news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Vermillion]

11 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Bear in mind that most of the country agrees with Hawley and would think that Khara Bridges is a woke extremist nut job for how she responded. “Birthing people” and “people with capacity for pregnancy” are unfortunately extremely alienating terms, however aimed at specific fields they might be. The average person not only doesn’t care about inclusive language, they are completely turned off by it and want nothing to do with any movement that “ignores reality of biological sex.” 
 

Even on Reddit, which is pretty left-leaning, the reaction to that hearing when the threads made it to r/all was largely “what is this woman talking about? She’s absolutely divorced from reality.” Sad to see:

You don't need to tell me that, already well aware and then some, but expanding on it for the sake of conversation with other members I'm all for. 

 

She's targeting specific medical fields for what will be on the congressional record regardless of any perceived polling backlash (just predicting how she'd respond to that claim), which again, tracking via Twitter mentions, seems pointless, given that less than 20% of people in the States are on Twitter and even less are active. Seeing a lot of people cite reaction in Reddit too including the mainpage mentions which can't be extrapolated either to say whether or not it was always the people that felt this way about trans people that just happened to be posting. 

 

No polling firm is going to take the time to track enough of a sample sizes reaction that are now more transphobic because of one response by a UCal Berkeley professor at a hearing. 

 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

33 minutes ago, Espresso said:

You don't need to tell me that, already well aware and then some, but expanding on it for the sake of conversation with other members I'll all for. 

 

She's targeting specific medical fields for what will be on the congressional record regardless of any perceived polling backlash (just predicting how she'd respond to that claim), which again, tracking via Twitter mentions, seems pointless, given that less than 20% of people in the States are on Twitter and even less are active. Seeing a lot of people cite reaction in Reddit too including the mainpage mentions which can't be extrapolated either to say whether or not it was always the people that felt this way about trans people that just happened to be posting. 

 

No polling firm is going to take the time to track enough of a sample sizes reaction that are now more transphobic because of one response by a UCal Berkeley professor at a hearing. 

 

 

Well, given how much of this country despises academia, it wouldn’t be surprising that inclusive language they employ in their settings alienates the general population whenever it leaks out into public conversation. We’ve seen this already with terms like “birthing people” most recently, but it goes back to the early 2010s even with terms such as “microaggressions” and “systemic racism.” Which as things that obviously exist, but are also things that people resist being confronted with due to biases. The type of mindset a lot of people have is “We’ve had the Civil Rights Act and a black president so clearly we’re in a post-racial society where racism no longer exists, and anybody who points out that it still does are actually the real bigots.”

 

But for the sake of it, I’m aware you’re aware, but this forum is a liberal bubble. Most people here probably think what Bridges said was, as the kids say, “based,” and I would personally agree. However, most people don’t agree with us that trans people are deserving of the same respect as everyone else. So my earlier  reply to you was more of a notice to everyone else as well.

[Vermillion]

23 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Well, given how much of this country despises academia, it wouldn’t be surprising that inclusive language they employ in their settings alienates the general population whenever it leaks out into public conversation. We’ve seen this already with terms like “birthing people” most recently, but it goes back to the early 2010s even with terms such as “microaggressions” and “systemic racism.” Which as things that obviously exist, but are also things that people resist being confronted with due to biases. The type of mindset a lot of people have is “We’ve had the Civil Rights Act and a black president so clearly we’re in a post-racial society where racism no longer exists, and anybody who points out that it still does are actually the real bigots.”

 

But for the sake of it, I’m aware you’re aware, but this forum is a liberal bubble. Most people here probably think what Bridges said was, as the kids say, “based,” and I would personally agree. However, most people don’t agree with us that trans people are deserving of the same respect as everyone else. So my earlier  reply to you was more of a notice to everyone else as well.

There's so much to unpack here and I won't do it well, but... 

 

Hawley's expertly re-framing Bridges as an uppity Black female urbanite academic hounding the language used by poor white hunters in small talk at a diner in rural Missouri because that's his now well-established brand. He's better at culture war resentment to foment fascism more than anyone, other than maybe Governor DeathSentence.

 

Bridges is trying to frame the discussion not even aiming for a 'based' crowd on her end politically (??) or those diner attendees but the science of who is treated medically and how in the stages of needing an abortion or healthcare that fits their needs and identity and that a Congressional hearing should rise to that level and not the whims of others it doesn't effect.

[ClashAndBurn]

29 minutes ago, Espresso said:

There's so much to unpack here and I won't do it well, but... 

 

Hawley's expertly re-framing Bridges as an uppity Black female urbanite academic hounding the language used by poor white hunters in small talk at a diner in rural Missouri because that's his now well-established brand. He's better at culture war resentment to foment fascism more than anyone, other than maybe Governor DeathSentence.

 

Bridges is trying to frame the discussion not even aiming for a 'based' crowd on her end politically (??) or those diner attendees but the science of who is treated medically and how in the stages of needing an abortion or healthcare that fits their needs and identity and that a Congressional hearing should rise to that level and not the whims of others it doesn't effect.

Televised congressional hearings are almost always going to devolve into political theater circus sideshows, no matter how much one tries to frame it in a professional setting. Nor did I ever imply Bridges herself was trying to score political points. Point is, progressives online tend to think Bridges’ response to Haley’s questioning was a slam dunk and a positive thing for her to do whatever her intention may have been. My point is that normies don’t see it that way and most would either side with Hawley OR find that both sides are condescending and off-putting.

 

One other thing is be mindful of what you call DeSantis here. Some people could be petty about that.

[khalyan]

 

Surprise surprise, Nancy Pelosi's favorite Texas House member voted against the Women's Health Protection Act even after all the work they did to get him barely reelected in the primary.   Nancy Pelosi truly does not care about abortion rights.  

[frenchyisback]

17 hours ago, Kassi said:

It’s very clear by now that Schumer has to go. Literally Presiding over the worst Dem legislative Senate  

How did he even become majority leader?

He has to be the least skilled politician to even make it out of the New York political scene. 

I miss Harry Reid 

[Kassi]

1 hour ago, khalyan said:

 

Surprise surprise, Nancy Pelosi's favorite Texas House member voted against the Women's Health Protection Act even after all the work they did to get him barely reelected in the primary.   Nancy Pelosi truly does not care about abortion rights.  

Idk, looks like the bill passed to me (for the third time). 

Jessica sounds like a BITTER and SORE LOSER because she couldn’t win a challenge that she mounted. 

[khalyan]

19 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Idk, looks like the bill passed to me (for the third time). 

How can Nancy possibly claim to be an advocate for abortion rights if she can’t even get her party to vote for something so essential to their party’s platform?  

 

What’s going to happen if Democrats lose a few House seats as expected?  Is Nancy just going to send out more daily emails asking us to vote in the “most important election of our lifetime” in 2024?

 

Your simping for Nancy is pitiful at best.  And for you to try and lash someone fighting FOR abortion right is very telling. 

[Kassi]

21 hours ago, Kassi said:

Three votes on abortion bills in 5 months

 

02/28

 

 

 

05/11

 

07/15

 

Literally no one works harder than Nancy's House. 

Anyway. 
 

While the girls work themselves up over hypotheticals here’s what’s actually happening in the real world.

 

[Kassi]

These Fetterman Dr. Oz roasts are so funny 

 

 

 

Though I hope he’s also doing equally compelling ground work and not just being very online *nervous chuckle* 

 

He has an incumbent effect and name recognition going for him. So at least he’s covered on that front. 

[ClashAndBurn]

39 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Idk, looks like the bill passed to me (for the third time). 

Jessica sounds like a BITTER and SORE LOSER because she couldn’t win a challenge that she mounted. 

Again. Passing party line (not even that really, since the anti-abortion vote was the bipartisan one thanks to Cuellar) bills over and over makes zero difference when they have no chance of getting through the filibuster in Chuck and Kamala’s Senate. It’s like shoving a square peg into a round hole. The definition of fruitless.  

[Bloo]

2 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Again. Passing party line (not even that really, since the anti-abortion vote was the bipartisan one thanks to Cuellar) bills over and over makes zero difference when they have no chance of getting through the filibuster in Chuck and Kamala’s Senate. It’s like shoving a square peg into a round hole. The definition of fruitless.  

Yep. Nobody cares if the House passes something if the Senate won't pass it or bring it to a vote. Nancy Pelosi passing $15 minimum wage in the House back in 2020 hasn't made a dent to the minimum wage 2 years later. Nor has Pelosi said anything publicly about the EIGHT Senate Democrats that voted against it (when it could have been passed with a simple majority).

[ClashAndBurn]

8 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Yep. Nobody cares if the House passes something if the Senate won't pass it or bring it to a vote. Nancy Pelosi passing $15 minimum wage in the House back in 2020 hasn't made a dent to the minimum wage 2 years later. Nor has Pelosi said anything publicly about the EIGHT Senate Democrats that voted against it (when it could have been passed with a simple majority).

They gotta tout the virtue-signaling nonsense because that’s all they have. They stay keeping Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair when just merely mentioning her name is the most effective ad campaign Republicans have ever used against Democrats because of how universally HATED she is in this country.

 

They never wanna own up to the fact that Pelosi and Obama (and Biden) lost the Democrats nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local offices. And as a result, they keep sticking us with these same losers because “there’s nothing wrong with them and how they govern! Really! It’s everyone else’s fault for not being the enlightened centrists we are!”

[Kassi]

22 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Again. Passing party line (not even that really, since the anti-abortion vote was the bipartisan one thanks to Cuellar) bills over and over makes zero difference when they have no chance of getting through the filibuster in Chuck and Kamala’s Senate. It’s like shoving a square peg into a round hole. The definition of fruitless.  

Yes or no question: are you advocating that they Do Nothing? 
 

Because that’s a very different tune than the ones in here begging and crying for Dems to Do Something even when it’s evident it won’t work. 
 

[rihannabiggestfan]

She is just AWFUL

 

 

 

(and the clip of her unhinged ass seconds away from calling Latinos racial slurs, of course  @manwhore)

[Kassi]

20 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

They never wanna own up to the fact that Pelosi and Obama (and Biden) lost the Democrats nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local offices. And as a result, they keep sticking us with these same losers because “there’s nothing wrong with them and how they govern! Really! It’s everyone else’s fault for not being the enlightened centrists we are!”

If we own up to this fact, will you then own up to the fact that Dems gained those 1000 seats in two prior wave elections between 2006 and 2008, while Nancy was Speaker?

And then gained 500 seats in 2018 while… again… Nancy was Minority Leader?
 

Also Obama left office with a 60% approval rating.

But I do wonder what huge legislation happened in 2010 to cause the public to sour against Dems… hmm idk sounds like you’re making a case against M4A if the little old ACA caused that much ruckus. Is that what you’re implying? 

[khalyan]

9 minutes ago, Kassi said:

If we own up to this fact, will you then own up to the fact that Dems gained those 1000 seats in two prior wave elections between 2006 and 2008, while Nancy was Speaker?

And then gained 500 seats in 2018 while… again… Nancy was Minority Leader?
 

Also Obama left office with a 60% approval rating.

But I do wonder what huge legislation happened in 2010 to cause the public to sour against Dems… hmm idk sounds like you’re making a case against M4A if the little old ACA caused that much ruckus. Is that what you’re implying? 

Why would something supported by nearly 70% of Americans cause Nancy's polling to crash?

[Kassi]

Anyway, this page illustrates exactly what I find hilarious and dubious about the left’s support of Bernie. It’s TOTALLY a cult of personality.  
 

He gets all this credit as a progressive vanguard for merely making stump speeches and occasionally suggesting amendments that fail 9/10 times.
 

Yet somehow Pelosi is responsible for outcomes in both the House AND the Senate.   No credit for the fact that she forced a public government healthcare option out of her caucus, but definitely blame that Senators struck it down. That’s all despite Bernie being in the Senate and an independent who maybe could have used his influence to sway fellow independent Joe Lieberman. Or Harry Reid almost shitting the bed on negotiations. Nope, it’s always the woman and mother of 5’s fault.

[Vermillion]

3 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Televised congressional hearings are almost always going to devolve into political theater circus sideshows, no matter how much one tries to frame it in a professional setting. Nor did I ever imply Bridges herself was trying to score political points. Point is, progressives online tend to think Bridges’ response to Haley’s questioning was a slam dunk and a positive thing for her to do whatever her intention may have been. My point is that normies don’t see it that way and most would either side with Hawley OR find that both sides are condescending and off-putting.

 

One other thing is be mindful of what you call DeSantis here. Some people could be petty about that.

This isn't about detractors (fascists) or fans (progressives) of Bridges or "normies" or being "based", but the proper medical language in terms of trans healthcare in the framework of attempting to get an abortion. What should Bridges have done?

 

If you're arguing the Dems didn't make the point they were trying to in terms of the political maneuvering by having her come in, that's a separate argument. They knew who they were getting. 

[khalyan]

Bernie hasn't even been mentioned?

 

Anyway, here's polling of Pelosi from 2009.  Remember, ACA passed March 2010.

 

 

Even in 2008 she had negative approval ratings from her own state

 

California registered voters disapprove of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s job performance by a 39 percent to 30 percent margin, with 31 percent expressing no opinion, according to a Field Poll conducted May 17-26.  (x)

 

It's completely disingenuous to try and frame health care as the reason why people don't like Pelosi when she's been in the negative for the past 14 years. 

[rihannabiggestfan]

Not "GiRlBoSs!1" neolib stans talking about cult of personality

[ClashAndBurn]

26 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Yes or no question: are you advocating that they Do Nothing? 
 

Because that’s a very different tune than the ones in here begging and crying for Dems to Do Something even when it’s evident it won’t work. 
 

I’ve already said that a ban on abortion bans before 15 weeks (which is the Roe status quo what most of the country supports) could be on the table, and would probably get bipartisan support from Manchin, Murkowski, and Collins, but they’re actively choosing not to do that.

 

By passing nothing but virtue signal bills that not even Manchin will get behind due to his pro-life stance, what they are doing IS IN FACT effectively nothing.  
 

19 minutes ago, Kassi said:

If we own up to this fact, will you then own up to the fact that Dems gained those 1000 seats in two prior wave elections between 2006 and 2008, while Nancy was Speaker?

And then gained 500 seats in 2018 while… again… Nancy was Minority Leader?
 

Also Obama left office with a 60% approval rating.

But I do wonder what huge legislation happened in 2010 to cause the public to sour against Dems… hmm idk sounds like you’re making a case against M4A if the little old ACA caused that much ruckus. Is that what you’re implying? 

The ACA was unpopular because of the Individual Mandate and because “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” turned out to be a big fat lie. M4A hasn’t been framed properly. Because yes, taxes do go up, but you’re not paying insurance premiums anymore. Media and centrists frame it like the only change is that the only change is the tax increase.

 

Theres also the fact that the largest voting block by race, white people, don’t want black people to have the same nice things that they get, but that’s not a conversation many are willing to have.  

[Kassi]

32 minutes ago, khalyan said:

Why would something supported by nearly 70% of Americans cause Nancy's polling to crash?

Same reason something that 70% of Americans support (i.e. coverage for pre-existing conditions) caused Ds polling to crash…
 

Death Panels! Long wait lines! Forced to give up your doctor! 
 

…political propaganda.

 

Quote

It's been obvious ever since 2010 that Republicans and conservatives were spending a lot more slamming the Affordable Care Act than the Obama administration and Democrats were spending to defend it.

 

But 15 to 1?

 

Yes. That's the ratio calculated by Kantar Media's campaign media analysis group — CMAG to political junkies. Kantar estimates that national advertising against the ACA cost $418 million, compared with $27 million for ads supporting the law. Kantar calls the anti-ACA spending "unprecedented [and] largely unanswered."

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/05/20/314366027/study-obamacare-buried-by-avalanche-of-negative-ads

 

[ClashAndBurn]

4 minutes ago, Espresso said:

This isn't about detractors (fascists) or fans (progressives) of Bridges or "normies" or being "based", but the proper medical language in terms of trans healthcare in the framework of attempting to get an abortion. What should Bridges have done?

 

If you're arguing the Dems didn't make the point they were trying to in terms of the political maneuvering by having her come in, that's a separate argument. They knew who they were getting. 

Not arguing Bridges should have done anything different. What I am saying though is that progressives should keep in mind that while THEY might think it was a W for her, most people don’t agree. And yes, Dems should also be mindful of the fact that academic/medical language doesn’t land well when used in the real world, and that they look ridiculous when they stumble over the questions on how to define womanhood.

 

Keep in mind, people can agree with the left on nearly everything morally, but still find they’re an optics nightmare and they’re bleeding support because of it.

[Armani?]

Im just now seeing this