Are some people on TikTok saying things like this? Sure. Was this part of the campaign's messaging or the party's platform? No. Not in the least.
If people are rather loudly letting you know they feel left out, you'd better come up with a strategy that somehow resonates with them, rather than saying "we never said that" and continue to lose their vote. Whether you think that's justified or not is not really relevant, not if you want to win, at least.
The same thing goes the other way 'round, if the democrats would win because too many women would have felt left out from the Republican party stance, something I can easily understand too.
Yes, you have a problem, and it's called disinformation.
> If people are rather loudly letting you know they feel left out, you'd better come up with a strategy that somehow resonates with them, rather than saying "we never said that" and continue to lose their vote. Whether you think that's justified or not is not really relevant, not if you want to win, at least.
This is some ludicrous reasoning. What do you want them to do other than say "we literally never said that"? How exactly do you picture them campaigning against strawmen and imagined threats? If people are too dumb to realise they're being lied too, that's really unfortunate, but you can't fix stupid. Ultimately that's why populist politicians with empty words are on the rise. You really cannot fix stupid.
So, reading between the lines, it sounds like these "CIS white males" (I am one, hi!) are being triggered by discussion of inclusion, bias, systemic misogyny, etc. It's not always pleasant to have a light shown on your biases but how else do you expect to grow or for society to ever change? Imagine if abolitionists or suffragettes had kowtowed to people who did or threatened to "check out" because of their work? By GP's (implied) logic, they should have and worked to overtly deal with those issues at. ... some indeterminate point in the future?
The only way to counter this message is to stop with the hate speech. Like the parent above said. Even independents are tired of it now.
Of course likely the left will again ignore the warnings and continue on so I’m quite anxious to see what 2026 and 2028 bring.
Ultimately, I see the world this way: people want good things for others. Most people who voted for Trump aren't directly fascists. Trump himself I wouldn't even qualify as a fascist. But he espouses fascistic policies. Immigrants polluting the blood of America, stuff like that, those are fascist ways of talking about immigration. So at some point we have to talk about things, and denounce them. And no, Trump himself is not Mussolini. But the shortcut of calling him a fascist is ultimately okay.
Same thing with racisms. Most people aren't fundamentally racist, but they'll espouse racist opinions. So they're racist.
Pointing them out and how fundamentally unsuited that man is for any job, let alone the presidency of any country, is not "hatred". If you have a problem with people being shot at, take this up with your local representative to get better controls on who can acquire a weapon.
Stopping here because this is a blatant lie. He was NOT convicted of rape but instead sexual abuse. They are not the same and if you need further evidence then consult a lawyer.
Remember that disinformation the left claimed the right was spreading? guess what you’re doing now?
Does rape vs sexual abuse change much in your view? Especially when there's also him bragging about grabbing them right by the pussy.
'But Judge Lewis Kaplan called Trump’s semantic argument “entirely unpersuasive.” He clarified that the jury found that the former president did indeed “rape” Carroll based on the common definition of the word.'
I understand that we don't agree here and that we all view things that are said through a distorted lens... so you may feel that certain speech from one person isn't violent, but said by another person is.... and I clearly would flip that around.
Its a shame that things are the way they are, but hopefully we can all understand each other at some point and things are less polarized. Its pretty miserable to have calm and reasonable conversations about anything even broaching politics. Its just contributes to the echo chambers.
Which ones exactly?
I'm confident that I've heard both sides saying exactly what you're saying though... and I remember many times that "the end of democracy" was around the corner.... and if such-and-such wins a race war is going to break out etc.
The rhetoric and post-election-dooming is always the same regardless of which side wins.
I pretty firmly believe that things like the economy, incumbents tendency to remain in power, and a party switch after hitting the term-limit are the biggest factors. What people actually say once the primaries are over just doesn't matter to most people. People will cherry-pick what they want to hear.
What I wonder as a complete outsider: how bad must the image of "the left" be that a shady right-wing populist megalomaniac businessman with sexist tendencies wins the election a second time?
Are the democrats associated with a handful of radicals and idealistic goals that don't apply to the silent majority, or is there a perception that they can't handle the current political and economical challenges?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSw04BwQy4M
You have many examples of left not being really nice towards men in the video and in other videos on her channel.
Meanwhile, Trump has said that you should grab them by the P-word, Vance has criticized "childless cat ladies" as if being a single woman should be a crime. I can go on and on, it really is that simple.
I certainly remember hateful women lambasting men, including myself, for things like saying a woman is attractive.
Also Obama just said: "[P]art of it makes me think, and I’m speaking to men directly… that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that."
I wonder what he meant? That men are sexist because we don’t want a woman president? Or maybe that they wouldn’t vote because they’re heading to the grocery store or something?
It's really easy to find instances of right-wing politicans or pundits saying abhorrent things about women as a group (refer to my previous comment), but no one seems to care. On the other hand Obama makes vague implications that sexist bias may negatively influence their candidates and now half the country hates men.
I love how whenever someone on the left says they're offended by something outrageous and awful, the right says "grow a thicker skin, snowflake", but whenever someone on the left calmly asserts an obvious truth, that bias exists, people on the right whine that they're being attacked and their way of life is being destroyed.
I'm a man and I don't think the Democratic party "hates me". Maybe Republicans need to grow a thicker skin and stop being offended by every little thing. (See, I can be an asshole and argue in bad faith too!)
I can't speak about justifying rape or abuse or pedophilia or reproductive rights or religion or immigration or not being able to afford food. I don't live in a (that) polarised two-party system country. Though I fear we're all sort of heading that way for one reason or another...
If anything, my advice to democrats would be to start playing "dirtier", I haven't seen anyone take advantage of the recent links established between Epstein and Trump, for example.
Well, are they wrong? Once you get past the stupid rehtoric associated with the word, the goal of communists is to usher in an age of post-scarcity.
The United States is clearly leading that charge. Food production is the closest thing we have to post-scarcity, and that's almost entirely thanks to the efforts of US innovation. I even dare say that US innovation in general is doing more for bringing us closer to post-scarcity than anything else seen in the world. Harris seems/seemed on board to see that continue.
Trump may be too. He appears to also stand behind American innovation. Although, perhaps to the determinant of innovation elsewhere, which does set him apart from Harris, and, to be fair, you might argue that leaves him unaligned with the communist intention.
So, if you ignore what a word means, and redefine it, yes, anything can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Communism has an element of post-scarcity as a sort of a prerequisite, but that's neither the main goal, nor the means. There is nothing even remotely communist in anything even remotely mainstream in US politics.
Go on. What does the word mean?
It is oft associated with "member of the Communist Party", of which Harris clearly is not. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of? But that usage is like calling a member of the Democratic Party a liberal – something that is also often done. But to be a liberal does not automatically make you a member of the Democratic Party, even if members of the Democratic Party are often liberal.
> but that's neither the main goal, nor the means.
What is the main goal, then?
The means is undefined. Different communists have different ideas about how to achieve post-scarcity. The Communist Party has a particular stance about that, certainly, but as before, while members of the Communist Party may be communist, not all communists are members of the Communist Party.
So arguing that any of Harris or Trump have anything to do with communism is either very dishonest or coming from a place of deep ignorance.
While Marx believed that was necessary to see post-scarcity, it very well could be that he was wrong. This may come as a surprise to you, but he wasn't an all-knowing genie, just a feeble human. At this point in time we seem to be going down the right road without needing to do that. As before, I think we can agree that American innovation has brought us closer to post-scarcity than anything else the world has ever known.
If you are trying to say that Harris isn't a Marxist, then sure, that's fair. But we're clearly talking about "communist", not "Marxist". That these words happen to share the same last three letters does not imply that they are the same word.
If you are trying to say that Harris isn't a member of the Communist Party, as an earlier poster seemed to mistake, that is also fair. Clearly she is not that either. But, again, we're talking about "communist" not "member of the Communist Party". It is possible for a communist to be a member of the Communist Party, just as a liberal may be a member of the Democratic Party, but being a communist/liberal does not imply alignment with a political party. For our Canadian friends, being a liberal does not imply support of the Liberal Party either. Ideologies and political groups are quite distinct from each other.
> Communism is not about post-scarcity, to the contrary. It's an economic system that seeks to distribute finite resources equitably
Perhaps you just phrased it poorly, but communism is more of a lack of a system. It doesn't even have a state to administer a system! Those things go away when you have post-scarcity, naturally. Communism is not about post-scarcity, but you need post-scarcity to allow it to happen. You fundamentally cannot go stateless, classless, and moneyless without post-scarcity. Hence why communists seek post-scarcity. It is the change that ushers in communism.
> So arguing that any of Harris or Trump have anything to do with communism is either very dishonest or coming from a place of deep ignorance.
Or just boring old semantics. That is what you seem to present here, offing that Harris is not a communist simply by redefining communist (granted, it appears as though you may be struggling to get out what you are trying to say, so it might just be that).
Regardless, I spelled out my definition. Even it is not the same as your pet definition, it is the one that was given. The context is set. Under that definition, how is Harris not a communist?
If you look at the online sentiment which greatly affects young voters, it is very much anti-men in general. In fact you even have instances of this being seen in popular culture entertainment and slipping into mainstream at times. Especially for CIS white males. And guess which population overwhelmingly both voted for Trump, but also gained voters for the Trump camp? Men.
Anti-male rhetoric is at an all time high, and has given rise to male spaces being dominated by accordingly anti-female rhetoric.
This is in part what the parent comments are mentioning. That many of the most outspoke people for Dems (i.e not necessarily politicians themselves) are women who just entirely dismissed even trying to capture male voters who were on the fence. Yes, I get that it is difficult to resonate with people who vote in favor of taking away womens rights, but the problem is that you just aren't going to win if you don't capture at least some of those voters.
Republican speakers on the other hand spew non-stop hate toward every minority I could name and no one cares. If the median voters can't see that (wether he lives in a bubble or simply refuses to acknowledge it), then this country is fucked.
Kinda funny how the moment real progress is made on trying to give anyone other than males a hand up, they start crying like babies about how they're not getting enough attention. Meanwhile, those same men are literally stripping away women's rights to their own body.
I don't think so, caring means doing something about it, if men weren't deeply misogynistic there would have been a woman president decades before. The behavior of men is not surprising however and is expected.
What is shocking is half the women in this country also don't care about their own interests either.
It is one thing for immigrants or working class to be voting against their own interests, economic and border policies are abstract and people historically have failed to attribute links to the administration responsible. Abortion is not abstract however, the linkage to right-wing policy is straightforward.
Who in their right mind votes based on the sexual organs a person has?
The misogyny is so deep that women experience it from other women.
Results in Missouri, Kansas, Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada either yesterday or in the last year, that voted for trump but also voted protections for it say otherwise.
National ban is on the cards now, controlling the courts, Senate and presidency and likely the house it is quite within reach. There is nothing further to say, predictions and warnings have no clearly no effect, perhaps lived experience might, or we keep blaming healthcare workers or immigrants for everything, whatever works.
nope. still the left haven’t learned what decentralized power and states rights are. there will be no federal ban. keep spreading misinformation if you like but as the country has already shown you, we don’t believe it anymore.
I would be happy to be proven wrong , but I wouldn’t count on a strongman being restrained in using the power the court; legislatures and executives have given him.
> What is shocking is half the women in this country also don't care about their own interests either.
Aren't you just assuming for women to care about just one political issue here?...
Every woman between 18(and sadly lot younger but they cannot vote ) and 45 is affected directly personally by reproductive healthcare . It is an issue they get reminded about every month physically.
—-
Electing women heads of state , is an exceptionally low bar on misogyny scale, that only the Middle East, lesser developed parts of Africa and United States have in common .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointe...
Even non Middle Eastern Islamic countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh where stoning for accusations of adultery is still a thing have democratically elected women leaders .
——
People aren’t voting for trump for his policies, neither he nor his supporters can articulate what they clearly.
2016 was explained about how it was an anti-establishment vote , Hillary had baggage .
2024 the discourse is already it the economy
record numbers voted for him in 2020 when he had the by far worst possible economy of any president ever. Biden only scrapped through by thinnest of margins .
It is disingenuous to then argue that people were smart enough to understand the reason behind the economy then , but cannot comprehend the economic consequences of 2020 policies and the trends of today to attribute to Biden .
It is always something else, we should own who we are as a society.