I can’t speak to the misogyny, but to your second point, I try so hard to not mention him because your opinion gets disregarded in dem spaces as soon as you bring him up. He did everything right and dems would rather lose than actually be progressive.
- 0 Posts
- 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I keep telling myself I won’t comment on political posts, and yet here I go again.
If we stop looking at non-voters, and start actually looking at voters, you’ll see that Trump gained support among both women and non-white voters. Why is nobody asking about that? I would rather they have stayed home than given Trump the extra vote, but all you hear about now is low turn out in white men. She lost in almost every bloc because she didn’t inspire any of the dem base. High turnout skews dem and she was just not an inspiring candidate.
Kamala had no time to campaign, was an unknown to voters despite being the VP, made no strides to distance herself from Biden, and failed to run a cohesive strategy. People just were not excited to vote for her. Do I think a popularity contest is the best way to elect the president, no, but that doesn’t change the system that we have.
The race was extremely close, and the fact that Trump GAINED in POC and women blocs probably speaks more to the campaign that was run rather than America’s inherent sexism or racism. Just to be clear, America is sexist and racist, and people can be self hating or whatever, but she GAINED points in the white male category and lost in the black male category. Sure, white men should have shown up, but it’s very easy to cry “racism/sexism” if you ignore all the other people who didn’t show up or the people who DID show up and voted trump. She might’ve run as well as she could have, but it was a bad campaign.
There was a 5% loss in young voters. I wonder how energized they would have been not just to vote but to donate and volunteer had she run a different campaign. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback, but Joe ruined the chances of a dem winning this year.
If dems still want to blame racism/sexism, then I don’t want to see any dems support POC/women in primaries. Dems should only run white males and if I see a POC/woman being pushed again I will assume they want to sabotage that year. I expect “I’m not voting for a POC/woman candidate” to be a well regarded and widespread dem opinion for practicality sake. Either stop running them ever, or admit they can win with better campaign strategies. You can’t have it both ways.
Going off these numbers: https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/
8·8 days agoI think in this case the concept is that you are sending a thank you to Kamala Harris? So it’s supposed to make you feel like you will be contacting her directly in some roundabout way. So in that case although the text is to you, the thank you they are requesting you sign is to Kamala Harris.
It’s not really like that at all. Kinda the opposite.
“We would love you to pick up pizza for dinner”
“I generally don’t eat out”
“If you don’t pick up pizza, someone will get lasagna delivered”
“That’s fine. I don’t really care”
“WHY DIDNT YOU GET US PIZZA?! NOW WE ONLY HAVE LASAGNE!!”
If the dems wanted them to go out and pick pizza, they could’ve worked harder to do that. The people that didn’t vote legitimately do not care. The dems needed to give them a reason to care and they didn’t. Is it unfortunate that stopping fascism isn’t a good enough reason? Yes. Did we know that was going to be the case the whole time? Yes. The dems strategy was bad, and people will suffer because of it. The people who didn’t vote will continue to be apathetic.
What a bad take. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It has very little to do with race or sex. I’m not going to pretend that it has nothing to do with that, but certainly not enough to change the results in even the tightest of races.
The democrats ran a bad race and they crippled themselves by not having a primary. A primary allows voters to hear more from candidates and Joe all but said he would be a one term president. Him holding onto power like he did while having such a low approval rating really kneecapped any chances for another dem to inject excitement into the base.
Like it or not, a politicians job interview isn’t based on their policy, it’s based on their ability to get votes. Kamala Harris didn’t get enough votes, so she did a bad job. She might not have been given the tools to do better (like having a primary in which to get her views out), but ultimately she failed. If you’re a sheep herder and you can’t herd your sheep where they need to go, you can’t blame the sheep. It’s your job and you’re bad at it. The sheep are what they are. Sure, you can point out that the other shepherd beats his sheep into submission, or slaughters the sheep who misbehave, but ultimately if he manages to get the flock (with or without all the sheep) somewhere, and you can’t get them anywhere, then it’s your fault. Not only are you a bad herder, but the sheep that remain in your flock are worse off because you’re unable to protect them since you’re floundering trying to get the lost sheep. They just sit there picked off by wolves (or whatever I’m not a shepherd) watching you be upset at the lost sheep. They would be better served by a better shepherd. They might not have been better served by the other guy, but that doesn’t mean anything now because you failed and now the wolves are getting them anyway. Blame the sheep if you want, but that doesn’t help you find a better shepherd next time.
The sheep who misbehave MAY be sexist, which statistically is not the reason they stray, but if it was, you should have left them to a different shepherd. It’s your job to protect them and if they’re sexist and won’t follow a woman, it’s in everyone’s (including hers) best interest to just let a man do it. Though, I can’t stress enough how little that probably changed the result of this election.
I’m a woman and I voted Clinton. I voted Harris. If I could choose between never having a female president for the rest of Americas future but having all the presidents align with my issues, or swing between R and D with some women sprinkled in, I’d choose option #1 without question. I don’t need a woman in office, I need someone who can win and make policy changes I support. I don’t care about anything else. Having a female candidate who wants to protect my bodily autonomy does nothing for me if I can get a president who does. Making this about identity politics is a great way to remove pressure from the dems to do better. Before the election you can’t criticize dems. Apparently after the election you can only criticize voters. The dems ran a terrible race and have been failing on both policy and optics for the entirety of her run. I feel bad for her, but I feel worse for us. America is screwed and the dems refuse to take any accountability. (Obviously the Rs are the absolute worst, but telling satan he’s evil just makes him smile, so I don’t bother. In case you want to know why I never really mentioned Rs).
I edited my above comment with some links and will just add them here: Edit because apparently people don’t believe me. Googling “DNC mailers voter information” and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says “The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists.”
Since you seem to want specifics, there are pics in the articles, but “The mailers also contain a statement that the center “will be reviewing these records after the election to determine whether or not you joined your neighbors in voting.””
That might be the case, but I edited my above comment with some links and will just add them here: Edit because apparently people don’t believe me. Googling “DNC mailers voter information” and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says “The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists.”
I can’t stress enough that it does read the same. I got one from a dem org and though it was formatted differently, the wording was the same. It basically ended with “we will be checking to see if you vote this year”. It was gross and felt invasive even though I have no reason to be scared at all, even if my whole ballot was public. I can only imagine how some immigrants or people in abusive households took this.
Edit because apparently people don’t believe me. Googling “DNC mailers voter information” and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says “The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists.”
I commented elsewhere in this thread, but I’m sad to report that the dem ones are not good either. They’re probably not as bad as the Trump ones, but the message is still gross and I received one from a dem org that had me looking up the owners and donors because it looked like a right wing scare tactic to me.
Just because information is public doesn’t mean using it is a good strategy. I think this was a bad choice for dems.
Edit because apparently people don’t believe me. Googling “DNC mailers voter information” and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says “The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists.”
Don’t wanna doxx myself because the mailers are all region specific, but I can assure you they are coming from dems too. I’m a dem voter and I got one and googled it. I even looked at the org that’s behind it and the CEO was openly a dem and the employees donated to left wing candidates and the org comes up as left wing when I looked into it. I called them to say that this seems like a right wing scare tactic so I was surprised to see it used on a left of center orgs mailers. Obviously there is nothing the rep could do, but hopefully if enough people call in they will change this. I’m still concerned that this left wing org is somehow secretly right wing because the mailer rubbed me the wrong way so much.
Edit because apparently people don’t believe me. Googling “DNC mailers voter information” and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems. For transparency, I very slightly edited my original comment for brevity/clarity.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says “The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists.”
Puréed potatoes and they’re good actually, so you’re just making their point. 🥔
3·1 month agoThank you for compiling this so neatly. It’s nice to have this all together.
The IOC stopped accepting IBA decisions like this because they are a corrupt organization. The IBA never provided that information and we don’t have confirmation of that, but by disqualifying her, a title was restored to a Russian athlete and they had made Russia’s gas company a main sponsor of the IBA. I’m not saying I know anyone’s chromosomal makeup, but I wish people would stop stating it as a fact. She could have it or not, but we do not know.
Before anyone claims Russophobia or whatever, not all Russian organizations or people are corrupt, but it’s well agreed that it was a poorly run organization with a lot of problems. For what it’s worth I’d be suspect of any country in that position. Sports are a big point of national pride and monetary gain, and people should be wary of any decisions affecting pride or money, regardless of the circumstances.
5·4 months agoFor what it’s worth, sure strikes on a school is probably considered more sympathetic than strikes on a shelter. Unfortunately, much of the public seems to believe Palestinian lives have no value, yet somehow attacking children (even if they’re Palestinian) is still reprehensible. So, rather than allowing people to think that the school was converted into a shelter for Hamas supporters, they just use the term school. Admittedly, I’m not familiar with reporting standards around the world, so I might be off.
I think it is showing what you are saved as in the other persons phone. There are ones where the guy presumably saved a girls number but she didn’t bother to save his and another where the girl saved him as do not answer. I think the point is so you can see how the other person views you. These are mostly joke features and the feature you mentioned is pretty standard now.
4·6 months agoI keep trying to find ways to evangelize Going Medieval. The devs have been so communicative and consistent with updates. It’s not everyones kind of game, but I’ve definitely spent more time than I should have playing it.
1·10 months agoI have never had a bad experience with an early access game. I generally only buy early access games from indie studios I am already familiar with, and have never purchased an early access AAA game. I genuinely enjoyed the early access aspect of several games, playing them through different stages in development extends the playtime in my opinion. Every new update feels like free DLC, but the game I purchased felt complete already. In my opinion, early access is far better than kickstarter for games, since at least there is a game you are purchasing and gameplay footage is publicly available, but sometimes these are legitimately the only ways to fund a game.
The issue is that the criticism is generally not valid. If you’re criticizing a colleague for poor time management because they legitimately have poor time management, fine, whatever. It’s not something I would do, but there may be cases in which that is done. In the context of this meme, it is likely not the individuals fault that they are overworked. It is likely a systemic failure that foists too many tasks on each individual worker. Generally, the people “bragging” about working additional hours are not poor performing employees, but people that are dedicated to their job or the company, and believe that the additional hours will help them advance their careers. Approaching it from a place of “if you are a good worker, they should treat you better, not worse” rather than shaming the individual is most likely to help them see the issue with that sentiment. Also, I’m pretty sure it was just a spelling error, but just to be clear I believe this is anti-worker, not anti-work.
Shame is not as effective as offering support, especially since the root cause of the behavior is not necessarily in the persons control. Working additional hours might be seen as a requirement in some fields, so you might be shaming them into not talking about the issue, but the best way to actually solve the problem would likely be to empathize with them and change their perspective.
If someone is in an abusive relationship and they mention the abuse to someone, shaming them for being in that relationship and subjecting themselves to that behavior is unlikely to fix anything. Offering them compassion and support and safe alternatives is demonstrably more effective. Shame is likely to make them more defensive about their choices or stop talking about the abuse they suffer entirely, especially if the issue is not entirely in their control. I think similar behavior and responses would be elicited in the case of working relationships as well. 
Since the election I’ve written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. “She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do” 100% this.
For what it’s worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she’s responsible for her campaign. They can’t force her to say anything she doesn’t want to.
I think there’s a lot of people talking past each other because they don’t agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it’s getting elected, others might think it’s being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn’t option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, “godliness”, and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think “how can people say he’s a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds” and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it’s obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.