Will Trump END the Gender Madness? | Interview with Kara Dansky

submitted by LoveScience from youtu.be

all 42 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]TurtleRat 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

This is a GREAT video. Thank you so much. Very interesting hearing Kara talk about the things the Democrats are not happy about - covering up Biden's mental capacity issues for months/years; not voting in Harris in the proper way (I didn't know about that).

This is such a big issue, the whole thing. The reason the Democrats lost, the implications for women and beyond, etc. etc.

Thank you again.

[–]lipsy 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

not voting in Harris in the proper way (I didn't know about that)

Which is/was a far greater issue because, in 2020 when Harris DID run in the Democratic primaries for president (the nomination eventually won by Biden), she finished dead last—IIRC the only primary candidate to secure a grand total of zero delegates for the nomination... And moreover, Harris has had the lowest running average approval rate of any Vice President since the advent of modern polling.

So, generously, Harris was a totally unproven candidate—BOTH on the federal level, AND against any actual Republican opponent. (In the elections that Harris won for San Francisco district attorney and U.S. Senator, her only opponents were other Democrats.)
Less generously, the only available datapoints for her viability as a candidate for president indicate that she was a BAD candidate.

[–]ChaikiKarabli 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They are undermining democracy they way they say Trump will do. Not that he's a safe option either, but the pot should meet the kettle. Seriously, if the party leadership believes Trump will end democracy, and then they keep the senile Biden in up to the point of allowing him to debate when they knew he was unfit and couldn't perform well, then put forth his unpopular VP as the candidate, no questions asked, then they either WANT Trump to get in and end democracy, or they are comically, monstrously incompetent. The alternative is that they don't believe he's going to be that bad and are lying.

And it shouldn't require a million disclaimers about how I loathe the antichoice forces in the Republican party and their loyalty to Big Oil over the environment and etc. Etc. Dobbs is a major setback, but even the red state of Missouri has voted to add abortion rights to the state constitution because even most who morally oppose abortion don't favor draconian restrictions. I may be an impoverished, disabled lesbian, but I'd rather go into debt to help my niece travel and pay for an abortion than force her to undress in front of boys and be punished for complaining about it.

The simple act of considering whether Trump might be the lesser evil in this election does not make you a Trump supporter and not a feminist. At least most women can mitigate the pregnancy risks to reduce the chances of needing an abortion, while girls have no choice about going to school and get punished if they complain. There are legitimate utilitarian arguments about which causes the most harm overall, but I can't blame a woman for falling on either side of it.

[–]Pennygadget 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I saw someone online sum it up rather well:

"The democrats lost because women pay rent and buy groceries more often than they get abortions"

Even women who are pro-choice are going to gravitate towards the issues that impact them on a daily basis. And for most of us, that's the economy and crime (and the gender issue if we know anyone currently in prison or someone in school who was screwed by Biden revoking Title IX)

[–]BruMate21 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tariffs will cost the average family 6-10k more a year in household budget how do you feel about that?

[–]lipsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The simple act of considering whether Trump might be the lesser evil in this election does not make you a Trump supporter and not a feminist

It certainly doesn't. It just means that You're voting against the other candidate, more than You're voting FOR "Your" candidate—where those are equally valid types of motivation, just like both carrots and sticks count for something everywhere else in life.

In fact, i have this pet theory that the average voter is MORE likely to end up casting a vote in Her/his own best interests if She/he heads to the polls with the explicit intention of protest-voting against the other candidate—basically because there's no chance of any stan/fanboi effect where the voter's judgment is clouded by infatuation or fandom-style excitement. Just more likely to be a clear-headed vote, is all.

[–]Pennygadget 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And it didn't help that Biden straight up said that she was a token diversity hire.

[–]lipsy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

wUt? when was this....???

I'm not going to mind-read anybody, but I WILL yell from the rooftops that Kamala Harris—regardless of whether she was ever chosen as a "DEI hire"—absolutely represents all of the skin-deep, fundamentally fake "diversity" that's been codified into DEI programs. Like, okay, so half her lineage is Afro-Caribbean, fine—but Harris is a petit-bourgeois, double faculty brat from Berkeley, who was raised with every structural and familial advantage imaginable and then some, who has NEVER faced the kind of adversity that diversification initiatives of the 80s/90s were once scrupulously designed to help genuinely disadvantaged persons overcome.

She's pretty closely analogous to the Black students who get into elite U.S. universities with DEI boosts even though they're literal princesses or scions of cheiftains in their home country in Africa. Boosting the credentials of persons like that isn't just fake diversity; it's an active injustice (kinda like "legacy" admissions, but that's a whole 'nother conversation).

That weird jive-turkey accent she inexplicably drifted in and out of, at rallies where enough Black people were in the audience, REALLY did her no favors with Black voters in Compton or Lynwood or north/east Long Beach (nor probably any other Black neighborhood in America). It's ilke, look lady... if there's ONE group of people who KNOW you're not African American, KNOW you're not from the hood, and absolutely do not expect or want you to pretend you're from the hood... that would be, um, Black people from the hood? What a profound embarrassment smh. That specific cringemaxxing cost Harris the votes of several Black people I know personally, so, imagine how many hundreds of thousands of Black votes she hemorrhaged across the country from that. Just be yourself, it can't be that hard.

[–]LoveScience[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I remember him announcing he was picking a woman as his running mate. Here's one reference. I found this article about people petitioning him to pick a black woman specifically.

[–]lipsy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ah thanks.

Mostly disagree here—I don't think a preemptive commitment to pick a Female and/or minority candidate, all by itself, is enough to brand that candidate as a DEI freeloader. Basically, if demographic group bonafides are used to cross X number of names off of an impossibly long, conflict-laden list of possibilities and then a winner is selected from that shortlist according to actual merits / suitability / QUALIFICATIONS for the job —or (ahem ahem cough cough 2024 dems) wins the job fair and square on a ballot—then in my opinion that's a perfectly ethical, and typically pretty smart, way to choose a candidate.

I'm not going to start j'accuse!-ing somebody as a DEI hanger-on unless that person's trendy identity politics is explicitly trotted out as a reason for their selection —in other words, unless it's just casually thrown out there in the same breath as actual, objectively merit-, expertise- and/or experience-based qualifications/credentials.

[–]Pennygadget 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

True. But, if I were the POTUS candidate and that was my intention, I would just choose a qualified Black woman without making a big deal ahead of time by saying, "I'm gonna pick a Black lady to be my VP! Look how wonderful and anti racist I am!!"

By preemptively announcing it, he doomed whichever woman he picked to being called a token diversity hire regardless of her actual qualifications

[–]lipsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a great point, but I want to slap two provisos onto it.

Giving Biden the maximum benefit of the doubt for a sec, that instinct to write diversity mandates into blackletter might just be left over from a bygone era (Joe Biden is Silent Gen—too old even to be an "ok boomer")—back when that was the only real way to strong-arm (real, genuine) diversity past the George Wallaces of the world and into actual reality.

From more of a realpolitik angle, it IS 2024 and the Democratic Party absolutely IS at "peak DEI" (Jesus H. Christ let's hope, at least)—so it's also worth considering whether a critical mass of, or even most, Democratic power players actually think it's a GOOD thing to promote dime-store freeloaders by grading them on the DEI curve—and therefore would actually WANT Joe Biden to begin the process by immediately drawing race and sex boundaries around the candidate pool.

[–]LoveScience[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm very frustrated with the Democrats. They shoehorned in Clinton and now Harris - basically setting America up to fail twice on electing a woman as president. I've had friends and family lambasting all the Trump voters for being sexist and ignoring the fact that Harris was not a good candidate.

Are there sexist and racist Trump voters? Unquestionably. Are 73 million Americans so sexist and racist that they would rather elect someone they despise than a woman? Unlikely. People voted for Trump for a lot of different reasons - some terrible and others reasonable.

I have a strong suspicion that our first female president will be a Republican.

[–]soundsituationmeow 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have a strong suspicion that our first female president will be a Republican.

hopefully Tulsi Gabbard

[–]googlyeyes6 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We need to organize and get fully behind Tulsi Gabbard for 2028

[–]Pennygadget 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"""I have a strong suspicion that our first female president will be a Republican."""

Same.

[–]ChaikiKarabli 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yep, Trump should be easy as hell to beat. I think the party leadership wanted Trump to win, so they could more easily fan the flames of fear to the point they could convince large swathes of the population that they need to clamp down on social media as a public emergency. I don't think they manufactured Covid but they certainly exploited it, and the real lab experiment there was the proving ground for government manipulation of mass fear.

It serves both parties for the other side's candidate to be terrible, as it enables them to lower the bar too, placate their donors and throw us a couple of bones like "at least I won't be forced to room with a man on a college trip to a professional conference" - a seriously low fucking bar.

Shame on the Democrats for sucking so hard that this is what we have to settle for, whether we like it or not. I wanted a viable left that based policy on scientific evidence, not a second corporatist party embracing an alternate form of quasireligious pseudoscience.

[–]lipsy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's more than just sneaking dicks into every imaginable Women's and Girls' space (and children's too, soon enough—the party alrdy embrances openly pro-pedophilic legislators like Leigh Finke of Minnesota, who is also a TIM because of course he fucking is).

You can't do that without censoring more-or-less every imaginable at-scale channel of communication that We the People have, so, the Dems have dutifully been hurtling towards being the party of neo-Stalinist mass censorship like good little catamites and handmaidens, with almost the same insane level of commitment with which they've alrdy fashioned themselves into the purveyors and pushers of neo-Lysenkoism (gender ideology and associated packs of lies).

I'm essentially some linear combination of a secular classical liberal and a pro-labor populist—so, pretty much exactly what the Democratic Party and American "liberalism" stood for between apprx. 1900-1980—so, frankly, I'm overjoyed to see the 2024 Dems get their asses kicked up and down the block and then handed to them on a platter. There's just no way the party is going back to anything like its ACTUALLY liberal former self until its current incarnation is completely gutted.

[–]TurtleRat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

(Oooh, hello lipsy! So nice to see you. This is TortoiseMouse)

Ah, OK this is really interesting and helpful, thanks. US politics seems incredibly complex and mysterious to an English gal. I know I can read about it but there's nothing like having someone actually explain it to you.

Wow, the Democrats really made a lot of mistakes, huh. Makes this outcome seem kind of inevitable. What a mess. I hope they get their house in order ASAP and in time for the next election.

[–]lipsy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(Oooh, hello lipsy! So nice to see you. This is TortoiseMouse)

Hey Girlfriend. ❤︎

.

Wow, the Democrats really made a lot of mistakes, huh

Yuuup. And so far, insanely enough, they just seem to be doubling down on exactly those mistakes—with a special emphasis on all of THE LEAST popular planks in their platform (ahem ahem cough cough men in Women's and Girls' sports cough cough SNORT).

Maybe it's some sort of short-term face-saving thing? My gawd do I ever hope it is, because if this represents the ongoing direction of the Dem party for any sort of medium to long term, they'll never win another federal election ever again (and if we have a couple extra drinks and start daringly extrapolating everything in straight lines, even California will come home to Reagan's and Nixon's GOP within 12 years).

[–]GoodyMcUsername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She dropped out of the race before the Iowa caucus, which is the first primary election out of 50 states.

[–]WrongToy 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Neocon endless wars, endless illegals and Tim worship are not vastly popular. No one wants to go back to the Cheneys except Kamala. No one thinks it’s fine that BidenHarris is paying for 300/night hotel rooms in midtown manhattan with free housekeeping, free meals, free Ubers and free whatever while hurricane victims are in tents.

[–]MissJaneLane 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I love mr menno!!!

[–]Pennygadget 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Fantastic interview!

Kara is so on the money about why the democrats are failing so hard. They've turned their backs on women and the working classes in favor of simping for Big Pharma, Big Tech, and hanging with celebrities. Not to mention their concerning crackdowns on free speech.

Maybe this loss will be the wakeup call they need. But, sadly, I doubt it

[–]ChaikiKarabli 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The BBC election coverage was the only one that I saw mention free speech being an issue for voters. The others pretty much stuck to immigration and economy. Maybe I missed it elsewhere as I was flipping between channels, but considering what Walz said and the Twitter files and "malinformation" it is concerning that American media are largely silent about this, that I consider the biggest problem with the Democratic Party. If it weren't for their censorious actions suppressing our voices and slandering us when we can't be silenced, we could've peaked mainstream Democrats by now and forced the party to reform on the gender issue.

And any precedent they set allowing government suppression of dissent will be exploited by future conservatives in power. That's my litmus test for when I consider whether government should have a given power: what will happen when those I strongly disagree with are in charge? Am I comfortable with them having that authority? Because it's always a matter of when, not if, the bad guys get in charge. 2016 ought to have reminded the diehard Democrats of that, but for those it didn't, I'm sure 2024 won't wake them up either.

(New account because apparently when signing up I typed my password incorrectly the same way twice)

[–]LoveScience[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I've never felt less safe in my life expressing an opinion that counters the mainstream narrative. It's not just the toxicity of cancel culture, the incredible censorship on places like Reddit, or the overwhelming bias of the mainstream media. It's that if I try to ask even basic questions to friends or family in person like "what does being nonbinary mean to you?" or statements like "I've noticed so many more girls are identifying as trans" then people respond one of two ways: immediate defensiveness with tension that increases the moment they realize their standard answers aren't enough to shut me up, or they express immediate relief and hope that they've finally found someone they can talk to openly.

It didn't used to be this way. I used to debate abortion rights and religion and other subjects with my friends regularly. Sure, most of the time we never convinced each other of anything but at least we listened to each other and our friendships never became strained because of it.

[–]Pennygadget 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sadly, so many left leaning spaces are so toxic nowadays. If you express even a mildly unorthodox opinion on an issue like trans stuff or the war in Gaza, you're either immediately blocked or dog-piled by people telling you that you're a bad person who loves genocide and wants trans people to die. And then there are the endless purity spirals and games of Oppression Olympics and the risk of getting canceled if someone digs up a spicy joke you told on LiveJournal when you were fifteen

In contrast, right leaning spaces are far more forgiving and welcoming to folks who are politically homeless. In my experience, most right leaning spaces won't immediately bite your head off for saying you're pro-choice or that you don't like Trump. They provide a safe space to land and speak your mind if you've been burned by the left. And I think that had a huge impact on this election

[–]LoveScience[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's incredible. When I was younger it was the opposite - the right was perceived as puritanical and unwelcoming unless you subscribed to everything they believed in. The mainstream media was generally a trusted institution whose journalists had integrity and presented all sides of the story - now their headlines are inflammatory clickbait and trust in the media has tanked. The Democrats were the party of the working people and they fought against sexist stereotypes and defended women's rights. The Republicans supported Big Pharma and were all for pumping people full of toxic chemicals as long as it made rich men even richer. Everything is topsy turvy.

It feels worse because that emphatic "it's us or them" attitude is no longer just rhetoric or in anonymous online forums - it's infected our relationships and interactions with people in real life. It's a cult. It's toxic and stifling. It's unsurprising that people who feel ignored and demeaned turned to the right.

[–]Pennygadget 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm also old enough to remember when the left/Democrats were the defenders of free speech, women, and the working class while Republicans simped for corporate interests and campaigned to ruin Ellen Degeneres' career because she made a sitcom about a lesbian

I'm also old enough to remember when the ACLU had integrity and defended free speech even when it was difficult (ie defending the rights of Nazis to express their views).

Its wild to see the parties flip the way they have in my lifetime. And mostly because of some pervy men in drag

[–]ChaikiKarabli 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I just wish they would flip all the way for social/environmental. Also, while I support strong social safety net, I want there to be a system for rational evaluation of program successes and failures. I don't mind spending big taxes for programs that work. But my experience when I was on welfare was I was on my own, and if I had chosen to give up on myself and lie in bed all day scrolling the Internet doing nothing to improve my conditions (most of which were not caused by lifestyle problems but were exascerbated by them), I could've just kept receiving checks with no outside motivation.

There was no incentive besides my own unusually strong determination to rise above circumstances. No help for learning how to eat healthily when in too much pain to do much meal prep. The problem is that it's cheaper to just cut people checks than to do social welfare right, which is why Republican- controlled states have the same problem. It's expensive to improve the health and job skills of marginalized and deteriorating communities, but it costs a lot of money to fix bridges, too, so we should invest in human infrastructure to improve the livability of society outside gated communities.

Of course, govt would do the most half-assed implementation it could get away with, like sending texts reminding welfare recipients to eat vegetables (without telling them how they can make them taste good for minimal cost or effort). Or else hinge on punitive incentives rather than building motivation in people who have largely given up hope.

Similar for school. Where things aren't working, we should try different things (that don't have good evidence AGAINST their efficacy), track the progress in controlled comparisons, let the evidence lead. We will always have disagreements about values and priorities, but where people largely agree on something - that people in poverty should have a viable off-ramp, that schools should teach kids how to read and write and do math - we can measure objective outcomes to see how successful a program is.

[–]TurtleRat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same, same, same.

[–]Pennygadget 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most normie voters don't know about shit like the Twitter files. So they were more focused on kitchen table issues like the economy and making sure their daughters don't have to undress with males at school

[–]soundsituationmeow 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're right, but I also think the first amendment issue has become more mainstream since the twitter files. Joe Rogan talked about Harris and Walz's hostility towards free speech; that episode probably reached a lot more people than the twitter files did.

[–]LoveScience[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think many Democrats still believe they're the party of the working class and minorities which is why these results have stunned them. They don't seem to realize that focusing on trans rights, immigrant rights, etc. when millions of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck alienates those people.

[–]lipsy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Hahaha. I work in a blue-collar trade, and I'd probably need a Y-shaped stick and a big helping of divine intervention to dig up ONE person in my trade who voted Dem this year. And I'm in Southern California.

The Mexican-Amerlcans in my ≈55% Latino, ≈40-45% Mex-Am neighborhood also flipped red in maaaddd numbers this year. Lemme tell You all, this had every bit as much—if not more—to do with being "latinx"ed for 2-3 solid fucking years, and just unceremoniously dumped into the same mental bucket as Cubans in Florida (and even Tejano Mexican-Americans in the Rio Grande Valley, who are nothing like Californios politically), from afar by Dems who were just too good to ever show up here and MEET them, than it ever had to do with staunch Catholic social conservatism[§].

You know who came here to meet Californio Mexicans? Donald Trump came here. He also went to the South Bronx, East Oakland, 3rd Ward New Orleans, Orange Mound, and Opa-Locka to hang out with Black voters and just... talk to them, and LISTEN to them.

.

.

.

[§]: Zzzlong as we're here... Imputing "staunch Catholic social conservatism" to the average Mexican (or to the average Mexican immigrant to the US, or to the average Mexican-American—n.b. these are three wildly different average profiles) is another colossal fuck-up. In the same way you don't rlly find U.S. revanchist Evangelical "prepper" weirdos with 64 guns and 7 teeth apiece outside that one mostly-empty blotch of Idaho and Montana, you don't rlly find a whole lot of staunchly conservative, devoutly Catholic influence on Mexican politics outside the Frontera Norte — i.e., the strip of northern states along the Calif/Arizona/N.M./Texas border. (Sure there are more devout Catholics all across Mexico than you can shake a stick at, but, outside of the Frontera Norte, they tend to maintain a commitment to secular politics, as most Catholics worldwide have done for centuries.)

Just so that nobody reading this comment underestimates juuuust how different the Frontera Norte is from the entire rest of Mexico: When the Mexican Supreme Court decreed the legalization of same sex marriage in 2009 (n.b.: six years earlier than this happened in the USA), there was a genuinely earnest Nortexit movement—where, for a tenuous few months, that northern strip of Catholic Redoubt states came VERY close to declaring secession and independence from the rest of Mexico. It didn't ultimately happen, of course, but the point is... MOST of Mexico is not at all a Catholic so-con haven, and indeed the US itself has lagged behind its southern neighbor on iconic liberal social causes like LGB rights. (Mexico has the same system of federalism as the USA, with states making and enforcing almost all their own laws—in fact, Mexico's constitution was very closely and deliberately modeled on the American one—so there's the same wild diversity of political valences among Mexican states as there is among U.S. states. At least two states in southern Mexico, Guerrero and Oaxaca, are even more trans-captured than Washington state or California has ever been, if You can believe that!)

[–]LoveScience[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think you just summed up the election. Trump listened to the voters. Harris did not listen to the voters. That's why Trump won.

The Republican party listened to the voters after Obama's 2012 election and did their post mortem to figure out how to pivot. The Democrat party didn't change anything after the calamity of 2016. I remember back then that the narrative was "Trump voters are either full of hate or uneducated" (which is a nicer way of saying "stupid" but everyone saw through that). There was no listening and apparently no attempt to understand what happened which is why history is repeating itself. Instead of trying to change their platform so they appealed more to the concerns of the working class they doubled down on the educated elite and that's when they became obsessed with identity politics.

[–]Pennygadget 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Harris campaign was so tone deaf that they collected celebrity endorsements and had Harris rub elbows with Beyonce and Taylor Swift while Trump and the Republicans listened to voters and focused on rallies and meet-and-greets. It was such a stupid strategy during a time when the economy sucks and the democrats have been criticized for their elitism

Also, the Harris campaign really bungled it when they decided not to do Rogan's show. It may not have saved her campaign. But it would have gotten a large swath of swing voters and conservatives to sit down and listen to her.

[–]ChaikiKarabli 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how going on Rogan could've done anything but hurt her. You know he was going to pin her down about the issue of children transitioning and males in female sports, and she cannot disavow or spin that issue as it's where the party is blatantly wrong but she's beholden to the gender lobby. If it weren't for that albatross, I agree that it would've helped.

[–]Pennygadget 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fair point. If she had done Rogan's show, it likely just would have given the Trump campaign more soundbites to work with. Because Biden dropped out so late, Harris didn't have time to bone up her skills at talking to people who disagree with her (and that was one of her weak points to begin with). So she spent most of her short campaign just singing to the choir

And, like you said, the argument that kids should be medically transitioned and boys should play in girls sports falls apart under even the lightest scrutiny. And Rogan was certainly going to push her on that

[–]ChaikiKarabli 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that's THE reason she didn't go on. I have no doubt Trump would've won by a larger margin. Even people who don't listen to the show, the clips of her fumbling trying to talk around the nonsense juxtaposed with Vance speaking clearly and honestly about it would have reduced her chance of winning from essentially a toss up to certain defeat. A couple tens of thousand moderates in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would not respond well to that even if they thought the gender stuff was niche before. They would have to buy in to the idea that democracy would end under Trump for it not to make a difference, and many of the swing voters would've already voted Trump in 2016, flipped in 2020, and saw Biden/Harris prioritize genderism in a tanking economy. So, not likely.

[–]Saidit_throwaway1122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Attention black lurkers!

Just so anyone knows, so I can move on with my life: everything everyone says in the comments about Kamala Harris being “not black” because Jamaican people and Africans coming from/descending from the black people continent of origin are somehow not black, and black people not supporting her (~83% is “low” support!) and Africans taking black people’s JERBS and college spots from them because we’re evil like that, even Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie did it when she attended East Connecticut, Johns Hopkins and Yale — it’s all lies! Okay. It’s LIES.

Thanks. :)

P.S.

People should ask themselves why they keep allowing Trump, a man who was sued by the Justice Department back in 1973 for REDLINING, for refusing to rent his apartments to black people, to define blackness for them. Just saying.

(No, I didn’t watch the video. Plenty of places to go for Trump apologia. I’m busy playing Animal Crossing Pocket Camp before it shuts down. :). )

[–]LoveScience[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The title is clickbait - the video isn't Trump apologia but I can see how it seems that way. I thought the same until I saw it was an interview with Kara Dansky of Women's Declaration International. She's a vocal Democrat and very clear that she thinks Trump is completely unfit for office. She's also an attorney who's been engaged in defending women and children's rights so the host was asking how feasible it was for Trump to implement his platform on trans issues (as we know he has a tendency to make wild statements).