American Politics

[M3J]

Yes. It also has to be said: Right now, it is leftist democrats leading the charge.

Bernie, AOC, Warren, Walz (who is at least very pro worker) are drawing crowds and fighting already for the house/senate races.
And it is moderate democrats like Chuck Schumer who fold to republicans and like newsom who invite nazis for mutual podcasts.

If moderate dems are going to fold to fascism, they should at least make way right now for the people who will try to fight it.

Leftist democrats need to do far more work to reverse the damage that moderate Dems did in the past year and half and even then, there are too few to keep up with new damages they're doing and will do. As I have said many times, moderate Dems do not care too much about winning, they're privileged enough to not be affected by republicans' policies and whatnot, so as long as they make money they're likely going pretend to fight for people.

People like destiny, Schumer, Clinton, esp are horrible dumbfucks, and it's no wonder why we're fucked. When Dems are led by people such as them and Pelosi, voters will feel alienated unless they're brainwashed.

 

[shionoro]

It is a question of values and secondary agendas. Maybe moderate is even the wrong word. I think there are people in the democratic party who are staunchly anti trump and have strong values who are not seen as "the left". Tim Walz is certainly progressive compared to the rest of the party, but he is not anticapialist and has not talked about taxation of wealth for all i know. He even said that he is a capitalist and anti socialism.

I still do think that tim walz has values he is not willing to sell out. He would not be silent if workers rights are gutted and he is a trans ally even when it does not benefit him. That is why I can trust him even tho i heavily disagree with him on some economic topics.

He is a left leaning moderate, but an honest one.

The big question is whether a person has values he is not willing to sell out. For leftists, I think that is more often the case because they have a staunch theoretical fundament to many of their views that is not easily blown away due to political currents. Bernie Sanders is not going to sell out homeless people just because housing first became unpopular (like Newsom did). We know that because we know how staunchly he was opposed to iraq war and willing to take attacks for it. Similarly, many leftist democrats stood with the Gaza movement (and stand with it now) even when that means their primary opponents get huge amounts of money from pro israel givers, costing them their seat. That is why I can trust them, even on topics I do not agree with them.

Being moderate does not exclude one from having values, but it sure gives a lot of wriggle room. And for many moderate democrats, that means their highest directive is not a value they believe in but their own career.

 

[ninjabot]

@ninjabot Not including pronouns has nothing to do with being left or not. Those are cosmetics.

Of course they're cosmetic, but they're cosmetics that are important to signal certain political leanings, as was the intention. A MAGA hat is cosmetic. Long ago, a skinned head was cosmetic. Surely you're not gonna claim these didn't imply political affiliation?

Matter of factly, I watch a bunch of left-leaning youtube shows weekly on The Line network (an Atheist activism channel with different left leaning political themed shows)

There's The Sunday Show which is a call-in show where they let theists call in to defend their beliefs in whatever God.

There's the Trans-Atlantic Call-In Show where they have trans content creators on to answer questions/debate anti trans callers.

And there's Chewed Gum, which is a feminist call-in show where they tackle things like purity culture and mysoginist ideas with callers. Also with an atheist lean.

I bring up all these shows because the call screeners that ask the question of what topic the caller wants to bring up, also find out what pronouns the caller wants to use in order to put them up on the screen for viewers to see. Typically, the only people to say "no pronouns" are right-wing chuds or troll callers meant to disrupt the calls and force the hosts to sit there and explain to them why it's important to find out what their preferred pronouns are.

There's no one on the planet that believes that emphasis on preferred pronouns is not a left-leaning signal of political alignment.

The question is: Do you sell out minorities or the people who supported you for political gain? Bernie Sanders has not wavered on taxation of wealth, on support of lgbtq people or on support of the poor, Never once in his career. And I hope the same will be tr ue for AoC. Nobody on the left cares whether she includes pronouns. But the day she does what Newsom did and sits down with an anti trans activist to mock trans athletes will be the day she stops being trustworthy. And I do not think she would do that, because leftists usually understand that they should not fraternize with actual fascist for shortterm brownie points. Because that undermines trust.

You can say that, but you haven't abandoned her yet as she's gradually become more moderate, which implies moderate politicians aren't inherently untrustworthy. There's a different problem here and it's not whether you're moderate or leftist. It's whether or not someone knows which fights to fight and which ones to dismiss for a better victory later down the road. Is she going to take a stance against Leftists when they're asking for something that the average American disagrees with? Is she gonna avoid mentioning it so she doesn't have to stand up to her base? Is she gonna stand with them?

Likewise, Warren and Walz aren't socialists or anti-capitalist or anything. They're progressive, sure. But all of their political positions sit right in line with moderate Democrats. You're giving Leftists glory for things that non-Leftists are doing.

The reason the people who lead the charge right now can do that is because they are the only ones in the Democratic who have any trust left. Nobody in their right mind trusts the Schumers and the Newsoms, because they have proven that they sell out groups they claimed to fight for if it makes political sense to them. And Bernie and AOC have provent he opposite. They ate criticism to fight for what they believed was right.

That doesn't equate to voting for Democrats though. After all, many of the people who like/voted for AOC turned around and voted for Donald Trump. And it's not because he didn't "turn his back on his constituents" or whatever.

It is a question of values and secondary agendas. Maybe moderate is even the wrong word. I think there are people in the democratic party who are staunchly anti trump and have strong values who are not seen as "the left". Tim Walz is certainly progressive compared to the rest of the party, but he is not anticapialist and has not talked about taxation of wealth for all i know. He even said that he is a capitalist and anti socialism.

Which encompasses all of my argument. If you say "get rid of the moderates", then you're throwing out the very people you're championing who are in the forefront, because those people aren't Leftists.

I still do think that tim walz has values he is not willing to sell out. He would not be silent if workers rights are gutted and he is a trans ally even when it does not benefit him. That is why I can trust him even tho i heavily disagree with him on some economic topics.

Trust is important, but so is appealing to the majority (if you want to win in a democratic system). It's also important to know that someone can be a trans ally without agreeing with everything the trans community or other trans allies promote. Like the sports thing.

 

[shionoro]

@Ninja EDIT: I wanted to shorten my answer to the essential point.

What i criticise about your view is that you do not put enough value onto the longterm consequences of actions of politicians. You think that a party should listen to the majority opinion while putting values on a backseat because winning is the highest virtue. But even if it was believable that this would offer more short term wins (and I dont think it does), it surely cannot not accomplish a better or at least equally good world, which is the ultimate goal of politics. And that is why it falls short.

Trust is a hard currency. Both trust into indiciduals and trust into the political system itself. Every time a politician promises something and flip flops, trust is eroded. The same goes for every time obvious party games or lobbyism (like Pelosis insider trading) is done without consequences or the state fails its constituents in other ways.

What people need is leadership that they can trust and that is what they will vote for. Centrist politicians are unable to keep that trust up, because they increasingly pomise things they have no intention of upholding and build their promises around fleeting polls rather than a fundament of values.

There are two mainmechanisms that can make you gain or lose trust with a voter:

1) You are the only one who seems to understand an issue they have and you are willing to fight for it. On the flip side, you lose trust into someone who seems to handwave an important issue you have away. If almost all politicians do that, a voter loses trust in politics (for example when he struggles to get by and the government says economy is great and they did a good job).

2) You are willing to fight for an opinion the voter shares even if you get a lot of flack for it. They know they can trust you because you were in solidarity to the voter when it meant you would get hurt by it. On the flip side, if you flop flop on issues because of party line or occasion, you lose trust.

Trump did both of these things a lot (so did AOC, which is why the voters you mentioned liked both of them. They favor trust). Trump definitely also flip flopped a lot and lied through his teeth, but nobody can deny trump did not cave to pressure and gave validity to concerns that nobody else seemed to give validity too. He did it in an evil, dishonest way, but he did. A lot of democratic leaning voters did not feel like Harris had some of their most important issues adressed, and if she did, they didnt really believe she meant it.

The reason trust is such a hard currency is that you can build an actual longlasting political force on it with voters that actually like or at least accept what you do and who trust the political system. But today, increasingly, it seems like nobody in politics has any values anymore. Newsom can turn on the homeless, Kamala can turn on the greendeal and champion more gas drilling and of course republicans do not even know what truth is anymore.

If you bank on short term wins via strategic positioning, that means you will have to break that trust time after time, because you are not telling the full truth and you fight for contradictions, misguided compromises or things you simply have no intention to actually do.

 

[M3J]

It is a question of values and secondary agendas. Maybe moderate is even the wrong word. I think there are people in the democratic party who are staunchly anti trump and have strong values who are not seen as "the left". Tim Walz is certainly progressive compared to the rest of the party, but he is not anticapialist and has not talked about taxation of wealth for all i know. He even said that he is a capitalist and anti socialism.

I still do think that tim walz has values he is not willing to sell out. He would not be silent if workers rights are gutted and he is a trans ally even when it does not benefit him. That is why I can trust him even tho i heavily disagree with him on some economic topics.

He is a left leaning moderate, but an honest one.

The big question is whether a person has values he is not willing to sell out. For leftists, I think that is more often the case because they have a staunch theoretical fundament to many of their views that is not easily blown away due to political currents. Bernie Sanders is not going to sell out homeless people just because housing first became unpopular (like Newsom did). We know that because we know how staunchly he was opposed to iraq war and willing to take attacks for it. Similarly, many leftist democrats stood with the Gaza movement (and stand with it now) even when that means their primary opponents get huge amounts of money from pro israel givers, costing them their seat. That is why I can trust them, even on topics I do not agree with them.

Being moderate does not exclude one from having values, but it sure gives a lot of wriggle room. And for many moderate democrats, that means their highest directive is not a value they believe in but their own career.

It's not about Trump, it's about whether these moderates will stop republicans doing horrible stuff and fight for people, or if they'll be okay with most policies republicans pass that'll hurt people. It's hard to trust moderate Dems or believe they have values, and the fact that there are so few of left Dems is a problem.

Like I said, Dems have shown to the leftists just how similar they are to the republicans or how much they prefer republicans, and that gives the left less incentive to vote for republicans. Their priority should be appealing to the left, as they are already guaranteed Dem voters' support. And as I said, Dems have a LOT to apologize and make up for, voters included, for the way they were so shitty towards others that did not vote for Harris, if they want better chances at winning.

 

[shionoro]

@M3J
Their priority should always be to appeal to everyone, not to the left specifically. That is an important point to take away. Things like a wealth tax are good because they are good for almost everyone, the same goes for all other leftist ideas. But things that ONLY appeal to the left, weather by communication or by content, are not good.

That is double important in times of authoritarianism. America is not a stable democracy anymore right now and democrats and activists are going to be attacked by law enforcement. They can only win if they have most people on their side at least in principle, not just 40% of the likely voters.

 

[ninjabot]

@Ninja EDIT: I wanted to shorten my answer to the essential point.

What i criticise about your view is that you do not put enough value onto the longterm consequences of actions of politicians. You think that a party should listen to the majority opinion while putting values on a backseat because winning is the highest virtue. But even if it was believable that this would offer more short term wins (and I dont think it does), it surely cannot not accomplish a better or at least equally good world, which is the ultimate goal of politics. And that is why it falls short.

I disagree, obviously. There's a distinct reason why Project 2025 was meant to be hidden until after Trump's second term was secured. Long-term change can be made only after you have the power to do it. And even then, it has to be protected so that it can't simply be undone with the stroke of a pen, which requires a lot more nuance and preparation. These protections being put into place also need a lot of overhead and power. You've got to win so that you have that power. That'll always be the highest priority to me. Getting the power first. Using the power to thoughtfully and safely work toward the wishes of the people second.

Trust is a hard currency. Both trust into indiciduals and trust into the political system itself. Every time a politician promises something and flip flops, trust is eroded. The same goes for every time obvious party games or lobbyism (like Pelosis insider trading) is done without consequences or the state fails its constituents in other ways.

Sure, but people are willing to grit their teeth and endure betrayals as long as they're better off in other aspects of their life. And that's not a team sports kinda thing where you're only voting for your team because they're your team, whether they hurt you or not (though that is also a thing that happens). For example: voting for Democrats because they have no intention of taking abortion rights away from women, but being disappointed because they don't raise minimum wage.

Your argument might be that trust is more valuable than these benefits that can be gained from just voting for untrustworthy people anyway, but I don't think you can explain that to a woman bleeding out in a parking lot from an ectopic pregnancy, or a trans woman who gets put on a sex offender registry for being caught in a women's restroom. A politician who will promise the world to you and then lose the election because their promises are far too radical, vs. a politician who will promise the world to you and then not deliver, but successfully do at least a few things you want? That's actually a kind of trust that they've earned from me now that I think about it. I can trust that they'll do what they can, when they can, and that they can tell what policies are worth pursuing and which aren't.

I know which one I'm voting for.

 

[shionoro]

I disagree, obviously. There's a distinct reason why Project 2025 was meant to be hidden until after Trump's second term was secured. Long-term change can be made only after you have the power to do it. And even then, it has to be protected so that it can't simply be undone with the stroke of a pen, which requires a lot more nuance and preparation. These protections being put into place also need a lot of overhead and power. You've got to win so that you have that power. That'll always be the highest priority to me. Getting the power first. Using the power to thoughtfully and safely work toward the wishes of the people second.

It is true that sometimes you should keep certain things hidden (or rather, keep plausible deniability). But I think you look at this from the wrong perspective. Project 2025 could only work because rightextremists were able to put these views deep into the minds of the mainstream. Immigrants being a threat, transwokist people trying to take over the country, men not being men anymore. That something that exists not because democrats are too woke, but because there is no pushback against it. Trump lied about not being connected to p2025, but republican voters oftentimes liked at least large parts of that project. And they trusted that Trump would pursue these parts (and he does). Nobody can say that Trump is not deporting people on masse or being kind to lgbtq people.

Everytime a Democrat like Newsom talks to a rightextremist and concedes that, yeah, actually there are too many mexicans and trans people are annoying sometimes, he undermines the trust into what democrats allegedly believe in and he gives trust into the fighters for P2025 (open or not). Because if Democrats take up rightwing talking points but water them down a little, voters will be even more sold on the point and want the more powerful solution rather than the democrat stance that is full of contradiction.

You are not winning like that, you are giving the Nazis what they need on the longterm, because you make their narrative more powerful with every election, even if you win.

Sure, but people are willing to grit their teeth and endure betrayals as long as they're better off in other aspects of their life. And that's not a team sports kinda thing where you're only voting for your team because they're your team, whether they hurt you or not (though that is also a thing that happens). For example: voting for Democrats because they have no intention of taking abortion rights away from women, but being disappointed because they don't raise minimum wage.

Your argument might be that trust is more valuable than these benefits that can be gained from just voting for untrustworthy people anyway, but I don't think you can explain that to a woman bleeding out in a parking lot from an ectopic pregnancy, or a trans woman who gets put on a sex offender registry for being caught in a women's restroom. A politician who will promise the world to you and then lose the election because their promises are far too radical, vs. a politician who will promise the world to you and then not deliver, but successfully do at least a few things you want? That's actually a kind of trust that they've earned from me now that I think about it. I can trust that they'll do what they can, when they can, and that they can tell what policies are worth pursuing and which aren't.

I know which one I'm voting for.

If you agree that people pursue what seems most beneficial to them in their existence, then you should see that trust is even more important. Because a woman that might want to pursue an abortion some day and lives in Trump's America might understand that for her own life, it is more beneficial to yield to power. Because while it might be best for her if Democrats win, with increasing pressure on women it is even more immediet to shut her mouth, align with her husband and play the role of the good housewife to not face repercussions. What we will need in the future are people willing to fight, because you are not winning an election with just voters who grit their teeth. You can only win with enough people willing to go out enthusiastically and fight for their candidate, because only then others are convinced to change their mind or to speak out.

There are a lot of people willing to fight out there. The gaza movement, climate activists, the people who burn down teslas, people who protest against ice... These are the people that are willing to fight and willing to face legal repercussions for it in an increasingly authoritarian country. The middle ground people who could imagine to vote either party and do not really like what trump does are not going to stick their neck out UNLESS there is a candidate who has so much trust that they know he is actually going to fight for them. It is believable that a Bernie Bro is going to push through with campaigning because they believe in what they do and trust their candidate. I do not believe for one second that anyone would risk jail to fight for Gavin Newsom.

That means you need to especially gain the trust back from all these movements that democrats disappointed. A young climate activist who is enthuasiastic can believably push his mother to also vote for a leftwing candidate, because enthusiasm spills over. But someone who has to grit their teeth to vote democrats is not going to talk to any work collegues about this issue, especially in an america where it might give him trouble.

That is why it is a strategical mistake (and imo also a moral failing) to try to focus on making as many people as possible vote you while holding their nose.

 

[kkck]

It's not about what can be done. There's no other choice. We have NO POWER. All we can do is wait.

I am not 100% sure of what this is a response to.

Which is literally what's happening right now. Trump voters are begging for financial relief and Trump is just saying "trust me bro, it's all according to keikaku". The person that was supposed to make America great again is making it poorer, abandoning it's allies, cuddling up to it's enemies, and enriching rich people at the expense of the average American. There's no one listening to their pleas now except people like me that are screaming "This is what you fucking deserve!"

I think there's a caveat to this. Obama did jack shit for these folk. Trump didn't do much for them either but his tariffs and trade wars can be seen by these folk as trump at least trying. Then biden also went to do nothing for these folk. While now trump basically talks to them every day. Add to that there's the cultural angle of things which has been less than kind to them since at least the obama era.

Gen Z is conservative because all the masculine activities are conservatively coded, attracting them over to their side and thus, the women they are involved with romantically follow along with them. To the extent that there are women that are becoming conservative, it's the women that want traditional lives of subservient homemaking, no the ones that are college educated and self motivated.

So would I be mistaken in interpreting this as gen z thinking democrats are too gay? I've read this 50 times but that continues to be my takeaway. I am also iffy about the bit with women becoming conservative. Women historically have leaned democrat but I don't think the gap is THAT large (60-40? 55-45%?). In hindsight I suppose it's clear that conservative women are a pretty awkward topic for democrats.

And don't get me wrong: I'm not hoping they all reprogram. They can't. All they can do is follow the same programming that's already hardwired into them right now that says "Follow the team that is different from whatever bad team you're suffering with now."
People won't change, but living conditions will. And that's what will change votes. Like it has for the past few elections. Covid beat Trump in 2020. Economy (NOT GAZA) beat Biden in 2024. Economy, plus destroyed global relations and alliances will beat Republicans in 2028. UNLESS... things turn around and the economy becomes so good sways the average Republican, or there's a Republican candidate that is anti-MAGA and uses Trump's fuckups as his stoop speech, which I absolutely do not expect.

To me it continues to be a pretty big stretch this would eventually get these folk to switch to democrats. Because... democrats aren't really offering what they want or need. Democrats need to change to cater to these voters, the other way around very probably wouldn't work out.

 

[shionoro]

I think there's a caveat to this. Obama did jack shit for these folk. Trump didn't do much for them either but his tariffs and trade wars can be seen by these folk as trump at least trying. Then biden also went to do nothing for these folk. While now trump basically talks to them every day. Add to that there's the cultural angle of things which has been less than kind to them since at least the obama era.

I think that's right on the money. Trump actually talks to them. Democrats would never, they also do not talk to their own lefties. You can forgive Trump a lot if he keeps up on the pulse of things and gives them things they like every now and then.

 

[M3J]

@M3J
Their priority should always be to appeal to everyone, not to the left specifically. That is an important point to take away. Things like a wealth tax are good because they are good for almost everyone, the same goes for all other leftist ideas. But things that ONLY appeal to the left, weather by communication or by content, are not good.

That is double important in times of authoritarianism. America is not a stable democracy anymore right now and democrats and activists are going to be attacked by law enforcement. They can only win if they have most people on their side at least in principle, not just 40% of the likely voters.

Appealing to moderates might work, but it's a crapshoot, especially if you don't know what to say to them. Libs are going to vote for Dems regardless, because "blahblahblah Dems are better." It's the left that they should be talking to because the left are more likely to support the Dems, they have more in common than with moderates or further right, and by actually putting in the work instead of being lazy and taking the easy way out, they're more likely to get votes.

That will help Dems more than what Newsom did, or Biden refusing to say "fuck you" to the judges and passing an EO to cancel student loans. Stuff like that is what would help get the Dems more votes than being scared of alienating moderates.

Dems did not try to appeal to the left in 2016 and 2024 and look at what happened. They knew they were in trouble in 2020 without the left, and we saw the result. Unite and work with people that are more likely to agree with you, and then maybe work on convincing people that might agree with some coaxing.

 

[shionoro]

@M3J Depends a lot on how you do it tho. Defund the police was not a very helpful theme for an election because most people didnt even understand it and thus, while leftists liked it, a lot of people were actively scared by it.

"Tax the rich" however, if you actually mean it and have a comprehensive concept, is understandable for everyone and can be properly messaged, while also appealing very much to young activists who will then canvass.

It is important to put the issues on the foreground that universially appeals to people (as an existential struggle, like cost of living) while also maintaining a firm, value based stance on minority issues (for example neverbeing pro more militarization of police, period).

 

[kkck]

You'd think militarizing the police would be an universal issue, not a minority issue.

 

[M3J]

@M3J Depends a lot on how you do it tho. Defund the police was not a very helpful theme for an election because most people didnt even understand it and thus, while leftists liked it, a lot of people were actively scared by it.

"Tax the rich" however, if you actually mean it and have a comprehensive concept, is understandable for everyone and can be properly messaged, while also appealing very much to young activists who will then canvass.

It is important to put the issues on the foreground that universially appeals to people (as an existential struggle, like cost of living) while also maintaining a firm, value based stance on minority issues (for example neverbeing pro more militarization of police, period).

Yeah because they didn't give a good explanation and alternative, but on the other hand the left got lost their trust in Dems when they found out Dems actually increased funding. I don't think this was directed at the left though, as much as it was at BLM tired of cops' bullshit.

"Tax the rich" has been explained very well, and it's more than clear that the wealthy are the problem, as well as companies.

Which is a lot of what the left are about, while libs are okay with whatever as long as it's not republicans doing it

 

[catagon87]

"Tax the rich" however, if you actually mean it and have a comprehensive concept, is understandable for everyone and can be properly messaged, while also appealing very much to young activists who will then canvass.

This is one of the biggest problems. Most people don't understand how the rich and corporations get around paying taxes.
My friend is a business owner and thinks his business is currently falling victim to Biden's tax plan - Biden did not have a tax plan. He's on Trump's plan.

That messaging has always been there and few disagree with "tax the rich" but the problem is a lot of "moderate" voters are moderate because they have no interest beyond scratching the surface in politics.

I'll never understand the people rallying against raising taxes for people who make 1000x what they make.

 

[ninjabot]

I am not 100% sure of what this is a response to.

You said I'm overestimating our ability to outlast MAGA, and my response is we have no power to do anything else, so we have to outlast MAGA. I

I think there's a caveat to this. Obama did jack shit for these folk. Trump didn't do much for them either but his tariffs and trade wars can be seen by these folk as trump at least trying. Then biden also went to do nothing for these folk. While now trump basically talks to them every day. Add to that there's the cultural angle of things which has been less than kind to them since at least the obama era.

I'd argue Obamacare benefits the average American a lot. So much that Trump stopped talking about getting rid of it. Biden's farm aid that Trump cut is being felt pretty severely (though the farmers never call it the Biden farm aid cause they don't want to admit they were getting it from Biden). And people started out seeing the tariffs and trade wars as Trump trying. Now they see them as Trump not giving a shit about how much more expensive he's about to make it for them to fucking live.

So would I be mistaken in interpreting this as gen z thinking democrats are too gay?

Not at all, you're right on the money. This is the country that believes eating a salad makes you gay. And not even because of the euphemism "tossing someone's salad", which refers to anilingus. It's considered women's food, and if you do things women do, while not being a woman, you're gay.

Got long hair? Not gay. Put that shit in a man-bun? You're gay.
Wearing shorts? Not gay. Are they shorter than knee length? You're gay.
Just got a brand new car? Hell yeah! Not gay. That new car a Prius or a Honda Civic? You're gay, AND we're gonna beat you up, pussy.

The Democratic party leaning into social justice, which is inherently a more feminine thing at best makes us look immasculine, and at worst: gay. Which is not to say there's anything wrong with being gay... unless you're trying to appeal to people that are averse to such things. I for one, am glad America is becoming more LGBTQ friendly. I'm not proud about how we advocate for it though, because we're ostracising a lot of people the way that we're doing it. We shouldn't be attacking people for adjusting to the new status quo if they're not intentionally trying to be offensive. Microaggressions are just that: micro, and almost never intentional.

I've read this 50 times but that continues to be my takeaway. I am also iffy about the bit with women becoming conservative. Women historically have leaned democrat but I don't think the gap is THAT large (60-40? 55-45%?). In hindsight I suppose it's clear that conservative women are a pretty awkward topic for democrats.

Sure, I was talking about the vast swathe of women who voted for Trump last election. It wasn't necessarily because they were anti-abortion (though a lot are), but because they were falling in line with their spouse's decision.

To me it continues to be a pretty big stretch this would eventually get these folk to switch to democrats. Because... democrats aren't really offering what they want or need. Democrats need to change to cater to these voters, the other way around very probably wouldn't work out.

Democrats by definition, as well as policy-wise, are already different than the current administration. The voters who switched to Trump in 2024 did so to escape the financial despair they experienced under Biden, but what they experienced under Biden has become BETTER than what they're experiencing under Trump. What Democrats have to offer, is an answer for whatever problems America is suffering from by election time.

 

[shionoro]

This is one of the biggest problems. Most people don't understand how the rich and corporations get around paying taxes.
My friend is a business owner and thinks his business is currently falling victim to Biden's tax plan - Biden did not have a tax plan. He's on Trump's plan.

That messaging has always been there and few disagree with "tax the rich" but the problem is a lot of "moderate" voters are moderate because they have no interest beyond scratching the surface in politics.

I'll never understand the people rallying against raising taxes for people who make 1000x what they make.

I think that is why the topic of trust is so important to me, as it is required to actually get close and talk to people. A lot of people who are on the right can easily understand why a wealth tax is good if they sit down with someone who can explain it well and kindly. And the same goes for many social issues. The problem is to make that talk happen.

In my experience, even someone who starts the conversation by "i am unhappy about immigrants stealing my job" can very quickly see your perspective if you explain without judgement how their landlord screws them over and what you'd like to do about it. They won't instantly become a bleeding heart liberal, but they still might vote for you if they trust that you are not lying to them and have their best interest in mind. Because that topic is existential to them and supersedes a lot of the rest.

 

[kkck]

This is one of the biggest problems. Most people don't understand how the rich and corporations get around paying taxes.
My friend is a business owner and thinks his business is currently falling victim to Biden's tax plan - Biden did not have a tax plan. He's on Trump's plan.

That messaging has always been there and few disagree with "tax the rich" but the problem is a lot of "moderate" voters are moderate because they have no interest beyond scratching the surface in politics.

I'll never understand the people rallying against raising taxes for people who make 1000x what they make.

Crackpot theory on my end: china shock. Companies start leaving the US, middle class takes a huge hit. Economic theory would have said that eventually these folk would eventually get jobs elsewhere and recover. in practice the economy recovered without them. From that point, i don't think the idea that taxes suck is all that hard to sell. Companies leaving places to save on taxes is by no means unheard of. So it's not too strange that people associate taxes (which should have paid for social services and education for them to recover) with job loss. I don't think the notion that you don't get anything from paying taxes in US is uncommon.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 19, 2025, Original Post Date: Mar 19, 2025 ---

You said I'm overestimating our ability to outlast MAGA, and my response is we have no power to do anything else, so we have to outlast MAGA. I

I mean, neither side is really going anywhere. Time will bring about change but who knows where that will go.

I'd argue Obamacare benefits the average American a lot. So much that Trump stopped talking about getting rid of it. Biden's farm aid that Trump cut is being felt pretty severely (though the farmers never call it the Biden farm aid cause they don't want to admit they were getting it from Biden). And people started out seeing the tariffs and trade wars as Trump trying. Now they see them as Trump not giving a shit about how much more expensive he's about to make it for them to fucking live.

I think obamacare was bungled when obama didn't take the risky step to implement the individual mandate. Obamacare is definitely better than nothing but without the mandate it turned into something which a lot of people are simply very unhappy with.

Not at all, you're right on the money. This is the country that believes eating a salad makes you gay. And not even because of the euphemism "tossing someone's salad", which refers to anilingus. It's considered women's food, and if you do things women do, while not being a woman, you're gay.

Got long hair? Not gay. Put that shit in a man-bun? You're gay.
Wearing shorts? Not gay. Are they shorter than knee length? You're gay.
Just got a brand new car? Hell yeah! Not gay. That new car a Prius or a Honda Civic? You're gay, AND we're gonna beat you up, pussy.

The Democratic party leaning into social justice, which is inherently a more feminine thing at best makes us look immasculine, and at worst: gay. Which is not to say there's anything wrong with being gay... unless you're trying to appeal to people that are averse to such things. I for one, am glad America is becoming more LGBTQ friendly. I'm not proud about how we advocate for it though, because we're ostracising a lot of people the way that we're doing it. We shouldn't be attacking people for adjusting to the new status quo if they're not intentionally trying to be offensive. Microaggressions are just that: micro, and almost never intentional.

Sure, I was talking about the vast swathe of women who voted for Trump last election. It wasn't necessarily because they were anti-abortion (though a lot are), but because they were falling in line with their spouse's decision.

Ah, ok. In fairness, man-buns are kinda gay . Doing women things making you gay is by no means a US thing (you are telling that to someone from south america...). Though a few of those do seem entirely random. I think the issue is a bit deeper than folk being offended. If people were merely offended over innocuous things then this wouldn't be an issue. Thinking of kids who like andrew tate my take would be that this is more of a response to media's portrayal of men during the past decade. You have media portraying modern men as... to quote google AI " emotionally expressive, authentic, and engaged in self-care, moving beyond traditional stereotypes of strength and dominance.". I think a lot of kids feel sort of... lied to? Because barely anyone is like that and not even women care that much about this. A lot of this just doesn't fit into our reptile brains. You mostly can't reason a human being into finding another human being attractive or unattractive, that shit is mostly chemical reactions in our brains. Of course, this isn't a defense of tate but rather more of a commentary of what he is preying on.

Falling in line with their spouse's decision.. what? That doesn't sound like a thing.

Democrats by definition, as well as policy-wise, are already different than the current administration. The voters who switched to Trump in 2024 did so to escape the financial despair they experienced under Biden, but what they experienced under Biden has become BETTER than what they're experiencing under Trump. What Democrats have to offer, is an answer for whatever problems America is suffering from by election time.

hmmmm, if this was the case then we'd already have a new democratic platform that was filled to the brim with policy catered to the middle class. Or at least some of the way there... I could be wrong but if this was the case I'd think we would see the first signs of it by the next democratic primaries.

 

[ninjabot]

Ah, ok. In fairness, man-buns are kinda gay . Doing women things making you gay is by no means a US thing (you are telling that to someone from south america...). Though a few of those do seem entirely random.

Yeah, culture and region has a lot to do with it, so it could seem random if you're not familiar with the origins. Look at rappers. They rap about the most misogynistic and toxically masculine shit in the world, yet they're INCREDIBLY fashion-focused, which is typically seen as feminine.

Also, in the American south, men wearing earrings is considered gay, but less so in the north. And even then certain subcultures can pull it off and it won't be considered gay regardless of the gender or location of the person using it. Think about those huge gauge earrings that emo kids wore. The ones that split the earlobe open? No one sees the people wearing those as gay. Just weird.

You're from South America so I'm sure in the more temperate areas you have dudes rocking shorter shorts. Especially in coastal cities. The guys there are less likely to suffer through the heat just to make themselves seem more masculine.

I think the issue is a bit deeper than folk being offended. If people were merely offended over innocuous things then this wouldn't be an issue. Thinking of kids who like andrew tate my take would be that this is more of a response to media's portrayal of men during the past decade. You have media portraying modern men as... to quote google AI " emotionally expressive, authentic, and engaged in self-care, moving beyond traditional stereotypes of strength and dominance.". I think a lot of kids feel sort of... lied to? Because barely anyone is like that and not even women care that much about this. A lot of this just doesn't fit into our reptile brains. You mostly can't reason a human being into finding another human being attractive or unattractive, that shit is mostly chemical reactions in our brains. Of course, this isn't a defense of tate but rather more of a commentary of what he is preying on.

Falling in line with their spouse's decision.. what? That doesn't sound like a thing.

Well yeah that's a part of it too. I was just going on a certain group of people. The ones that started Democratic and went Republican. For every "why I left the left" story I've heard from a white dude, it was mainly a combination of them having access to both right-leaning and left-leaning people in their life... but one side being more open and laid back and forgiving while the other is more judgemental and sensational and unforgiving when it came to social things.

That google AI definition is friggin' weird.

 

[kkck]

Yeah, culture and region has a lot to do with it, so it could seem random if you're not familiar with the origins. Look at rappers. They rap about the most misogynistic and toxically masculine shit in the world, yet they're INCREDIBLY fashion-focused, which is typically seen as feminine.

Also, in the American south, men wearing earrings is considered gay, but less so in the north. And even then certain subcultures can pull it off and it won't be considered gay regardless of the gender or location of the person using it. Think about those huge gauge earrings that emo kids wore. The ones that split the earlobe open? No one sees the people wearing those as gay. Just weird.

You're from South America so I'm sure in the more temperate areas you have dudes rocking shorter shorts. Especially in coastal cities. The guys there are less likely to suffer through the heat just to make themselves seem more masculine.



Well yeah that's a part of it too. I was just going on a certain group of people. The ones that started Democratic and went Republican. For every "why I left the left" story I've heard from a white dude, it was mainly a combination of them having access to both right-leaning and left-leaning people in their life... but one side being more open and laid back and forgiving while the other is more judgemental and sensational and unforgiving when it came to social things.

That google AI definition is friggin' weird.

Hmm, my city is probably a bit weird in that regard because weather is the kinda the same year round. It just rains more or less depending on the time of the year. The lack of 4 seasons has a big impact on what people wear. Shorts are pretty common though I don't think I've ever heard anyone say above the knee shorts are gay.

Really? I was struggling to put it into words and I just googled "how does media portray positive masculinity". And it felt spot on with how men are occasionally portrayed at times. Frigging weird is right.