just a tiny minority of Nazi's holding us back...AGAIN!
We need to stop voting them in to office. That or pull another WW2 where it's legal to end Nazis... They are quite literally the perfect example of the Paradox of Tolerance. They are EXACTLY what should NOT be tolerated.
They technically aren't being voted into office. They use tactics such as gerrymandering and voter suppression to get elected. If everything was "fair" and "balanced" they would be a tiny minority in our government
They technically aren’t being voted into office. They use tactics such as gerrymandering and voter suppression to get elected.
I see no evidence that a sizable percentage of Republicans is crying for more moderate candidates nor refusing to vote for these racist, homophobic, transphobic shitbags. They aren't being voted in by the electorate as a whole, but they absolutely are being voted in by Republicans, those other problems notwithstanding.
I agree with you, their choice to turn a blind eye to the actions of their peers is abhorrent. My point was that in a large chunk of these places they wouldn't be elected into office if they didn't cheat their way to get there.
Apologies my comment wasn't intended to counter yours if it sounded that way. I agree with you too. It just popped the cork on a hotbutton topic of mine. 🙂
I totally understand ♥️
And then a whole bunch of them will turn around and vote for anti-LGBTQ+ Republicans because "They're for the economy" (please ignore how the economy actually performs under Republican control)
When Republicans talk about woke, they mean the LGBTQ community and other minorities. That is why they are anti woke. They are anti LGBTQ. It is a word bigots use to hide behind. "Woke, you know what we mean" wink
Oh no, it's much more than that. Remember when DeSantis told a judge that he defined "woke" as anything that acknowledged the existence of systemic racism?
Right, it doesn't even stop at LGBTQIA+ anymore. Anything short of the perfect bigot can be put under a microscope and declared a "sympathizer" to the "woke agenda." Heck, cis people that aren't conforming to their gender well enough are acceptable casualties, as we saw in the Philadelphia deli case a few days ago.
Something fascism, something McCarthyism.
Woke was specifically a term used by black activists that was, as always, co-opted by racists and turned against them with the help of "centrists."
And now even the well meaning white nerds are ignoring that it has always been about issues of systemic racism in America.
Nah, woke just means, “anything republicans don’t like”, it’s not LGBTQ specific.
Yeah it’s often used about race issues too
Exactly. They're scared to use the meaning and use woke instead. Scared frogs.
Gay frogs
Lee Atwater would be proud.
Too bad voters don't matter half as much as much as land and money in the US.
Good for US voters.
American Indians knew all about this even before white men invaded. They were called two spirit people and had different functions in the tribe. They're just people. Quit the BS.
White Europeans already knew about lgbt too, especially during the time of the Romans. It is because of the homophobic influence of Abrahamic religions that lgbt have been suppressed, and later on European and Islamic empires spread the bigotry into their colonies through religion.
Rome wasn’t some gay paradise.
And yeah lgbt people filled special roles even in societies like the Sumerians and Scythians
Remember, you're not gay if you are on top according to the Romans!
Incorrect. According to the Greeks.
Pretty sure the Romans held the same belief.
It used to be considered manly to be at least bisexual, because a real "man's man" would of course prefer the company of men.
It’s too bad US politics won’t represent US voters, or this would be good news.
Well, the cons - who have far too much power in relation to their actual numbers - won't be having any of that "what US voters want" stuff, thank you very much.
This is why they've been messaging - for years now, decades, even - that this is "not a democracy" and, more recently, that there is not even a Constitutional right to vote.
Happening is Canada right now. The minority in our racist provinces are passing anti gay legislation.
wish people in the uk felt the same instead of being hit upside the head every day by the anti trans media :(
Yeah the difference is that over here academic feminism lost a lot of influence to its less Ivy Tower sisters. Also feminist theorists didn’t gain quite the same institutional power. That’s bad in many ways, but it does mean that our face of feminism isn’t some professor.
Meanwhile, support for stronger LGBTQ+ protections was more highly favoured by Democratic voters (82 per cent) than Republican voters (32 per cent).
Surprised 32% of Republican voters support. This shows, as I've felt for a while now, yet another example that we aren't as separate as we think.
The big problem is that while many Republican voters might be more moderate, Republican politicians absolutely aren't, and the Republican voters keep voting in the extremists. It doesn't matter if 32% of Republican voters support LGBTQ+ protections when the Republican politicians they're voting in are busy passing anti-LGBTQ+ laws, and they'd never willingly vote for anyone else.
It’s almost like people shouldn’t care what they do and give them the tools/laws to just live their lives. Crazy concept that I’m glad to see most people are on board with. Just a few crazies stopping progress
Won't somebody think of the children!?
/s of course
American law isn’t about what Americans want. How long will it take for people to understand this?
Is one of those laws a "Drag-race"-style competition to pick the president?
Because I would be on board for that.
I would definitely watch Trump in sequins and padding try to belt out Cher.
The sample size for these surveys is FAR FAR too small to be able to come to the conclusion you can write such a sensationalist headline like "MOST US VOTERS" anything.
As long as your sample represents an even cross-section of the population then it can be quite small, just about one order of magnitude larger than the result you're reporting. For instance, if you're reporting a percentage (i.e. a result out of 100) then you only need to poll about 1000 people, since cutting off one decimal place will be enough to account for any weird clustering in your sample. The total population being represented doesn't matter; as long as your sample is truly chosen at random then all that matters is the sample size relative to the precision of the result.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News