The idea that if you don’t like inflation you should vote Trump is pretty much the definition of stupidity.

The far-left strategy seems to be clientele politics, and attempting to rule over the fractured result.

Secondly in many countries "the left" hasn't really been in power for a long time; often government are in the centre or centre-right.

I live in (around) a major city. Sure it's overcrowded but that has nothing to do with foreign immigration and everything to do about it being a economic powerhouse. Quality of life has been increasing since the city has invested/is investing in more transportation/bikeable lanes/better air pollution standards/less noise. Also laws that are forcing better insulation standards are a net quality of life both in terms of comfort and footing the bill. Even the people who really need to take their cars will benefit because there will less traffic jams on account of 1. people for whom it was mostly comfort leaving the road and 2. reduced speed means less unnecessary braking to get out and in the motorway around the city.

Strained services seems to be because of budget tightening. It's a policy choice that has to do with ideology (don't fund a service when it could made profitable by outsourcing it) and trying to save on budgets because of a bad economy. Again you'd have to back up with data that it has something to do with immigration.

I could on and on but basically what you are saying there was too much new people too fast but I don't think this is nowhere true in my western european country.

The only thing that could worry is the minorities enclaves but it's not hard to break up a ghetto by opening it up sociogeographically and economically, you just need to the political will to do so but instead it's left in place and used as convenient fear-mongering tool for politicians.

People really need to face reality and that our society simply cannot sustain even limited immigration if those people end up as a negative for the state in terms of financials.

- there's immigration

- normal people are getting shafted

However, the two things are entirely unrelated.

However, the ones doing the shafting tell people they're related so often that people believe it.

Once again, we see a tactic identical to Nazi Germany. Hitler rose to power by saying the terrible economy was because of the Jews.

IMO the only reason the Tories didn't lose sooner was that the Labour party was also stuck with Corbyn.

I mean one solution is to promote policies that encourage people to have more children, but we "can't afford it", expecting we'll be able to afford the incoming social care crisis.

How many people struggle to afford buying groceries?

“political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want”.

Giving someone all they want is not seen as a good thing… unless you are the recipient, in that case internal bias comes to play.

Populism is a political approach that seeks to represent the interests and voice of "ordinary people" against what is perceived as an elite or establishment. Populist movements often emphasize a direct connection between the leader and the people, bypassing traditional political institutions or parties, and claim to speak for the "common people" against corrupt or out-of-touch elites. Populism can appear across the political spectrum, taking different forms depending on the issues and ideologies within a given society.

This is likely to cause winners and losers to come out of the situation... and probably after time, the leaders end up becoming elites who become out of touch with the "common people" and the process is likely to repeat.

I think it is closer to Democracy than whatever the democrats seem to say - which they seem to define as: "whatever gives them the power to do what they want"

I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt. That is an extremely narrow view, and a single second of critical thinking should present a million other possibilities. The former is obviously untrue, considering Trump's long list of vices. The latter is a complete non sequitur. Power is power; the electorate's morals only matter insofar as they're willing to check the box next to my name.

Trump can be reprehensible and irredemable, and still win if he's more believable on the issues Americans care the most about. He could be a fraud, a cheat, even a traitor, so long as he's persuasive. That's how democracy works, how it should work.

I think this is the correct options.

I mean, look at the people who worked for him in the last administration:

> So how do we explain this near-universal rejection of Trump by the people who worked with him most closely? I guess one explanation is that they’ve all been infected with the dreaded Woke Mind Virus. But it’s unclear why working for Donald Trump would cause almost everyone to be exposed to the Woke Mind Virus, when working for, say, JD Vance, or Ron DeSantis, or any other prominent right-wing figure does not seem to produce such an infection.

> Of course, not everyone who worked for Trump has abandoned and denounced him. Rudy Giuliani, who is now under indictment in several different states, is still among the faithful. Michael Flynn, who was fired by Obama for insubordination and then removed by Trump for improper personal dealings with the Russian government, is still on board, and is now threatening to unleash the “gates of Hell” on Trump’s political enemies. Peter Navarro, the economist1 who served four months in prison for defying a Congressional subpoena, is still a Trump fan. And so on.

> You may perhaps notice a pattern among the relatively few people who are still on board the Trump Train from his first term. They are all very shady people. I don’t think this is a coincidence; I think it’s something systematic about Donald Trump’s personality and his method of rule.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trumpism-is-kakistocracy

The GOP party has changed:

> As many people have noted, Trump’s movement is a cult of personality. Since Trump took over the Republican party in 2016, essentially every tenet of modern conservatism has been replaced with belief in a single leader. Trump appointed the judges that killed Roe v. Wade, but he constantly goes back and forth on the topic of abortion rights. Trump didn’t cut entitlement spending, but whether he wants to do that in his second term or not depends on which day you ask him. Trump has flip-flopped on the TikTok bill, on marijuana legalization, on the filibuster, on SALT caps, and so on.

> But these flip-flops do not matter to his support at all. His supporters are sure that whichever decision Trump makes, it will be the right one, and if he changes it the following week, that will be the right decision as well. If tomorrow Trump declared that tariffs are terrible and illegal immigration is great, this would immediately become the essence of Trumpism. Trump’s followers put their trust not in principled ideas, but in a man — or, to be more accurate, in the idea of a man. That is what Trumpism requires of its adherents.

* Idid.

Or in meme form:

https://i.redd.it/g0r0x1ldi0e71.jpg

I don’t and you shouldn’t. Mocking others intelligence only shows that you lack enough to understand them. As I understand it, this is precisely the point of GP

This is the Red Wave that was promised in 2020 and 2022 but failed to materialize.

Why didn't Harris and the Democrats pull it off? Well, they could start by not playing identity politics or calling Americans deplorables, Nazis, and garbage. Godwin's Law was in full swing for them.

I'm Japanese-American, demographically I should be a bleeding heart Democrat, but truthfully I can't stand their constant victimizing and divisive rhetoric and is why I voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2016, 2020, and 2024.

Covid was a great example, anyone who disagreed with the main narrative or even just wanted bodily choice was blasted by many liberals, including the president, with all kinds of hateful speech.

Since 2016 many liberals also have used hateful speech to describe anyone willing to vote for Trump. I personally didn't like either candidate the political machine offered us, but in many of my discussions with anyone liberal Trump voters were often held as something like a second class citizen, that's pretty damn hateful in my book to consider anyone "lesser than."

This, right here, has been the focal point of Dem supporters everywhere - doubling down on the name-calling.

I seriously doubt that more than half the voters are homophobic, misogynistic fascists, but calling them that only stops them from engaging, it doesn't magically cause them to rethink their position and switch their vote.

I do not think you know what this word means.

This issue is a mess and has been kicked down the road for literal decades at this point. Maybe finally it will get passed…

I wish that democrats had spent less time telling republicans that the boogeyman doesn't exist and more time showing them how we're going to keep them safe from the boogeyman. In WI, there was a referendum question that asked if people wanted to add language to the state constitution which would explicitly specify that only US citizens could vote. The democrats fought against that saying that election fraud was basically non-existent and that it would be a waste of time to change anything since it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

They fucked up though, because no matter how right the democrats were about the safety of elections the fear republican voters have is real and it's never a waste of time to ease those fears.

As it turns out, if the referendum passes (and I'm guessing that it will) the result will be replacing language which says that every US citizen gets to vote with language that says only US citizens get to vote. It never said that in the referendum question though. The fear of illegal immigrants voting has likely been used to remove language protecting the right of US citizens to vote in WI and could open the door for laws that prevent certain US citizens from voting.

Since Democrats and Republicans are in full agreement that only US citizens should be able to vote the smart thing democrats should have done was push to add language explicitly stating that only citizens can vote but without replacing anything else. That would have satisfied the fearful republicans and protected the voting rights of all citizens. Instead they wanted to lecture republicans about voter fraud statistics.

When you have people acting like frightened children about something that isn't real, sometimes you just have to comfort them.

This is the same problem democrats have when republicans say they are afraid of small children getting sex change operations. Democrats want to tell them that they are misinformed and that little kids aren't getting surgery, but they'd be smarter to say "You're right, little children getting sex changes at school is a horrible thing and we are putting forward a law that would ban that practice so that no child gets sex change surgery!". Why keep letting these issues both sides agree on become arguments that divide us?

This has been a constant refrain from Democrats: "The thing that you are upset about is not happening. Well, it is happening, but it is the exception. Ok, it's happening everywhere, but it's a good thing." No, of course Harris isn't for government sex changes for imprisoned illegal immigrants, except for the fact that she said she was. The truth is that we all know that she would say anything to win, and holding her to any position she ever publicly held feels unfair.

The people who have been kept low-information are the Democrats, because they have been surrounded by media largely controlled by their political party. Republicans often have bad information, but they're constantly out there consuming information and hate-reading what Democrats are saying. Independents, in my experience, are the highest-information of all, because they don't think of political parties as something they can offload their morality to. Independents only see politics in terms of actual issues, and track those issues rather than having parasocial relationships with political celebrities.

In that vein, I'm pretty sure that if I had an experience where a political candidate came to my house and talked about issues that weren't real, I'd talk about those issues specifically, and speculate about their origin. I think you don't mention them because they were real, but a lot of liberals have taken this position of officially denying reality if reality could help Trump. Is widespread voter fraud real? No. Should people be unconcerned about making it easier? Also, no.

If upper-middle class liberals could have won the "stop sounding like Scientologists" challenge, they could have won. If The Democratic party could have wanted to win more than they wanted to avoid alienating any donors, they could have won by taking any popular position on anything. Trump spent most of his campaign actively campaigning for Harris by calling her a radical-left socialist; if she were actually a radical-left socialist instead of an empty vessel to be filled with cash, she would have won. If the Democratic party hadn't chosen again not to run a fair, open, lively primary, they would have won.

With Trump campaigning against radical-left socialist Harris, and Harris campaigning against rapist Hitler, homophobic Stalin, and racist Mussolini, the majority of people looked at which candidate was lying the most, and voted for the other one. Everybody knows who Trump is, and he's already been president, and nobody went to camps. It was a rather sleepy standard Republican presidency, whose few deviations from the norm pleased people. The only reason we heard about Harris is because she (and Buttigieg) pretended to be for single-payer healthcare in order to destroy a popular candidate who was running on an honest program.

Victor Orban - President of Hungary.

The AfD in Germany got a higher percentage of the vote in Thuringen in Germany than any other party. Currently polling higher than any member of the governing coalition nationally.

Geert Wilders - successful in the Netherlands.

Marine Le Pen - possible next president of France.

The Freedom Party of Austria - has been in government.

These parties all sometimes win in Europe.

How many evangelical Christians just voted for an adulterer and convicted criminal because he’s not pro choice?

Edit: maybe not, I think they're still in procedural limbo because no other party wants to be in the coalition.

Some Americans may well vote for the rightwing candidate because they want to stick it to the left (or whoever the "anti" would be).

Personally, I don't think that alone makes a majority in that binary choice; in Europe, it would mostly end up in the vote for a minor "ultra" party. And less-"anti" conservative voters have other options.

In the US though, as someone with conservative values and views, one always has to choose ... do I want to vote with everyone else who votes for "my" camp including the stick-it-tos (because there's only one option "on my side"), do I not vote, or do I even vote against what feels closer to me because the stick-it-tos vote for them as well, and/or their head on the ticket is clearly one of the stick-it-tos ?

Am I glad I needn't make that choice. And am I sad what kind of asocial extremes are encouraged by the binary, winner-takes-all US political system.

Trump was very favorable to Israel and has a Jewish daughter. Not typical fascist behavior.

Debbie Dingell said Trump will build internment camps and put her in one. Were were the internment camps in Trump's first term?

Okay, I'm in the US and will try to explain.

> As a European

Yup, the US is at least different!

> an arguably fascist agenda

> extreme right wing candiate

US politics can be tough fighting, lots of lying, deception, anxiety creation, violent demonstrations, assassinations, emotional appeals, media definitely biased and pumping out paid for propaganda, big influence from special interests (e.g., want money from the central government), lots of money buying and selling, e.g., as I recall, the Democrat Party spent ballpark $1.6 billion on ads -- the rich people giving that money want a return on their investment.

In the US, Trump is a moderate, i.e., "all the traffic is in the middle of the road".

The US middle of the road: Free enterprise, entrepreneurs should be free to be successful in business, often based on a lot of private investment capital (money) but sometimes based on just two guys in a rented garage or one guy in college with a Web site or some guy with a simple Web site selling books and records. Curiously, it was the US that did that, for the US and now the whole world. People should make their own way financially, etc. If people genuinely need help, then there, in various forms, is a social safety net with some help but not enough for a good life or everything. Real socialism where the government is Big Daddy that everyone can count on is left and not widely accepted. A guaranteed minimum income is not quite here yet. There is still some question how much the government will supply in free health care and education. Can spend $100,000+ a year on college, the main point is who you meet, not what you learn. For learning there are plenty of cheap colleges and universities where can learn as much as want as there is known now.

US politics and media throw around "fascism" essentially only as an insult for people who don't understand Germany in the 1930s or what real fascism was. The fascism insult is to lead to a Hitler insult, wildly far from the truth.

In simple terms, fascism has the government have much more power, especially over the economy including industry and business, than Trump wants or used in his first term as POTUS.

Uh, fascism needs a LOT of power in the government; in the US mostly people don't trust government and don't want government to have that much power. So, a charge of fascism is a lie to get votes from people afraid of power. Yes, in his first term, Trump had a lot of power, and now has it again. But, really, the US left wants more power, in total, than Trump or the US center or right. In particular, if listen to what Kamala really said, she wants nearly all revenue to flow to DC (District of Columbia, seat of the central government) and then returned as government programs to people and selected businesses; Kamala wanted such in principle (like some sophomore college women with an all-night bull session with plenty of beer and about politics and society) but had no meaningful details for implementation.

> a convicted felon, rapist, and probable russian intelligence asset.

All 100% junk information generated and spread as political mud wrestling:

In no meaningful sense is Trump a "convicted felon". Parts of the US judicial system went after Trump to have some people BELIEVE he was a felon. It was political propaganda, all lies for a political purpose, with the eager complicity of parts of the media, to damage Trump's reputation and have stories and narratives to get eyeballs and ad revenue. The crime was from the prosecutors and judges, not Trump. But there the judicial system's bite had no teeth: All the cases are delayed for various reasons and, now that the election is over, have served their propaganda purpose and will disappear via various actions. It was all cooked up, made up, kangaroo court, dirty politics, lawfare, election interference".

There is no meaningful evidence that Trump is a "rapist". Again, that's propaganda.

> probable russian intelligence asset

Nonsense. Cooked up, made up, fake, contrived nonsense by Hillary Clinton and others to convince some naive people. The complicit, biased media got a lot of shocking headlines, eyeballs, and ad revenue.

The US Constitution has its First Amendment, "freedom of speech". So, people get to speak nearly anything, including lies and propaganda. It's up to the listeners to filter the truth from the rest.

> extreme right wing candiate

No good evidence. Not Trump. Just look at his statements and record -- he's solidly in the middle of the road. Ukraine? It's partially about NATO, will Ukraine belong to NATO? Get help from NATO? The far right has Cheney, John Bolton, and others who never wanted to pass up another opportunity for a war, e.g., for Ike's Military/Industrial Complex, war profiteers, one world*, US "New American Century", police the world people.

> Please explain.

Okay, just did that!

This is a bald faced lie. Stop talking rubbish.

That is the message continuously published here by generalist German newspapers, but I cannot find any substance behind it.

He was not. This is a popular misconception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

Of all those, I really like the insulin one.

I guess people in America have different priorities than the accomplishments on that list.

Trump is just Trump. A rhetorically violent, deeply unpleasant convicted rapist, but not the vanguard of an explicitly misognist movement. At least not one thats culturally hegemonic. So while American progressives may label Trump voters sexist or racist, the overwhelming majority of them don't see themselves that way. Meanwhile, a highly vocal minority of progressives do actively demean men, while people, straight people etc, and have for a decade. They've enacted DEI practices, and scholarship and funding practices that exclude men from fair participation in the workforce, education and the arts. As efforts to correct historic imbalances in that participation. At the same time, they've ignored how male participation in higher education has dropped off, the epidemics of alienation and underemployment affecting men.

Edit: Just to clarify I'm addressing the question - not advocating Trump, or suggesting that life for men or white people or straight people is in fact materially worse. Just pointing out people strongly dislike being disliked, actively biased against and demeaned and this does in fact affect their voting preferences.

America started when it rebelled against being ruled. I'd say that's not entirely off the table. First it has to become clear that we're getting ruled, not represented.

> but at the same time Trump says much worse things about women than Harris about men

One would think so, but Trump's talk about women is just how society in general talks about women. As sad as it is, women are used to that rhetoric.

> How does the hatred for the Democrats get so big?

Multiple high profile members of the Democratic Party actively demonize rural Americans and especially men.

Costed policies that are feasible and attainable in one-term? Boring

Promises of fantastic wealth and glory? Much more appealing

Same thing the Brexit campaign failed on.

Trump is the incarnation of a thin-skinned bully, he allows himself the worst but will cry as loud as possible on the first sign of a backslash.

If people who voted for him are not stupid, they certainly act like it.

COVID stimulus and an economic slowdown from 2020 caused four years of inflation in the entire world, and people see the price of milk going up and punish the incumbent (not even the person who was in charge in 2020.

At which point, it doesn't matter how you campaign, or if the opposing candidate is actual Satan, nobody's going to vote for the incumbent.

It also doesn't help that the press normalized actual insanity that would not have been tolerated from anyone else, and collectively pretended that it's normal and reasonable behavior.

Project 2025 also helped, since Democrats answered it with shock and horror instead of countering with their own improved version. Say what you will about the depravity contained within those pages, but Trump voters hold it up as "at least it's a plan" without having read it, much like their other beloved book, The Bible. Knowing that, it was quite easy for the Trump campaign to whip up support.

As much as I want to end with some pithy comment like "manipulation is a hell of drug," I can't. Half the country just got permission to put their ugly truths on display and they certainly did not disappoint. I have trouble laughing about that anymore.

At the end of the day, "it's the economy, stupid".

Tonight's election flat out showed that democracy doesn't work with an uneducated population.

This is why we call Trump's voters "stupid", the US is still under Trump's tax plan until 1/2025. So if someone has an issue with taxes, it's not Biden's fault even though he is in office.

I know this and I'm not even American

What about the rest of the world who've also been experiencing the same?

It's a very shortsighted take, and we've seen the same in the UK where Liz Truss 6 weeks as PM has taken the blame for global inflation in the court of popular opinion

Missouri and Florida were won by Trump and both passed constitutional amendments to guarantee abortion access.

> think vaccines cause autism

I don't think this is a partisan issue. I've spoken to plenty of liberals who believe similar things. Basically the "crunchy mom" stereotype.

Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p

There's no winning this. That's why it's actually smart to let the states decide this - that way Trump has no say in it.

What does it say about Trump that so many of his lawyers and advisors ended up in jail and that so few former cabinet members endorsed him? What does it say about his supporters who cared not that he raped children with his pal Epstein?

Remember when Cruz and Lindsey Graham spoke honestly about Trump just before November 2016? Recall what they said then to what they say now. It’s a cult.

Democrats still play by the rules for some reason and don't call out the shit done by the other party with simple enough terms.

https://checkyourfact.com/2024/11/04/fact-check-did-trump-re...

People love to hear Trump saying he will drain the swamp.

So you vote for change, yet the economics policies stay as unequal as always. But in the process you supported a rapist and a criminal who calls execution of journalists, suppression of women, blatant racism and just death and destruction of non-privileged people everywhere.

Many people are coming in, some of them don't integrate and cause problems, the center says it's not a problem and the left says let's have more of them.

More people are coming in, problems are getting worse (both real and imaginary), people are getting upset, the right realizes they can use that and they build their whole agenda or that and win the elections.

The number of countries this has happened in increases, so non-right parties need to rethink their strategy if they want to stop losing.

One bigly reason I voted for Trump was because his first term was by far the most peaceful both this country and the world at-large ever was in my lifetime.

For four years we didn't start or join any new wars, we even flat out refused to when the military industrial complex begged to Trump to start one with Iran after they shot down one of our drones. North Korea didn't fire a single missile and China wasn't anywhere as loud with their saber-rattling (I'm Japanese-American, I care deeply about Japanese security). Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah/et al. weren't brutally killing each other.

For four god damn years life was actually peaceful, and I want that again.

That would be the charitable interpretation, the alternate is that they are knowingly misogynistic, deeply racist and have strong fascist leanings to follow a flawed corrupt politician with cult-like devotion.

They reelected the DA that's prosecuting Trump on one of the populous counties, on the same election where the state swung further towards Trump.

Outside of the urban areas even "blue" states are red, or "purple."

The reality is that America voted for this guy. It's not nearly as regionally divided as liberals in America want to think.

For me, it means not going there anymore. I just won't cross the border for any reason.

Trump is currently leading by over 5,000,000 votes and there does not appear to be momentum to change that lead in the remaining precincts.

This comes across as very out of touch. By "navigated it" you mean brought inflation under control. But it's not like prices came down.

The $1,500 per month grocery bill that was $1,000 in 2019 is still $1,500.

People don't look at the CPI and think "phew, glad the Fed was able to get inflation back to target" they think "I remember when I used to have $1,000 left over each month".

And they remember that every single month.

Also how many people blame it on Biden while giving Trump credit for Obama's work.

It's nonfalsifiable. People will settle on the simplest observation:

it happened under Biden

In addition, people tend to associate outcomes with the administration in power even if it’s due to a prior administration. Inflation appeared under Biden, not Trump. Inflation decreasing also does not mean prices decreasing.

In this case they were blocked by Manchin/Sinema from anything like filibuster reform, but they did get some big important economic reforms in.

If you're in the 90th IQ percentile, sure, most people are stupid to you.

If that is the case, stupidity shouldn't be ruled out for both sides.

Messages from certain leaders can resonate deeply with people. If a message is well-received by so many, it could mean the opposing side didn’t present a strong enough argument—basic politics.

In my persoanl view, the discourse needed to challenge figures like Trump is limited by U.S. politics, which is heavily influenced by corporate funding. This influence likely explains why the Democratic Party often seems unwilling to take bold stances.

Policies like stronger unions, better social protections, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a meaningful minimum wage increase are hard to promise if campaigns depend on corporate backing.

I believe social media has widened the most extreme opinions and forced polarisation on most people, I can feel it with the UK too, where a very clearly corrupt government, with a revolving door of leadership: one losing the country enough money in 14 days to pay for the NHS for a decade… are being talked about favourably over a meek, awkward, slightly right of centre leader who happens to be wearing a red badge instead of a blue one.

Discourse is so swollen with bitter defence and snide attacks with soundbites of “sides”, I really do believe that its the fault of platforms showing the most divisive voices most often.

The thing that pushes me towards right for example, is seeing people dehumanising men for being men (not behaviours, just clear misandry against the gender) on social media so openly- and to much fanfare. I would otherwise be considered extremely left wing by UK standards.

Would you find a popular vote system that entirely ignores the votes of dozens of states in favor of just a few somehow carrying less obfuscation of the will of the people?

Fix inequality.

[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2015/dea... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You really think this comment is going to do anything but push even more people to vote for the right? Because why would they side with your camp when you just called them scum, because you don't understand their intentions for voting for him/the party?

Which is extra unfortunate, because your comment up until that part was pretty good.

You can be against Trump for many good reasons, but a good look at why he won is about much more than just deriding his supporters as ignorant.

I put it - as an outside chance - that it is possible that the policies and outcomes of said policies have a bearing on the voting decisions people make.

Nate Silver has recently written about the clear problems in polling, and in particular the herd-like way they were reporting implausible numbers:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-st...

The point is no poll caught any of the swings at all. To win with this margin Trump the polls can hardly be tied and be called accurate.

The result is not a close at all, and it is not about swing states and electoral college swings. Trump is winning the popular vote by a large margin something he has never be able to do so before.

I guess I’m doing something right. I hate spam texts.

The Dobbs case made a compelling point that Roe was not accurate interpretation, such “rights” should never have been there. It’s the states decision, and now the states are giving it to voters

No having non-fault divorce doesn't stop divorces if you have an actual reason for it, a "fault" that caused the divorce if you will: Domestic abuse, cheating, abandonment, etc. Considering that men often lose the most in a divorce but don't initiate divorces indicates that women have a privilege here.

Marriage rates aren't only decreasing because of anti-social people: many men are starting to view marriage as a legal institution which benefits women exclusively - allowing them to extract resources from a man with the backing of the state and very little effort.

> Most victims of domestic violence are women.

Most reported victims of domestic violence are women. If you take into account unreported domestic violence, emotional abuse, and non-deadly domestic violence men are actually ahead of women in this particular stage of the oppression olympics.

Maybe if you could share some of that empathy with the men affected by these laws you'd see why they get pushed through, and why women also support them.

Women are a reactionary element for a reason. Now they've finally been pushed to radical extremes and you see this as a bad thing?

Do the Democrat seems left to you?

Pretty sure most women would just prefer to fight than be forced to carry a pregnancy.

Aren’t you now asking yourself, “who are they scared of?”

Let the answer sink in.

As late as yesterday a woman I need to listen to had opinions on something as basic as how men are supposed to pee, telling that how most men feel comfortable peeing is wrong.

That is just one.

But I think it goes all the way from kindergarten up in some places.

Overall though do agree it was a fairly close debate not particularly one-sided.

Will say if guys like Vance & DeSantis are the future of the GOP that a significant upgrade over Trump.

I still don't quite understand why DeSantis fared so poorly w/ the GOP for this election. He appears to be far more competent/palatable than Trump but here are.

Not that I think the next 4 years of Trump will be bad for the avarage american. I think I will be troubled for the whole world because things are already walking in this direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYdu-vTuPI - "The REAL Reason Behind J.D. Vance’s VP Pick; Marty sits down with Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin to discuss the partnership of the private tech sector with the surveillance state."

It's a two hour interview. Discussion of JD Vance and Palantir connection is at 12:30ish. A lot of "tin-foil hat" things seem pretty real.

Just a bunch of morons who went too hard on the joke.

I don't support Trump. I can't vote in any country. I have no horses in this race, but seeing the lies and propaganda (from both sides) actually working is insane - the propaganda isn't even that good guys.

These things also span decades or centuries so I think there will be time when Russia and the West will be closer again. It's just they have to stop their imperialism and grabbing land. Think they have enough already.

Turns out if the other country decides they are altering the deal, and you don't have any leverage - the bit of paper isn't worth all that much in practice.

Would you repeat the same feat with Taiwan, if you were in Trump's place?

Why do I think that's much more probable for abortion to become illegal than for women to be pressured to terminate pregnancies?

Your comment feels so innocent, but different possibilities to be tested just ends up in women being denied abortion

If that's the case - why are states criminalizing getting an abortion in another state?

Some states decide for all states, that's the sort of thing that has to be decided on a federal level

When? He's gone out of his way to *not* imprison his opponents. Why do you think Hillary is still running around?

> violently deal with immigrants

*Illegal Immigrants

Not so sure about the violent part either, but let's just say that that's true.

The Dems are terrified of accidentally seeming too left. Republicans have no problem embracing the more extreme right, whereas Dems would rather cowtow to the imaginary swing voter and lose than get called the S word.

Admittedly the US had a choice between someone unfit for office and a lawfully convicted felon, I don't envy this situation.

Some perspective is called for.

That said, so far she hasn't won the popular vote either, so that's not what we should be blaming in this election.

Hell I'm from a rural family that voted majority trump. I'm a bud not a stem. I'm also 33 with no kids.

I also think that's the same reason the exact same guy was voted out four years ago. Pretty bizarre if true, so it's probably not the whole story.

I'm not "dismissing" anything either. I have no opinion on Trump vs. Harris, as strange as that sounds to those with strong believes.

I merely observe that OP asked for arguments, and that link points to opinion letters that don't even attempt to make one. Which is fine for them - this is about this sub-thread's context. OP asked for arguments and the link does not provide them, this is not a dismissal of whatever is going on in that linked page itself, only whether it serves to satisfy OPs request here.

Often I have found the same fears, desires and hopes in my opponents as myself. For example: "I want my children to grow up happy"

From that level of similarity we can reach people. It takes effort.

> If your own political conviction influence your works as a professor, then you're perhaps not that great a professor

Indeed. This is a major ongoing crisis in academe. And journalism.

As a self check, if you think that Trump's "very fine people on both sides" remark referred to white supremacists as "very fine people", then you need to upgrade your sources. Find the extended original video. It is hard to do! If you give up, let me know and I will send you a link. The search is instructive, however.