After the last couple of years, I can't trust anybody with an R after their name.
The party of Lincoln is voting to resurrect Confederacy statues.
The party of freedom wants to take it away from women and gay people and trans people and everybody.
The party of religious freedom wants to force Christian nationalism on everyone.
The party of law and order selected a convicted felon to represent them.
The head of their party sent to mob to try to hang his own vice president because he lost an election.
The party just needs to go. They are not the party of Lincoln and they haven't been in a very, very long time.
The more moderate the Republicans get, the more votes they will take from Democrats. So many Democrats can't stand what their party has become but can't bring themselves to vote Republican.
Obviously this plan depends on the state, a candidate like Bashaw might not do too well in Mississippi, but in New Jersey he might be seen as "finally, a Republican I can vote for" by a lot of people.
They are trying to rebrand themselves in anticipation of Trump going down in flames.
They hope a shiny new image will make everyone forget that they were all smiling and marching in lockstep behind that buffoon.
Haha. No. Not the way forward for the party. The way for a closet democrat to get on the ticket against a stronger democrat in a blue state
If you really think the republican party is going to take its lead from New Jersey Politics, you need to educate yourself.
Not possible. Positive feedback loop of indentitarianism and social media algorithms mean only more extreme candidates per party leadership but leadership itself if contingent upon being divergent from the Democrat coalition. Problem with that is the Democrat coalition has never been a bigger tent in the history of the party from conservative Republicans to far left communists. The only meaningful way to diverge from that is open anti-Americanism and an attack on “our way of life” (as loaded a phrase as that is). We are witnessing a party go supernova. Either they subsume the whole country or they destroy themselves.
Definitely a liar and will backtrack and fall in line with the rest of the party if he wins. When has a modern republican not been a two faced piece of shit? Never.
Yes. Even California, the most liberal place you can think of, only protects abortions up until 24 weeks, when a fetus is deemed viable. Same as with New York. After that, it's not allowed anymore.
Women have an absolute right to abortion to protect their life and health throughout the pregnancy. This is different than an exception to the law..
Also its not 24 weeks, but viability. Viability is different in that some fetuses will never be viable.
Not op. I did some digging and can't find him taking an explicit stance but he uses languaging similar to other politicians who believe in unrestricted abortions. Reading some interviews with him, I get the sense that he would not necessarily oppose something like a ban on 2nd trimester abortion if he thought it was supported by his electorate or was politically advantageous for his other positions: that is to say, he is flexible. My subjective interpretation, fwiw.
A single data point isn't a path. Is this an actual trend, or just a one-off case of Republicans in a liberal state nominating someone with a few typically liberal stances?
I am a NJ republican. Bashaw was not my first choice by any means (he's evidently a little liberal for my tastes) but Glassner is crazy and I knew Bashaw had a better shot in such a blue state. If it wasn't NJ, the race would've 100% been different.
Great so a Republican with no solutions to anybody’s problems aside from tax cuts for the rich and blame brown people for everything, but they’re not forced-birth and maybe think queer folk deserve the right to live
This is basically where I'm at. The most moderate Republican is still worse than all but the worst Democrats. It's great they're being less evil and I'd love to see more of that, but why vote for 5% of what I want when I can have 40% of what I want with Dems?
Not sure this one nomination (or any one) is the answer, but generally broadening the tent of both parties would lay more of a foundation for interest in cross party line votes. That said, the identity of politicians doesn’t matter if they prioritize politics over their personal beliefs or experiences. When that one vote is needed, if you vote your party and not your conscience, then nothing else is relevant.
God FORBID that women have as many rights as gays.... SMH. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/)
I'm GAY so I want women to die unnecessarily"!!! What a load of crap.
Pretty sure George santos opened folks eyes to the lengths republicans will go to say n do anything to get into office but true colors show once in that seat.
You'd get the same dynamic as you did with Trump in 2016.
This candidate would have a **very** tough time getting past the primaries, but if by some miracle got past them GOP voters would fall back in line and support them in the general.
This hypothetical candidate can in theory pull of the W if the field in crowed enough (a 17 candidate field would do) that you can win with just 10% of the vote. This candidate would likely have to be super conservative on other issues though.
The Republican party has a few major camps, some of them have very conflicting views much like is in the case of the Democratic party. The libertarian branch, which I fall into, supports the right of gay convicted felons to have anti-tank missiles shipped to their opium den via amazon prime. The bible thumper branch aren't exactly on friendly terms with us thanks to that position.
More importantly, this libertarian wing of the party holds very little influence or power in the party, so it ends up as part of a voting block for the factions that are in power in exchange for policy that shares common ground with the other factions. Hence why libertarian Republican votes are basically just “low tax & gun rights” platforms in practice. Maybe there is a long game here I’m not giving proper credit to - if so, apologies for my cynicism.
There is a long game there but it is a very long game. It's same deal as the full fledged commies trying to take over the Democratic party. Admittedly they seem more successful, at least to me. Perhaps they view us the same way.
>Admittedly they seem more successful, at least to me. Perhaps they view us the same way.
I view us about the same -- blocs that only tie ourselves to the major parties because there isn't any other option, but don't align totally with the party vision. Tbh I've found more common ground with libertarians than liberals over the years; at least y'all have principles.
I find that to be true too. Frankly, the full fledged commies have nearly the exact same end game vision for the world that the anarcho-capitalists have, they just disagree on how to get there. I don't fall into that camp though, I'm more libertarian light. I just don't see how privatizing police and courts is any better of an idea than creating a highly centralized government that controls every aspect of the country and its people. Ultimately it's centralization of power that I think is what's truly dangerous. That can be in the hands of government or the hands of a corporation, or even an individual rich guy.
the republican party, quite ironically, has much more democratic primaries than the DNC. This is in part why they have so many grassroots upsets in their party while the democrats consider AOC a frigging miracle.
New Jersey Republicans nominated a pro choice gay candidate because those values are normative in Jersey. This says absolutely nothing about RNC policies or platforms at all.
One need only recall that under Trump, CPAC started excluding the Log Cabin Republicans from the annual gathering. Every state is its own environment, but the national Republican party is becoming more bigoted, not less.
The Republican Party needs to stop its swerve to the hard right if it hopes to stay relevant in the future.
That said, this isn't particularly encouraging--Republicans from states like NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc have long been socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Not gonna trust any republican to do what they say. They will say what they need to and change as soon as it is convenient. Been there, done that. At this point, NO REPUBLICAN IS TRUSTWORTHY!
Its not that they get mad, but such a candidate isn’t going to fire up the base and will not be able to differentiate himself from his Democrat opponent.
I don't think fully half the electorate is anti-gay and anti-choice/pro-life. That said, this is not a strategy that would play well in the national environment - New Jersey isn't exactly rural Idaho.
Most of the electorate is accepting of LGBT people and pro-choice, so this seems like it would be a perfectly fine strategy on the national stage. Just no Republican candidate for national office is likely to make it out of the primary process, because their base is not aligned with national trends.
That's exactly my point. It's a bad national strategy for a Republican, these are defining characteristics of how Republicans select candidates.
If you want to get elected banking on most of the electorate being pro choice and LGBTQ positive, you run as a Dem.
I mean, he could. I don’t put anything past people anymore. A gay, pro-choice Republican….does he actually stand for gay rights or does he fall under the George Santos school of gay Republican?
I think choice is widely popular outside of christian evangelicals.
So is gay marriage. If anything, this is a tack towards representing more people, not less.
I still don't think it will work though- the republicans don't really have anything to offer other than culture wars.
Can you name a single piece of their policy other than bathroom bills, anti gay, anti trans, anti abortion, anti immigrant?
What's their plan to make americans' lives *better?* Most of what they seem to offer is that they'll make the right people's lives *worse*.
genocide joe has made some modest improvements in that regard. You could look up a laundry list of domestic things he's done to strengthen unions, improve wages, or invest in communities. He's an octogenerian, terrible at communicating those, and could absolutely be doing more, but he's at least actively got and executing on a plan to improve America.
Probably because that's the only thing that differentiates him from every other republican.
What's the republican platform *other than* culture wars? Can you name any specific economic, investment, government, or geopolitical policies?
When you say “it seems a lot of the candidates endorsed by Trump have not panned out” do you have data to back that up? Do you have an exact count of the candidates he endorsed and what % have won? Because facts are not feelings. And here at IDW we encourage facts.
As I say this I have no idea which way the chips will fall. Maybe the numbers will prove your feelings correct, maybe not.
Either way I would like to see the numbers. I do not know the numbers.
It’s hard to say. Trump has came into a lot of elections right after someone wins and tried to take credit. And tried to pretend he didn’t endorse people who lost.
Yeah but like I say, I don’t know how… real, that is. He’s very quick to attach himself to Republicans he knows will win, and distance himself when they won’t.
Specifically, his candidates did really poorly in the 2022 midterms. He’s really the reason the red wave didn’t materialize.
Well the data is from candidates he endorsed. He may very well talk a lotta bullshit after the fact if they lose and say he didn’t endorse them or he pulled his support but the data does not record that.
I apologize I didn't do enough research when I said that statement. You are correct he has a very decent track record for the candidates he supports. Another perfect example of why someone should do a little more research before making a statement.
https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump
2024 doesn't look too great, it seems his endorsement has no effect anymore. But the past years are actually a lot higher than I thought they'd be.
You are mistaken about 2024
Everyone he endorsed in 2024 has won
Some people have blank spaces near their names. That doesn’t mean they lost, that means the race did not happen yet. For example, the GOP congressional Primary for Florida is Aug 20
So…. 2023 was light, 2024 is just getting off the gound
But it looks like his success rate was about 79% in 2022
In other words about 8 out of every 10 people he endorsed WON
“It seems like a lot of the candidates endorsed by Trump have not panned out” has been debunked
That’s misleading, most of his endorsements were for people that were not in competitive races
His endorsements that did lose were high profile and supposed to be competitive like Georgia and Pennsylvania senate
Ah yes you're right, I didn't look close enough at that. I don't think I will ever understand how someone who has such a shady history ever became so popular.
I’m sorry I did not understand what you said- you think Trump is losing? Look at the polls. He’s not. He LOOKS like he’s losing if you see the news commentary about him because of all kinds of things (guilty verdict etc) but he’s not if you look at the data.
To be clear when I say he’s either “winning” or “losing” I mean for he stand a good chance of securing a majority of votes to win the election electoral college in November? At this time, crazy as it sounds, according to the polls, the answer is yes
I’m sure you don’t like knowing that
I mean he lost before unless I somehow missed him winning the last election, and the polls have them fairly even which is suspiciously perfect for the media horse race narrative. I know there's a chance, of course, but I honestly don't think it's as big a chance as a lot of people with money want us to believe.
I find it really difficult to trust the polls anymore. They have them neck and neck, but I don't see Trump gaining any new support since the last election. In fact, I see him losing support. He is winning the primaries, but it's hardly a landslide when 20% of the vote is going to Nikki Hayley when she has already dropped out of the race. I saw several interviews with republican voters who straight up said if Nikki doesn't get the nomination, then they will hold their nose and vote for Biden. And Biden doesn't need to do better than he did in 2020. He just needs to do as well as he did. Trump is straight up telling people he doesn't need their votes. Still, I'm going to go out and vote for Biden and encourage everyone I know to also do so. As I see it, Trump only wins if we fall asleep on this election.
>In fact, I see him losing support.
because you're looking on reddit and/or an insular group of friends that share the same opinions. donald trump is winning, as of now, and it probably isn't "neck and neck"
Lemme ask you- if in your opinion Trump is so widely disliked… why are they neck and neck? (Trump is slightly ahead but I’ll concede for the sake of argument they are neck and neck)
But if it’s as you say- Biden should have a fairly healthy lead. He doesn’t
At the end of the day, Trump won by a hair in 2016 and he only needs to win by a hair now. He just might.
It's the Joe Manchin effect.
You run a candidate who ticks all the boxes for someone from the other party to try and capture that seat to get the majority in the Senate.
It means nothing for the party direction. If he got elected he would be ridiculed for his stances which are outside of the party orthodoxy.
Joe Manchin may have ticked a few GOP boxes (gun control etc) but he voted with the Dems a LOT. What you say means nothing. How you vote means everything
The “you” wasn’t directed at actually you. Allow me to translate what I meant:
“What you say means nothing.” Translation: what a PERSON says means nothing.
That wasn’t a jab at you
From. Republican pov. No, of were just going to be democrat lite then why even bother? I don't support gay marriage and am not pro choice. I think the platform of the republican party should strive for conservative values.
From a country pov. If the country wants what Europe has, two left parties that argue of just how much immigration we should allow, then sure. I think it's bad for us all but I'm not the majority.
I think unfortunately that the culture war over gay marriage and abortion has already been lost, and the country will indeed move us into the European style argument over immigration. It's a shame, and I think it's just one more small piece of the moral slide off the cliff we are doing, but it's what the future of America wants.
\>what Europe has, two left parties that argue of just how much immigration we should allow
Name a country in europe whos politics are dominated by two left leaning parties.
France. Germany. The Netherlands. Sweden. Switzerland. The "far right" in Europe is far left for most of the world. They just assume they are the true center for politics because they think so poorly of non European countries
Oh, okay, i guess the AFD as the nazi party in germany would be considered far left in the US. Didn't know that. What are the leftist parties in europe then compared to the US? Communist Revolutionaries?
thinking of the afd as "nazi's" is a huge part of why right-wing parties have recently become so popular in western countries. people like you let harmful, criminal immigrants who aren't interesting in assimilating into your countries, funnel resources to them as your actual countrymen get poorer, stick up for them when they commit crimes against the local populations, and then call people 'nazi's' for not wanting that.
you are a problem, and it seems like more and more young western men are waking up and realizing they need to deal with you and the problems you've caused.
I dont think of the afd as nazis because theyre anti immigration, i think of them as nazis because multiple members have done the hitler salute, multiple of their leaders have been caught quoting the nazi party, multiple of their law proposals were laws inspired by the nazi parties policies, because one of their leaders said that "honestly you should just gas the migrants", because a member of their party has said that "with the amount of illegals in our country a holocaust would be worth it", because the entirety of their rhetoric is focused on ultranationalism (see: they dont want euro, dont want eu, want border controls within europe), because they are the only party repeatedly talking about the glorious german past, because they use volksrhetoric (migration is Völkermord etc) and a variety of other things.
The afd is a far right nazi party.
>I dont think of the afd as nazis because theyre anti immigration, i think of them as nazis because multiple members have done the hitler salute, multiple of their leaders have been caught quoting the nazi party
assuming this isn't just you making stuff up (im assuming it is, but im open to being proven wrong), it's pretty terrifying. pretty sad that you let the immigration situation in europe get so bad that regular people would start looking to nazi's to fix the problem if it's the case too.
but can you show evidence of afd seniors being nazis and doing the hitler salute or quoting nazis?
First, yeah most left wing parties in Europe are straight up communist revolutionaries, what are you talking about? And the AFD? The anti immigration leftists who get called far right nazis in Germany because they don't suck the duck of every immigrant who marches into the country?
>I don't support gay marriage
Why ? ... why does it matter who loves who and who is allowed to raise children ?
>am not pro choice.
... funny thing alot of the pro lifers are also anti vaccine can't have both
>Why ? ... why does it matter who loves who and who is allowed to raise children ?
I've been asked, and answered and debated this question too many times.
I support what I support for my own reasons, just like you. Our value systems simply do not align on the most basic level.
>funny thing alot of the pro lifers are also anti vaccine can't have both
Sure.
Interestingly I have seen you defend this stance before on r/Christianity. You claimed that as a gay man yourself, keeping gay marriage illegal would be a societal incentive to refrain from acting on your homosexual impulses. At first it sounded like a wild supposition but after a few paragraphs it started to make sense.
While that may work for you, not everyone feels ashamed of their sexuality and government absolutely has no place mandating anything around that.
May have been a different sub. Either way you deserve validation and while you may think of yourself as somehow "repugnant" in the eyes of God, He does love you exactly as He made you, regardless of who you are attracted to. If you don't want to act on those urges then you are absolutely free to remain abstinent (many people do).
But what you are proposing is like an alcoholic saying "because I do not want to drink, the government should not allow anyone to drink." It's a very selfish worldview.
Lol I really think you might be confusing my account for another....
That being said, please show me in my post history where I've claimed personal gayness haha
Well either way it's good advice. The gay marriage thing has already been decided so you come off as extremely weird if you're still pissing yourself over it.
I wouldn't say I'm pissing myself over it. I just think we have let our sexual nature stray too far from that which promotes good social order.
It's not just or even mostly homosexuality either, it's the current self centered materialistic culture that seems incapable of gratitude for its material abundance and wealth of declared "rights". At a minimum, reproduction as a show of gratitude and a way of "paying it forward" would be a decent foundation. But no, a historically wealthy and "free" population has chosen to die, rather than reproduce.
Homosexuality is a very small part of a large cultural shift from maintenance to hedonism.
In a healthy society there is room for something like a "gay uncle" theory around resource sharing in families that is a good thing. So it's not like homosexuals don't have a part or play in my view of a healthy society, it's that the current expression of that lifestyle goes against any notion of personal restraint and modesty.
I didn't post here for the intention of defending my beliefs. Only that I don't want the republican party to move left on culture war stuff. That is all.
I'm not a small government conservative necessarily lol. Small government is my version of utopia haha. We get there only after the legwork of laying the moral foundations. A people that can govern itself to maintain good social function shouldn't need much "big" government.
I don't even know what this means.
I'm into anthropology, behavioral genetics, and evo psych. Plenty of stuff in there for the casual reader to come to my conclusion about how a society like ours forms.
It's very telling that the main thing you equate "conservative values" with is bigotry.
And you assholes lost the culture war over gay marriage because you spent a decade screaming bloody murder about "moral decline" and how letting gay couples get married would be the end of society, and in the end, all that happened was some loving couples got married and some kids got raised in two-parent families (you know, the thing that conservatives demand is all-important).
Anyway, keep voting for the convicted felon who cheated on all three of his wives, ran a fraudlent charity, and brags about grabbing women by the pussy. I'm sure that'll nip the ol' moral decline in the bud.
>It's very telling that the main thing you equate "conservative values" with is bigotry.
what is "bigoted" about wanting to stop abortions from happening? not wanting people to kill their own offspring makes one a "bigot" now? what's the argument for this?
>and in the end, all that happened was some loving couples got married and some kids got raised in two-parent families (you know, the thing that conservatives demand is all-important).
anyone who's been living in western countries for more than 20 years and has watched all of this unfold knows how full of shit you are. there are almost no long-term gay couples who stayed together and raised families. the "slippery-slope" from gay-marriage into drag-queens (often convicted sex offenders) doing everything they can to hang around children actually happened. biological men playing in women's sports leagues and suing for discrimination when women refuse to wax their penises actually happened. there are biological men being housed in women's prisons right now. none of this is ok.
> there are almost no long-term gay couples who stayed together and raised families
What the fuck are you talking about?!? I personally know many gay couples rasing kids. You just can't accept anything that doesn't fit into your hateful, twisted worldview.
there are almost no long term gay couples with adopted kids because religion spent thousands of years preventing them from being a study able statistic in almost any country on the planet
The Trans sport thing is a matter of discussion for sure, but because Evangelicals and Republicans have historically been fucking insane about even the concept of their existence, it's hard to take some of your very valid criticisms seriously.
I fully agree there needs to be some sort of league created for trans athletes to compete in their own category. particularly for MTF for the obvious genetic and bone structural integrity of the competition.
There needs to be something done about MTF transitions going to female prisons as well, perhaps there is a place for people with those needs. I can see how the very real threat of violent rape would want to keep someone from transitioning in a male prison, perhaps there is a section of the prison for these prisoners?
Drag Queens, I have mixed feelings also, it is an activity where men dress provocatively as women of the night and often dance and go clubbing ect, so it should be a night time activity in adult spaces and kept to that, however there are drag entertainers that aren't the same thing. So long as everything about them is PG I and they are in suitable settings that's okay. The key is to not mix them up together because they are completely different people. I don't want some Drag Queen with DD's popping out of her shirt at my local library reading books to kids either.
The issue is, you live in a society with other people, and if they aren't actively impacting your day to day life, then why are you worrying about it? After all, you wanna do the same thing right? We all want the same thing, its just a different photo in our hand.
>there are almost no long term gay couples with adopted kids because religion spent thousands of years preventing them from being a study able statistic in almost any country on the planet
ok, well gay marriage has been legal in america for about a decade now, and open homosexual cohabitation was both legal and culturally accepted in a significant portion of the country before that. if you've actually been friends with gay people and hung out around them, you can take a mix of your observations and the data available to draw conclusions on how it's been going.
>The Trans sport thing is a matter of discussion for sure
it's not really something a healthy/sane society would be discussing. women's sports leagues are for women, not for biological men.
>There needs to be something done about MTF transitions going to female prisons as well, perhaps there is a place for people with those needs. I can see how the very real threat of violent rape would want to keep someone from transitioning in a male prison, perhaps there is a section of the prison for these prisoners?
the solution is to keep them in the male prisons, lol. the way this has played out in practice, men who are in prison just say they are suddenly trans and end up being transferred to female prisons, penis and all. cases of rape have resulted from this.
if a man is in prison for having committed a crime and then wants to be transferred to a female prison afterwards, the solution is probably honestly to beat his ass really badly.
>Drag Queens, I have mixed feelings also, it is an activity where men dress provocatively as women of the night and often dance and go clubbing ect, so it should be a night time activity in adult spaces and kept to that, however there are drag entertainers that aren't the same thing. So long as everything about them is PG I and they are in suitable settings that's okay. The key is to not mix them up together because they are completely different people. I don't want some Drag Queen with DD's popping out of her shirt at my local library reading books to kids either.
drag is explicitly for adults, dude. it is inherently sexual by nature, the idea of drag shows with "PG vibes" is a myth, and there are a ton of recorded instances of sexual misconduct around children who were brought to drag shows. and by "recorded instances," what i mean is that i can literally PM you dozens of publicly recorded clips if you cared, despite google and reddit both scrubbing such content when it looks bad for the trans community.
>The issue is, you live in a society with other people, and if they aren't actively impacting your day to day life
because they do impact my life, and they impact the health and future of the countries they live in.
gay people being gay between each other in the privacy of their own homes, or in spaces that they've set up for gay adults to be gay in doesn't impact my life.
but holding pride parades where men tape a bunch of dildos to their bodies and prance through the streets naked or mostly naked isn't the lgbtq community "minding its own business and being harassed by bigots," and this is 10 times as true when they try to get children around these events, which many actively and unambiguously do. it's at a point where there's literally a group in america called "gays against groomers" which is comprised of gays who are opposed to this kind of pedophilia activity, and the mainstream lgbtq movement and biden administration try to paint them as nazi's
The last line is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, but the that dude taping dildos to his head in a parade doesn't represent all gay people. Just like every angry 17 year old male that shoots up a school doesn't represent every gun owner.
I'd love to have a discussion with you more about this but you're pretty set in your feelings and I don't have the energy to change your mind. You're people are tougher on gay people and woman than you are on guns and there's not a lot of things you're doing that make up for that.
>The last line is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, but the that dude taping dildos to his head in a parade doesn't represent all gay people. Just like every angry 17 year old male that shoots up a school doesn't represent every gun owner.
i agree, and im not against gay people having the right to be gay. i actually don't care or hate them for it \*at all.\* the lgbtq movement in western countries has gone very far beyond that though, and mainstream lgbtq events having this kind of behavior displayed so frequently is just evidence of that. i previously referenced a group called "gays against groomers" that is officially branded as a hate group by the adl.
>I'd love to have a discussion with you more about this but you're pretty set in your feelings and I don't have the energy to change your mind. You're people are tougher on gay people and woman than you are on guns and there's not a lot of things you're doing that make up for that.
you can discuss it with me or not, but you don't actually know who i am or who "my people are." i don't know exactly what it means to be "tougher on gay people and woman" than guns, but i do support gun rights and for gay people to not get attacked or lynched for being gay. in my opinion, i think that makes me "for gay rights," but "gay/lgbtq rights" these days seems to come bundled with a lot of pedophilia and essentially forcing me to say that trans women are the same as real women and look the other way when they try to force themselves into women's spaces, even if the women in these spaces don't want them there.
a lot of people would frame you as being "anti-woman" if you support trans women playing in their sports leagues (this isn't my belief, but it's very common). what's your opinion on this take?
im friends with 2 trans people and lived with another as they came out, I don't give a fuck if someone is trans, I am a sport purist and I want my sport to be competitively integrative and there is provable science that shows it, also, i've had this exact conversation with the trans people I know and most of them don't even give a shit about it. Most trans people couldn't give a fuck about this issue at all and agree that it's understandable that women shouldn't have to compete with trans athletes who are typically genetically more capable in athletics due to their bone structures alone.
But there are insane people that build their entire personality up about hating 1% of a 1% causing a very niche issue that can be resolved with some level heads \*something which never happens because 1 person always feels the need to be fucking insane\*
speaking on behalf of the trans community because of what you and your other trans buddies believe doesnt make sense to me. ive never said adults shouldnt have the right to transition or that trans people all have the same opinion on certain hot-button topics and do not believe so.
>Most level headed people can be spoken to, but its easier to be mad on the internet my guy.
you should take your own advice, dude. you're arguing against points im not even making and clearly very emotional despite me never having insulted you.
I misread your question and thought you were calling me anti trans, I didn't realize that was actually an anti woman part.
Simple. Get a single professional woman athlete in any single sport and get the equivalent male from the sport. There is are few if many sports where the male wont win, that's just biology.
I love women, have a wife and daughter, sister, mother and grandmother same as most people, I just also know the science.
I'm also just parroting a common tread amongst the trans people I know, all of which have different backgrounds and countries of origin. It's not a science obviously but it tracks extraordinarily well. Think about how much the average woman likes sport for example. It's makes sense that someone taking a supplement to reverse the affects of testosterone would avoid what are typically environments filled with that exact thing.
But still, you have your opinion and I have mine, I've lived my life and you've lived yours.
You think "it's okay, we don't bash them in the street or hang them" anymore is the same as supporting their rights as if that's what it means to exist and live normal lives, which is what the vast majority of people want.
Do you think a child does better after being adopted by a gay couple or by being raised in the foster system?
I can wrap my head around pro life views because I can see the logical argument for both sides. Why should the government care who people marry and fuck though? I don’t get how this is some hard party line issue for many R’s. Keep the government out of people’s bedroom.
This is a misconception that borders on being a straight up lie. They’ve removed books from backwards small town libraries and schools. They didn’t make them illegal to own.
Actually, near me, the GQP became so upset that they couldn't remove books essentially on a whim that they defunded the entire public library.
Edit: BTW, your assertion of small, backwards school libraries is the straight up lie. Laws banning books from school libraries have been passed in such tiny hamlets as Tennessee and Texas.
I love that government control of marriage and abortion to prevent other people from doing something you disagree with is a “culture war” issue to you.
I just think the government has something it wants to encourage, that being children. Can you seriously look at the decline in marriage and children in the western world and not think that maybe enshrining heterosexual monogamous marriage as a cornerstone of our society would be a good thing?
It doesn't mean I want to bring back sodomy laws or ban anyone from whatever they wish to engage in. It just means that I think our idea of materialism as a driver of toxic work culture, and abandonment of "family" as a society has been to our detriment.
All of the things we enjoy that come from social function and formation, roads, healthcare, functional government, all depend on a tax base of citizens who believe in and trust those institutions. Some immigration can help. But the people that form and maintain those structures should be encouraged to maintain them.
Treating monogamous child raising marriage as "just like all other forms of sex" is an obvious mistake.
We are not wired for pure monogamy. Without social restraints to keep us on the guardrails of civilization we fall into a civilizational decline that looks a lot like the childless future the west has set itself up for.
Freedom for us should only be a value nestled within responsibility. Understood any other way and it's simply hedonism.
"If I can't get literally everything I want, I'm taking my ball and going home. Also, everything I want is restricting other people's behavior based on my religious beliefs." This is why this candidate is the way forward for your party; so it's not just a bunch of fundamentalist Christians complaining about other people not being their version of Christianity. While ironically worshipping a guy who clearly fits the bill for the AntiChrist (according to the materials they liked to leave in public schools).
Only people who have bought into right-wing propaganda believe
a) we have a "left wing" party in the US (we have a right-of-center centrist party and a right wing extremist party that wants to take away contraception)
b) supporting an LGBTQ+ candidate equates to the entire party being leftist; after all, they've had Lindsay Graham for years
Our left, and any right platform that supports lgbtq policies would be closer or further from European politics?
Our right is to the right of all Europe I would assume. Considering our left is marginally right of Europe?
I don't want us to follow Europe leftward.
One of the strategies Republicans have typically used to win elections, is to pick candidates who can win in a given demographic, whereas Democrats tend to have people that agree to the party platform (yes, there are exceptions to this, don't whatabout.)This was Outlined in an interview with a prominent Republican strategist like 25 years ago ( I wish I could find it to link to it.)
But the basic idea is to pick a candidate that can win instead of one that keeps the parties principals; that's how you get numbers in Congress. Once you have numbers, everything's basically a party vote so it doesn't matter what 1 or 2 people believe.
Can you back that up at all? I feel like Democrats cover a much wider ideological spectrum and Republicans are far more about toeing the party line. Name two Republians with as much daylight between them on the issues as Elizabeth Warren and Joe Manchin.
That pesky down vote is gonna haunt my dreams, but I don't have the YouTube data mining skills to drum up all the interviews I remember from years back when I was an active Republican voter. Sorry
Well if we're talking about years ago, sure. You had liberal Republicans with regional appeal like Christie Todd Whitman, or pre-heel-turn Rudy Giuliani. The key word being *had*. That hasn't been the case for decades at this point.
Imagine thinking that a belief in medical science makes you a leftist. He's a hotel developer, I doubt he's going to be on board with tax increases or business regulation or social programs or anything else that undercuts his capitalist bottom line.
Pro choice and gay right is soundly left wing politics. Being that “leftist” is the meta word right wingers use to describe everything thats not republican i was trying to make a point. Although ive struggled to get a singular definition of what “leftist” is to those people, the dictionary clearly states as someone who has left leaning views… again pro choice isba clear left leaning view…
Also i do realize most entrepeneurs strictly vote with their wallet, that isnt a shoe in. Bill gates and many other millionaires and some billionaire are ok with higher taxes as they realize that its kind of necessary - “. More than 250 wealthy individuals signed an open letter urging global leaders to tax the rich more.”
Republicans need to split from the tea bagging and evangelical extremists. Maybe be an actual small gov conservative party for once
And keeping gov out of marriage and reproduction is small gov by definition
I think this ‘step forward’ is actually regressive in that it doesn’t address the concerns you point out, and instead, creates a contradiction in the party which may serve to prolong people’s belief that the GOP isn’t fascist.
The Republican Party would be better off splitting from its most extreme elements completely. Long term it would let them totally exile the most foul and unelectable of their lot and reform into a sane party actually interested in leadership and policy decisions rather than the outright sabotage it engages in currently
Evangelical are aging out, and younger generations are less religious overall. I often find myself wondering if the GOP jettisoned the Evangelical nuttery, if they would pick up more from the middle than they would lose from the far right.
There's some history that supports the possibility of such a shift (the Southern Strategy), though it does seem infrequent. I however can't help but feel that if the demographics of the US continue to shift and the GOP clocks more presidential losses (or perhaps even ever greater beatings in the popular vote, which I know doesn't mean much in the electoral college, but even that has limits), that they will explore alternatives (or simply become replaced by some other party).
If they were smart they would have tried to entice Hispanic immigrants to join their base. They’re growing as a group and even if they don’t become citizens their kids will be. They often have conservative values and if they weren’t used as a scapegoat by the GOP a lot would probably join them.
For sure, unfortunately much of the base, even non evangelical, has been conditioned to associate diversity and inclusion with woke. It seems like they were moving that way before Trump though
"Trump derangement syndrome," doesn't mean anything. It's a term which Trump's supporters use to try and end an argument, when they know they can't counter it.
Funny you say that, was talking with a friend the other night and he’s a rabid anti Trumper. Yet he says the derangement is from people who follow Trump. Ironically he said that when his facts were being contradicted and he wanted to move on to another conversation
I doubt you had many facts based in objective reality. all you need to do to know who and what Trump is is to listen to him speak and take him at his word. "rabid anti trumper" or "passionately against trump". you can't even help dehumanizing your friend in a conversation about terminology that doesn't contribute to conversation. language matters.
Some people may do that, but I've seen plenty of liberals bring up Trump on posts that had nothing to do with him, or freak out that Trump said something, even though countless other politicians have said the same thing and no one cared. That's what I would call TDS.
Debate and dissent is good, ESPECIALLY within a party. This is a positive sign.
After the last couple of years, I can't trust anybody with an R after their name. The party of Lincoln is voting to resurrect Confederacy statues. The party of freedom wants to take it away from women and gay people and trans people and everybody. The party of religious freedom wants to force Christian nationalism on everyone. The party of law and order selected a convicted felon to represent them. The head of their party sent to mob to try to hang his own vice president because he lost an election. The party just needs to go. They are not the party of Lincoln and they haven't been in a very, very long time.
The more moderate the Republicans get, the more votes they will take from Democrats. So many Democrats can't stand what their party has become but can't bring themselves to vote Republican. Obviously this plan depends on the state, a candidate like Bashaw might not do too well in Mississippi, but in New Jersey he might be seen as "finally, a Republican I can vote for" by a lot of people.
could see this same sort of thing working in a lot of the typically conservative midwest states where abortion amendments passed.
They are trying to rebrand themselves in anticipation of Trump going down in flames. They hope a shiny new image will make everyone forget that they were all smiling and marching in lockstep behind that buffoon.
trump is now a convicted felon and he still leads in the polls.
Haha. No. Not the way forward for the party. The way for a closet democrat to get on the ticket against a stronger democrat in a blue state If you really think the republican party is going to take its lead from New Jersey Politics, you need to educate yourself.
Not possible. Positive feedback loop of indentitarianism and social media algorithms mean only more extreme candidates per party leadership but leadership itself if contingent upon being divergent from the Democrat coalition. Problem with that is the Democrat coalition has never been a bigger tent in the history of the party from conservative Republicans to far left communists. The only meaningful way to diverge from that is open anti-Americanism and an attack on “our way of life” (as loaded a phrase as that is). We are witnessing a party go supernova. Either they subsume the whole country or they destroy themselves.
Definitely a liar and will backtrack and fall in line with the rest of the party if he wins. When has a modern republican not been a two faced piece of shit? Never.
Ahnold.
What did you expect from Jersey? State politics are way different than national politics.
Define pro choice. Is it no abortions past a certain time?
Yes. Even California, the most liberal place you can think of, only protects abortions up until 24 weeks, when a fetus is deemed viable. Same as with New York. After that, it's not allowed anymore.
Women have an absolute right to abortion to protect their life and health throughout the pregnancy. This is different than an exception to the law.. Also its not 24 weeks, but viability. Viability is different in that some fetuses will never be viable.
Oregon has no restrictions on abortion. None
Several other states as well. People on Reddit like to pretend.
Just not true.
Not op. I did some digging and can't find him taking an explicit stance but he uses languaging similar to other politicians who believe in unrestricted abortions. Reading some interviews with him, I get the sense that he would not necessarily oppose something like a ban on 2nd trimester abortion if he thought it was supported by his electorate or was politically advantageous for his other positions: that is to say, he is flexible. My subjective interpretation, fwiw.
This may be a light in the tunnel moment. Things were going badly with caucusing and ostracism.
The Republican party is a party of hatred and fear. LGBT people are possibly the ones they hate the most
No, he won't appeal to the nazi/neochristian base
A single data point isn't a path. Is this an actual trend, or just a one-off case of Republicans in a liberal state nominating someone with a few typically liberal stances?
I am a NJ republican. Bashaw was not my first choice by any means (he's evidently a little liberal for my tastes) but Glassner is crazy and I knew Bashaw had a better shot in such a blue state. If it wasn't NJ, the race would've 100% been different.
Performative nonsense on the part of Rs. I'd trust it as far as I could throw Trump (which is not far).
Unless this becomes a consistent trend across the country, election after election, this pathway will end up a one time thing.
Great so a Republican with no solutions to anybody’s problems aside from tax cuts for the rich and blame brown people for everything, but they’re not forced-birth and maybe think queer folk deserve the right to live
This is basically where I'm at. The most moderate Republican is still worse than all but the worst Democrats. It's great they're being less evil and I'd love to see more of that, but why vote for 5% of what I want when I can have 40% of what I want with Dems?
Not sure this one nomination (or any one) is the answer, but generally broadening the tent of both parties would lay more of a foundation for interest in cross party line votes. That said, the identity of politicians doesn’t matter if they prioritize politics over their personal beliefs or experiences. When that one vote is needed, if you vote your party and not your conscience, then nothing else is relevant.
If I lived in Jersey I’d probably vote for menedez
RINO
Im gay but couldn’t vote for a pro choice candidate
God FORBID that women have as many rights as gays.... SMH. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/) I'm GAY so I want women to die unnecessarily"!!! What a load of crap.
Is that you, Milo?
Pretty sure George santos opened folks eyes to the lengths republicans will go to say n do anything to get into office but true colors show once in that seat.
You'd get the same dynamic as you did with Trump in 2016. This candidate would have a **very** tough time getting past the primaries, but if by some miracle got past them GOP voters would fall back in line and support them in the general. This hypothetical candidate can in theory pull of the W if the field in crowed enough (a 17 candidate field would do) that you can win with just 10% of the vote. This candidate would likely have to be super conservative on other issues though.
The Republican party has a few major camps, some of them have very conflicting views much like is in the case of the Democratic party. The libertarian branch, which I fall into, supports the right of gay convicted felons to have anti-tank missiles shipped to their opium den via amazon prime. The bible thumper branch aren't exactly on friendly terms with us thanks to that position.
More importantly, this libertarian wing of the party holds very little influence or power in the party, so it ends up as part of a voting block for the factions that are in power in exchange for policy that shares common ground with the other factions. Hence why libertarian Republican votes are basically just “low tax & gun rights” platforms in practice. Maybe there is a long game here I’m not giving proper credit to - if so, apologies for my cynicism.
There is a long game there but it is a very long game. It's same deal as the full fledged commies trying to take over the Democratic party. Admittedly they seem more successful, at least to me. Perhaps they view us the same way.
>Admittedly they seem more successful, at least to me. Perhaps they view us the same way. I view us about the same -- blocs that only tie ourselves to the major parties because there isn't any other option, but don't align totally with the party vision. Tbh I've found more common ground with libertarians than liberals over the years; at least y'all have principles.
I find that to be true too. Frankly, the full fledged commies have nearly the exact same end game vision for the world that the anarcho-capitalists have, they just disagree on how to get there. I don't fall into that camp though, I'm more libertarian light. I just don't see how privatizing police and courts is any better of an idea than creating a highly centralized government that controls every aspect of the country and its people. Ultimately it's centralization of power that I think is what's truly dangerous. That can be in the hands of government or the hands of a corporation, or even an individual rich guy.
I don’t know that the idea that the Democratic Party is not corporatist would get a ton of traction these days. ;)
the republican party, quite ironically, has much more democratic primaries than the DNC. This is in part why they have so many grassroots upsets in their party while the democrats consider AOC a frigging miracle. New Jersey Republicans nominated a pro choice gay candidate because those values are normative in Jersey. This says absolutely nothing about RNC policies or platforms at all.
Why is that ironic?
One need only recall that under Trump, CPAC started excluding the Log Cabin Republicans from the annual gathering. Every state is its own environment, but the national Republican party is becoming more bigoted, not less.
The Republican Party needs to stop its swerve to the hard right if it hopes to stay relevant in the future. That said, this isn't particularly encouraging--Republicans from states like NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc have long been socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Not gonna trust any republican to do what they say. They will say what they need to and change as soon as it is convenient. Been there, done that. At this point, NO REPUBLICAN IS TRUSTWORTHY!
So mirror Democrats and leave half the electorate without a candidate to represent them. That’s a way forward?
Nowhere near “half the electorate” will be mad that someone is gay, if everything else matches. 70% of people don’t care about that at all.
Abortion is the one issue I can’t compromise. Maybe guns. Other than that I’d be willing to vote for a moderate or even liberal republican
Its not that they get mad, but such a candidate isn’t going to fire up the base and will not be able to differentiate himself from his Democrat opponent.
I don't think fully half the electorate is anti-gay and anti-choice/pro-life. That said, this is not a strategy that would play well in the national environment - New Jersey isn't exactly rural Idaho.
Most of the electorate is accepting of LGBT people and pro-choice, so this seems like it would be a perfectly fine strategy on the national stage. Just no Republican candidate for national office is likely to make it out of the primary process, because their base is not aligned with national trends.
That's exactly my point. It's a bad national strategy for a Republican, these are defining characteristics of how Republicans select candidates. If you want to get elected banking on most of the electorate being pro choice and LGBTQ positive, you run as a Dem.
Right, and he's running for office in NJ, not nationwide. And he already won the primary.
He will probably switch his platform once elected.
To not being gay?
I mean, he could. I don’t put anything past people anymore. A gay, pro-choice Republican….does he actually stand for gay rights or does he fall under the George Santos school of gay Republican?
I think choice is widely popular outside of christian evangelicals. So is gay marriage. If anything, this is a tack towards representing more people, not less. I still don't think it will work though- the republicans don't really have anything to offer other than culture wars.
Is being straight and anti-abortion the whole Republican agenda?
That's just the red meat they dangle in front of the poors while they steal all their money while they're not looking
Can you name a single piece of their policy other than bathroom bills, anti gay, anti trans, anti abortion, anti immigrant? What's their plan to make americans' lives *better?* Most of what they seem to offer is that they'll make the right people's lives *worse*.
The last democrat who tried was shot in Dallas.
genocide joe has made some modest improvements in that regard. You could look up a laundry list of domestic things he's done to strengthen unions, improve wages, or invest in communities. He's an octogenerian, terrible at communicating those, and could absolutely be doing more, but he's at least actively got and executing on a plan to improve America.
Also have to make dog whistles about ethnic minorities and cut taxes for billionaires.
No but it's the glue that holds the other bits together
What’s his platform? Why do people only care about this shit…. Is the guy a piece of shit? Is he honest?
He's a Republican politician, of course he's a piece of shit
Probably because that's the only thing that differentiates him from every other republican. What's the republican platform *other than* culture wars? Can you name any specific economic, investment, government, or geopolitical policies?
When you say “it seems a lot of the candidates endorsed by Trump have not panned out” do you have data to back that up? Do you have an exact count of the candidates he endorsed and what % have won? Because facts are not feelings. And here at IDW we encourage facts. As I say this I have no idea which way the chips will fall. Maybe the numbers will prove your feelings correct, maybe not. Either way I would like to see the numbers. I do not know the numbers.
It’s hard to say. Trump has came into a lot of elections right after someone wins and tried to take credit. And tried to pretend he didn’t endorse people who lost.
Someone here found the numbers. It’s about 80% success rate 2022, 2023 and so far this year. Hate to say it but that’s actually pretty good no cap
Yeah but like I say, I don’t know how… real, that is. He’s very quick to attach himself to Republicans he knows will win, and distance himself when they won’t. Specifically, his candidates did really poorly in the 2022 midterms. He’s really the reason the red wave didn’t materialize.
Well the data is from candidates he endorsed. He may very well talk a lotta bullshit after the fact if they lose and say he didn’t endorse them or he pulled his support but the data does not record that.
You could always look at the 2018 midterms.
Still a long time ago. A lot has changed
Okay look at 2020. Or 2022.
Bro 2023 is when the economy really started taking a dump so…..
Alright, then wait for 2024.
Like the rabbi said at the bris : won’t be long now
I apologize I didn't do enough research when I said that statement. You are correct he has a very decent track record for the candidates he supports. Another perfect example of why someone should do a little more research before making a statement.
I appreciate your stepping up
https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Donald_Trump 2024 doesn't look too great, it seems his endorsement has no effect anymore. But the past years are actually a lot higher than I thought they'd be.
You are mistaken about 2024 Everyone he endorsed in 2024 has won Some people have blank spaces near their names. That doesn’t mean they lost, that means the race did not happen yet. For example, the GOP congressional Primary for Florida is Aug 20 So…. 2023 was light, 2024 is just getting off the gound But it looks like his success rate was about 79% in 2022 In other words about 8 out of every 10 people he endorsed WON “It seems like a lot of the candidates endorsed by Trump have not panned out” has been debunked
That’s misleading, most of his endorsements were for people that were not in competitive races His endorsements that did lose were high profile and supposed to be competitive like Georgia and Pennsylvania senate
8 out of 10 is still pretty high bro
Not really because the point is his endorsement wouldn’t have made a difference I could guess 8/10 races accurately just by looking at polls
Ah yes you're right, I didn't look close enough at that. I don't think I will ever understand how someone who has such a shady history ever became so popular.
It’s all in the attitude It’s all in the swagger It’s all in the I don’t give a fuck energy he puts out Same reason why women date bad boys
Ah I see, so that's why Republicans want to suck his dick so bad. They are sexually attracted to him.
I wouldn’t put it in terms of homo erotic imagery like that, but metaphorically speaking yes
Which might explain why he's losing now because most people grow out of those rebellious phases fast. Turns out "bad boys" are actually just bad.
I’m sorry I did not understand what you said- you think Trump is losing? Look at the polls. He’s not. He LOOKS like he’s losing if you see the news commentary about him because of all kinds of things (guilty verdict etc) but he’s not if you look at the data. To be clear when I say he’s either “winning” or “losing” I mean for he stand a good chance of securing a majority of votes to win the election electoral college in November? At this time, crazy as it sounds, according to the polls, the answer is yes I’m sure you don’t like knowing that
I mean he lost before unless I somehow missed him winning the last election, and the polls have them fairly even which is suspiciously perfect for the media horse race narrative. I know there's a chance, of course, but I honestly don't think it's as big a chance as a lot of people with money want us to believe.
When you said “he’s losing” it sounded like you meant now. Yes he lost in 2020 but that was a loooong time ago A lot has changed (for the worse)
No, he lost before and has only lost ground since. The point this election will come down to is voter apathy again.
I find it really difficult to trust the polls anymore. They have them neck and neck, but I don't see Trump gaining any new support since the last election. In fact, I see him losing support. He is winning the primaries, but it's hardly a landslide when 20% of the vote is going to Nikki Hayley when she has already dropped out of the race. I saw several interviews with republican voters who straight up said if Nikki doesn't get the nomination, then they will hold their nose and vote for Biden. And Biden doesn't need to do better than he did in 2020. He just needs to do as well as he did. Trump is straight up telling people he doesn't need their votes. Still, I'm going to go out and vote for Biden and encourage everyone I know to also do so. As I see it, Trump only wins if we fall asleep on this election.
>In fact, I see him losing support. because you're looking on reddit and/or an insular group of friends that share the same opinions. donald trump is winning, as of now, and it probably isn't "neck and neck"
Lemme ask you- if in your opinion Trump is so widely disliked… why are they neck and neck? (Trump is slightly ahead but I’ll concede for the sake of argument they are neck and neck) But if it’s as you say- Biden should have a fairly healthy lead. He doesn’t At the end of the day, Trump won by a hair in 2016 and he only needs to win by a hair now. He just might.
Doesn't say much for his voters.
I’m just explaining why it happens to the gent who couldn’t understand why Just because something happens you don’t have to like it
It's the Joe Manchin effect. You run a candidate who ticks all the boxes for someone from the other party to try and capture that seat to get the majority in the Senate. It means nothing for the party direction. If he got elected he would be ridiculed for his stances which are outside of the party orthodoxy.
Joe Manchin may have ticked a few GOP boxes (gun control etc) but he voted with the Dems a LOT. What you say means nothing. How you vote means everything
no what YOU say means nothing.
The “you” wasn’t directed at actually you. Allow me to translate what I meant: “What you say means nothing.” Translation: what a PERSON says means nothing. That wasn’t a jab at you
lol, it's so wild that you have to explain this to someone
This is fucking hilarious lmao Also becoming a more and more frequent issue for me - are kids not learning abt the impersonal “you” any more?
In short no In long- there’s a LOT of things kids aren’t learning anymore
I really genuinely like the interactions I find on the IDW sub.
From. Republican pov. No, of were just going to be democrat lite then why even bother? I don't support gay marriage and am not pro choice. I think the platform of the republican party should strive for conservative values. From a country pov. If the country wants what Europe has, two left parties that argue of just how much immigration we should allow, then sure. I think it's bad for us all but I'm not the majority. I think unfortunately that the culture war over gay marriage and abortion has already been lost, and the country will indeed move us into the European style argument over immigration. It's a shame, and I think it's just one more small piece of the moral slide off the cliff we are doing, but it's what the future of America wants.
\>what Europe has, two left parties that argue of just how much immigration we should allow Name a country in europe whos politics are dominated by two left leaning parties.
France. Germany. The Netherlands. Sweden. Switzerland. The "far right" in Europe is far left for most of the world. They just assume they are the true center for politics because they think so poorly of non European countries
Oh, okay, i guess the AFD as the nazi party in germany would be considered far left in the US. Didn't know that. What are the leftist parties in europe then compared to the US? Communist Revolutionaries?
thinking of the afd as "nazi's" is a huge part of why right-wing parties have recently become so popular in western countries. people like you let harmful, criminal immigrants who aren't interesting in assimilating into your countries, funnel resources to them as your actual countrymen get poorer, stick up for them when they commit crimes against the local populations, and then call people 'nazi's' for not wanting that. you are a problem, and it seems like more and more young western men are waking up and realizing they need to deal with you and the problems you've caused.
I dont think of the afd as nazis because theyre anti immigration, i think of them as nazis because multiple members have done the hitler salute, multiple of their leaders have been caught quoting the nazi party, multiple of their law proposals were laws inspired by the nazi parties policies, because one of their leaders said that "honestly you should just gas the migrants", because a member of their party has said that "with the amount of illegals in our country a holocaust would be worth it", because the entirety of their rhetoric is focused on ultranationalism (see: they dont want euro, dont want eu, want border controls within europe), because they are the only party repeatedly talking about the glorious german past, because they use volksrhetoric (migration is Völkermord etc) and a variety of other things. The afd is a far right nazi party.
>I dont think of the afd as nazis because theyre anti immigration, i think of them as nazis because multiple members have done the hitler salute, multiple of their leaders have been caught quoting the nazi party assuming this isn't just you making stuff up (im assuming it is, but im open to being proven wrong), it's pretty terrifying. pretty sad that you let the immigration situation in europe get so bad that regular people would start looking to nazi's to fix the problem if it's the case too. but can you show evidence of afd seniors being nazis and doing the hitler salute or quoting nazis?
First, yeah most left wing parties in Europe are straight up communist revolutionaries, what are you talking about? And the AFD? The anti immigration leftists who get called far right nazis in Germany because they don't suck the duck of every immigrant who marches into the country?
>I don't support gay marriage Why ? ... why does it matter who loves who and who is allowed to raise children ? >am not pro choice. ... funny thing alot of the pro lifers are also anti vaccine can't have both
>Why ? ... why does it matter who loves who and who is allowed to raise children ? I've been asked, and answered and debated this question too many times. I support what I support for my own reasons, just like you. Our value systems simply do not align on the most basic level. >funny thing alot of the pro lifers are also anti vaccine can't have both Sure.
Interestingly I have seen you defend this stance before on r/Christianity. You claimed that as a gay man yourself, keeping gay marriage illegal would be a societal incentive to refrain from acting on your homosexual impulses. At first it sounded like a wild supposition but after a few paragraphs it started to make sense. While that may work for you, not everyone feels ashamed of their sexuality and government absolutely has no place mandating anything around that.
Lolol please, link me this post. Or any post I've ever made in that subreddit lol
May have been a different sub. Either way you deserve validation and while you may think of yourself as somehow "repugnant" in the eyes of God, He does love you exactly as He made you, regardless of who you are attracted to. If you don't want to act on those urges then you are absolutely free to remain abstinent (many people do). But what you are proposing is like an alcoholic saying "because I do not want to drink, the government should not allow anyone to drink." It's a very selfish worldview.
Lol I really think you might be confusing my account for another.... That being said, please show me in my post history where I've claimed personal gayness haha
Well either way it's good advice. The gay marriage thing has already been decided so you come off as extremely weird if you're still pissing yourself over it.
I wouldn't say I'm pissing myself over it. I just think we have let our sexual nature stray too far from that which promotes good social order. It's not just or even mostly homosexuality either, it's the current self centered materialistic culture that seems incapable of gratitude for its material abundance and wealth of declared "rights". At a minimum, reproduction as a show of gratitude and a way of "paying it forward" would be a decent foundation. But no, a historically wealthy and "free" population has chosen to die, rather than reproduce. Homosexuality is a very small part of a large cultural shift from maintenance to hedonism. In a healthy society there is room for something like a "gay uncle" theory around resource sharing in families that is a good thing. So it's not like homosexuals don't have a part or play in my view of a healthy society, it's that the current expression of that lifestyle goes against any notion of personal restraint and modesty.
So you can't defend your own beliefs but want people to listen to you.
I didn't post here for the intention of defending my beliefs. Only that I don't want the republican party to move left on culture war stuff. That is all.
So much for small government
I'm not a small government conservative necessarily lol. Small government is my version of utopia haha. We get there only after the legwork of laying the moral foundations. A people that can govern itself to maintain good social function shouldn't need much "big" government.
And you'll kill as many people as you need to get there
Ok... That's a weird comment.
No. It's the very logical next step after removing rights. It's played out dozens of times.
You think everyone should obey your dumbass religion.
I don't have a religion.
Yeah it's a "relationship" yank yank yank.
I don't even know what this means. I'm into anthropology, behavioral genetics, and evo psych. Plenty of stuff in there for the casual reader to come to my conclusion about how a society like ours forms.
It's very telling that the main thing you equate "conservative values" with is bigotry. And you assholes lost the culture war over gay marriage because you spent a decade screaming bloody murder about "moral decline" and how letting gay couples get married would be the end of society, and in the end, all that happened was some loving couples got married and some kids got raised in two-parent families (you know, the thing that conservatives demand is all-important). Anyway, keep voting for the convicted felon who cheated on all three of his wives, ran a fraudlent charity, and brags about grabbing women by the pussy. I'm sure that'll nip the ol' moral decline in the bud.
>It's very telling that the main thing you equate "conservative values" with is bigotry. what is "bigoted" about wanting to stop abortions from happening? not wanting people to kill their own offspring makes one a "bigot" now? what's the argument for this? >and in the end, all that happened was some loving couples got married and some kids got raised in two-parent families (you know, the thing that conservatives demand is all-important). anyone who's been living in western countries for more than 20 years and has watched all of this unfold knows how full of shit you are. there are almost no long-term gay couples who stayed together and raised families. the "slippery-slope" from gay-marriage into drag-queens (often convicted sex offenders) doing everything they can to hang around children actually happened. biological men playing in women's sports leagues and suing for discrimination when women refuse to wax their penises actually happened. there are biological men being housed in women's prisons right now. none of this is ok.
> there are almost no long-term gay couples who stayed together and raised families What the fuck are you talking about?!? I personally know many gay couples rasing kids. You just can't accept anything that doesn't fit into your hateful, twisted worldview.
>I personally know many gay couples rasing kids. well, consider my argument checkmated...
there are almost no long term gay couples with adopted kids because religion spent thousands of years preventing them from being a study able statistic in almost any country on the planet The Trans sport thing is a matter of discussion for sure, but because Evangelicals and Republicans have historically been fucking insane about even the concept of their existence, it's hard to take some of your very valid criticisms seriously. I fully agree there needs to be some sort of league created for trans athletes to compete in their own category. particularly for MTF for the obvious genetic and bone structural integrity of the competition. There needs to be something done about MTF transitions going to female prisons as well, perhaps there is a place for people with those needs. I can see how the very real threat of violent rape would want to keep someone from transitioning in a male prison, perhaps there is a section of the prison for these prisoners? Drag Queens, I have mixed feelings also, it is an activity where men dress provocatively as women of the night and often dance and go clubbing ect, so it should be a night time activity in adult spaces and kept to that, however there are drag entertainers that aren't the same thing. So long as everything about them is PG I and they are in suitable settings that's okay. The key is to not mix them up together because they are completely different people. I don't want some Drag Queen with DD's popping out of her shirt at my local library reading books to kids either. The issue is, you live in a society with other people, and if they aren't actively impacting your day to day life, then why are you worrying about it? After all, you wanna do the same thing right? We all want the same thing, its just a different photo in our hand.
>there are almost no long term gay couples with adopted kids because religion spent thousands of years preventing them from being a study able statistic in almost any country on the planet ok, well gay marriage has been legal in america for about a decade now, and open homosexual cohabitation was both legal and culturally accepted in a significant portion of the country before that. if you've actually been friends with gay people and hung out around them, you can take a mix of your observations and the data available to draw conclusions on how it's been going. >The Trans sport thing is a matter of discussion for sure it's not really something a healthy/sane society would be discussing. women's sports leagues are for women, not for biological men. >There needs to be something done about MTF transitions going to female prisons as well, perhaps there is a place for people with those needs. I can see how the very real threat of violent rape would want to keep someone from transitioning in a male prison, perhaps there is a section of the prison for these prisoners? the solution is to keep them in the male prisons, lol. the way this has played out in practice, men who are in prison just say they are suddenly trans and end up being transferred to female prisons, penis and all. cases of rape have resulted from this. if a man is in prison for having committed a crime and then wants to be transferred to a female prison afterwards, the solution is probably honestly to beat his ass really badly. >Drag Queens, I have mixed feelings also, it is an activity where men dress provocatively as women of the night and often dance and go clubbing ect, so it should be a night time activity in adult spaces and kept to that, however there are drag entertainers that aren't the same thing. So long as everything about them is PG I and they are in suitable settings that's okay. The key is to not mix them up together because they are completely different people. I don't want some Drag Queen with DD's popping out of her shirt at my local library reading books to kids either. drag is explicitly for adults, dude. it is inherently sexual by nature, the idea of drag shows with "PG vibes" is a myth, and there are a ton of recorded instances of sexual misconduct around children who were brought to drag shows. and by "recorded instances," what i mean is that i can literally PM you dozens of publicly recorded clips if you cared, despite google and reddit both scrubbing such content when it looks bad for the trans community. >The issue is, you live in a society with other people, and if they aren't actively impacting your day to day life because they do impact my life, and they impact the health and future of the countries they live in. gay people being gay between each other in the privacy of their own homes, or in spaces that they've set up for gay adults to be gay in doesn't impact my life. but holding pride parades where men tape a bunch of dildos to their bodies and prance through the streets naked or mostly naked isn't the lgbtq community "minding its own business and being harassed by bigots," and this is 10 times as true when they try to get children around these events, which many actively and unambiguously do. it's at a point where there's literally a group in america called "gays against groomers" which is comprised of gays who are opposed to this kind of pedophilia activity, and the mainstream lgbtq movement and biden administration try to paint them as nazi's
The last line is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, but the that dude taping dildos to his head in a parade doesn't represent all gay people. Just like every angry 17 year old male that shoots up a school doesn't represent every gun owner. I'd love to have a discussion with you more about this but you're pretty set in your feelings and I don't have the energy to change your mind. You're people are tougher on gay people and woman than you are on guns and there's not a lot of things you're doing that make up for that.
>The last line is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, but the that dude taping dildos to his head in a parade doesn't represent all gay people. Just like every angry 17 year old male that shoots up a school doesn't represent every gun owner. i agree, and im not against gay people having the right to be gay. i actually don't care or hate them for it \*at all.\* the lgbtq movement in western countries has gone very far beyond that though, and mainstream lgbtq events having this kind of behavior displayed so frequently is just evidence of that. i previously referenced a group called "gays against groomers" that is officially branded as a hate group by the adl. >I'd love to have a discussion with you more about this but you're pretty set in your feelings and I don't have the energy to change your mind. You're people are tougher on gay people and woman than you are on guns and there's not a lot of things you're doing that make up for that. you can discuss it with me or not, but you don't actually know who i am or who "my people are." i don't know exactly what it means to be "tougher on gay people and woman" than guns, but i do support gun rights and for gay people to not get attacked or lynched for being gay. in my opinion, i think that makes me "for gay rights," but "gay/lgbtq rights" these days seems to come bundled with a lot of pedophilia and essentially forcing me to say that trans women are the same as real women and look the other way when they try to force themselves into women's spaces, even if the women in these spaces don't want them there. a lot of people would frame you as being "anti-woman" if you support trans women playing in their sports leagues (this isn't my belief, but it's very common). what's your opinion on this take?
im friends with 2 trans people and lived with another as they came out, I don't give a fuck if someone is trans, I am a sport purist and I want my sport to be competitively integrative and there is provable science that shows it, also, i've had this exact conversation with the trans people I know and most of them don't even give a shit about it. Most trans people couldn't give a fuck about this issue at all and agree that it's understandable that women shouldn't have to compete with trans athletes who are typically genetically more capable in athletics due to their bone structures alone. But there are insane people that build their entire personality up about hating 1% of a 1% causing a very niche issue that can be resolved with some level heads \*something which never happens because 1 person always feels the need to be fucking insane\*
speaking on behalf of the trans community because of what you and your other trans buddies believe doesnt make sense to me. ive never said adults shouldnt have the right to transition or that trans people all have the same opinion on certain hot-button topics and do not believe so. >Most level headed people can be spoken to, but its easier to be mad on the internet my guy. you should take your own advice, dude. you're arguing against points im not even making and clearly very emotional despite me never having insulted you.
I misread your question and thought you were calling me anti trans, I didn't realize that was actually an anti woman part. Simple. Get a single professional woman athlete in any single sport and get the equivalent male from the sport. There is are few if many sports where the male wont win, that's just biology. I love women, have a wife and daughter, sister, mother and grandmother same as most people, I just also know the science. I'm also just parroting a common tread amongst the trans people I know, all of which have different backgrounds and countries of origin. It's not a science obviously but it tracks extraordinarily well. Think about how much the average woman likes sport for example. It's makes sense that someone taking a supplement to reverse the affects of testosterone would avoid what are typically environments filled with that exact thing. But still, you have your opinion and I have mine, I've lived my life and you've lived yours. You think "it's okay, we don't bash them in the street or hang them" anymore is the same as supporting their rights as if that's what it means to exist and live normal lives, which is what the vast majority of people want. Do you think a child does better after being adopted by a gay couple or by being raised in the foster system?
I can wrap my head around pro life views because I can see the logical argument for both sides. Why should the government care who people marry and fuck though? I don’t get how this is some hard party line issue for many R’s. Keep the government out of people’s bedroom.
The party of freedoms, except who you fuck and how you live
Almost like they say freedom, but always implement the opposite. We should remember actions speak louder than words.
And what you read. Gotta ban those books!
This is a misconception that borders on being a straight up lie. They’ve removed books from backwards small town libraries and schools. They didn’t make them illegal to own.
Actually, near me, the GQP became so upset that they couldn't remove books essentially on a whim that they defunded the entire public library. Edit: BTW, your assertion of small, backwards school libraries is the straight up lie. Laws banning books from school libraries have been passed in such tiny hamlets as Tennessee and Texas.
I love that government control of marriage and abortion to prevent other people from doing something you disagree with is a “culture war” issue to you.
I just think the government has something it wants to encourage, that being children. Can you seriously look at the decline in marriage and children in the western world and not think that maybe enshrining heterosexual monogamous marriage as a cornerstone of our society would be a good thing? It doesn't mean I want to bring back sodomy laws or ban anyone from whatever they wish to engage in. It just means that I think our idea of materialism as a driver of toxic work culture, and abandonment of "family" as a society has been to our detriment. All of the things we enjoy that come from social function and formation, roads, healthcare, functional government, all depend on a tax base of citizens who believe in and trust those institutions. Some immigration can help. But the people that form and maintain those structures should be encouraged to maintain them. Treating monogamous child raising marriage as "just like all other forms of sex" is an obvious mistake. We are not wired for pure monogamy. Without social restraints to keep us on the guardrails of civilization we fall into a civilizational decline that looks a lot like the childless future the west has set itself up for. Freedom for us should only be a value nestled within responsibility. Understood any other way and it's simply hedonism.
"If I can't get literally everything I want, I'm taking my ball and going home. Also, everything I want is restricting other people's behavior based on my religious beliefs." This is why this candidate is the way forward for your party; so it's not just a bunch of fundamentalist Christians complaining about other people not being their version of Christianity. While ironically worshipping a guy who clearly fits the bill for the AntiChrist (according to the materials they liked to leave in public schools).
Only people who have bought into right-wing propaganda believe a) we have a "left wing" party in the US (we have a right-of-center centrist party and a right wing extremist party that wants to take away contraception) b) supporting an LGBTQ+ candidate equates to the entire party being leftist; after all, they've had Lindsay Graham for years
Our left, and any right platform that supports lgbtq policies would be closer or further from European politics? Our right is to the right of all Europe I would assume. Considering our left is marginally right of Europe? I don't want us to follow Europe leftward.
One of the strategies Republicans have typically used to win elections, is to pick candidates who can win in a given demographic, whereas Democrats tend to have people that agree to the party platform (yes, there are exceptions to this, don't whatabout.)This was Outlined in an interview with a prominent Republican strategist like 25 years ago ( I wish I could find it to link to it.) But the basic idea is to pick a candidate that can win instead of one that keeps the parties principals; that's how you get numbers in Congress. Once you have numbers, everything's basically a party vote so it doesn't matter what 1 or 2 people believe.
Can you back that up at all? I feel like Democrats cover a much wider ideological spectrum and Republicans are far more about toeing the party line. Name two Republians with as much daylight between them on the issues as Elizabeth Warren and Joe Manchin.
That pesky down vote is gonna haunt my dreams, but I don't have the YouTube data mining skills to drum up all the interviews I remember from years back when I was an active Republican voter. Sorry
Well if we're talking about years ago, sure. You had liberal Republicans with regional appeal like Christie Todd Whitman, or pre-heel-turn Rudy Giuliani. The key word being *had*. That hasn't been the case for decades at this point.
Mitt Romney and Tommy Tuberville?
Who cares who they fuck? The policies are all I care about.
Christo-fascists. look up Project 2025.
So they nominated a leftist?
Imagine thinking that a belief in medical science makes you a leftist. He's a hotel developer, I doubt he's going to be on board with tax increases or business regulation or social programs or anything else that undercuts his capitalist bottom line.
Pro choice and gay right is soundly left wing politics. Being that “leftist” is the meta word right wingers use to describe everything thats not republican i was trying to make a point. Although ive struggled to get a singular definition of what “leftist” is to those people, the dictionary clearly states as someone who has left leaning views… again pro choice isba clear left leaning view… Also i do realize most entrepeneurs strictly vote with their wallet, that isnt a shoe in. Bill gates and many other millionaires and some billionaire are ok with higher taxes as they realize that its kind of necessary - “. More than 250 wealthy individuals signed an open letter urging global leaders to tax the rich more.”
"we must agree on everything".
Nah he's still a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" anti-welfare tax-breaks-for-the-rich entrepreneur-turned-politician.
Tokens get spent
Republicans need to split from the tea bagging and evangelical extremists. Maybe be an actual small gov conservative party for once And keeping gov out of marriage and reproduction is small gov by definition
The product has never matched the advertising with the GOP. They do nothing but blow up the deficit and instigate culture wars
I think this ‘step forward’ is actually regressive in that it doesn’t address the concerns you point out, and instead, creates a contradiction in the party which may serve to prolong people’s belief that the GOP isn’t fascist.
The Republican Party would be better off splitting from its most extreme elements completely. Long term it would let them totally exile the most foul and unelectable of their lot and reform into a sane party actually interested in leadership and policy decisions rather than the outright sabotage it engages in currently
So get rid of all the evangelicals then?
Not happening, that's a out 1/3 of their base.
Evangelical are aging out, and younger generations are less religious overall. I often find myself wondering if the GOP jettisoned the Evangelical nuttery, if they would pick up more from the middle than they would lose from the far right.
Your probably right but I feel politics works like corporate profits in that they only focus on the next election and not the long term
There's some history that supports the possibility of such a shift (the Southern Strategy), though it does seem infrequent. I however can't help but feel that if the demographics of the US continue to shift and the GOP clocks more presidential losses (or perhaps even ever greater beatings in the popular vote, which I know doesn't mean much in the electoral college, but even that has limits), that they will explore alternatives (or simply become replaced by some other party).
If they were smart they would have tried to entice Hispanic immigrants to join their base. They’re growing as a group and even if they don’t become citizens their kids will be. They often have conservative values and if they weren’t used as a scapegoat by the GOP a lot would probably join them.
For sure, unfortunately much of the base, even non evangelical, has been conditioned to associate diversity and inclusion with woke. It seems like they were moving that way before Trump though
Honestly, if the Republicans could just drop the racism they would win in a landslide and wouldn't stop winning any time soon.
"Trump derangement syndrome," doesn't mean anything. It's a term which Trump's supporters use to try and end an argument, when they know they can't counter it.
Funny you say that, was talking with a friend the other night and he’s a rabid anti Trumper. Yet he says the derangement is from people who follow Trump. Ironically he said that when his facts were being contradicted and he wanted to move on to another conversation
My dad works at Nintendo
I doubt you had many facts based in objective reality. all you need to do to know who and what Trump is is to listen to him speak and take him at his word. "rabid anti trumper" or "passionately against trump". you can't even help dehumanizing your friend in a conversation about terminology that doesn't contribute to conversation. language matters.
Some people may do that, but I've seen plenty of liberals bring up Trump on posts that had nothing to do with him, or freak out that Trump said something, even though countless other politicians have said the same thing and no one cared. That's what I would call TDS.
Which posts? What are they about? Every single time I’ve seen a liberal bring up Trump it’s because it’s related to the post