It looks like both of the people referred to moderate but as to your point about modern, I wonder if there has been that much of a change in the last 20-30 (or 50 or 100) years as much as perhaps modern technology providing a louder megaphone, and as a result greater “reward” for being more and more–outlandish–to put it politely?
I don’t wish that pain and suffering on anyone. Ever her terrible ass.
That said, she’s 100% the type of person that would get the medical care, and never mention it on the trail, and continue to try and win over the nuts who want a ban.
She already lies to her base in order to get votes.
Some people deserve bad things to happen to them no matter how unethical it is to wish for, or do. Unethical maybe, but justified entirely. Our society is up against the clock on ecological and social issues and being ethical in the current system will not save it.
I don’t like to play devil’s advocate, but there is a sliver of light between “I am fine with” and “I will push for” a federal law. Both terrible stances given the makeup of this country.
She can put coherent sentences together, and I would love to elect a woman, but we are even more misogynistic than racist. Also, I’m waaaay far to the left of democrats, so nope.
What I find so frustrating about this country is that a minority would get to rule over the majority in that way. It’s bad enough that there are way too many cons and too many religious people on the court who do things like take away rights, now the same gaggle of people are hoping to enshrine that removal of rights in every state, no matter what the people in the state actually want for themselves.
Yeah, not surprising at all. I saw her on “Face the Nation” Sunday, and she avoided that question like the Plague. She kept throwing “Word Salad” at it, hoping it would go away.
Just be incoherent and let the audience fill in the rest for themselves.
Not only do you now have a bunch of followers who made the decision on their own and came up with their own ideas as to how you are going to help them, but you also did without actually committing to anything!!
I think she would make a fine Presidentress. Seems like she has a few great ideas up her sleeve about how to get this country out of the mess that Joe got us into.
Well, that’ll at least going to earn her the respect and appreciation of every conservative voter, but it’s must not evil enough to pull votes from Trump. She needs to be even more sinister.
Well, that’ll at least going to earn her the respect and appreciation of every conservative voter
It isn’t, because this is table stakes. If anything, her status as a mother of a daughter will raise serious concerns that she’ll backpeddle if her own daughter has an unwanted pregnancy or miscarriage.
That’s the big hurdle that conservative women have. Voters just reflexively see them as more-liberal than their male peers, because the conservative mode of politics is inherently patriarchal. How can you be a True Believer when you’re acting against your own best interests?
She needs to be even more sinister.
She needs to be a TV personality with 40 years of accumulated history and its simply too late for that to happen.
There’s nothing Haley can do to turn her campaign around. She was doomed from day one, shy of Trump having a sudden cardiac event on the campaign trail. No matter how cruel she behaves, she’ll always be seen as a conformer rather than the Real Deal because of who she is and where she comes from.
I’m still holding out on The Year Of Four Presidents, in which Biden loses in November and has a cardiac event later that month. Then Kamala is sworn in for a meager two months. Then Trump is sworn in and, shortly thereafter, has his own heart attack. And then his VP becomes President. All within a 12 month period.
Let’s face it: all GOP challengers this year are banking on Trump going behind bars or having a heart attack. Maybe, maybe, trying to get the VP nomination, but you don’t do that in fascism by trying to be more popular than the boss.
all GOP challengers this year are banking on Trump going behind bars or having a heart attack.
Vivek definitely. I think some of them were just campaigning to get a high enough profile to try again in 2028. Nikki Haley, more than the rest of them, feels like she’s playing for the runner-up spot like McCain received in '00 and Romney managed in '08.
Maybe, maybe, trying to get the VP nomination
No way Trump’s giving her the VP slot. She brings nothing to the ticket that Trump considers valuable. He’d sooner re-nominate Pence. There’s a line out the door of people who endorsed Trump earlier in the election cycle who are going to be ahead of her on the short list.
Like, for a party that is full of anti-mask sentiment, they sure do love to wear metaphorical masks. One thing I said at the exit interview for a job I worked is, “When are you going to admit that you don’t really see me or any of the guys on the shop floor as ‘people’?”
And I’d like to put it forward to Republicans. What’s it going to take to get you to take your mask off? What’s it going to take to get you to admit you see everyone who isn’t you as livestock? You know you’re full of shit, we know you’re full of shit, and you know that we know, and we know that you know that we know. Can we just drop the pretense and be honest with each other for a little bit?
It’s like, when two people are in a romantic relationship, and that relationship enters a rough patch, but instead of fighting, moving on, and healing, both sides just have some unspoken agreement to keep pretending that everything is fine. The more I think about it, I kinda realize that it’s like a game of chicken. First to drop the charade loses. And neither side wants to lose.
Well, Trump is past the average life expectancy for this country. His particular situation probably puts him in a shorter lived cohort than average too.
So he might die before the convention, and she would be the Republican candidate.
Since people are gloom and dooming all over the place about economy and inflation, situation favors the challenger.
So she’s got a real chance at becoming the next president, if Trump dies in the next couple of months. Looking at actuary table, seems to be in the ballpark of 3-4% chance…
You ever get the feeling that certain people are anti-abortion simply because they want neglected, sad children to grow up and become ignorant, angry adults that will vote to give sociopaths, narcissists and psychopath power?
The anti-abortion sentiment is very tightly bound up in the white nationalist / supremacist narrative. A lot of the same folks who say they want to ban women from having abortions are the same ones who endorse sterilizations, harden their hearts toward public healthcare for minorities, and scream all the live-long-day about Anchor Babies.
The theory of the anti-abortion activist is always that the wrong fetuses are getting terminated. This ties back to old blood libels against Jews, Satanic Panics, and other conspiracy theories that orbit the “Great Replacement” Theory of lower-than-average white replacement level procreation.
And in the last decade, as domestic maternity rates have fallen and hysteria around Arabs, Latinos, Africans, and the Dreaded China Menace has peaked, we’re seen a lot more Scientific Racism that gears itself around the need for a revitalization of the White Race as a prelude to some kind of future apocalyptic global struggle for power.
But also those same people would like orphans to be raised by private Christian organizations (and limit adoption to Christian nuclear families), so I would say they would also like those children to be raised Christian to reinforce their religious theocracy
Also, desperate, neglected, unwanted children have less of a chance of going to college and pursuing “better” career opportunities later in life. Theres just too much stress associated with the simple act of living. They’ll always have to rely on the state for assistance, which means they’ll always be driven to work the jobs no one wants for a pittance, just to be able to survive.
Make no mistake, the anti abortion politicians aren’t doing this out of any “respect for life” or whatever, they just want to keep the working class populated, so they can keep making money off the backs of an uneducated, exploited population.
I think Republicans are afraid of abortion because deep down they know that the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available. Gotta keep the garbage coming.
Even if you don’t win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don’t know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I’m not in mood for some flaming.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion.
That is an assumption, and not a fact.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Sure, I would love to hear arguments against it. I personalty would prefer if it wasn’t that way.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well.
That is a fair point.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Yeah, like I don’t agree with this at all. Not difficult to for me to think of situations where just let it be is the best and ignore it is the best answer.
Sure, I would love to hear arguments against it. I personalty would prefer if it wasn’t that way.
Well, your next part of your response (see below) actually signals that flexibility in changing of opinion does happen.
Otherwise, my own personal life experiences is contrary to what you stated, as Groucho Marx once quoted, “I can believe you, or my lying eyes.” I’m not going to doxx myself though, to prove that point, you’ll have to just take my word for it.
That is a fair point.
It’s an important point too.
A lot of times we go through our individual lives seeing things around us as not the way we would want them to be, and wonder if we are the only one who feels that way. Seeing other members in our society believe the same way as we do is a positive uplift to our own lives.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Yeah, like I don’t agree with this at all. Not difficult to for me to think of situations where just let it be is the best and ignore it is the best answer.
The problem with that philosophy though is that you end up seeing everything as ‘not worth it’ because human nature is such that you don’t want to be bothered to make the effort, and have to deal with the circumstances. Meanwhile, hatred continues to creep into our society more and more, as today’s events avidly show.
Sitting on the sidelines doesn’t help fix anything. I’m not saying you have to throw yourself in the battle each and every time (tag-teaming is okay) but you should at the very least do so if the effort is minimal. Comment responding on an Internet forum is low effort (at least initially).
Well, your next part of your response (see below) actually signals that flexibility in changing of opinion does happen.
Well, that depends if you view my opinion as radical. That was at least what I was talking about - not sure if it was clear or not.
Otherwise, my own personal life experiences is contrary to what you stated, as Groucho Marx once quoted, “I can believe you, or my lying eyes.” I’m not going to doxx myself though, to prove that point, you’ll have to just take my word for it.
Sure, we than have very different experiences when it comes to online, written debates. Which is absolutely possible - would be interesting to find out why.
A lot of times we go through our individual lives seeing things around us as not the way we would want them to be, and wonder if we are the only one who feels that way. Seeing other members in our society believe the same way as we do is a positive uplift to our own lives.
Fair point. That I personally tend to overlook since I’m rather a non conformist myself. But I can see how it’s in general rather helpful.
The problem with that philosophy though is that you end up seeing everything as ‘not worth it’ because human nature is such that you don’t want to be bothered to make the effort, and have to deal with the circumstances. Meanwhile, hatred continues to creep into our society more and more, as today’s events avidly show.
I don’t see how one necessary results in the other. I can run away if I’m alone at night and there are five Neonazis in front of me - no point in proving them wrong. Does not mean that I won’t speak up when I think it’s necessary.
Comment responding on an Internet forum is low effort (at least initially).
Sure, but also a very low form of any actual benefit. But than again, I won’t pretend like I know an effective way of fighting against the rise of the modern right. So who am I to judge?
Comment responding on an Internet forum is low effort (at least initially).
Sure, but also a very low form of any actual benefit.
(Emphasis above is mine)
It got us to talk, and share ideas/philosophies, didn’t it? I’d say it had a benefit.
Also, there are others who read and do not respond that it may affect, that you would never see the positive benefit of such an interaction of those others.
And as I mentioned before, you don’t do it for the rewards, you do it because it needs to be done. Hate should always be pushed back against.
It got us to talk, and share ideas/philosophies, didn’t it? I’d say it had a benefit.
Again, I was talking about specific engaging with radical opinions. I would not consider our conversation an example of such. Would you?
Also, there are others who read and do not respond that it may affect, that you would never see the positive benefit of such an interaction of those others.
Again, my point is that by engaging also more people will be exposed to the radical point of view, it helps to keep it in the discussion. Which does not mean to never to engage. Like I’m rather selective - I will engage if I think I have a good answer, because I have some knowledge or maybe just a good way of pointing out the absurd. If I see someone talking to crazy shit to them self, with no one around, I will also just go by (if I’m not in the right mood).
And as I mentioned before, you don’t do it for the rewards, you do it because it needs to be done.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
You’re saying kids born because abortion wasn’t available are pieces of garbage. What the fuck. think about what you said.
Since I was down voted into oblivion. I’ll reconsider your statement.
Deep down Republicans believe that the only reason they’re here is that they weren’t aborted.
So I guess that’s similar to conservatives thinking that the only way people can act morally is because they read it in a thousand year old book.
I guess the logic checks out but all I could think about with a gut check was that kids who’s parents wanted to abort them but couldn’t probably ended up in a hostile environment.
Actually I didn’t, which is why I asked that question. Your writing is unclear (which is why multiple people seem to be concerned about it), and you’re assuming the reader will understand your comment in specific context.
Why would I assume republicans (who are anti abortion) get enough abortions to influence how many of them there are? Can we even assume that having access to abortion influences population size when sterilization exists, and is something people get when they’ve had enough children? These are hypothetical questions, I don’t expect you to answer them. I’m just pointing out that without being clear, you can’t assume folks will read your post under the context you feel is obvious.
the only reason they’re here is because abortion wasn’t easily available
Meh. I think a lot more of it is Republicans seeing their children failing to have a sprawling brood of children to perpetuate the Family Line and falling back on this being some kind of conspiracy against white people.
These are people who get exposed to Reality TV families with twelve kids and yearn for the kind of extended families that they shamed their own kids out of when they freaked out about teen pregnancy during the 90s/00s.
Add comment