#like have you ever heard a republican talk?

[lettersiarrange]

Want to emphasize the above commentary ^^^

A lot of times when neurotypicals refuse to answer they're not intentionally trying to be dicks; it's because other neurotypical people will play dumb and ask "Well what did I do?" To avoid accountability. Neurotypicals who don't want to indulge this will refuse to answer, thinking you're trying to manipulate them.

You know weaponized incompetence? "What did I do wrong / I didn't know I was doing it wrong / I don't know how to do it" is a classic refrain for someone trying to avoid taking responsibility and wanting to force others to do work for them.

Another common manipulation tactic is DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

Consider an interaction like the below:

Person A: I can't believe you. You're such a jerk

Person B: what did I do??

Person A: ??? You called me a 'fat, ugly loser' in front of all of our friends??

Person B: 🙄 you're so sensitive. It was just a joke. Chill out.

Person A: It didn't seem like a joke. And even if it was, it was a cruel thing to say

Person B: God you're so fucking humorless. What is wrong with you. You always act like I'm some kind of evil villain. I can't even make a joke without you blowing up at me.

By asking person A to name what the specific problem was, it allowed person B to refute the behavior and turn it around on person A. We all know person B knows what they did wrong. They just don't care. By engaging at all, person A allows them an opportunity to manipulate them and be even more hurtful and dismissive. Whereas if Person A simply condemned their behavior and refused to engage in the conversation, person B wouldn't have an opening, and Person A gets to subtly convey "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, because I know you'll just use it as an opportunity to manipulate me if I do. I'm done playing your games."

Now, am I saying it's right for a neurotypical person to refuse to explain to a neurodivergent person what they did wrong? No. I'm just saying that the neurotypical person probably isn't doing it out of malice, or intentional ableism, or spite. They probably assume the neurodivergent person knows what they did and is looking for an opening to manipulate them.

As the above poster explains, the best way to circumvent this is to be genuine in explaining that you struggle with understanding social norms, are upset to have hurt them, and want to do better next time/make it up to them. There is always the possibility that the neurotypical person may not believe you because they've been burned too many times by manipulators, but that's life. They're much more likely to believe you and explain to you what you did wrong, though, if you take the above poster's advice in phrasing.

[dickgirlsdaily]

Fundamentally, if the democrats lose the presidency in 2024, it will not be because of "voter apathy" or "the idealistic left" or Cornell West or whatever third party candidate the liberals end up blaming. It will be because the democrats have failed to meet the lowest standards of many Americans.

You can talk about strategic voting until you're blue in the face, but fundamentally, people need reasons to vote for a candidate. There are people in this country watching as their family members get slaughtered by American arms, sent to Israel by Joe Biden. The people watching their families get murdered in Palestine have no reason to support Joe Biden. How can you ask them to?

"Sorry your family got bombed, but I need you to vote for the man who is directly responsible, or *real* people are going to suffer too."

It was at this point While I was drafting this post that I heard he just started bombing Yemen. It's like he's doing everything in his power to sink his own fucking campaign, are you shitting me? This isn't a matter of "stupid commies not being realistic enough", he's not just working for the status quo; just about every action he has taken since October 7th has been an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and made it worse for everyone living there. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You can scold people for voting wrong as much as you want, but fundamentally the way that democrats can win elections is by pursuing good policy. If the only argument you can come up with in favor of Joe Biden is that he won't do 1 or 2 of the terrible things that Trump wants to do, then that will simply not appeal to the people who are most intensely affected by Biden's failures (not to mention people who have moral objections to genocide, even when it doesn't affect them). You can scream and cry all you want, people are not going to just overlook his role in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza just because he is the Less Bad Genocider.

If a republican wins the presidency in November, you can blame the hundreds of thousands of voters/nonvoters who should've agreed with you and put aside every moral concern they ever had about the Biden administration... or you can blame the one fucking guy whose massive foreign policy failures are going to tank his re-election campaign.

[qqueenofhades]

I understand how important it is to be able to criticize the President, and am not at all of the belief he should be beyond critique, but the critiquing of Biden makes me so nervous. (That's not to say I agree with every decision he's made - I absolutely do not). But I feel like people see things he's done wrong and decide they won't vote for him because of it. I'm not sure if enough people have the ability to see that he's done things wrong but also is our only hope of staving off literal fascism.

So many people talk about how sick they are of it constantly being a lesser of two evils situation, constantly having to vote for a candidate they hate because the other side is worse (I heard it in 2020, 2022, etc), and I guess I just- I don't really get it? We're here because they didn't do that in 2016. All of this could've been avoided had the result been different then. I just feel like people don't comprehend how different of a place we'd be in if Hillary won and engage in all this cognitive dissonance to make themselves feel better about being part of the reason she didn't.

Like.... this has been a long-running topic of discussion on my blog, not least because it is so inexplicable and maddening. It also shows how terribly shallow most people's understanding of the American political process is, and how toxic the "I can only vote for a candidate if every single personal belief/position of theirs matches mine" belief is, as well as how much damage it has done to American democracy even (and indeed, especially) by people who technically don't identify as right-wing. Yell at Republicans all you like (God knows I do, because they're the worst people on earth) but they vote. Every time. Every election. Every candidate. Whereas the Democratic electorate still holds out for Mister Perfect, and it very definitely is Mister Perfect. The amount of "evil HRC!!!" Republican-poisoned Kool-Aid that so-called progressives drank in 2016, and then afterward when they insisted they could have voted for someone like Elizabeth Warren and then didn't do that in 2020, is... baffing.

Frankly, I don't care if Hillary Clinton's personal positions on XYZ issue were the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill to Ever Shill (and Online Leftists' intellectual skills being what they are, I seriously doubt that they were using any of those words correctly and/or accurately). American policy is not made by "personal dictate of the ruler," or at least it shouldn't be, because we are not an absolute monarchy. We rely on the operation of a system with input from many people. As such, if Hillary had been elected, we would have 2-3 new liberal justices on SCOTUS and have secured civil and environmental rights for the next generation. Roe would be intact, and all the other terrible rulings that SCOTUS has recently handed down wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have had January 6th, the attempt to stage a coup, all the tawdry scandals, our national security being at risk because of Trump stealing classified documents and probably selling them to Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, etc etc. If you think that's in any way an equivalent amount of evil to what would have happened if Hillary was elected, or if she was "still evil!!!," then I honestly don't know what to tell you. She could fucking murder puppies in her spare time if she had preserved SCOTUS for us, WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE, BECAUSE SHE WARNED US EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

(Hoo. Sorry. Still steamed. 2016 war flashbacks, again.)

In short, Hillary would have been a solid continuity Democrat and she would have signed whatever legislation a Democratic House and Senate passed, not to mention been hugely inspiring as the first female president. But because it's so important to the Online Leftists' moral sense of themselves that BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!, they can't possibly acknowledge that ever being a factor, and/or admit that they have any culpability in not voting for her in 2016. It's like when you read the British press about any of the UK's equally numerous problems, and they BEND OVER BACKWARD to avoid mentioning that Brexit might be a factor. They just can't mention it, because then that means they might have made the wrong choice in pulling for it as hard as they did, and blah blah Sovereignty.

Basically, if HRC had been elected president, everything would be so much less terrible and terrifying all the time, we would be talking about her successor in 2024 as someone else who could be the "first," we could explore handing the reins over to Kamala as a Black/Asian woman, we could promote Buttigieg as the first gay president, etc etc. But because 2016 was so catastrophically fucked up, we are in damage control mode for the immediate future and every election is just as pivotal. And yet, because people think that the only thing that matters is a presidential candidate's personal views, we're stuck having the same old arguments and desperately begging people over and over to please vote against fascism, since that somehow isn't self-evident enough on its own. Yikes on Bikes.

[tanadrin]

I am sorry for the anon but I feel too vulnerable to come off due to the nature of my question.

I am slowly losing friends due to my refusal to engage in negative/nihilistic/doomer views of the future. My friends are 1000% convinced Trump and Republicans are going to crash the economy on purpose, leading to a depression, and carry out a Gilead situation. I told one of my friends the other day how, despite everything and the political situation, I am trying to be as positive as possible - or at least neutral. Her response to me was, "Why? I don't understand your optimism. You know they're going to enslave us all like in The Handmaid's Tale, right?" and it has become so dreadful now to interact with them. Anytime I disagree, they try to intellectually dominate me or put me under them in a way where I have no choice but to just leave the conversation.

I know this was a lot. But is there any advice you might have for someone like me? Because I sometimes feel like I am being painted as crazy. I know things will be hard but they genuinely want me to believe I have no future and I can't stand that.

Also, would it be too much to ask if you maybe mind sharing some of the other people/blogs you follow?

I once heard advice on dealing with Qanon family members who had fallen down the rabbit hole and only ever wanted to talk about conspiracy theories or the outrage bait they'd seen on Fox News or OANN or whatever, about not challenging them on their views but basically saying "I don't want to talk about this; let's talk about our plans for the weekend, or what movie we wanna go see later, or what interesting books you've read lately." The idea being, arguing with someone can only further entrench their beliefs, and if you really want to shake someone out of their dismal universe of conspiracism, it helps to remind them of all the things that aren't the fear-and-anger-activating content they're stuffing their brains with for hours every day.

Maybe something like this could help? I have a hard time imagining that someone really believes The Handmaid's Tale really is just around the corner--if you really believed that, surely you would be trying to flee to Canada or doing some political volunteer work or something--and sometimes doomer stuff can be kind of reflexive or phatic, like making a crack about how your retirement plan is to die in the water wars or something. But even if it isn't, I don't think there's any point in trying to argue about this stuff in the moment. Instead try to build on the things you still find fulfilling in that friendship, the conversations and interests and activities with those friends that caused you to become friends in the first place.

If you can't do that--if hanging out with them is always a constant grind of full-throttle doomerism, and they express no interest in actually trying to do something with their feelings of anger and frustration--you are perfectly within your rights to spend less time around them. You could, if you wanted to and you felt that you owed them at least that, give them a heads up as to why. If a close friend of mine or a family member was doing this, I would certainly talk to them about it. But your obligation to subject yourself to someone else's self-destructive idee fixe is not bottomless. Even with a partner you are within your rights to eventually say "I'm not going to talk about this with you anymore."

(And that's not only true of politics or conspiracy theories, by the way! If you have a close friend or family member or partner who--for example--has severe depression but refuses to seek treatment for it, you are not obligated to be the sponge for their misery forever every time they need someone to talk to. If someone in your life is in a relationship or a job that is making them miserable, and won't do anything to leave that relationship or find a new job, and just wants a friend to complain to, you are within your rights to eventually shut that down. Lots of people fall into a holding pattern in their life where they are unhappy but unable to do anything about it, and they will make this their friends' or loved ones' problem. That doesn't make them bad people: lord knows I have found myself doing this before. It's a very human thing to do. But sometimes the Good Friend Thing is to say "I love you, and will support you if you want to actually *do something* about your situation, but otherwise, oh my god shut the fuck up." But, you know, nicely.)

But if your friends want to make themselves miserable because hanging on to an endless stream of toxicity and doomerism from social media (and I will bet this is primarily coming from social media) is more important to them than your friendship, and they can't handle you not agreeing with them, you may lose them as friends. If you do, I'm sorry. That sucks. It's hard to lose friends, and it's even harder later in life when making new friends is more difficult, and I don't want to pretend like that's not a big deal.

[jarenka]

Remember this plot bunny? I was thinking about it again and I was like: Nah, Anakin wouldn't be able win against Palpatine to get him arrested. But he can kill Palpatine! So I wrote a fic where Anakin time-travels in the middle of Clone Wars, immediately kills the Chancellor and now Jedi Order need to do something about it because they can't just say: "Sorry, but Anakin Skywalker just returned here from the dark future and killed Palpatine because he was an evil genocidal wizard who planned to take over the Republic. Thank you for your attention."

“How did you find out that Chancellor Palpatine was directly connected with the separatists?”

“He told me himself”.

“Why would he tell you this? Don't you think this is a bit strange behavior for a person who allegedly has been cooperating with the separatists in deep secrecy for many years?”

“We are…” Anakin sighed. It was a touchy question. "Chancellor Palpatine and I were close friends. He proposed... to join him. He miscalculated”.

It isn’t entirelly true. Palpatine hasn’t yet invited Anakin to join him. He bent over his "dear friend", who fainted in his apartment when they had lunch together.

“Anakin, what's going on?.. I need to call a doctor,” Palpatine’s voice came to him distorted. Anakin was dead. He didn't know where he was or why he was hearing a real voice. He didn't know why he felt someone else's hand on top of his own. His lightsaber landed in his palm, and Anakin directed it to the place where the voice was coming from without hesitation. There was a smell of burnt wool and burnt flesh. Something heavy fell on him. When Anakin finally regained full consciousness, Chancellor Palpatine was lying there, completely dead, with a hole from a lightsaber in his chest.

“Why did Chancellor Palpatine invite you to join him?”

Anakin shrugged.

“I don't know.”

“Can you make a guess?”

“Perhaps he was dissatisfied with Dooku.”

Catch Dooku and ask, Anakin wanted to say, but for the past month Obi-Wan and lawyer Laila Hetty have been training him to answer questions correctly.

“So, you don't know for sure?”

“That's exactly what I have said.”

A military expert, a witness for the defense, will confirm that Dooku has failed several important operations in recent months. Perhaps Palpatine had a hand in his failures, but no one will ever know about it.

“What exactly did Chancellor Palpatine offer you?”

They set foot on very dangerous ground. Anakin needed to lie convincingly.

Anakin heard Obi-Wan's tired voice in his head, “You've been a Sith for over twenty years. You should be good at lying!"

He uttered the phrase he had memorized with Obi-Wan: “He offered me a place as commander-in-chief of the Republican army if I help him to prolong the war as much as he needs.”

“How can you, as a Jedi, hold such a post?"

Anakin sighed.

“Chancellor Palpatine wanted to get rid of the Jedi.”

There were whispers in the hall. Anakin tried to ignore them.

“Why?”

“You'd better talk to the members of the Council about this.”

“Did Chancellor Palpatine just casually tell you that he wanted to destroy the Order?”

Anakin closed his eyes and opened them again. He had to remind himself that everyone around him could see his face.

“I myself confessed to him that the Council suspected him of having ties with the separatists and was going to... take action.”

Obi-Wan Kenobi and Adi Gallia will speak on behalf of the Council. They will both say that some members of the council have long suspected that a very high-ranking official works with separatists, and some of them have already begun to suspect Palpatine. Obi-Wan won't be able to remember exactly if he and Anakin talked about it, but it's quite likely — after all, they were very close and discussed a lot of different things among themselves. Another witness for the defense will be an inhibitor chip specialist who will demonstrate that among the orders of the clone army there is an order to destroy the Jedi. He will indicate that this order was sewn in initially, during clone army creation. It’s not that important to Anakin’s case, both officials and independent investigators are now looking into clones’ creation.

“So, Master Skywalker, let's talk about why Chancellor Palpatine decided that you would agree to his proposal.”

I have no idea, Anakin wanted to reply.

“Remember,” he heard Obi-Wan say, “you need to present a convincing story to the jury. You killed Palpatine, it's quite obvious, but you can be acquitted.”

Anakin looked at the jury once again. They were ordinary inhabitants of Coruscant of different ages and races. Who do they see in front of them? The former posterboy of the Republic, pale and disheveled, with dark circles under his eyes. In the morning before the hearing Ahsoka tried to help him clean up, but she had no idea what to do with human hair. Maybe it's even better this way. The jury will think he's suffering terribly after he murdered Palpatine.

“Chancellor Palpatine,” Anakin began, “had already talked about me leaving the Order. He... he knew about my disagreements with the Council and was ready to help me settle on my own on Coruscant.”

“Were your disagreements with the Council that serious?”

“Perhaps I... exaggerated a little in my conversations with the Chancellor, and he thought that my conflict with the Council was much more serious than it really was.”

Anakin in fact remembered that the Council couldn't stand him, and everyone there didn't like him, except Obi-Wan. He thought they would hate him even more when they found out about everything he had done. Anakin was no longer one of them, he had been a Sith longer than he had been a Jedi, right before his death he turned away from the Dark Side but committed numerous crimes before it. And yet the Order came to his defense. It would be much more convenient for them to leave Anakin at the mercy of Republican justice. He would have received a life sentence for the murder of the chancellor and spent the rest of his life in prison. Anakin was ready for such a fate. It was still better than becoming a Sith, and better than losing Padme. She will stay alive, and maybe even visit him in prison.

Instead, the Council insisted on keeping Anakin in the Temple instead of handing him over to the Coruscant detention center. Master Windu came to him and said: “Anakin, you will be judged by a jury, but I'm afraid they won’t like a time-travel story.”

“I know,” Anakin replied. “You didn't have to come here to tell me about it.”

It seemed to him then that Master Windu wanted to gloat. This was a stupid thing to think.

“During the investigation, they will most likely find some evidence that the chancellor passed information to the separatists. And if you prepare well for the trial, you may be acquitted. We will help you.”

“Why would you help me? I'm not a Jedi anymore.”

“That's not true. You're still a Jedi knight, you have a Padawan, and you killed a Sith who planned to seize power in the Republic and destroy the Order. It's the least we can do for you."

Anakin chuckled.

“The least”? And then what counts as “the most"?”

“We won’t talk about it, it’s illegal”.

Mace Windu smiled with the corner of his mouth.

“I know a very good lawyer,” he said. “She and Master Kenobi will help you prepare for the interrogations.”

After that Mace Windu came to him more than once, asked about the Sith, brought datachips with holodramas and recordings of theatrical plays. Obi-Wan brought him records of pod races and his favorite books. Anakin's cell was spacious enough to train, and he had long been used to doing it alone. It turned out that even the prison in the Temple was a much cozier place than his castle on Mustafar or his personal quarters abroad of the “Executor”.”

Adi Gallia came to ask him about Palpatine's ties with different shady groups. Anakin knew about them, although Palpatine didn’t reveal everything even to Darth Vader, his apprentice and right hand man.

“Are you going to conduct your own investigation?” he asked.

“I'm afraid the Order can't afford to investigate. But we can tell someone where exactly they need to dig.”

Anakin was sure that she was talking about official investigators with unnecessary secrecy, and had no good feelings about it. Most likely they, too, were corrupted by Palpatine and would not investigate his machinations too actively, if they didn’t want to accidentally investigate themselves.

A month and a half later, Obi-Wan brought him a datachip and with a large joint investigation of The Evening News and The Point that Chancellor Palpatine was transferring money to several criminal organizations through shady firms under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of Independent Systems. Journalists were able to trace some money to bounty hunters who carried out the chancellor's orders.

“Six months ago,” Obi-Wan said, “someone killed two The Point journalists who were investigating the creation of a clone army.”

“Has anyone reacted to this article?”

“Oh, it caused a full scale outrage. Our media was scaring us with separatists and bounty hunters for years and now it turns out that the Chancellor of the Republic is tied to both of them.”

“It won't hurt the Chancellor in any way. He's dead.”

“But it means that the Chancellor has committed treason, and you... hmm, maybe you didn't act very wisely, because the Chancellor should be convicted by the court, but at the end of the day your actions were justifiable.”

“He's a Sith, he couldn't have been arrested. He would have had time to give the order to destroy the Jedi. And besides, he could bribe investigators and judges.”

“We know that. But for an ordinary citizen of the Republic, you broke the law and killed the Chancellor instead of initiating an investigation. You need to show that you had no other choice, and you acted in the interests of the Republic.”

“So, the last question. Let's go back to why you killed Chancellor Palpatine instead of reporting him to the authorities?”

This last question was perhaps the most difficult. He couldn't answer it directly. Anakin had many reasons to kill Palpatine, but nobody would believe a time-travel story. Jedi agreed not to touch on this topic at the trial.

It's good that Obi-Wan came up with a plausible explanation for me, he thought. During the time they were preparing for the trial, Anakin even managed to convince himself that Obi-Wan has a point.

“At first I planned to do so. The Chancellor committed high treason, he should have been arrested,” he replied. “But I've known Chancellor Palpatine for a long time. He is… he was a very careful person, and he always had a backup plan. As you said, he wouldn’t just confess his crimes to me, a Jedi General," Anakin thought that here he might be suspected of insincerity. He was speaking in Obi-Wan's words, not his own. — “And then I realized that the Chancellor would not let me live if I refused to join him. Probably he planned to poison me, but I didn't think about it back then. I just realized that I would not have the opportunity to inform someone about his crimes. General Skywalker would accidentally die of natural causes, and Chancellor Palpatine would continue to act on his plans.”

To his surprise, one of the policemen later confirmed that they found a container full of lycaea extract in the Chancellor's apartment. It was a rare poison from Outer Rim that couldn’t be detected with standard tests, and the consequences of poisoning looked like a heart attack. “How did you guess he would have the poison?” Anakin asked Obi-Wan later. “If I were him, I would keep something like this in case of an emergency. Being a Sith he could kill a person with his lightsaber or strangle them with the Force, but such a death wouldn’t look natural. "Natural" deaths occur mainly from poison.”

[batboyblog]

My mom (In the past a red voter but questioning it this election) asked me what good Biden has done, and your "Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week" lists really came in handy. You are making change happen. You might have saved our democracy? tysm

Glad to have helped, and thank you. Listen I know talking politics with a loved one who maybe doesn't agree with you is awkward and some times even painful, but NO ONE can make a bigger impact on undecided and swingable voters than people they already know and trust. I'm knocking doors every weekend, which studies show is second best because they're face to face with a real human, but I only have 5 maybe 10 minutes if someone really wants to talk to me, thats nothing compared to the time people have with the people in their own lives.

So anyone who happens to read this, nows the time, ring up your parents, your grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, talk to that friendly co-worker, you have the power to change minds, to turn non-voters into voters, undecided into Democratic voters, work on the people in your life.

and particularly like to say to young people, LGBT people, who have family that know you're queer and love you but keep voting Republican, now is the time to have a hard conversion with them about what that means for you, and how it makes you feel when they vote for people who hate you. I know its hard, I'm really lucky that the first two people I ever heard express support for gay marriage were my grandparents, I know a lot of people have to carry around with them forever that * about their relationship with older relatives, nows the time to put that away forever, its better to have one hard talk with grandma now then live the rest of your life with that hanging over your memories of her.

And everyone should sign up to knock doors too because we all only know so many swing voters.

[welcometomypov]

"It's four years then Trump is gone" as if they haven't talked about creating a dictatorship and people not needing to vote again. As if they didn't talk about taking the right of voting of women away. Seriously. Fuck you.

Not a single person that I follow, live with, talk with, or vaguely know that belongs to the Republican party wants a dictatorship.

We've had discussions on how we'll embrace our Second Amendment right to STOP Trump if he tries to impose a dictatorship. We don't care if it accomplishes everything that we desire- that's NOT what America stands for and we won't stand for disrespect to our country. The Democrats don't have to worry about the majority of Republicans. If he tries to play dictator, we won't stand for it.

I EXIST ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. If someone was intending to take away my right to vote, I think I would HAVE HEARD OF IT. Zero people have ever INSINUATED THAT and it's sad that Democrats are walking around playing like they're not the only ones discussing it.

Also, if someone tries to take away my right to vote, every male in my family will riot. Voting is an American right. No one will change that.

You want to have sex with me? Or at me?

Alright, I guess that's your prerogative, but I'll pass.

[eugenedebs1920]

I’ve been a political junkie since before I could vote. I remember, I was in 3rd or 4th grade, listening to the radio when my mom was driving me somewhere. A news brief comes on and it’s about George H.W. Bush and Desert Storm. When the segment ended I said, “George bush sucks!” My mom got mad at me, not because of the statement, but because of the word suck, saying, “where did you learn that word Eugene?! Do you even know what suck means?” Honestly I really didn’t, but I knew it was an insult.

I have never! Not once, bailed on my civic duty to vote since turning 18. Presidential election, midterm election, special election, local. If I was given the opportunity to voice my opinion, I was about it.

I’ve always stayed pretty informed. Sometimes, like the current moment, far too much. The whole process fascinates me. Both the campaigning and the idea behind a representative , democratic election. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not wearing a light up, goofy hat. Although I did attend a Democratic National Convention once. Not the convention itself but I saw Rage Against the Machine perform for my second time, and the DNC time was free!

My first election I voted for Al Gore. I liked him. I thought he was smart. I liked his stance on the environment. I liked that he had the experience under Clinton that he had. I will also tell you, I didn’t then, nor have I ever, repped hats, or shirts, or flags of ANY president or presidential candidate. A pin or two the day I received em, or on my backpack maybe. Never though have I walked around with my political affiliation, or my affliction to a politician on full display. There were times when it wasn’t hard to tell with long hair, patchwork pants, big beard but.

That’s what has me so perplexed, not the hair and beard thing, but the devotion. I don’t get it. It would be different if it was, I don’t know, not Donald Trump! I mean, who really is that guy?

I saw him on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, a couple times as a kid, thought he seemed smug even then, I missed the whole Apprentice thing, didn’t even own a tv during that time. Was too busy living life. Is that where this follow derives from? I never saw one episode. I heard it wasn’t that good, nor did it have that high of ratings.

He isn’t a very elegant speaker. Go read a quote of his. When he says it, it kinda makes sense, but when you read one, it’s nothing. He says a bunch of words but he doesn’t say anything. It’s actually embarrassing that Trump quotes will forever be part of American history. Here’s an example from a rally when talking about Kamala Harris “back home to mommy. And she goes back home to mommy. ‘Was that you darlling?’ And then she gets the hell knocked out of her. Her mothers a big fan of ours. You know that, right? Her father, her mother. No, you always have that.” Mind you a couple things here. Right before this little snippet I clipped, he was talking about California and “whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or independent this election is your chance to send a message”. Directly before, the next words are the mommy thing. It doesn’t piece together at all! Also. Kamala’s mom passed away quite a while ago from cancer. What is he even talking about!?

Now compare that to an Obama quote from 2004. “Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats.”

See. It’s coherent, it has a driven message, it’s passionate. I can get behind that. Not talks about Hannibal Lecter, and electric boats. I don’t get it.

Moving forward.

Let’s talk about his presidency. What bills did he pass? There’s the massive corporate and wealthy tax cut that did very little for 98% of Americans. What else? Anybody? “Well, he built the wall and Mexico payed for it” that is false. There have been small sections built, but scattered, not even one long area. He increased the national debt by over $7.5 trillion. His policies, or lack there of with Covid caused hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths. Those stimulus checks to keep Americans afloat are the cause of the inflation that we just now got back to normal. When he had to “print” money to give us so we could survive, the value of the dollar went down because there was more capital with no transaction, so with less value the dollar represents, the more things cost in relation to it. Economics is some weird, complicated, almost dogmatic stuff, but it kinda makes sense.

Then there’s the whole not accepting the election results thing. I’ve written and talked about over and over again. It’s exhausting! This is BY FAR the worst thing potentially ANYONE has done to America. More so than the 9/11 terror attacks, Pearl Harbor, Boston marathon, that’s a bold statement. Yet, through his narcissism not allowing him to concede to defeat, and claiming the election was rigged, it is an immensely damaging assault on the very foundation of this whole American democratic experiment. His words have sown doubt into the fabric of democracy with his baseless lies. He absolutely had the right to contest the results, do investigations, recounts, audits, and file suit with the evidence he had supporting his claims. The thing is, he had no evidence, there was no proof of any fraud because, there was none. Thats the end of the behavior that was acceptable. When all those court cases were dismissed for lack of evidence, that should have been it, but no.

All the tweets, all the interviews, all the scheming and plotting, after the court cases and recounts and whatnot, that’s sedition! Thats purposely conspiring against the United States. He knowingly pushed false information to Americans, who believed their commander in chief, and perpetrated the worst assault on our nation’s capital since the Civil War. Thats treason!!

The fact that that wasn’t the end is flabbergasting! The fact he is still in the public eye, let alone running for the seat he so immensely betrayed blows my f*cking mind!!

I don’t care about party affiliation, first and foremost we are Americans. First and foremost our allegiance is to the constitution. First and foremost we abide by the law. This sycophantic groveling to this guy is disgusting! It’s saddening. It’s unamerican.

This upcoming election will, and is saying a lot about us as Americans. The outcome will reflect who we are. I’m not sure I can say with confidence what that is. In the words of 4th grade Eugene, It sucks.

[wumblr]

i met a liberal at the bar tonight. we were talking about the amish and i was like did you know they have IT guys. there's a whole unique windows distro for the amish. it's proprietary. and he was like i guess that's why i'm liberal. and i was like what? and he was like why do you say that like it's a bad thing and i was like i didn't say anything you said that. and he said what's wrong with being a liberal and i said neoliberalism is a project of colonial expansion based on extracting resources from the third world by holding a gun to everybody else's head, so, what's good about that? and he did NOT like that for some reason. he was like are you a republican and i was like no absolutely not. i'm a hologram actually. i'm a russian bot. and he was like you're laughing at me. and i couldn't shake the prevailing impression that what he was really saying was you're being mean to me because you're reacting to this incomprehensible nonsequitur about the amish less warmly than you're reacting to the jokes of your friends. like yeah my friends have been sitting here showing me the tiktok that went viral when somebody paid at their job in pennies and talking about when they went to basic training because their parents got divorced, i literally don't know you or what your views are, how could i be laughing at them. but i heard someone got their ass beat for throwing a hot dog at someone so i guess i better be careful. like what even is the bar. i think i saw lightning strike a lightning rod on top of a building, off in the distance. don't think i've ever specifically seen that before. it was like horizontal, touched down in the middle. and my friend was like what would a russian robot sound like and i was like t.a.t.u.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lilli Petersen at HuffPost:

When Taylor Swift came out to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris last month, it was the Instagram post heard ’round the world (or at least ’round the TikTok FYP algorithm). “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote immediately following the first, and only, debate between Harris and former President Donald Trump. She signed her message “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” — a knock at Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has used the term to demean women without children.

With her simultaneous endorsement of the Democrat and swipe at the Republican, Swift, at 34 arguably the most famous millennial woman in U.S. pop culture, also made herself the avatar of an ongoing shift in politics among her demographic of young women: For the past few decades, they have been tilting decidedly left. “It’s popping out in the polling because it’s more dramatic this year than it has been in other years,” said Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution. The Harris campaign has been assiduously courting women, and particularly young women. Harris regularly makes abortion rights a talking point in interviews and stump speeches, has embraced the meme-ification of her campaign (including Charli XCX enthusiasm and Swift-themed get-out-the-vote campaigns), and recently went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy,” which began life as a relationship and advice podcast and whose audience is now over two-thirds female and over 90% younger than 45. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, has been... less deft. From Vance doubling down on demeaning childless women and suggesting they should have less voting power, to Trump promising to be women’s “protector,” to, really, just all of the plain ol’ misogyny, it’s not surprising the gender gap isn’t in Trump’s favor.

“You hear important people talking like this, and you say, ‘What the hell?’ You know, ‘People with children should have more votes than people without children.’ What?” laughed Kamarck. “Between Vance and Trump, they are articulating an amazingly old-fashioned notion of women’s role in society,” she added. The shift of young women leftward is not a particularly new trend. Women are regularly more liberal than their male peers, and young people are regularly more liberal than their older counterparts.

[...] She also noted that the research only focuses on women who were ages 18-29 at the time of polling, which means the data reflects the views of multiple generations, rather than the changing attitude of a steady cohort. The overall picture also shows some variance by race: White and Black women under age 50 have especially moved to the left, while Hispanic women have largely stayed the same or even shifted rightward. “But even with the ups and downs, we’ve ended up at a place that’s significantly higher, on a percent level, than it was in 2015,” Saad said. And while young women are shifting left, young men are staying relatively moderate. Sixty-three percent of young women in 2001-2007 had views closer to those of liberals than of conservatives, a figure that jumped to 78% in the 2008-2016 period and then to 87% in the 2017-2024 period. Young men, meanwhile, saw those same figures move from 47% to 57%, and then fall to 50% for the period from 2017 to 2024. The divide is becoming ever clearer as the 2024 election approaches. According to a fall 2024 Harvard Youth Poll, Harris has a 31-point lead over Trump among likely voters under 30 — and when it comes to likely female voters in that age group, Harris leads 70% to 23%. “Brat,” indeed.

[...] Young women, though, are more likely than young men to be involved in liberal-leaning social movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, environmental activism and gun violence prevention. Particularly involved are young women of color, who Kiesa notes have taken on “significant” leadership in activism work.

HuffPost’s Lilli Petersen explores why young women in the USA are shifting leftwards at a historic pace since 2015.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[brian-kinney-apologist]

hey babe!! i have a qaf question for u

ok so ive heard ppl in this (very small) fandom talk abt hal sparks really negatively either because of his character (understandable, micheal sucks ass) or because of his political views/beliefs/whatevers

i have never understood the second part and was told that u are quite the qaf historian so i was wondering if u could give me a lil summary of what those beliefs/views of his are because i would really like to know!!

ty in advance 🖤

well hello there, nice to know that my reputation in qaf fandom is still alive and well lol

so. here's the thing: if we're talking politics overall he didn't say anything questionable as far as I know (he has a podcast on youtube or smth where he trashes trump and other republican politicians (I'm not american so my knowledge of american politics is pretty basic so don't quote me on this one lol) so it's fine with me lol)

if we're talking the show though 👀💀

he did say some things back in the day that made people dislike him (but mind you now everything is cool between everyone involved in the show at least public wise so we're going to talk about the times when the show was airing and some time after it ended)

1. the most questionable™️ thing that he's ever said was comparing kissing a man (a costar on screen) to kissing a dog and people thought he meant that it was disgusting or smth BUT he did clarify later that people misinterpreted him because he meant that he's not attracted to men so kissing male costars on set during filming did nothing for him (it was an answer to some interviewer's question what it's like to kiss a man so take it as it is 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️)

btw interviewers AND fans had no decorum back in the day asking the whole cast all sorts of personal questions (poor randy still has ptsd bc of this 😭💀)

2. now it's tea time!!!! hal used to have a beef with gale and randy that led to him being hated by their fans. so. before the show aired hal was the most famous actor in the cast (except for sharon gless obviously) and he thought (was promised ?????) that he'd be the lead man™️ of the show. but after qaf aired everyone fell for gale (obviously sorry not sorry lol) because he served and ate everyone up. and also everyone focused on britin. hal didn't like that (considering it was basically gale's and randy's first roles on tv) and he started saying some stuff about them (publicly). for example, he said that actors' work is doing what's written in the script no questions asked. that was a clear dig at gale and randy as they were famous for constantly questioning/criticising the writers/showrunners/producers, disliking their plotlines and basically voicing their opinions on set (they did nothing wrong, should've complained more, look at s5 🥲). also hal did say one time that he would never work with gale again but didn't elaborate why. and as far as I know he did say more shady stuff about gale and randy during different interviews but I don't have any more specific examples (i think he was also constantly pointing out that he's straight while gale didn't say much about his own sexuality and hal was speculating about it). moreover, I remember reading somwhere that hal didn't like people who drank/did drugs bc he himself was against this stuff and gale and peter smoke some weed before some s1 promotion event and hal had a problem with it. the last thing: he also did complain about gale staying in character (whatever that means in regards of gale) during filming but no one else complained so 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️.

(I lied last thing fr fr I wanted to point out that gale and randy NEVER said anything back about hal so that kinda makes you think)

hope this helps, if someone has something to add or wants to correct me, feel free to do so

[machine-saint]

the thing is that a lot of arguments can't really be resolved at the meta level. you gotta go down to the object level. is X project not working because it's not funded enough, or because it's fundamentally not viable (and we should therefore defund it), or because the funds are simply misallocated and we should adjust the project but keep funding the same? you can't answer that without knowing the details about the project, of course, but knowing those details requires a lot of domain knowledge most people talking about X don't have. it's easier to make a meta-level argument by comparing it to something else ("this person is still starving even after we gave them a bite to eat, guess food doesn't help", "we need to allocate more funds to digging if we want to get out of this hole!", etc) which by virtue of having no basis in object-level knowledge can only ever be a persuasive device, not a truth-finding one

i've heard it alleged that this is part of why america gets shit outcomes on things like public infrastructure and healthcare relative to peer countries despite expenditures: republicans often use "making sure funds are allocated properly" as a codephrase to mean "removing funding entirely", so democrats abandoned that bit of rhetoric, which means that if a program isnt doing well then the only possible option is to give it more money

[qqueenofhades]

One of my biggest annoyances is leftists and communists beinging up Biden’s tweets during the 2020 campaign of things he said he would do, and being like “see?? he didn’t deliver on anything and this is why you shouldn’t vote for the Dems again” Like, for all the understanding they seem to have of communist or marxist or whatever theory, the idea that the President is not a king and can’t do whatever he wants without Congress’s approval is lost on them?? He still believes in those things but if Congress won’t pass the legislation what is he supposed to do? EOs won’t solve all our problems.

Yeah. Not even to mention, the claim that "Biden hasn't done/delivered anything!!!" is a big fat lie, as people keep pointing out the things he has done, with a razor-thin House majority (until 2022) and two "Democratic" senators who torpedoed everything and one of whom has now literally left the party (Manchin and Sinema). So while Online Leftists obviously don't understand the difference between "achieving all of his campaign goals" and "achieving some," for the last frikkin time, Biden has done a lot of good things in very bad circumstances!!!!!! Using "he didn't do everything!!!!" as an excuse to not vote and so enable the open and unrepentant fascists is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard!!!!

Like. Take the debt deal. As in other things, Biden clearly learned from Obama's mistake (which was believing that the Republicans would ever negotiate in good faith about anything, and/or would reciprocate in kind if Biden made concessions). McCarthy whined for WEEKS that Biden wasn't listening and wasn't talking to him and wasn't entertaining his ridiculous proposals (22% cuts in ALL discretionary/non-military spending, including Social Security, Medicare, etc etc, while preserving the giant Trump tax cuts for the rich.) No matter that a full one-quarter of the national debt ($7.8 trillion of $31 trillion) was racked up under Trump and the debt ceiling involves paying bills that have already been spent. No sir, those Damn Free-Spending Democrats wanted to use your money on icky things like ~social welfare!! It was mean and it was hypocritical and it was blindingly obvious, and Biden just completely ignored it. He didn't try to negotiate in good faith with that, because there was no way it would work. He just let them whine.

Then, when it came down to it, Biden went in and got a deal that preserves pretty much all of the Democrats' major legislative priorities and expansions from the last two years. The only real change is raising the work requirement age for childless adults on SNAP food assistance from 49 to 54, but this has also been accompanied by a corresponding expansion of the definition "homeless" to make more people eligible, some for the first time ever. There's not going to be any major new spending for the next two years, but that wasn't happening anyway since the GOP controls the House and wouldn't agree to anything Biden put in the budget (and plus, none of the money that has already been allocated through the American Rescue Plan and other federal assistance is getting taken away). But more importantly, it raises the debt ceiling for the next TWO years and it won't come up again until after 2024. That is HUGE: the GOP really, REALLY wanted to hold the economy hostage again prior to the next presidential election. But Biden basically went in and told McCarthy to stfu and got what he wanted. Qevin was even forced, after months of "Sleepy Joe" GOP propaganda, to call Biden "very smart and very tough" in the negotiations. Soooo.

Anyway, this is what I mean: this isn't as sexy and/or as utterly fucking useless as spouting lukewarm rebaked "Marxist" propaganda on the Twittermachine about how Biden hasn't done anything, but it's the actual nitty-gritty work of government and flat-out beating the Republicans. They got absolutely shit-all that they wanted, because Biden didn't fall for their same old, same old dirty tricks and disingenuous squealing. He went in, got the job done, and will get way less credit for it than he deserves, from anyone. Dunno about you, but I like that guy. I plan to vote for him again.

[raddisheat0r]

I strongly disagree with this. 

Your first argument “The prisoners in Arkham need somebody like Bolton to keep them in line. Lyle does that, extremely well.” ‘The Prisoners’, the people held within Arkham Asylum are mental patients, they are mentally ill. Harley Quinn has HPD (histrionic personality disorder) and was stuck in an extremely abusive relationship leading to her life of crime, Arnold Wesker has DID (dissociative identity disorder) and doesn’t believe that he committed the crimes but the puppet on his hand. Jonathan Crane has ASPD (as well as other personality disorders), however, in the Btas, it is quite clear he is a very disturbed individual.  

Your second argument “Just because he jerked them around a little, doesn’t mean he’s some hellian. Also, that kind of treatment improves behavior.” Perhaps you may have not noticed because the BTAS is a kids show from the 90s but it is heavily implied that Bolton abuses the patients of Arkham, this has been shown in other media in recent years. To suggest that “jerking patients around (…) improves behaviour.” Is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. It doesn’t work in real life, why would it work in Batman? The Batman universe (ignoring all the supernatural stuff, we’re just talking about Batman n Gotham) reflects real life, corruption, mental illness and (yada yada)  

Your third statement “I don’t agree with how he was kidnapping pretty random people though, like a news reporter, Commissioner Gordon, etc…. If he hadn’t done so he'd be innocent in my eyes.” Obviously, you watched the show with your eyes closed, Lyle Bolton, was a character supposed to represent a republican extremist. You can tell by his room and by his use of the wording “liberal media”. Him kidnapping “random” people is him trying to control the city of Gotham to become what he thinks will be better.  

And…Commissioner Gordon…a random person?? HE’S THE POLICE COMMISSIONER!!!

Fourth statement “I also don’t understand the hate for him. The other Batman villains have done way worse. At least Lyle does something beneficial for Gothams society”  Again, the reason for his hate is because he abuses the patients of Arkham Asylum and other fans of the series actually have empathy. I think the crimes of Lyle Bolton vs The Rogues Gallery can be debated but someone else can do that. The entirety of Gotham Society is corrupted, That's why it’s the most crime filled place on earth. yknow what would make it better? An abusive head of security, so he can make the mentally ill patients even more mentally ill, so they can break out and reek havoc on the good people of Gotham.  

Fifth statement “I don’t understand why Bruce wouldn’t buy a better security system for Arkham in the first place. Bolton knows what he’s doing sooo” That's why Bolton got the job in the first place, because of his record but Bruce fired him because he mistreated mentally ill people. Arkham, while also holding mentally ill people holds geniuses, I find it difficult to believe that, let’s say The Riddler, a self-proclaimed genius would have a difficult time with a new “high tech” security in Arkham, the reason it was a wasn't a "revolving door" was because of the abuse. I personally, don’t think the entire problem with Arkham is the security but the doctors, funding, and the system itself.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Same anon that's something the supreme Court question. Why do you say it like they are defending it when I have seen multiple people say they don't care about the Constitution either? Like aren't they the ones that overturning roe v wade and there's a possibility they will make same-sex marriages illegal again with all this project 2025 stuff that's going up?

speaking about that, is Biden actually accomplishing those goals? And please make this very clear with facts. This may require you to write up a longer post about this but I think I really want to understand if that is a fear monitoring thing or if this is another "Dems are bad, gop good" shit

First of all, Roe v Wade was always bad law. The idea that the right to privacy means a right to legal abortions never made sense, morally or constitutionally, and it never should have been in place at all, let alone for as long as it was. The Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional laws and reversing unconstitutional decisions is literally why it exists. The Constitution empowers the court for that very reason. If you want other examples of the court protecting the constitution, just look at the Heller decision, or any of the other decisions rolling back unconstitutional gun laws in the past few years. Look also at Matal v Tam, in which the court unanimously ruled that the government can't ban speech just because it's offensive. Which means that there can be no laws against so-called hate speech in the US, and the Orwellian tyranny you see all over Europe under the guise of combating "hate speech" can never legally happen here. Which is a massive win for free speech and the entire reason the 1st Amendment was written.

As for gay marriage getting overturned, it's incredibly unlikely, since there are zero court cases about gay marriage going on right now and the Supreme Court can't just make rulings out of nothing (much to the frustration of more than a few people, I'm sure) it's basically a non-issue. If you're referring to what Clarence Thomas said about gay marriage in his majority opinion overturning Roe, he specifically said that this ruling shouldn't be used as justification to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on its own, though he did say that those decisions deserve another look. And he's right. Obergefell is another case of an activist court inventing rights out of thin air. There is no such thing as the right to marriage, for gay or straight people. It should be overturned, and the issue of defining legal marriage should be left up to individual states, as the Constitution intended (see the 10th Amendment).

I've been asked about Project 2025 before, and I'll tell you what I told the last anon, as far as I can tell, it's a pile of nothing. It's a group of policy proposals made by a bunch of conservative political commenters I've never heard of, who, as far as I know, have no connection to any Republican political campaign or the RNC. No one on the right is talking about the project. No politicians have come out in support of it. No campaigns have said they're going to implement those policies. Project 2025 is a left-wing boogeyman, and not even one that's getting a lot of traction in left wing circles since the only time I've ever seen anyone talking about it has been in my ask box and a few fringe far left conspiracy sites that came up when I originally tried to figure out what it was. It's the left attempt to have their own Agenda 2030 to be scared and angry about, except there aren't any international organizations trying to get the governments of the world to adopt their policies.

speaking about that, is Biden actually accomplishing those goals?

So, I really don't know what you mean by this. What goals?

[anamericangirl]

1. You're delusional. No one is forcing kids to be LGBTQ

2. The party switch was a real thing that did happen. In the 1960s, the parties switched on the issue of civil rights. This is evident from that fact that republicans gained political control of the south, the kkk becoming majority republican, the kkk support every republican presidential candidate in every election since 1960, and the lost cause ideology being purported and repeated by southern republicans.

Wow so basically you just believe whatever you’re told to believe regardless of what reality is. Unfortunately for you it takes more than “that’s not true” to convince me of something but I know that’s the strongest argument you’ve got because you know you’re wrong.

The big switch didn’t happen and if you actually looked at history and didn’t just believe whatever the tv tells you then you would know that.

Voter base changed, platforms and values did not.

The democrats have always been the racist party. They were at their founding and they remain so today. Every racist policy and law you’ve ever heard of was a democrat policy and you can’t erase that by pretending the parties just swapped sides and now everything the democrats did is the republicans fault. I know a lot of people like to say that happened but looking at history proves it wrong.

So stop trying to excuse racism and blame it on the party that isn’t responsible for it.

But I do love how you tried to prove the big switch by only having the KKK as an example as if they are a prominent group in the US and how they vote and their history is all that matters when talking about the history of the two party system lol.