this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
248 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2948 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Naw. They can switch to sexism.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They’re both, no doubt.

But right now they’re pushing the racism hard. I give it a week and it’ll be pushing the sexism hard.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They are already claiming she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own, only step children. No guy ever has been told he should be ineligible for office over not having children.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That’s patently ridiculous.

Also… wanna bet the originalists are going to shut up about “what the constitution says”?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own

By that metric, Trump isn't qualified because who wants a president that doesn't have a dog?!?!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

There hasn't been a president without children since the civil war. In fact, unless my Wikipediaing failed me, the last time there was a major party candidate without children was 1876 when Samuel J. Tilden lost to Ruthorford B. Hayes.

I strongly suspect it would be a major issue for a male candidate to be childless. The requirements for a presidential candidate are extremely conservative. They have to be married. They have to have children. They have to be christian -- even being Catholic rather than Protestant has been a major issue for a few, including JFK and to a certain extent Biden. They also have to be tall. Since the advent of TV in 1928, the shorter candidate has only won 6 times. The taller candidate has won 17 times.

Yes, there's a ton of sexism about Harris, but in this case a guy would probably be attacked if he were childless too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My entire adult life, it's felt like Republicans are made in those Coca-Cola Freestyle machines where you can customize the flavor. The base flavor is always pro-big business, American imperialist, anti-women's rights, anti-intellectual. But then there's always an extra shot of flavor! Maybe it's something common, like being especially anti-queer, or rare like McCain having just a little squirt of integrity.

But sometimes it's weird! With Sarah Palin it was aerial wolf gunning! There was some other guy who was against laws forbidding dog fighting, because he said that because human boxing was allowed, outlawing dogfighting would elevate dogs above humans. And then you've got the likes of MTG where you just take ALL the flavors and mix them together.

So yeah, we can expect a steady stream of base flavor repellent Republican behavior, with notes of racism and sexism that will be familiar to anyone who was paying attention during the Obama administration or the Trump vs. Clinton campaign.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Watch them try to go for an intersection high score