All the Harris campaign had to do to make sure this wasn’t a thing was simply ask for a recount. That’s it. They had the money. I understand that it might have looked bad as if she was a sore loser, but a recount in one swing state would have been easy, could have shown any discrepancies, and we would have known that either nothing happened or something happened.

In 2020 they did recount after recount and always found the same result that Biden won. Not doing recounts is insane.

My thought as well. I totally get if you want it replaced with Medicare for all (I do), but no actual Democrat wants that shit repealed outright without a universal healthcare replacement.

Something interesting, according to this survey 27% of democrat non voters want Obamacare repealed. 27% think women are too easily offended. 20% are pro-life.

As the article suggests, however, we shouldn’t really take this data as a defining reason for why democratic voters didn’t come out to vote. Even more so, the data literally shows that the majority still broadly support progressive policies. Portraying this as “oh the Democrats were too progressive or too far left” is BS. The articles first couple paragraphs focus on portraying things from this perspective but it does get better.

I think you should just look at the graph though. That’s the data. And it shows that non-voters were still majority supporters of progressive policies. That’s what matters.

Something important, these two were “defeated” through warfare. Showing how that’s likely how this will end.

No no, he doesn’t drink the blood of children, he uses an IV of it. They call it plumping.

This is what Alex Jones says as well so you know it’s legit.

There aren’t that many trans folk who are athletes. There definitely won’t be enough for a team at colleges, in communities for kids teams,and professional wise thatd be impossible. Add on that that would mean at competitions, with how few trans people are doing sports, the very few people would always get medals.

Theres also the matter of putting trans women against trans men is, if you go by the supposed rules of fairness these people argue for then, incredibly unfair (especially if it’s not separated by weight class which is next to impossible since again there aren’t enough trans people who do sports) and means that trans women would usually lose because they lose all their muscle mass after transition. Estrogen does that.

There’s also the matter of securing funding. Women’s sports are already under funded so how would q sport team that is too small and an unfair competition secure any funding?

The reality is that trans people having an unfair advantage is fucking BS. Trans women lose all advantages they might have had over cis women when they transition. Once they get in the same hormones level they only could have the same kind of genetic advantages that cis women could have. Like height and wing span and all the other shit that cis women can have just as often.

This also ignores trans men who, if being forced to compete against cis women, would dominate because they are actively taking testosterone.

The best, and only solution is to allow trans folk to compete in matching leagues to their gender identity as long as they’re on hormones. Which is already a rule in every single sport trans people compete in.

Oh come on they can’t be racist! There’s people of color in that base! What are they, racist against themselves? Please, that makes no sense. That’s like if there were Jews that supported the Nazis! Or black folk that fought for the Confederacy!

/s if that’s not obvious

I was going to comment a joke saying that it must have been “Iminacult1234” only to find out that it was actually a reference to her cult. She shouldn’t be anywhere near power.

Thanks for the recommendation! I’ll add it to my pile of books!

While true, it’s still a fact that the leaderless movements don’t usually get anything done and movements with leaders do. Sure the leader will likely have to face being targeted but it still makes it more likely to be able to achieve the movement’s goals.

I read a great book recently called If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution. Great book. It mentions Occupy Wall Street in it. Basically talks about how leaderless movements like Occupy never really get anywhere. When anyone can talk for the movement it means that any person who happens to be kinda shitty about some things can represent the entire movement. This also extended to how some movements tried to have all the decisions they made be a unanimous vote by everyone who was actively at an encampment. This meant that one person who is a dick and disagrees about something minor could stop the entire movement in its tracks. It also means said movements can be co-opted by people who want the exact opposite.

For instance, it talked about a protest movement in Sao Paulo Brazil that was leaderless and actually managed to get what it wanted done. It was about stopping the raising of the bus fair in the city. Shut down the fucking city to make sure it didn’t happen. But once that was done, the same energy was then co-opted to help protest to get Bolsonaro into power. Something that the original organizers of the original movement didn’t want.

Essentially, you should read this book, it’s really helpful for understanding the flaws with a leaderless movement like Occupy and how maybe the best way for progress isn’t to be leaderless but to have a fucking leader.

Edit: the most successful movements in history have all had leaders. Every single one. Being leaderless isn’t actually very helpful.

Edit 2: changed flawless to flaws

The article leads with saying he did nothing, which is misleading because he did do things even if they didn’t work. Saying he did nothing is misleading.

Just so everyone knows, this article is kinda misleading. The original source is an Israeli news organization hour long special, 60 minutes style, where they talked to people who worked in the Biden administration. The thing this article is discussing is how Biden essentially never came to BB and said “ceasefire right now”. But that doesn’t mean there was no pressure involved.

For instance, the same special talked to people who were aware of plans in the administration to do a speech that, they hoped, would trigger elections in Israel and force out BB so that a pro-ceasfire government could come into power and get it done. It would have been a speech about Biden telling Israelis have two choices, continue the killing or work towards lasting peace. Those plans didn’t amount to what people wanted and Biden ended up giving a much more mild speech that didn’t do shit. To the dismay of many in the state department and the White House.

The report also talked about how multiple times throughout the administration was talking to BB to get a ceasefire and they’d come to an agreement and then at the last minute BB would pull out to prolong the conflict past the election. It happened multiple times. Remember when Biden said they had come to an agreement several times and nothing came of it? That’s because the agreement they had come to was dropped by BB and it made Biden look like a senile old man who made it up.

Edit: To be fair, this article speaks of this about 2/3rds of the way through and then addresses how Biden was also trying to broker a deal between Israel and the Saudis that would have lead to peace and international recognition of the Palestinian state. To which BB didn’t want to do because it would give him a win. Gotta lead with the most sensational stuff and hide that there’s much more to it than “Biden did nothing”

End edit

BB was doing everything he could to prolong the conflict and make sure Biden and eventually Harris were not elected.

Should Biden have been more forceful and come to Israel and said “hey, ceasefire right fucking now?” Absolutely. But to say they did nothing is disingenuous.

If you don’t believe what I’m saying then you should really question this article too because I’m just using the same source they are, an Israeli news special.

If anyone wants to know what subreddit, it’s r/changemyview. I remember seeing a ton of similar posts about controversial opinions and even now people are questioning Am I Overreacting and AITAH a lot. AI posts in those kind of subs are seemingly pretty frequent. I’m not surprised to see it was part of a fucking experiment.

Since people are asking what this even is, it’s Laura loomer in 2023. She’s had a ton of plastic surgery - I mean, she’s had a ton of gender affirming care (while arguing trans people shouldn’t be able to have hormones).

Anyway, here’s the before and after.

Yes because Mugshots are done in cars, outside, in hallways, and only occasionally with a flat white background. We all know this.

Seriously though, only some of these are actual mugshots, often they seem to just be pictures of accused people with no fucking names attached so there is no way to fact check it.

I think part of this is that because they “paused” the other tariffs, they still want to feel like they’re punishing a ton of countries. So that means they go from a 54% tariff on China just a few weeks ago, to the 104% tariff on China for just a few days, then the 124% tariff on China, and now the 245% tariff on China. They want to feel like they’re punishing other countries and this is the only way they can get that feeling, that fix. They’re fucking idiots.

She did talk about what she would do though. She ran on increasing the minimum wage to atleast 15. The cash assistance is actually incredibly helpful but you’re right it’s not enough but also, I don’t know who is around you but everyone I know, old and young, find making over 100k to be impressive. She also talked about plenty of other progressive policies.

Also her and all Democrats mainly ran on the problems she could fix and also on the Trump is a fascist shit that was 100% accurate. I only heard the idea of her being the first black Indian woman president be a side thing. There weren’t literal slogans about it like with Clinton in 2016.

Again, you’re not saying what is identity politics. Is it just that socially progressive policies is identity politics?

Edit: I also think it’s important to say that “identity politics” is a right wing term used to describe accepting minorities and giving them equal rights. If you say you’re fine with Social progressivism and just want economic progressivism too, that’s fine. But then why use their right wing term for it? Why not do “Democrats: Best I can do is socially progressive and economically conservative policies”?

Totally right that those are all problems and that the Democrats should do more when in power. And while more Black and Latino people voted for trump than ever before, they still by a majority voted for Harris. And women voters of both demographics voted even more for her than men Also only 18% of those who were LGBT and voted went for Trump, a drop from 27% in 2020.

You also didn’t address the commenters point, what is Identity Politics in your meme? Just saying some minorities voted for Trump doesn’t provide rationale for your comment. What is identity politics for you?

100% agree. He’s been a Russian agent from the start working towards the dismantling of the US in every way. Including, I think, trying to push the country so far that it splits up so the US is no more. Putin’s revenge on the US “winning” the Cold war.