2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Mike Smalling said:
If you frame it broader around Democrat policies, rather than simply the Harris campaign, I think he is right. I don't think Harris herself did a lot to elevate identity politics through her campaign, but it's clear that it is being linked to the Democratic party at large. I would also add, that they failed to identify a villain responsible for the current economic state, and go after them. Instead it was just fearmongering about the second Trump term, which may or may not end up being correct, but most people just look at his first term and recognize that the world didn't end.
Click to expand...

Harris repeatedly used the term "woke" in 2019, and it subsequently began a cultural migration from its intended original meaning to a term of mockery and derision by groups who rejected intersectionality and identity politics. It has little to no meaning anymore in its original form.
 
How can anyone stand listening to this guy? He's got zero presence and also mostly talks rubbish.
 
Eurotrash said:
Maybe, but do the Dems really push the pronoun thing or is it rather the right that makes a HUGE deal out of one or two tweets from a few fringe persons on the left?
Click to expand...

I don't think pronouns are a big deal in politics. At least they don't get mentioned as much as some of the other issues he raised.
 
Raoul said:
The bit at 5:02 can't be understated. The Dems need to ditch that if they want to be viable in the 28 cycle.
Click to expand...
While I think that the Dem Party has silently ditched the so-called 'woke' ideology, and wasn't even the creator of it in the first place (it was a creature of academic institutions and bizarrely, Silicon Valley, two bubbles detached to most of the real world), because it had fully embraced it a few years ago, people still relate 'woke' with the Left, in this case, the Democrat party.

Sam Harris touches briefly over it (among many things) in his Trump article: https://samharris.substack.com/p/li...m_source=braze&utm_campaign=2024_w45_subStack

So the questions is how do the Dems go forward? Doing sensible policies, like being against biological males in women sports, let's say above 15 years old categories, will be instantly attacked as attacking the LGBT+ community, despite that it has nothing to do with the LGB in the LGBT+, and only a bit with 'T'. Same for the other hot-topics of the right, the pronouns and draq queens in schools. Same for immigration and defund the police, two policies that were completely stupid by lots of people in the Democrat party, distancing themselves from them risks being called 'bigots' and 'racists'. But persisting with them, good luck in getting votes from the center, center-right and even center-left.

I think the answer is relatively simple. The new candidate must not have baggage in those things. As stupid as it is, when you consider that it affects something like 5 people overall, the TV add on Kamala being 'absolutely' for transgender surgeries to illegal alien inmates followed by 'Kamala is for they/them, President Trump for you' seems to have been the most effective add in this campaign.
 
Revan said:
So the questions is how do the Dems go forward? Doing sensible policies, like being against biological males in women sports, let's say above 15 years old categories, will be instantly attacked as attacking the LGBT+ community, despite that it has nothing to do with the LGB in the LGBT+, and only a bit with 'T'. Same for the other hot-topics of the right, the pronouns and draq queens in schools. Same for immigration and defund the police, two policies that were completely stupid by lots of people in the Democrat party, distancing themselves from them risks being called 'bigots' and 'racists'. But persisting with them, good luck in getting votes from the center, center-right and even center-left.

I think the answer is relatively simple. The new candidate must not have baggage in those things. As stupid as it is, when you consider that it affects something like 5 people overall, the TV add on Kamala being 'absolutely' for transgender surgeries to illegal alien inmates followed by 'Kamala is for they/them, President Trump for you' seems to have been the most effective add in this campaign.
Click to expand...

The Dems need to reevaluate what they actually stand for, then find new leader capable of communicating that message properly. If there's one lessen to take away from last week, its that the Dem tent is too broad and needs to be reigned in to focus on middle and working class, which is where a vast majority of voters exist.
 
https://aflegal.org/

so now not just a basthit crazy think tank type org, but at the heart of the american establishment. an organisation intent on repealing decades of civil liberties legislation.
 
Raoul said:
Harris repeatedly used the term "woke" in 2019, and it subsequently began a cultural migration from its intended original meaning to a term of mockery and derision by groups who rejected intersectionality and identity politics. It has little to no meaning anymore in its original form.
Click to expand...
Agree with all that, but if you go back to things she said in 2019, it’s more of a candidate issue than how she campaigned in 2024. She had a lot of baggage on that front, but I don’t think she actively made it worse after she became the nominee. Trump tried to bait her with his racist bullshit, and she didn't bite.

It’s a bit similar to the immigration issue. Whatever policy plans Harris laid out, she’d be blamed for how things have gone over the last four years - perhaps rightfully so. The Republicans effectively labeled her the Border Tsar (whatever the feck that means), and from that point on, she was underwater on that issue.
 
It's going to be even more of a hilarious clusterfeck this time around, with zero grown-ups and only bootlickers in his admin.
 
Blood Mage said:
Yeah, abortion and gay marriage are toast aren't they?
Click to expand...
Gay marriage will be fine.

Abortion, I do not expect a federal ban, but it kinda sucks that in lots of states, it will continue being banned (it would have been banned if Harris was president, same as it is now under Biden).
 
Revan said:
Gay marriage will be fine.

Abortion, I do not expect a federal ban, but it kinda sucks that in lots of states, it will continue being banned (it would have been banned if Harris was president, same as it is now under Biden).
Click to expand...
Can they do that? I thought states had autonomy over those decisions.

Also isn't trump's thing to "let the states decide"?
 
Newtonius said:
Yeah but why. If someone is going to say Tate etc - while he is a bad apple he is also clearly harvesting them after being abandoned by society.

I mean lets talk about it, boys and girls are largely equal when they start in education and its hardly controversial to say education is a female dominated institution in the west that can be biased for a start not to mention a lack of role models during the critical growth period that male teachers are viewed as predators. Combine this with single mother parenting being increasingly prevalent and you can see the problem.

Then you get to high school where boys education is designed not necessarily to actually educate and utilize their energy levels but to curb masculinity, anger and bend them to social authority, which obviously doesn't work just breeds resentment.

Once they come out of education we have resentful, weak adult men lacking in confidence that are then seen as inherently toxic, privileged and vilified for what their ancestors did 200 years ago, yet are still expected to be high earners while women are even further ahead than they were in school, given inherent favoritism in dating and employment opportunities at college, internships etc that men also don't have. At least the poor white ones.

I mentioned in an earlier post about a gender war and this is absolutely what is playing out right now men know they are losing. If we aren't going to get more male teachers what we really need back again is single sex schools with different agendas, course this means acknowledging we are actually a sexually dimorphic species and good luck with that in the nebulous world of gender.



Its a big problem with gaming as a whole, especially as its one of the few spaces, certainly depending on system and genre, that''s audience is still dominated by men.

You will find many many many people that don't actually care about the games anymore but rather hating what is coming out cremating these games as woke, (especially with a female protagonist) i see it EVERYWHERE that isn't heavily moderated. Clearly another facet of this gender war, in trying to be a more "inclusive" space it has turned in to a toxic breeding ground of resentment and anger.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough this post reads as if you got most of your talking points from Tate the bad apple.
 
Fridge chutney said:
Can they do that? I thought states had autonomy over those decisions.

Also isn't trump's thing to "let the states decide"?
Click to expand...
Theoretically yes. There are just 3 GOP Senators that are pro-choice, so even if all three of them vote against, JD can break the tie. It will likely be filibustered to death though, so likely wouldn't get a vote at all.
In House, I have no idea, but I assume there might be some GOP representatives who might vote against. Still, both parties are very good at making everyone vote the same direction.

Trump has already said that he would veto such a bill though, but Trump lies a lot. Still, I do not seen banning abortion, or gay marriage (Peter Thiel who is the man behind JD Vance is gay, as is what will likely going to be the next Secretary of State / National Security Advisor).

So, there will be no changes in this aspect, and nothing would have been different if Harris won. Dems should have made the right of abortion a law in 2008-2010, when they controlled the Presidency, House and had a filibuster-proof controlled Senate. They didn't cause it was very unbelievable to expect Roe vs Wade getting overturned. That chance probably won't come for another few decades unless the Senate decides to nuke filibuster (and even then a very right-wing Supreme Court might still overturn it).
 
Zlaatan said:
Ironically enough this post reads as if you got most of your talking points from Tate the bad apple.
Click to expand...

Why because i am in favor of mens rights, talking about the impending political backlash from a sense of inequality and disenfranchisement? Bit of a difference to Tate who talks like women are his property no?

Either way feel free to take the argument apart a lot of that is very easy to source. Almost 80% of American teachers are female. There is a well documented gendered bias towards male teachers around the world and the impact of male role models/the absense of a father is well known. Numerous studies show grading bias in favor of female students, with teachers giving higher grades to girls than boys that can't be explained strictly by answers or attitudes towards school. College admissions, administrative, and human resources professionals have all become female-dominated. Women are near the majority of college-educated workforce in U.S. etc.

I really am constantly amazed that "underperforming" is something that only boys and men are allowed to do, although we do over perform in terms of suicide, homelessness and prison population i guess so there is that.
 
Last edited:
This election confirms that the "there are no swing voters, it's just turnout baby" theory of elections is wrong. Throw it in the trash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.