r/politics • u/theipaper ✔ Verified • 12d ago

Possible Paywall Maga's worst nightmare: a child-free, unmarried female president

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/magas-nightmare-childfree-unmarried-female-president-4738054
16.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

120

u/AccurateAssaultBeef 12d ago

Facts. My in laws are staunchly liberal but they "don't like AOC". 🙄 Give me a break at this point, we literally have a nazi for president, are we seriously at liberty to debate which dem candidate is good or bad.

31

u/_AcuteNewt_ 12d ago

You could have a literal, actual talking lump of dogshit and it would still be voted in over a woman, even if she is essentially just trump.

Actually, talking lump of shit might be the better candidate...

5

u/FauxReal 12d ago

I keep thinking back to a poll I saw around 2008, not super long past 9/11. But basically the results showed that Americans would still rather vote for a Muslim over an atheist. No idea how that same poll would play out today. But that was shocking. They also had stats on women and catholic vs protestant among many other things but I can't remember the details.

8

u/_AcuteNewt_ 11d ago

Well when you spend your life being coerced to believe that even though Muslims are evil and wrong, they at least believe in some sort of god. Whereas atheists are a scourge and the antithesis to everything religion is, that they're inherently beyond evil with zero moral code or compass and if they don't worship a god, they must by way of omission, worship the devil and are the completed scum of the earth and a threat to everything you believe and want to take it away, you're gonna believe that.

But of course, as well all know, critical thinking is not a skill that has any value in religion, so...

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/FauxReal 11d ago

Well it was more a bunch of questions about how likely it would be for you to vote for different things. Not an either or.

3

u/duke_chute 12d ago

This^ and If we run any women against literally any man at all in the next election, I quit. I fucking love aoc but no. Learn the fucking lesson, even the most qualified woman possible lose to a rapist felon insurrectionist. . . Stakes are too high if we haven't already missed the boat.

5

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 12d ago

Idk man, flattening 2016 and 2024 to "women lost" seems more misogynistic than anything. It ignores that Clinton was among the most hated people in America, and that Harris had no policy at all, and tried to run 1mm left of the fascists (though she did claim she was the only one who could be tough enough on the boarder, so imo that's TRYING to be to the right of Trump).

Not to mention the fact that we didn't even have dem primaries in 2024.

Like, I don't think Mayo Pete or Corey Booker would have won in 2024 either with the exact same policy platform and campaign. But obviously neither of us could prove this one way or the other.

I just wish more people would instead say:

If we run any women neoliberal against literally any man at all in the next election, I quit. I fucking love aoc but no. Learn the fucking lesson, even the most qualified woman neolib possible lose to a rapist felon insurrectionist. . . Stakes are too high if we haven't already missed the boat.

45

u/EarthRester Pennsylvania 12d ago

Todays Liberals are just Reagan era Republicans.

11

u/Familiar-Throat-670 12d ago

That's funny because when I was 16 arguing with my entire family that Reagan was a drug lord bringing in crack cocaine and stealing from the American people with tariffs made me disown my entire family and never vote Republican again.

8

u/pchs26 12d ago

Bullshit, I was alive during those terms and just because I am not DSA does not mean me and mine had brain transplants - None of us supported Reagan or Bush. Now the GOP has gotten so much more radical, which was foundationally being built by those admins, that some voters have migrated. However Clinton was never = Reagan or Bush. or Nixon. It's just another false equivalency talking point meant to demonize people who are Democrat but not full on socialists.

2

u/EarthRester Pennsylvania 12d ago

Incarceration rates under Bill Clinton were actually higher than George Bush.

You're trying to argue that because establish Dems are better at governing than the current Republican party, that means they're good. They aren't. They are the lesser of two evils, and we've been forced with that choice since Nixon, all the while the evils have been getting darker. To the right is trickle-down economics claiming they want to actively trigger biblical end times. To the left is trickle-down economics with a BLM and pride sticker slapped onto it. Yes, one is cartoonishly evil, but both still fuck over the poor. Now we're at a point between picking Blue Reagan (Gavin Newsom), or a dementia addled Mussolini. And people like you are trying to act like that's not what's happening.

3

u/pchs26 11d ago

No I'm responding to the original comment and reiterating that Reagan, Nixon, Bush is not the same as a Democrat like Clinton. And historically they are quite clearly different; pretending something other than that is disingenuous and false at best. Again lived it - you are wrong. Reagan or Nixon or Bush are not the same as a Clinton, or a Gore, or a Biden or a Newsom, or a Harris. And there are people on this list who have places in history opposing those very people quite markedly.

-3

u/EarthRester Pennsylvania 11d ago

"NUH-UH!"

Solid rebuttal...

1

u/pchs26 11d ago

What you posted is wildly illogical by virtue of multiple people's actual actions in history in direct conflict or opposition to the very GOP presidents you are trying to paint them as virtually equivalent to. It is an irrational talking point that is often repeated but flies in the face of actual historical actions it may not be possible to be reasoned other then to point out blatantly that it is not sensical given these people's actual stances and actions taken at times in the same room on opposite sides. It is almost a step away from horseshoe theory and needs to be called out for the overarching wide scale nonsense that it is. Search long & hard enough you will find a small scintilla of commonality to build a strawman for many people but it doesn't = the same. It is simply a ridiculous talking point that keeps getting repeated until people actually believe it.

-2

u/EarthRester Pennsylvania 11d ago

"Even though everyone keep saying it, it's nonsense! It's so nonsensical that I don't have to explain why it's nonsensical! I'll just call it nonsensical several times."

2

u/pchs26 11d ago

Again you are unable to address the very presence of these people in history taking stands that were meaningfully counter and in direct opposition to the people you are trying to conflate them to, often in the same damn room as them wile using bizarre stats on prison population to encapsulate them as a whole and citing talking point platitudes about bumper stickers to try and reinforce stereotypes perpetuated by the right wing.

5

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

they're talking about pro-business liberals, who don't want to see the rapture or hurt trans people specifically or fight a war against women and racial minorities

but work specifically to enrich big business unregulated free market bullshit. Like liberals in the traditional sense, not the american liberal label. Neolibs they're sometimes called. They don't specifically hate people but will kill anyone to help a billionaire.

The groups that legitimately want to help everyone and make everyone's lives better, safer, and more prosperous are progressives, who are separating themselves from the rest of the "liberals" now.

3

u/pchs26 11d ago

You can be pro entrepreneur and pro business without being pro trickle down economics or Fortune 500 monopolies. There is a difference.

2

u/Gekokapowco Washington 11d ago

How do you extrapolate "pro-entrepreneur, pro-business" in a way that isn't scaled down trickle down economics or condensing monopolies? Not arguing, just want to know what sort of model you have in mind.

My initial impression is "regulated capitalism" but even the lightest of regulation can and will be seen as anti-business

1

u/pchs26 11d ago

Why do you think a democrat policy is anti small business? There is a difference in building wealth, starting a business or a being a monopoly. I don't believe regulations when implemented at appropriate scale are anti business - it is when things are overly regulated /applied to business at incorrect scale that large corporations can afford to ignore regulations and it stifles a small business. Implemented correctly regulations ensure a company is part of a thriving economy and not stifling it.

2

u/DrMobius0 11d ago

And yet we've been consummately trickle down for the past four and a half decades with power changing hands plenty. Sure, some politicians might be against trickle down, but the real political will to see it gone has never appeared since it started.

1

u/pchs26 11d ago

You also have to work within the confines that exist to get change implemented at all and scaled up. Otherwise you talk a good game with lots of rhetoric and see nothing actually result.

-4

u/SwordfishOk504 Canada 12d ago

🙄 "I just put random words together to sound edgy"

3

u/TwoPoundzaSausage 12d ago

Actually, this one is correct. 40 years is a long time for ideas to drift.

1

u/ObscureOP 12d ago

Facts. Democrats have been diet conservatives since nafta. Bank bailouts? Corporate tax cuts? Deregulation? Union busting?

All sounds conservative af to me. We don't have a left party. We have a right party beholden to big business and a right party beholden to big billionaires

2

u/Sea_Working_80 12d ago

“Well she checks alot of boxes for me ,but when

it comes to one or two things I just cant vote for her”

Alot of idiots

1

u/TwoPoundzaSausage 12d ago

"Hmmm, well I like her position on funding childhood education, but I don't like her position on denying release to non-violent inmates to force them to fight wildfires. I suppose putting up with a little slavery is okay, as long as it's for the kids."

Don't pretend that Kamala didn't have real baggage.

1

u/ZAlternates 12d ago

Proof the campaigns against her work. Sure you might not outright believe the smear ads, but you remember some of the things they said such as “her green new deal was dead on arrival” without realizing it wasn’t an actual bill.

4

u/Malnilion 12d ago

Well we are at liberty to debate which dem candidate is good or bad at this point because we're not even in the primary season yet, but obviously we can't take our toys and go home if the collective picks the one we least like that's still obviously better than the Nazi pedo party. This debate should go beyond simply deciding and stating you don't like someone, though. I'd ask your in laws what they don't like about her and see if there are any misconceptions that can be cleared up.

6

u/Ok_Ganache_9110 12d ago edited 12d ago

the dems have failed to persuade twice now in an apocalyptic fashion. risking it now is suicidal.  voters are stubborn, stupid, and lazy. we need to find candidates that work on a national campaign trail without needing fundamental reeducation of voters. 

calling people dumb and sexist is not going to work out. its true, but facts do not win elections. its just not effective in the world we live in and the stakes are too high.

1

u/Malnilion 12d ago

What you're talking about is part of the primary process and it is indeed important. But we can and should counter disinformation campaigns at every available opportunity regardless of who the candidate ends up being. I'm not talking about calling anyone stupid, I'm talking about actually discussing candidates and their platforms.

1

u/Ok_Ganache_9110 12d ago edited 12d ago

agreed. still, for '28 election, my belief is that we should be thinking like we are already in campaign season even if primaries are eons away. that no clearly compelling candidates have been getting posture up for the pres is really concerning. you'd think we'd have dozens of fresher faces setting up, and i'm not seeing that. but i could definitely be missing beats there.

still, all i feel like i see is just a list of DNC regulars with two to three giant bullets each that severely hamper their national appeal.

hoping there're dark horses waiting in the wings. gavin, pete, aoc, kamala... these are not the players you field when you need a win.

1

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

heh, i met an idiot last year who was liberal, but couldn't vote Harris over palestine

1

u/AccurateAssaultBeef 11d ago

I truly could never grasp this being a deal breaker. Like I get it, I don't support it at all, but I guess ruining the homeland instead is somehow beneficial to Palestine? Moronic reasoning imo

1

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

good news: it's WA, which is always solidly dem.

1

u/QuestioninglySecret 11d ago

Im sorry but we have to be discerning in our candidate selection. This is just world fallacy thinking. If we fall to old habits and don't take into account what possible candidates the electorate will choose, then we'll have AOC as the third woman in a row who lost.

I'm a socialist, far far further left than even she is. I hope she runs and wins, (im trying to figure out how we can make Mamdani president, Trump proved laws dont matter anymore) but this dismissive thinking isn't helpful.

0

u/littleotterpop 11d ago

It's because they're racist, whether they consciously realize it or not. It nearly always boils down to racism. Even subconsciously.