3 ms·
> There could have been some "look out for your wife" messaging, but there wasn't. No but there was plenty of "if you're married and vote for Trump you're a mi
by pc86 2y ago
> There could have been some "look out for your wife" messaging, but there wasn't.
No but there was plenty of "if you're married and vote for Trump you're a misogynist" or "no real man with daughters can vote for Trump" messaging which rightly fell flat.
That Trump won the popular vote is astounding. That he's currently ahead in Michigan is insane, politically/electorally speaking. By 10pm last night the MSNBC crowd was already starting the "this was just about the economy," "no incumbent Dem could have won," "no challenging Rep could have lost" cope.
The Democratic party has an opportunity here to put DEI, identity politics, and culture war nonsense in the garbage where it belongs, and everyone on the left who was talking about unity and bringing America together 24 hours ago has an opportunity now to show whether they meant it, or if they only meant it on their terms.
- Mountain_Skies 2y agoCalls for unity in politics always is a call for everyone to unify behind the speaker rather than for everyone to find common ground.
- pc86 2y ago[flagged]
- vacuity 2y agoPolitical unity is something of a pipe dream when you look at some of the represented political groups in the US. I won't call out specific groups, but people can likely imagine at least one group they really don't want to have any power. Maybe because of media fearmongering, maybe real, but there's probably some group you perceive terribly. I don't think an electorate is supposed to represent all groups, no matter how extreme. There's no room for justice or equality or whatever if we give power to people actively targeting democracy or other people. It's dishonest to act as if there's some reasonable compromise in this scenario.
- pc86 2y agoI can't wait until people stop saying the guy who won a majority of the popular vote is a threat to democracy.
- mrguyorama 2y agoHe sold pardons It doesn't matter how many people vote for you, your policies can still be anti-democratic.
- vacuity 2y agoAnd the people may not want democracy. Democracy is only "good" in the sense that it can allow multiple competing groups. Any given group would prefer, if it could magically get it, an authoritarian gov't that imposes its world view and doesn't cede power to the wrong people. But the Republicans and their base are favorable to that idea now, as opposed to the Democrats who want to preserve an illusion of unity. Not that the Democrats should abolish democracy once they gain power, but then you need something disruptive elsewhere in the system to compensate for these incompatible tensions (such as a revolution).
- pc86 2y agoI think part of the answer is to accept that we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and simply getting 50% +1 doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. We'll see if the second Trump administration acknowledges that or not. They had a Republican House and Senate in 2016 too and still couldn't repeal the ACA, for example.
- pc86 2y agoIs this the Dunphy lawsuit? Or something else? As far as I have read, Guiliani has been accused in a civil lawsuit of saying he was going to sell pardons, nobody's provided any proof or evidence that Trump knew about it or did anything, and nobody has even had criminal charges brought let alone adjudicated. I'm happy to be proven wrong but two third parties being engaged in an unresolved civil claim is a long way away from "Trump sold pardons."
- freeone3000 2y agoWith Trump’s party platform planks #17, about removing race and gender from school curriculae, #18, regarding a ban on transgender female athletes, and #19, regarding political deportation and “making colleges patriotic”, I believe the culture war is being strongly fought by Trump as well, as much as I wish it wasn’t.