Democrats once again focused on taking the high road after losing one of the most consequential elections in history. I mean I like AOC but calling for people not to be hostile or divisive towards voters who believe in dragging immigrants from their homes, putting them in camps, and then deporting them to their potential deaths is just not it.

You can call for unity all you want to but you won’t ever hear those same words from the mouths of republicans.

The point of what I said isn’t that Project 2025 is actually a joke, it’s that Walsh is making a joke about it being officially implemented (which we have no actual confirmation of) so that he can show the left as irrational when they fall for the obvious bait to report on what he said.

Do they plan to implement a lot of the project? Probably. Is it serious and scary? Yes. But that’s exactly why he knew people would overreact and he could manipulate them. It’s a smart move by Walsh unfortunately because it just makes the left seem paranoid about the project when it is in fact a real danger.

I’ll expound a bit. Of course there are a portion but that portion of better off conservatives is relatively small. And affluence often doesn’t result in wanting more kids.

I think most people would agree that the average wage of a dem voter is significantly higher than that of a conservative voter even when adjusting for COL. A lot of their voters lack degrees and lack the financial situation to have a bunch of kids.

Also keep in mind that this stuff is kind of exponential right. If 10% of women don’t have kids, they’re probably on average not having about 2 kids. So you either need 10% of other women to have 2 kids or 20% of women to have 1 extra child. That’s a big ask for your average American of any political skew. If 10% of women participate, that means 1 in 4 people need to have an extra child. And the larger that portion of participating women becomes, the exponentially greater pressure it puts on other women who want to absorb that impact.

The point isn’t to isolate men and create more incels, the point is for women to stop tolerating behavior that is not worthy of rewarding with intimacy or relationship. Women shouldn’t put up with awful men that don’t care about their rights just because they’re worried that they will become even worse men.

The point isn’t necessarily that women get what they want politically either; it’s a reaction to the majority of men displaying a lack of shared interest in their partners health and wellbeing. Not to mention that most men never have to deal with the results of these elections, now they will.

You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.

Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.

And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.

I mean the trick worked, everyone is here panicking despite Walsh having no weight in these things and no insider information.

The statement was designed to scare you so he can make fun of you, that was about it and it worked perfectly.

Not sure how you got that message at all. These aren’t powerful people. Bannon is washed up and Matt Walsh is just a commentator that says stupid things to annoy people constantly. They’re both mostly irrelevant and don’t deserve the alarm everyone here is sounding. It serves no purpose other than to drive hysteria for people already worried about the project, to anyone not yet worried they’re less likely to be worried and see you as unreasonable. So just ignore it.

This is such an overreaction honestly and I think it’s just giving a false start to the alarmism about Project 2025 which is exactly what these dumb extremists want. Allow me to explain.

Matt Walsh actually said this as a joke. Bannon is probably only half joking. Both had the intention of making articles like this happen so that when the backlash reaches conservative ears they can swat it away and say hey, it’s an obvious joke. Because it was.

The point is the same as what they’ve done with other phrases. They’ll point out the unjustified alarmism and use it to take the power out of the Project 2025 criticism. This is the problem with sensationalist media, they’ll raise alarms about everything well before people should listen. Then people ignore them.

Well that’s because California is pro-prison and also because the simple arguments for prison labor are well known and arguments against it aren’t.

Most people don’t think about it beyond “they committed a crime and it costs money to keep them in there, therefore they should be helping to pay for that”. That’s about as deep as it goes.

And that’s exactly what makes it not the “real you”. Read my edit but someone without inhibitions isn’t telling you who they are, they’re telling you who they choose not to be using inhibitions.

People that say this either don’t understand alcohol or haven’t been around it much.

Edit: I cannot believe that people need clarification of this is 2024. Alcohol modifies someone’s personality through its effects. If you’ve ever heard of a happy or angry drunk, that’s why. It can cause mood swings in people, increased aggression, and at the same time makes them act irrationally. That isn’t the “real person” underneath. The part of you that alcohol takes away is part of you.

And when you take away the ability to reason and make good decisions, you say all sorts of stupid things you don’t mean. That isn’t the real you. A drunk person will mostly just be telling you their impulsive subconscious thoughts that they aren’t in control of at all. That’s not a real person at that point.

Didn’t that happen as he was resigning from the race already?

Your atheist ass is inviting people in you say?

I’d caution this sentiment. I don’t expect highly organized violence and I don’t think anyone else here should either. What you’re going to get is basically random acts of domestic terrorism. We’ve already see several ballot boxes set on fire and that’s the kind of thing this crowd will perform.

Well that and I really do think that polling places are in danger and so do a lot of cities. Again I doubt they’ll face organized attacks but look at the election in 2020. Several polling places were attacked and formed large crowds demanding the voting be stopped. It’s not unreasonable to think those crowds get violent this time around and maybe even attack lines of voters.

But the ultimate thing is that people should expect the absolute worst. The people in 2020 did not feel like an election had been stolen. Their extremist groups had no time to organize. Now they have that time. And now their beliefs are stronger than ever. Do not underestimate how awful the US will be from now till January.

Well they are going somewhere. They’re dying. And younger generations don’t share the popularity of his idiocy. Plus if he does lose, the Republican Party may very well implode being unable to sustain itself on mixing extremist views with moderate ones. This election is for all the chips basically.

I can appreciate that but there are a million and one gifts to give him that your nation isn’t dependent on for survival. That’s the messed up part. You always take care of your people at home first, gifts second. Especially during a pandemic or other crisis. If people are panicking for a vital resource and you’re giving it away for diplomacy, you’re a dumbass

I think there is a difference between being nice to a hostile nation and giving up a valuable resource to them during a national emergency. Also that gesture got Trump nowhere and you have to look at the overall picture of what he did as president with foreign leaders.

Look at all the stuff he did for Kim Jong Un and how he snuggled up to that dictator and got nothing out of it. If anything, their meetings were a large detriment to the US relations with our allies in the end. Same thing with president Xi of china, he had plenty of great things to say to inflate that leaders ego but again we got nothing out of it and at some point it began to feel like jealousy for other dictators.

Just to remind everyone.

1. Trump dodged the draft for service in this war
2. Trump has repeatedly made remarks insulting veterans and called them “suckers and losers” according to staff
3. Trump mocked senior and disabled veteran John McCain for being captured in a war he fought in
4. He awarded a billionaire the Presidential Medal of Freedom and proceeded to compare it as better than the Medal of Honor and said of its recipients “They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.”
5. Trump went to Arlington National cemetery where his staff assaulted the cemetery staff and broke rules about photography in the sacred graveyard.
6. Trump then proceeded to take pictures with the families next to the headstones while smiling and giving a thumbs up. He was standing at some points directly on top of the buried bodies of soldiers that died under his command.
7. Now Trump himself has accepted a Purple Heart which is a symbol of bravery and sacrifice and selflessness and is given to those who have been wounded or killed in battle. It is one of the nations highest honors and was given to Trump who later jokes about the medal looking like a check or like cash when given to him. This medal was awarded by a veteran of the Vietnam war that Trump not only did not fight in, but instead dodged and let his fellow countrymen make his sacrifice for him.

If you know someone that is a veteran and still wants to vote for Donald Trump, I really hope that you take them to the VA immediately and have them assessed for brain damage.

This isn’t what she’s trying to do. Instead of trying to blend in with moderates, she represents a radical and extremist part of the party that she wants to paint as the true moderates in order to leverage the opinion of the republicans upon Trump’s reelection.

The stance of tearing down speakers of the house is not new, she has railed against every speaker of the house this term for not enacting her extremist policies. What she is doing is trying to force the republican party’s hand to become more extremist because they can’t get over the line to win anything as a party without the extremists supporting them.

I fear that many people don’t understand this move from her but it’s clear if you’ve been paying attention. The point is to sell out the rest of the party that does not side with her. Her philosophy is “MAGA party or no party” and she has a small group of 5-10 allies that also believe this. If Trump loses, the party splits along these lines. If he wins, this fascist group will suddenly represent the whole party. That’s the bet she’s making.

I don’t have much to add because I agree with you on almost all of this. If the summation is pretty much that the Democratic Party is more unified in a post-trump era and that a third party would only serve to hurt them less because of that reason, then I agree with that. Whereas if republicans win this election, the US has a very dark future that may unite extremists and the death of the party would be less of a mess and more of an uphill battle for the entire country. At that point a third party would almost be irrelevant under the threat of a fall of democracy.

However, the only parts I disagree with are the parts where you talk about how the left is more cohesive. I think the problem that I’ve long noted with the left is that they all have very different political bends which does cause infighting and I think you’re underestimated the infighting that’s present. I don’t think the republicans have anything quite as serious as the liberal vs leftist split that the dems have. They have extremists but I’d point out that the extreme right is just an extension or an exaggeration of most of their views.

For instance, most republicans support anti-immigration policy and a lot of them do it due to some variety of racism or xenophobia. So when an extremist comes along and says some racist things explicitly, they’ll have everyone else on board for 90% of the conversation despite the different intentions.

Whereas with the left, liberals and leftists have very different ideals. And while it’s usually fine to combat the anti-republican ideals together, aside from that we are very split. You see this when Kamala is supporting fracking live on stage despite the ecological impacts that most of her party claims to be worried about. More moderate people will be convinced by this, which is why she said it. But the divide between a moderate democrat and a serious liberal or leftist on that issue would be night and day and you won’t have much middle ground there. Just something to think about.