Sure, but not like most dudes who refuse to vote for women are getting that deep into things. They don’t care about blended identities (or Glocks, unless they’re in their own faces). They care about keeping control, more than anything. They know what many men have done to women, and believe (like many white people believe) that a world turned upside down with regards to gender relations will put them on the bottom and abused…
Yeah, it’s baked in, but it’s not inevitable. We can do things in a different way, and humanity has in certain contexts. It’s hard to throw off these structures, but as Ursula K. LeGuin has said, the divine right of kings once seemed inevitable, too.
Indeed. It raises it’s ugly head again, even if it’s not necessarily an actually monarchy. In some ways, it didn’t ever fully go away, but found a new configuration in the modern dictatorship. But there is a generally understanding that it’s “bad” (except by the partisans that support it).
Mother was a great fan of hers and of Andre Norton as well. Anne McCaffrey, though - I’m finding original paperback with the cool covers SF had in the 1970s and one could see 'em all at B. Dalton Bookseller; or, if one was patient, at the local branch of the DPL. Many branches btw, were built by WPA workers. And I’ve talked about my mom’s dad working on the Boulder Dam.
But I was raised in a union town, which was seemingly baked in and always voted Democrat (did they use “blue” and “red” back then? when did that start, I just now thought about that. lol). I mean rich snob/playboy or down-to-earth guy/Texan, Dems of the past seemed to pay attention to what voters actually wanted, not what they were told by their consultants. I hate to use the term “noblesse oblige”, because it doesn’t apply to Truman, LBJ, Carter, Clinton or Obama. I think they listened more than the gops, but out of a sense of duty and/or self-aggrandizement (figure out which one goes with which reason, LOL).
It’s just so crazy - NOW the workers are really bitching about the promise to bring industrial manufacturing back to the USA, when they mother fucking VOTED for it under Reagan - I mean, it’s on film somewhere, I’m sure.
But either party don’t care if their candidates are old unless they lose their balance/minds/whatever on camera and/or audio. Just so they’re white and they’re male, they don’t even have to take any fuckin’ tests at all. It doesn’t even matter if they were convicted on 34 counts of felony fraud How the fuck did the Dems not take advantage of that? I woulda used quotes of Susan Collins saying about trump oh he’ll get better that’s just his way blah blah blah, then show her saying “oh my dear we need to maybe do something”.
That article, and the book it’s reviewing, lost me with this quote from one of the book’s authors:
It’s not a book that has an opinion
I mean . . . what? Of course the book has an opinion. It’s a book about why the Democrats lost the election. That’s not a subject that has an objectively verifiable answer. It is, by definition, an opinion.
I thought that the what in “what happened to make the dems lose the election” is the subject of the book? They actually researched and reported on that subject in what appears to be an objective manner. One can have an opinion about any given subject - cats, politics, fetishes; or one can practice the who-what-where-when-why-how that reporters are supposed to do - I thought? Though my Journalism class was in 1993, so…
But that’s not something someone can determine with objective certainty. Why a certain candidate lost is always going to involve, at some level, people’s opinions. And most of all, the opinions of the people writing it. Other people have come to different conclusions as to why Democrats lost than this book does, I’m sure. It’s an opinion piece. That doesn’t mean it’s bad journalism. I just think they’re being disingenuous in claiming that it’s not an opinion piece. Who they chose to interview, who’s analysis they gave more or less weight to, and so on, were all subjective decisions in researching and writing the book. Again, I’m not saying that’s bad. But it all involves opinions.
If someone wanted to write an objective review of the Dodgers season last year, they could just print a list of box scores for every game. That would be purely objective. It also wouldn’t be very interesting. A book on how and why the Dodgers won the World Series last year would be more interesting, but it would also necessitate the inclusion of opinions.
Origionally there were no official colours, although Republicans were more often coded blue and Democrats Red, except when they weren’t.
Then colour TV happened, and the parties were colour coded for the new medium, especially after 1976. But because there were no official colours, they’d swap every election. But even then it wasn’t standardised, and could be different depending on what channel you were watching.
Until 2000, when even though there was still a mix of standards, “red states” and “blue states” became a convention during the count, to mean what we mean them now, and that stuck.
I just checked, and neither Bernie Sanders or AOC even mentioned this Nazi shit in their most recent Twitter posts. But I guess there’s not a good way to broach that subject without also having to explain why you haven’t left the platform, and for whatever reason these guys just aren’t willing to leave yet.
I’ve never had a Twitter account and have only been tangentially exposed to it, but my understanding is that people who are heavy users have an extremely outsized perception of how much reach and influence it actually has.
That perception only serves the owners of the platform, and it’s a key part of marketing. Convincing folks that everyone else is using it and leaning into FOMO doesn’t get fact-checked nearly enough. If I had a dollar for every pol who states they continue using X because they “have to meet the people where they are,” I’d probably be rich. For some reason, they can boycott a retail chain more easily than a social media platform. I’m not sure what metric would convince them to delete their accounts and completely abandon X.
I mean realistically I think both parties have been somewhat avoiding it, at least in terms of how they vote and campaign throughout the State and Federal government and related systems, in the sense something actually has been getting worse and it will take a lot of money and concerted sincere effort to improve it.
The question was always about which thing could be pitched to and funded by the US people and sadly ALL THE DEBT is worth it for Kristy Noem’s next gangbang-torture-porn performance art meme.
That’s the part I think the Democrats can’t be blamed for. But damn they sure didn’t do much to break the momentum.
For some reason, they can boycott a retail chain more easily than a social media platform. I’m not sure what metric would convince them to delete their accounts and completely abandon X.
