gut

posted by jmog

If it had said "do you believe it is overall beneficial for families and society for women to raise their children full time" my answer would have been agree as actual studies show this to be true. But calling it a "duty" sounds too "Stepford Wives" to me.

Thought the exact same thing.

Seems like we've forgotten how to even talk about these issues.  It shouldn't be an LSAT-level parsing of words to figure out the answer.

And that's an otherwise loaded question.  Sure, it's beneficial to societies for women to raise their children.  That should be unobjectionable, but it's been turned into a sexist view. Because, hey, I also believe it's beneficial for society for MEN to raise their children. BOTH parents.  In fact, YES it's a duty for parents to raise their children.  

They've turned something completely unobjectionable into a right-wing sexist position.

Not a good test if you can tell exactly which answers land you where.  Makes you ask "where does their funding come from", because if there's value in that test I'm not seeing it.

After 4th guess, I was like "oh oh".  Would have had it in 6 except I messed up and re-used a letter that was already rejected (thanks not really hard mode).

Wordle 1,133 X/6*

⬛🟨🟨⬛⬛
🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩

posted by justincredible

Reps for my fellow bottom righters.

You obviously meant to say "far right MAGA"

LOL Kamala reads prepared remarks on the war in Gaza and then leaves without taking questions.  Probably a good move - "the speech threads the needle, don't mess it up riffing or responding off-the-cuff to questions".

I thought the content was very good, but wow that delivery.  She could barely look away from the prompter.  That's public speaking 101 - looking down to read almost every word indicates you either don't believe what you're saying, or aren't in command of the topic.  At best, just unprepared to deliver those remarks.

Anyone else wondering how many tries it took JMOG to produce his posted result? :)

posted by justincredible

Quite a few that I was neutral on but had to choose one side. I'm probably a littler farther down socially than this, and probably a little further right economically, but it's in the general vicinity that I would expect.

Nearly identical to mine - I was ever slightly more to the right, and big shocker that I was one lower toward libertarian

Though I found the wording of some of those questions problematic, especially when there's no "don't care" or "N/A" options.

My economic leanings I suppose are right leaning in the sense that free markets are a conservative view, though "conservative" and "right/Republican" have become increasingly disjointed.

Socially I'm fairly liberal, but in today's age a rational view on social issues I guess is automatically right-of-center.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Trump can say he is distancing from it, but his new administration will need qualified people...and those people will be in think tanks like Heritage.

Sooooo more gaslighting where ignore what Trump says, THIS is what he really means or is going to happen?

You're like a cat with a laser pointer. 

Historically the "experts" have always said there's no evidence the VP moves the needle, really at all.

People made a big deal about it this cycle because of the likelihood Biden wouldn't make it another 4 years, and the probability Trump won't.  

Choosing Vance let's Trump's base know his policies will continue if he doesn't finish, and someone they can rally behind as a potential POTUS in 2028.  I seriously, seriously doubt many people were saying "well, I'm not voting for Trump, but now that he picked [Tulsi] I'm all in!".

The same people telling us the P2025 folks are going to be in Trump's administration are the same people telling us right up until the debate that Biden was "sharp as a tack".  Same people that told us for 3+ years Trump stole the election colluding with Russia.

At least this gives some substance to HOW Trump is going to "destroy Democracy".  Unlike their policies which have none.

posted by Ironman92

I’ll wager less than 25% of registered voters in Ohio know much of anything about senate and house representatives in Ohio

Vance is clearly also a sociopath, like many politicians.  It's especially repugnant when someone pretends to be humble and moral but does a complete 180 on Trump when it becomes politically expedient.

Also not a ton of respect for someone that runs for Senate and then leaves after just 2 years for higher office.  When you see someone rising that fast, and clearly orchestrated, they are not in it to serve the people but in it for themselves.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Don't you live in Ohio?

Not for over 20 years.  I know who Vance is, just don't know much about his policies.  But "economic nationalism" or whatever you want to call it is basically the failed 2000-ish Democratic platform of "fair" trade.

It's been surreal watching the party that has been hardline free markets for decades suddenly fall in line behind Trump's trade wars.  It just confirms that the majority of voters have no clue and simply vote for the home team.  Inflation has been like the #1 concern, and there's absolutely no comprehension for how Trump's economic policies are likely to reignite inflation.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Now, Trump is the old guy, the oldest person to ever run for office.

LOL, already parroting the new talking point.

Biden was, and still is, the oldest person to ever run for office. He didn't just run, he won the primary.  Dropping out doesn't change any of that.

So the Dems and their media lied about Joe for years, and blocked/attacked anyone who dared oppose him in the primaries.

Now after it's clear he couldn't beat Trump Dems be all like "look how Democratic we are!"

How many times is Hunter going to call saying "dad, DON'T forget to pardon me before you leave"?

posted by justincredible

Biden to step out of the race.

They must have finally threatened to take away his ice cream.

Third conspiracy:  Kid was working with Iran.  Then the guy that got laughed off the school shooting team makes some sense.  But then why bother searching for porn that morning if you're about to meet 72 virgins?

posted by gut

26 seconds explains the odd single shot I heard much later after the initial burst.  Couldn't understand why there was such a delay.

So many questions.  If that fact set is true none of it makes any sense, especially allowing Trump to take the stage.

Shaping up to be a Kennedy-style conspiracy.  You've identified the shooter and still allow Trump to go on before you've neutralized the threat.  And then, somehow, the shooter is allowed to fire 2(?) volleys of about 3 shots...only then 26 seconds later does a sniper take him out?  Why wasn't the order given MINUTES earlier?!?

I'm trying to figure out which conspiracy theory I've heard is most entertaining.

1. The deep state tried to legit assassinate Trump in order to get him out of the picture. By using a 20-year-old who presumably didn't have the sort of military training to be a legit crack shot.

2. Trump's team set it up to have a legit bad-ass moment (the pic of him throwing a fist up to the crowd with a bloody face) and also REALLY galvanize his base. While also using that same 20-year-old, where if anything goes wrong, he essentially self-terminated in a bid to get more votes.

It's kind of like if reality was written by an alternate version of Tom Clancy who had suffered just enough brain damage to where he could still write political espionage novels, but they didn't really make much sense.

I don't know much about Vance, does seem like his views/policies are a little too bible-conservative for me.

But he's articulate and charismatic.  First VP in a long time that makes me think he could be POTUS.  If you don't like Trump's policies, you have to admit you HATE his choosing Vance because it could be 12+ years...

I just remember people saying Desantis was a bigger threat than Trump because he's actually smart.  Well, guess what - Vance is everything Desantis is but with 10X the charisma.

To late in the game for Hillary, I think.  She still isn't well-liked, and doesn't have time to turn that around on the campaign trail.

Also, feels like enthusiasm for Trump is way higher than 2016.  I'd expect Hillary to do almost as bad as Biden.

I've heard Mark Kelly.  Seems popular among the liberals, but again too late in the game for someone with little name recognition otherwise.

It's going to be Kamala, because she'll help turn out some of the minorities and women who'd otherwise stay home.  This is all just about trying to rescue the Dems in the House.

posted by CenterBHSFan

26 seconds

26 seconds explains the odd single shot I heard much later after the initial burst.  Couldn't understand why there was such a delay.

So many questions.  If that fact set is true none of it makes any sense, especially allowing Trump to take the stage.

Shaping up to be a Kennedy-style conspiracy.  You've identified the shooter and still allow Trump to go on before you've neutralized the threat.  And then, somehow, the shooter is allowed to fire 2(?) volleys of about 3 shots...only then 26 seconds later does a sniper take him out?  Why wasn't the order given MINUTES earlier?!?

How in the world do you see a guy with a rifle on a roof in a tactical position and not immediately take him out?

Because let's state what most would have considered a more obvious motive - a mass shooter about to kill dozens in that crowd.  Could have been a much larger tragedy if the shooter wasn't focused on Trump.

Seems like the widow of the deceased is going to be in line for a very large settlement.