GOP's latest problem: Natural Selection

[djAdvocate]

www.salon.com/2021/12/08/young-democrats-are-right-there-is-no-reason-to-date-or-befriend/

Relatedly, a Harvard poll from last week shows "[m]ore than half of young Americans feel democracy in the country is under threat, and over a third think they may see a second U.S. civil war within their lifetimes." This isn't about a dispute over marginal tax rates. If you — quite correctly — believe that Republicans are plotting to destroy democracy, then why would you want to be friends with people who support that?

The anger on the right over this polling, in turn, shows that this isn't really about liberal "intolerance," but an ugly sense of entitlement among conservatives. It's fueled by a belief that they should be as obnoxious, cruel, and bigoted as they want, without having to pay any social penalty for it. That attitude is especially troubling when it comes to dating, and is tied to long-standing sexist assumptions that women owe men their time and attention, even when they don't find them attractive. Indeed, this entitlement itself is a red flag. Someone who doesn't respect the right to choose who you spend time with is someone who is likely to violate other boundaries.

equating "tolerance" with "desirability" is interesting. do conservatives view those as the same? I seriously doubt it.

this article has it right, imo. the fact that liberals don't want to date conservatives is not because we are intolerant. it is because we find you ugly.

and boring.
and mirthless.

[Tennesseer]

Today's Democrats/liberals are all about granting civil rights. 

Today's Republicans/conservatives are all about taking away civil rights, 

[swamp]

Jan 9, 2022 15:53:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

www.salon.com/2021/12/08/young-democrats-are-right-there-is-no-reason-to-date-or-befriend/

Relatedly, a Harvard poll from last week shows "[m]ore than half of young Americans feel democracy in the country is under threat, and over a third think they may see a second U.S. civil war within their lifetimes." This isn't about a dispute over marginal tax rates. If you — quite correctly — believe that Republicans are plotting to destroy democracy, then why would you want to be friends with people who support that?

The anger on the right over this polling, in turn, shows that this isn't really about liberal "intolerance," but an ugly sense of entitlement among conservatives. It's fueled by a belief that they should be as obnoxious, cruel, and bigoted as they want, without having to pay any social penalty for it. That attitude is especially troubling when it comes to dating, and is tied to long-standing sexist assumptions that women owe men their time and attention, even when they don't find them attractive. Indeed, this entitlement itself is a red flag. Someone who doesn't respect the right to choose who you spend time with is someone who is likely to violate other boundaries.

equating "tolerance" with "desirability" is interesting. do conservatives view those as the same? I seriously doubt it.

this article has it right, imo. the fact that liberals don't want to date conservatives is not because we are intolerant. it is because we find you ugly.

and boring.
and mirthless.

And they aren’t very good in the sack.  They’re generally more concerned with their own pleasure. 

[Tennesseer]

[justme]

I won't say I'd never date a republican, but I definitely keep my eyes out for any schism or misogyny. And well if they're anti abortion I'm definitely not having sex with them.

[tallguy]

Jan 9, 2022 17:34:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 9, 2022 15:53:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

www.salon.com/2021/12/08/young-democrats-are-right-there-is-no-reason-to-date-or-befriend/

Relatedly, a Harvard poll from last week shows "[m]ore than half of young Americans feel democracy in the country is under threat, and over a third think they may see a second U.S. civil war within their lifetimes." This isn't about a dispute over marginal tax rates. If you — quite correctly — believe that Republicans are plotting to destroy democracy, then why would you want to be friends with people who support that?

The anger on the right over this polling, in turn, shows that this isn't really about liberal "intolerance," but an ugly sense of entitlement among conservatives. It's fueled by a belief that they should be as obnoxious, cruel, and bigoted as they want, without having to pay any social penalty for it. That attitude is especially troubling when it comes to dating, and is tied to long-standing sexist assumptions that women owe men their time and attention, even when they don't find them attractive. Indeed, this entitlement itself is a red flag. Someone who doesn't respect the right to choose who you spend time with is someone who is likely to violate other boundaries.

equating "tolerance" with "desirability" is interesting. do conservatives view those as the same? I seriously doubt it.

this article has it right, imo. the fact that liberals don't want to date conservatives is not because we are intolerant. it is because we find you ugly.

and boring.
and mirthless.

And they aren’t very good in the sack.  They’re generally more concerned with their own pleasure. 

I'd probably bet any amount of money that Trump (for one) has never in his life gotten the same woman twice without paying her in some way.  They might do it once for free in hopes of cashing in or "just to see", but I can't see anybody putting themselves through what is almost guaranteed to be a horrible experience again without that payoff.  And no way in hell has he ever gotten anyone strictly because of his personality, or anyone a second time based on his performance.  Selfish, narcissistic, nasty, and demanding do not good lovers make.  Little Trumpers have their own set of equally attractive qualities.   

[hkguy]

Conservatives are conservative because they fear change, fear it.  They want to defend the status quo.

They fear change because they feel any change comes at THEIR expense.  "You're not going to take my tax money and give it to some damn immigrant!"

Liberals are liberal because they fear the status quo, fear it.  They fear that if nothing changes it will be at THEIR expense. "The 1% get richer under the current

rules and the rest of us get poorer!"

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional.  And unfounded.

Change is inevitable.  The world does not stand still or go backwards, it moves on.  We are not going to bring back the '50's. 

But change is glacial!  It doesn't come overnight, or this next year or maybe not this decade.  Change takes time.

If both sides would take the emotion out of the dialogues and understand the fear the other side feels; maybe we can get back to talking to each other civilly again.

(I did not vote for Trump.  He is a despicable human being.  But we should be able to do better than Biden.)

[tallguy]

Jan 9, 2022 21:01:26 GMT -5 hkguy said:

Conservatives are conservative because they fear change, fear it.  They want to defend the status quo.

They fear change because they feel any change comes at THEIR expense.  "You're not going to take my tax money and give it to some damn immigrant!"

Liberals are liberal because they fear the status quo, fear it.  They fear that if nothing changes it will be at THEIR expense. "The 1% get richer under the current

rules and the rest of us get poorer!"

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional.  And unfounded.

Change is inevitable.  The world does not stand still or go backwards, it moves on.  We are not going to bring back the '50's. 

But change is glacial!  It doesn't come overnight, or this next year or maybe not this decade.  Change takes time.

If both sides would take the emotion out of the dialogues and understand the fear the other side feels; maybe we can get back to talking to each other civilly again.

(I did not vote for Trump.  He is a despicable human being.  But we should be able to do better than Biden.)

While I think you are correct that conservatives are driven by fear, I would disagree that liberals are as well.  Liberals do not fear the status quo.  They simply will never accept it as good enough. 

[swamp]

Jan 9, 2022 19:55:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 9, 2022 17:34:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

And they aren’t very good in the sack.  They’re generally more concerned with their own pleasure. 

I'd probably bet any amount of money that Trump (for one) has never in his life gotten the same woman twice without paying her in some way.  They might do it once for free in hopes of cashing in or "just to see", but I can't see anybody putting themselves through what is almost guaranteed to be a horrible experience again without that payoff.  And no way in hell has he ever gotten anyone strictly because of his personality, or anyone a second time based on his performance.  Selfish, narcissistic, nasty, and demanding do not good lovers make.  Little Trumpers have their own set of equally attractive qualities.   

Stormy Daniels described his performance as perfunctory

[Tennesseer]

I wonder if Stormy Daniels used tweezers.

[tallguy]

Jan 9, 2022 21:42:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 9, 2022 19:55:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I'd probably bet any amount of money that Trump (for one) has never in his life gotten the same woman twice without paying her in some way.  They might do it once for free in hopes of cashing in or "just to see", but I can't see anybody putting themselves through what is almost guaranteed to be a horrible experience again without that payoff.  And no way in hell has he ever gotten anyone strictly because of his personality, or anyone a second time based on his performance.  Selfish, narcissistic, nasty, and demanding do not good lovers make.  Little Trumpers have their own set of equally attractive qualities.   

Stormy Daniels described his performance as perfunctory

Well, it is certainly nice to get better reviews than that....

[dondub]

I’m assuming that he, being Trump, thinks he is a great lay because he has had access to so many (allegedly) beautiful women. That he is bigly tremendous in bed. But I totally agree with tallguys earlier sentiments... he never got a round two without paying a price. And faked O’s....is there any doubt?

[Opti]

Jan 9, 2022 21:12:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 9, 2022 21:01:26 GMT -5 hkguy said:

Conservatives are conservative because they fear change, fear it.  They want to defend the status quo.

They fear change because they feel any change comes at THEIR expense.  "You're not going to take my tax money and give it to some damn immigrant!"

Liberals are liberal because they fear the status quo, fear it.  They fear that if nothing changes it will be at THEIR expense. "The 1% get richer under the current

rules and the rest of us get poorer!"

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional.  And unfounded.

Change is inevitable.  The world does not stand still or go backwards, it moves on.  We are not going to bring back the '50's. 

But change is glacial!  It doesn't come overnight, or this next year or maybe not this decade.  Change takes time.

If both sides would take the emotion out of the dialogues and understand the fear the other side feels; maybe we can get back to talking to each other civilly again.

(I did not vote for Trump.  He is a despicable human being.  But we should be able to do better than Biden.)

While I think you are correct that conservatives are driven by fear, I would disagree that liberals are as well.  Liberals do not fear the status quo.  They simply will never accept it as good enough. 

I want to make the world a better place for all. That's not a fear choice, if anything, it is a love choice.

[thyme4change]

Change is inevitable. The world does not stand still or go backwards, it moves on. We are not going to bring back the '50's.

Change is inevitable, but things do move backwards, and while liberals do fear things will stay the same, they fear things will change in the wrong direction even more.

One example of moving backwards is the US had terrible working conditions with very little protection for workers about 100 years ago. And the street urchin problem was huge. Mother Jones advanced the worker's rights movement, and by the 60s we had unions that protected workers and the ability to make a decent living. Between the unions becoming a big powerful industry themselves and political change, they tumbled, and now we are back to a working class that is in low paid positions with no protections or the ability to provide basic human needs to themselves and their families. And guess what. Homelessness is way up. Didn't we have that all worked out? But, we moved backwards.

Also - for a less wordy version of the world moving backwards - how do I know that some horrid "Christian" version of this won't happen if I don't fight against it.

[teen persuasion]

Sure, conservatives can and occasionally entertain the idea of creating their own social networks and even universities, so they can hang out with each other, instead of constantly demanding attention from liberals. But apparently, they don't like each other's company any more than liberals do, and so they always circle back to yelling at liberals, accusing the left of "intolerance" for finding right-wingers unpleasant people to be around.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 9, 2022 17:32:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Today's Democrats/liberals are all about granting civil rights. 

Today's Republicans/conservatives are all about taking away civil rights, 

The discussion was probably inevitable.

As high court signals Roe v. Wade reversal, states eye same-sex marriage protections

Nearly seven years after the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage the law of the land, New Jersey enacted a law Monday to protect this relatively new right throughout the Garden State.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — which legalized sex-marriage nationwide in 2015 — New Jersey’s state courts had already struck down a same-sex marriage ban in 2013.

But as a majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared open to overturning Roe v. Wade last month, new fears that the court could also make an about-face on the Obergefell ruling have prompted some lawmakers to enshrine same-sex marriage into state law.

“We’ve been fighting for marriage equality for decades, and to turn back the clock would be devastating,” New Jersey Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, who co-sponsored the newly passed bill, told NBC News. “I can’t emphasize enough the fact that we need to safeguard it in light of what’s happening on a federal level today.

Both chambers of the New Jersey Legislature passed the bill last month, and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed it into law Monday.

“Despite the progress we have made as a country, there is still much work to be done to protect the LGBTQ+ community from intolerance and injustice,” Murphy said in a statement. “New Jersey is stronger and fairer when every member of our LGBTQ+ family is valued and given equal protection under the law.”

Last month, the Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments concerning a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy. A majority of the court’s conservative justices appeared prepared to uphold the law and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade — the 1973 landmark decision holding that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion before fetal viability, usually around 24 weeks.

The prospect of the 1973 ruling being overturned has prompted fears among lawmakers and LGBTQ advocates that the justices might also walk back precedent on a range of other cases, including Obergefell.

Before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, 37 states and U.S. territories had already legalized marriage equality. But of those, only 19 had legalized the nuptials through state legislation, according to an NBC News analysis. Therefore, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, same-sex marriage would be prohibited in the majority of the country and vulnerable in states where it was not written into law.

“The Supreme Court right now is showing us that nothing is guaranteed,” West Virginia Del. Cody Thompson said. “A lot of things that we take for granted right now, that we think are enshrined and are safe, ultimately now we’re realizing are not safe and are not necessarily always going to be there for us unless we remain vigilant.”

Complete article here: As high court signals Roe v. Wade reversal, states eye same-sex marriage protections

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jan 11, 2022 10:48:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 9, 2022 17:32:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Today's Democrats/liberals are all about granting civil rights. 

Today's Republicans/conservatives are all about taking away civil rights, 

The discussion was probably inevitable.

As high court signals Roe v. Wade reversal, states eye same-sex marriage protections

Nearly seven years after the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage the law of the land, New Jersey enacted a law Monday to protect this relatively new right throughout the Garden State.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — which legalized sex-marriage nationwide in 2015 — New Jersey’s state courts had already struck down a same-sex marriage ban in 2013.

But as a majority of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared open to overturning Roe v. Wade last month, new fears that the court could also make an about-face on the Obergefell ruling have prompted some lawmakers to enshrine same-sex marriage into state law.

“We’ve been fighting for marriage equality for decades, and to turn back the clock would be devastating,” New Jersey Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, who co-sponsored the newly passed bill, told NBC News. “I can’t emphasize enough the fact that we need to safeguard it in light of what’s happening on a federal level today.

Both chambers of the New Jersey Legislature passed the bill last month, and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed it into law Monday.

“Despite the progress we have made as a country, there is still much work to be done to protect the LGBTQ+ community from intolerance and injustice,” Murphy said in a statement. “New Jersey is stronger and fairer when every member of our LGBTQ+ family is valued and given equal protection under the law.”

Last month, the Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments concerning a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy. A majority of the court’s conservative justices appeared prepared to uphold the law and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade — the 1973 landmark decision holding that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion before fetal viability, usually around 24 weeks.

The prospect of the 1973 ruling being overturned has prompted fears among lawmakers and LGBTQ advocates that the justices might also walk back precedent on a range of other cases, including Obergefell.

Before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, 37 states and U.S. territories had already legalized marriage equality. But of those, only 19 had legalized the nuptials through state legislation, according to an NBC News analysis. Therefore, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, same-sex marriage would be prohibited in the majority of the country and vulnerable in states where it was not written into law.

“The Supreme Court right now is showing us that nothing is guaranteed,” West Virginia Del. Cody Thompson said. “A lot of things that we take for granted right now, that we think are enshrined and are safe, ultimately now we’re realizing are not safe and are not necessarily always going to be there for us unless we remain vigilant.”

Complete article here: As high court signals Roe v. Wade reversal, states eye same-sex marriage protections

Oh but liberals are fear mongering with their constant fighting to make sure we don't go back to the 1950s'.

I'm sorry but one party is trying to do exactly that, if I don't stop fighting then they win.   Rights can always be taken away and it is a hell of a lot harder to get them back than it is to keep fighting to protect them.

[Tennesseer]

If they gain control in the 2022 and 2024 elections and beyond, trump supporters and their elected officials would probably order the producers and director of the movie Pleassntville to add additional black and white film scenes at the end of it.

[djAdvocate]

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional. And unfounded.


Change is inevitable.

this is an interesting pair of lines. conservatives fear change, but change is inevitable. therefore, completing the syllogism, their fear is inevitable.

[justme]

Jan 11, 2022 11:18:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If they gain control in the 2022 and 2024 elections and beyond, trump supporters and their elected officials would probably order the producers and director of the movie Pleassntville to add additional black and white film scenes at the end of it.

Should we place bets on whether they get the real meaning of the movie?

[justme]

Jan 11, 2022 13:35:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional. And unfounded.


Change is inevitable.

this is an interesting pair of lines. conservatives fear change, but change is inevitable. therefore, completing the syllogism, their fear is inevitable.

I'd say the only thing to fear is fear itself... but I'm not sure whether the old white dude or Democrat wins out on the one.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 15, 2022 0:57:23 GMT -5 justme said:

Jan 11, 2022 13:35:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

What neither side will acknowledge is that this fear, while real, is emotional. And unfounded.


Change is inevitable.

this is an interesting pair of lines. conservatives fear change, but change is inevitable. therefore, completing the syllogism, their fear is inevitable.

I'd say the only thing to fear is fear itself... but I'm not sure whether the old white dude or Democrat wins out on the one.

the best leaders appeal to our bravery.

the worst leaders appeal to our fear.

I have never seen a great leader in the US in my lifetime.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 15, 2022 0:54:30 GMT -5 justme said:

Jan 11, 2022 11:18:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If they gain control in the 2022 and 2024 elections and beyond, trump supporters and their elected officials would probably order the producers and director of the movie Pleassntville to add additional black and white film scenes at the end of it.

Should we place bets on whether they get the real meaning of the movie?

No.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 15, 2022 0:54:30 GMT -5 justme said:

Jan 11, 2022 11:18:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If they gain control in the 2022 and 2024 elections and beyond, trump supporters and their elected officials would probably order the producers and director of the movie Pleassntville to add additional black and white film scenes at the end of it.

Should we place bets on whether they get the real meaning of the movie?

I probably take this film a bit more seriously than I should.  but for me, it is a fairly accurate portrayal of the two prevailing forces in our politics: conservative and liberal.  conservatives want to preserve a predictable social order.  and that WOULD be fine if that predictable social order was to the benefit of everyone.  but it really isn't- because the social order arose from a time when things were VERY unfair, and there are still inherent elements of unfairness.  liberals want change, including (sometimes) things that are actually working pretty well.  but overall, liberals don't mind things messy, like a Monet or a Picasso or a Pollack.  we don't need it to be like Rembrandt or Michelangelo or DaVinci (though that is fine, too).  the world is not black and white.  why should our society be?

I appreciate the DESIRE for a perfect society.  I get it.

but that really is just not how things are meant to be, imo.