at Democrat strong holds such as California and New York adopting reparations commissions. And you will certainly find on a myriad of race programs on a county and municipal level designed for marginalized or underserved communities not to mention policies and programs on college campuses, technical not government (excepting public colleges) but non-profits in most cases accept cash from the Fed making them subject t regulation. All of these programs and rhetoric flout the idea of a color blind society and we are now at the point that to advocate a color blind society could be considered racist. I stand by my contention the modern Democratic Party wild not support the race neutral concepts of the 64 legislation and if a legislation was introduced in Congress today that people should be judged on their individual worth and merit not their race most Democrats would not vote for it.
You’re right that the party’s history of slavery and Jim Crow are irrelevant to contemporary politics. It’s just historical trivia. But it’s ironic that the party of hatemongering against minorities became the party of hatemongering to minorities.
>But it’s ironic that the party of hatemongering against minorities became the party of hatemongering to minorities.
Even this isn't true. The Southern Democrats split from the actual Democratic Party prior to the 1860 election because of the abolitionist-esque platform they were going to run on.
Biden’s open borders policies are now responsible for a growing measles outbreak in Chicago. Oh, and there’s a diarrhea outbreak at O’hare. Be careful changing planes. He is the gift that keeps on giving.
Two points:
1. I remember the polling numbers among Blacks looked good for Trump in 2020, but the election results weren't as good. (I will leave aside the question of whether big city fraud was a factor in that.)
2. I live in South Texas. Yet I was blown away by how strong Trump was in the Rio Grande Valley in 2020. He took counties that have gone Democrat since FDR. Hispanics really are realigning. They certainly are in Texas.
On your point #1, Biden's results were strangely variegated. He slightly underperformed in most black areas, but in a handful of black cities in swing states run by strong party machines he won record-breaking totals, mostly from postal votes, vastly exceeding Obama's scores in those black districts.
What luck!
The amount of denialism among my fellow liberals is astonishing. I think we're looking at a 1980 style landslide.
Just like the red wave in 2022 right? The country is far too polarized for anything like 1980 to happen. Reagan won CA and NY. I mean come on that’s not happening.
The "red wave" was vibes-based and the polls really weren't that bad. Dems overperformed by like 2 or 3 points, but did lose the House after all. I didn't mean the specific states would line up the same, and with polarization the EV probably won't be so lopsided, but some solid blue states could be within single digits.
Even if we aren’t talking specific states, Reagan won 44 states. Trump has won 55 across 2 elections. So if we are talking about landslide I just don’t see it in this political environment.
I agree that the country is too polarized for anything remotely resembling 1980, but I don't know that I'd rely on 2022 as evidence of what will happen in 2024 (any more than relying on 2010 as a predictor of 2012). Democrats now have the highly engaged super-voters who come out for midterms and specials, whereas it used to be the Republicans who did.
I mean fair but Trump winning by 2016 margins (300 electoral votes) to me seems completely possible.
He is polling better then he ever has in a general election and historically, when he was the ballot, he has ALWAYS overperformed his polling average now maybe that wont be true this time but even if there is polling average in Biden's favor the same degree to which there was in 2020 for Trump:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2020/trump-vs-biden
He'd still probably win the electoral college given the voter break down by states.
Yeah I’d say Trump is probably a slight favorite but 1980 margins is a fantasy
2022 was the worst thing that could happen to you pathetic liberals you can't screech 'OBSUTRCTIONISTS! REPUBLICANS FAUAAALT!' like Obama did for years you have to own Biden's failures
Huh? GOP still took the House
This is a bizarre conclusion based on the primary votes, the first real data we have. Biden kept it locked down -- Trump lost 20-40% to Haley in most states. As for the Republican & MAGAverse response to this inconvenient fact -- talk about denialism!
I think the Trump vs Biden rematch election will have below-average turnout and would be reasonable close & just not that exciting.
That is not, however, the election we are facing. There has never been a better-looking year for a 3rd party or an independent to make a serious run. No Labels will soon be announcing a Unity ticket with a conservative small-R republican for President and a moderate liberal for VP. There's also RFK Jr, obviously, but I think he threw in too early, and the buzz is already fading. (And the vaccines thing is fading into the background somewhat as we move further from covid.)
A real three-plus-way split -- with three or more candidates winning states -- results in a decision by the House among the top-three electoral vote-getters, with each state's delegation voting as a bloc with one vote,
It could be possible, for example, for Romney to run and take nothing but Utah, with Biden & Trump splitting the rest evenly between them, to wind up with a 265-265-10 electoral vote result -- in that case, Romney with 10 electoral votes could quite possibly be the next President, if that's what the House decides.
There hasn't been a contingent election like this since the 1830s, but who knows what could happen! Imagine knowing after this November that this decision was waiting on the docket for the end of December. Now there's two months that might be utterly unpredictable.
I wouldn't bet on a third-party winning any states. Remains a deep longshot. But it could very easily pull Perot-ish numbers and decide the election, probably in Trump's favor.
I mostly agree on your assessment of Trump vs. Biden though. A landslide is very unlikely. Both guys have net disapproval, so few are very excited about voting. The battle lines here are pretty static, with few swing voters, and it's nigh-impossible to pull off those sorts of swings in such an environment.
When 1980 happened, the US had just had a landslide 8 years earlier, and another 8 years before that. We've now gone 40 years without one, and I don't think the time to bet on one is with a guy with net disapproval, who has lost the popular vote twice.
>I wouldn't bet on a third-party winning any states. Remains a deep longshot.
This is always the safe thing to say, so I don't really think it needs to be said.
>But it could very easily pull Perot-ish numbers and decide the election, probably in Trump's favor.
The evidence from the primaries so far shows that vastly more Republicans are looking for an alternative than are Democrats. Democrats-at-large have spent the past two years (at least) hand-wringing in an absolute frenzy over Biden's age and the narrowness of his victory over Trump, & calling for a new candidate in '24.
Where is he? Dean Philips threw his hat in and no one was interested. No other elected Democrats ran - either they didn't see a need, or they didn't have the guts.
This is the first year that No Labels is running a presidential ticket, and their decision to do so has been controversial among their membership. The group is closely associated with the Problem Solvers' Caucus, which has been behind quite a large number of the things that have been *actually accomplished* in Congress in the last decade or so. Their decision to run a Unity ticket rather than endorsing Biden is much more significant than it would seem
I'd urge you to dig into No Labels & into the council of twelve they elected internally yesterday to propose a candidate. The twelve people making the decision are an interesting group - two retired senior military officials, a few former Republican mayors and other officials, one of Martin Luther King Jr's closest proteges....
This is anything but a billionaire's vanity campaign -- whether it has a snowball's chance remains to be seen, but if, say, Joni Ernst accepted the top slot on a Unity ticket -- not crazy, as she broke with Trump hard after Jan 6 but has stayed quiet since -- I think her taking a plurality in Iowa or NH is very plausible. That puts her on the map, so she'll be in contention in a contingent election, if the few states she takes hold Trump & Biden both to under 270. (And she would be the rather obvious compromise candidate in that case, too.)
"evidence from the primaries"
I suppose I'm skeptical of these sorts of arguments. I don't think they should be judged by the same standard. Voting against a standing incumbent in a primary is a basically a revolt and a vote of no confidence. Voting against a nonincumbent former President can be a lot of things.
We know what a good primary performance is for an incumbent. By that standard, Biden is doing mediocre -- significantly better than Bush did in '92, but to my knowledge worse than all the incumbents since then.
What is a good primary performance for a former President looking for a nonconsecutive second term? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, other than to say he needs to do better than an ordinary competitive primary but we should expect him to do worse than an incumbent's primary. Which is exactly the space he's in. It tells us very little.
I imagine I'll be looking into No Labels more. But I have trouble believing that they can win a state unless their PV comes in significantly ahead of Perot in '92, and that's a tall order. Why should their votes be more geographically concentrated than his? I'd believe it much more for a candidate with extremely regional appeal, like the Dixiecrats of old, but it sounds like they're basically running as a national party.
Almost 60 to 70% Haley voters are Democrats, that were always gonna vote Democrats and for Joe Biden so your argument has that fatal error.
Try to pick at the numbers however you like. They are what they are & they clearly worry you. They should. Haley's voters were a mix of independents, some Democrats, and a lot of decent Republicans. Most will probably vote for Biden, in a two-way race, and that is exactly your problem. You can't win on Trumpians alone. Trump is a weak candidate & most other Republicans -- Haley included -- would far outperform him in a general election. Doubling down on him is an act of mass stupidity -- or it would be, if any of his voters were actually small-R republican, or if they had a shred of a clue what that word "republic" means. Evidently they have other paramount priorities such as "nuh-uh" and nose-thumbing. Who are we to judge?
Biden, on the other side, outperforms basically every other Democratic candidate (aside from nameless "generic Democrat.") So, despite incessant & very public whining from the worst elements of the party, Democrats have ended up with the strongest of their possible candidates this year, while Republicans have ended up with their weakest.
This would be considered an unfortunate happening for Republican prospects -- if very many Republicans still lived in reality...yet it's merely down to a toss-up because a heck of a lot of the Democratic party has left reality too. Despite Biden's personal moderation, he's increasingly seen as incapable or unwilling to restrain the nutbar people in his party. So Trump vs Biden will be close -- but this year didn't have to be. Haley vs Biden would already be over. You might consider a game getting sent to overtime better than winning, and it is, I suppose, more exciting, but in my consideration that would make you rather an odd bod.
You like to hear yourself (read) right? Writing giant body of text. No matter how much you write and whine and argument, Trump will be POTUS! Deal with it.
>Writing giant body of text.
This is how adults communicate, boy.
As long as Biden refuses to hold extended interviews with serious journalists, not the partisan cable entertainment news crowd and hold long overdue unscripted press conferences how can Democrats expect to turn this around. If the argument is I am not Trump, or the economy which to many working class families have not benefited nearly as much as those fully invested in the stock market then trouble lies ahead. Remember how many working class independents come home and over the dinner table talk about January 6 as opposed to those rising mortgage payments or the cost of living? To attack Trump Democrats will need more than a partisan SOTU speech read off a teleprompter where once Biden went off script he used the offensive term illegals! If Trump did that Katie bar the door.
Turns out that Hispanics don’t like open borders, blacks don’t like defunding the police and Asians don’t like leveling-down educational excellence in the name of “equity.”
More likely, this is part of the realignment where Democrats are becoming more the party of upper middle class educated people, and the Republicans are becoming more the party of working class / lower middle class people.
If you live in a Poor Hispanic Border County you may hate Border Policies simply because of local effects. Besides an "Open Border" is when I get in my Car In Chico & drive to Reno - along the way I pass a sign that says "Welcome to Nevada".
I can't wait to watch Chicago swing when their beloved'sanctuary city' actually has to give'sanctuary''to illegals.
Reminder: It took a few thousand illegals shipped to New York, and Democrats lost their minds, but Texas had to deal with millions of illegals for years. I really hope they are shipped into the liberal haven of New England. Vermont could use some 'diversity' ; maybe send Biden's new Haitian friends over there.
Biden and Democrats haven’t solved the issues that people need them to solve. Inflation was bad. They released a $7tn budget proposal, and funded huge EV incentives which aren’t wanted by the public to name just two. The other issues are crime, homelessness and drug addiction. On top of that immigration. I’m not saying that republicans will do any better- they usually increase spending, cut taxes and fail to fix the immigration system but there’s two parties and one holds the presidency. It’s about policies, not Bidens age or trumps court cases.
Nate, what do you think you're doing by posting that chart from the FT?
It's pure stupidity.
The last date point is at 2020, and those arrows are not based on anything.
A younger, more honest, Nathanial would have been outraged.
Nothing to see here. Move along folks.
Excellent article Nate
There's been a gap starting to open between nonwhite voters and their "community leaders", and especially between them and "community organizers". It was particularly stark in Virginia in 2021. In the city of Richmond, where such organizers are as thick as grass on the ground, McAuliffe's results among minority voters were about as usual. But Youngkin did very well among minority voters outside the city and outside the inner Washington suburbs, where the people who administer the grant programs that benefit community organizers live.
Another point that was made last night on one program is that this minority progress, especially among black voters, is not even. Black women still support Democrats about as they always have done since 1964. But black men, often bearing the brunt of "progressive" social agendas, are shifting, and shifting fast.
There's a new acronym that describes the new base of the Democratic Party: "AWFL" (Affluent White Female Liberals). That is now the group to whom the Democratic Party most caters.
You're definitely right about one thing. The term "liberal" is no longer an accurate description of what is going on in this new Democratic base. The word "progressive" is used, though I dislike its new use when it formerly meant Teddy Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette and, the last example of that movement, Bob Dole. It may not be too much of a stretch to call it "socialist" or "Marxist", though, with only a couple of examples, "Marxist-Leninist" would indeed be a stretch. But this is what is taught in universities across the country. (And I'm a professor in a graduate school where such things are NOT taught.)
Indeed, this one of the reasons why the polls are cooked - large sample hispanic polls do not show massive decline from 2020, large sample black polls don't, large sample young-voter polls also do not.
If Trump wins, it'll be because of white voters and erasing Biden's gains among suburban whites in 2020.
I don’t think large sample polling is coping no.
With reduced response rate this + MRP might be the only way to get accurate results.
Biden doesn't have the lowest approval rating ever. It's roughly where both Bush and Truman's approval ratings were at at this point in their respective presidencies. And Trump's own approval rating fell below 38 (where Biden is currently) at different times during his presidency
Who won in 2020 again?
No need to wonder: It was a fair election, and Biden won.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Cope