Topic: Project 2025
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #119,168
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,307,519
Seems like a good list to me. 👍
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,521
Chuckle Brother 2 !ErY2TknG0w joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,526
I see Matt is out in full force crying about everything.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,527
@previous (Chuckle Brother 2 !ErY2TknG0w)
Stop derailing every thread to post about Matt, you obsessed retard.
Stop derailing every thread to post about Matt, you obsessed retard.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 52 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,528
Chuckle Brother 2 !ErY2TknG0w replied with this 1 year ago, 58 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,530
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,532
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,533
@1,307,530 (Chuckle Brother 2 !ErY2TknG0w)
I am Matt Miller you dumb shit.
I am Matt Miller you dumb shit.
(Edited 1 day later by a moderator.)
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,534
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,535
@1,307,533 (A)
just start using a tripcode. that way they won't feel the urge to identify you. I mean everyone knows it's you anyhow.
just start using a tripcode. that way they won't feel the urge to identify you. I mean everyone knows it's you anyhow.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,536
@previous (E)
Doesn't matter to him. He'll still use someone else's name like he does boof and syntax.
Doesn't matter to him. He'll still use someone else's name like he does boof and syntax.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,538
Ending no fault divorce is important. How is anyone supposed to make that commitment if the other person can bail, and ruin them financially and emotionally for no reason whatsoever? Women have a lot to lose if they give their 20s to a guy and then get no fault divorced, left to find another man in their 30s. This puts responsibility on BOTH people in the marriage, and should be a no brainer. Instead feminists have decided it enslaves women, while giving a pass to men.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,540
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,542
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
That might be true, but they would still need to prove it. Accusations shouldn't be enough.
On the other side of it, kids lose stable homes, parents need to spend twice as much on two homes, and people get very wary of getting married to begin with.
There's no perfect solution, but society should at least try to keep families together.
That might be true, but they would still need to prove it. Accusations shouldn't be enough.
On the other side of it, kids lose stable homes, parents need to spend twice as much on two homes, and people get very wary of getting married to begin with.
There's no perfect solution, but society should at least try to keep families together.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,549
@previous (F)
It seems as though you are promoting trapping people in unhappy marriages. Those arent stable homes for children
It seems as though you are promoting trapping people in unhappy marriages. Those arent stable homes for children
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,551
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
People aren't being trapped in unhappy marriages, they are treating marriage like it doesn't matter and leaving when they are bored or because they want to make money.
Children will materially suffer if their parents have to double their largest expenses, and a slightly happier parent isn't going to make up for that. Adults should learn to control their emotions and take care of their kids even if they aren't constantly euphoric, breaking up a family and destroying the generational wealth the child would inherit is much worse than two parents who aren't perfectly happy.
Women initiate 70% of divorces and usually win alimony and primary custody (child support with that) without providing fault. It's emotionally unstable people who want to legally parasite off someone they pretended to love.
Children raised in single-parent households have significant documented problems as a result from higher rates of poverty and criminality. Feminism doesn't care about that, even when the child is a girl, and would rather support hedonistic women gaining power and having more independence to party even if it destroys the lives of everyone around them.
People aren't being trapped in unhappy marriages, they are treating marriage like it doesn't matter and leaving when they are bored or because they want to make money.
Children will materially suffer if their parents have to double their largest expenses, and a slightly happier parent isn't going to make up for that. Adults should learn to control their emotions and take care of their kids even if they aren't constantly euphoric, breaking up a family and destroying the generational wealth the child would inherit is much worse than two parents who aren't perfectly happy.
Women initiate 70% of divorces and usually win alimony and primary custody (child support with that) without providing fault. It's emotionally unstable people who want to legally parasite off someone they pretended to love.
Children raised in single-parent households have significant documented problems as a result from higher rates of poverty and criminality. Feminism doesn't care about that, even when the child is a girl, and would rather support hedonistic women gaining power and having more independence to party even if it destroys the lives of everyone around them.
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,552
> banning contraceptives and abortion
Of course it's the party that appeals to men that are pushing this, while the liberals are against it.
It completely contradicts the line pushed by the left that men are just obsessed with sex. Men want to form stable families but are surrounded by women with no plans for building a future, and this is the ideal way to stop getting scammed by narcissistic and hedonistic women who just trade sex and a hypothetical relationship for resources.
The sex industry is wasteful and even the feminists pushing for it to be normalized and enabled are never happy after they hit the wall and can't continue it anymore.
Of course it's the party that appeals to men that are pushing this, while the liberals are against it.
It completely contradicts the line pushed by the left that men are just obsessed with sex. Men want to form stable families but are surrounded by women with no plans for building a future, and this is the ideal way to stop getting scammed by narcissistic and hedonistic women who just trade sex and a hypothetical relationship for resources.
The sex industry is wasteful and even the feminists pushing for it to be normalized and enabled are never happy after they hit the wall and can't continue it anymore.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,554
@1,307,551 (F)
Alimony isn't as common as you think. Also, most men get 50% of custody when they absolutely for it
Do some research on this
Alimony isn't as common as you think. Also, most men get 50% of custody when they absolutely for it
Do some research on this
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,555
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Also, most men get 50% of custody when they absolutely for it
That's selection bias. Men go for it when they know they have a strong case against the mother, or that she won't even fight it.
It doesn't change the fact that 7 in 10 divorces are initiated by the mother, and regardless of who gets custody that child now has parents that have doubled their primary expenses which means the child will have a significant hit to their standard of living.
The lost money could have contributed to health food, medical care, fees for social programs, nicer clothes and a lot more. The child will lose out on that because most women see nothing wrong with hurting their own children so they can have strange men fill their holes.
> Also, most men get 50% of custody when they absolutely for it
That's selection bias. Men go for it when they know they have a strong case against the mother, or that she won't even fight it.
It doesn't change the fact that 7 in 10 divorces are initiated by the mother, and regardless of who gets custody that child now has parents that have doubled their primary expenses which means the child will have a significant hit to their standard of living.
The lost money could have contributed to health food, medical care, fees for social programs, nicer clothes and a lot more. The child will lose out on that because most women see nothing wrong with hurting their own children so they can have strange men fill their holes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,556
@previous (F)
You have very weird hangups about relationships. Did your parents get divorced? Are you a virgin? You just seem like you catastrophize things rather than approach them rationally.
You have very weird hangups about relationships. Did your parents get divorced? Are you a virgin? You just seem like you catastrophize things rather than approach them rationally.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,559
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Is it really weird for someone to see settled stats about how this affects children, and to think that all of these things matter more than whether the mother gets to feel independent?
What is the moral calculus behind her feelings being more important than so many material and documented factors that will impact the health, financial stability, educational attainment, imprisonment, and other aspects of wellbeing?
You could open the Project 2025 book and find their justification for any of these policies. When have feminist groups laid out a manifesto explaining their reasoning?
It's such and obvious case of right and wrong, and yet nearly half the country leans towards the side that doesn't put much effort into justifying itself and is on the face of it completely negligent and destructive.
It's not "catastrophizing" to draw conclusions from the data, catastrophizing is when you predict negative outcomes that don't match with the data.
How did you come to any other conclusion?
As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that? Why does a group that wants sex more than anything constantly put up barriers to just that? Is the answer always "the other side is just dumb"?
Is it really weird for someone to see settled stats about how this affects children, and to think that all of these things matter more than whether the mother gets to feel independent?
What is the moral calculus behind her feelings being more important than so many material and documented factors that will impact the health, financial stability, educational attainment, imprisonment, and other aspects of wellbeing?
You could open the Project 2025 book and find their justification for any of these policies. When have feminist groups laid out a manifesto explaining their reasoning?
It's such and obvious case of right and wrong, and yet nearly half the country leans towards the side that doesn't put much effort into justifying itself and is on the face of it completely negligent and destructive.
It's not "catastrophizing" to draw conclusions from the data, catastrophizing is when you predict negative outcomes that don't match with the data.
How did you come to any other conclusion?
As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that? Why does a group that wants sex more than anything constantly put up barriers to just that? Is the answer always "the other side is just dumb"?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,560
@previous (F)
> Is it really weird for someone to see settled stats about how this affects children, and to think that all of these things matter more than whether the mother gets to feel independent?
It's not about the mother feeling independent. It's about picking the least bad option for everyone involved. Staying in an abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationship is not good for children. Divorcing isn't without its own drawbacks, but a bad relationship is not uniformly better for the kids than a divorce. If you want the best outcome for children, you should try to focus on making relationships be healthy, not impossible to get out of.
> As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that?
People in committed relationships are not having casual sex, that's an entirely different subject.
> Is it really weird for someone to see settled stats about how this affects children, and to think that all of these things matter more than whether the mother gets to feel independent?
It's not about the mother feeling independent. It's about picking the least bad option for everyone involved. Staying in an abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationship is not good for children. Divorcing isn't without its own drawbacks, but a bad relationship is not uniformly better for the kids than a divorce. If you want the best outcome for children, you should try to focus on making relationships be healthy, not impossible to get out of.
> As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that?
People in committed relationships are not having casual sex, that's an entirely different subject.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,563
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> It's not about the mother feeling independent. It's about picking the least bad option for everyone involved. Staying in an abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationship is not good for children. Divorcing isn't without its own drawbacks, but a bad relationship is not uniformly better for the kids than a divorce. If you want the best outcome for children, you should try to focus on making relationships be healthy, not impossible to get out of.
It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
> >As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that?
> People in committed relationships are not having casual sex, that's an entirely different subject.
That's my point. All these men on the right are trying to create families, and the response on the left is the same every time. Leftists conflate this desire for a family as a desire for sex, and come to the conclusion that the people highlighting a problem are just too undesirable to get sex.
It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
> It's not about the mother feeling independent. It's about picking the least bad option for everyone involved. Staying in an abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationship is not good for children. Divorcing isn't without its own drawbacks, but a bad relationship is not uniformly better for the kids than a divorce. If you want the best outcome for children, you should try to focus on making relationships be healthy, not impossible to get out of.
It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
> >As to the virgin thing, no, and like I said this is entirely how the left tries to frame it when clearly everything the right puts out would clearly lead to less casual sex. What's the rationalization for that?
> People in committed relationships are not having casual sex, that's an entirely different subject.
That's my point. All these men on the right are trying to create families, and the response on the left is the same every time. Leftists conflate this desire for a family as a desire for sex, and come to the conclusion that the people highlighting a problem are just too undesirable to get sex.
It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,564
@1,307,555 (F)
You have no proof of that claim. I could just as easily say that men don't want custody
Also, women tend to do the "clerical" work in relationships. So why would they file the psoetwork to initiate a divorce?
You have no proof of that claim. I could just as easily say that men don't want custody
Also, women tend to do the "clerical" work in relationships. So why would they file the psoetwork to initiate a divorce?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,565
@1,307,563 (F)
> It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
The emotional well-being of the children is a material fact about the relationship and the world. And there is absolutely no guarantee that in an unhappy marriage, the parents are spending their on-paper higher combined income on their kids, or even necessarily living together. They could be blowing it all on booze and drugs, sleeping with other people, or whatever. It's totally possible that the kids will get more attention and money given to them by two divorced parents than two unhappily married parents.
> At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
So your solution to "there is an unhappy marriage resulting in unhappy parents and unhappy children" is "it can't be fixed. Suck it up and just be unhappy, but be happy about it." Sorry but that is dumb as shit.
> It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
Get off the internet. Seriously, you are not mentally equipped to handle it. I have lived in extremely left of center places my entire life. Almost all my friends and acquaintances are liberals, socialists, or worse. 95% of them are in a relationship, married, have kids, or want kids. Not one of them will tell you that people who want to start families are perverts because THEY ALL WANT TO START FAMILIES. No offense, but you seem like you read the absolute dumbest conservative agitprop on the internet and believe all of it hook line and sinker. You are just not cut out for the deluge of propaganda you subject yourself to every day. The best thing you can do to understand the world is to go out and interact with real people in real life who have real relationships. You have lost all mooring to the world that exists outside your glowing screen and you need a system reboot.
> It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
The emotional well-being of the children is a material fact about the relationship and the world. And there is absolutely no guarantee that in an unhappy marriage, the parents are spending their on-paper higher combined income on their kids, or even necessarily living together. They could be blowing it all on booze and drugs, sleeping with other people, or whatever. It's totally possible that the kids will get more attention and money given to them by two divorced parents than two unhappily married parents.
> At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
So your solution to "there is an unhappy marriage resulting in unhappy parents and unhappy children" is "it can't be fixed. Suck it up and just be unhappy, but be happy about it." Sorry but that is dumb as shit.
> It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
Get off the internet. Seriously, you are not mentally equipped to handle it. I have lived in extremely left of center places my entire life. Almost all my friends and acquaintances are liberals, socialists, or worse. 95% of them are in a relationship, married, have kids, or want kids. Not one of them will tell you that people who want to start families are perverts because THEY ALL WANT TO START FAMILIES. No offense, but you seem like you read the absolute dumbest conservative agitprop on the internet and believe all of it hook line and sinker. You are just not cut out for the deluge of propaganda you subject yourself to every day. The best thing you can do to understand the world is to go out and interact with real people in real life who have real relationships. You have lost all mooring to the world that exists outside your glowing screen and you need a system reboot.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,566
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 34 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,567
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,568
@1,307,565 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> >It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
> The emotional well-being of the children is a material fact about the relationship and the world. And there is absolutely no guarantee that in an unhappy marriage, the parents are spending their on-paper higher combined income on their kids, or even necessarily living together. They could be blowing it all on booze and drugs, sleeping with other people, or whatever. It's totally possible that the kids will get more attention and money given to them by two divorced parents than two unhappily married parents.
Yes it's possible, but you could question anything by bringing up intangible aspects.
It should still make people question why the measurable, objective metrics all show negative outcomes for those kids. If happiness improved, why do the children show higher rates of all these problems?
> >At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
> So your solution to "there is an unhappy marriage resulting in unhappy parents and unhappy children" is "it can't be fixed. Suck it up and just be unhappy, but be happy about it." Sorry but that is dumb as shit.
I can't really respond to "that's dumb". What's the flaw there? If you need constant novelty to be happy, if you have some indescribable problem that requires you to cause that much damage then it may just be a mental condition that needs to be solved some other way.
It's putting feelings before reality, and that's going to cause real problems anywhere.
> >It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
> Get off the internet. Seriously, you are not mentally equipped to handle it. I have lived in extremely left of center places my entire life. Almost all my friends and acquaintances are liberals, socialists, or worse. 95% of them are in a relationship, married, have kids, or want kids. Not one of them will tell you that people who want to start families are perverts because THEY ALL WANT TO START FAMILIES. No offense, but you seem like you read the absolute dumbest conservative agitprop on the internet and believe all of it hook line and sinker. You are just not cut out for the deluge of propaganda you subject yourself to every day. The best thing you can do to understand the world is to go out and interact with real people in real life who have real relationships. You have lost all mooring to the world that exists outside your glowing screen and you need a system reboot.
All the people on the internet you see complaining about this exist in meat space too, it's not some random phenomena that popped up for no reason on the internet without any cause.
I've met a lot of men who describe exactly what I'm saying, in person, face-to-face.
Even the men that checked the boxes are in situations where they've obviously dated down, or have to deal with someone who is very high maintenance.
Why you don't see this in your life is a complete mystery to me. Maybe you're ignoring the mismatch in "leagues" out of some sense of respect for the woman. Or maybe you live in a wealthier bubble, because it's men in the service industry that I've seen deal with this the most. What guy is going to be open and honest that he's depressed because nothing happened with the last 5 women he dated when that will have him labeled a loser and an incel?
It's not a coincidence politics has become gendered, and it's not a coincidence the people who monitor and report on politics are flashing warning signs for a political breakdown. You have to be in denial to see all that and say it's not real, that people are just overreacting because of social media.
> >It could be better to divorce, but given how common it is, and with the enormous cost is it really believable that a feeling is more important than the material wellbeing?
> The emotional well-being of the children is a material fact about the relationship and the world. And there is absolutely no guarantee that in an unhappy marriage, the parents are spending their on-paper higher combined income on their kids, or even necessarily living together. They could be blowing it all on booze and drugs, sleeping with other people, or whatever. It's totally possible that the kids will get more attention and money given to them by two divorced parents than two unhappily married parents.
Yes it's possible, but you could question anything by bringing up intangible aspects.
It should still make people question why the measurable, objective metrics all show negative outcomes for those kids. If happiness improved, why do the children show higher rates of all these problems?
> >At a certain point it people should be asking what was making people unhappy, and how to fix it. The answer could be to suck it up for the greater good.
> So your solution to "there is an unhappy marriage resulting in unhappy parents and unhappy children" is "it can't be fixed. Suck it up and just be unhappy, but be happy about it." Sorry but that is dumb as shit.
I can't really respond to "that's dumb". What's the flaw there? If you need constant novelty to be happy, if you have some indescribable problem that requires you to cause that much damage then it may just be a mental condition that needs to be solved some other way.
It's putting feelings before reality, and that's going to cause real problems anywhere.
> >It's the left that can't understand the distinction, and promotes promiscuity and commodification of sex. Painting people who want to start families as perverts and incels is how you alienate those people from society, and drives them into fascism.
> Get off the internet. Seriously, you are not mentally equipped to handle it. I have lived in extremely left of center places my entire life. Almost all my friends and acquaintances are liberals, socialists, or worse. 95% of them are in a relationship, married, have kids, or want kids. Not one of them will tell you that people who want to start families are perverts because THEY ALL WANT TO START FAMILIES. No offense, but you seem like you read the absolute dumbest conservative agitprop on the internet and believe all of it hook line and sinker. You are just not cut out for the deluge of propaganda you subject yourself to every day. The best thing you can do to understand the world is to go out and interact with real people in real life who have real relationships. You have lost all mooring to the world that exists outside your glowing screen and you need a system reboot.
All the people on the internet you see complaining about this exist in meat space too, it's not some random phenomena that popped up for no reason on the internet without any cause.
I've met a lot of men who describe exactly what I'm saying, in person, face-to-face.
Even the men that checked the boxes are in situations where they've obviously dated down, or have to deal with someone who is very high maintenance.
Why you don't see this in your life is a complete mystery to me. Maybe you're ignoring the mismatch in "leagues" out of some sense of respect for the woman. Or maybe you live in a wealthier bubble, because it's men in the service industry that I've seen deal with this the most. What guy is going to be open and honest that he's depressed because nothing happened with the last 5 women he dated when that will have him labeled a loser and an incel?
It's not a coincidence politics has become gendered, and it's not a coincidence the people who monitor and report on politics are flashing warning signs for a political breakdown. You have to be in denial to see all that and say it's not real, that people are just overreacting because of social media.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,569
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,570
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,571
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not to the degree they are today.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/politics/gender-gap-2024-election-analysis/index.html
Not to the degree they are today.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/politics/gender-gap-2024-election-analysis/index.html
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 53 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,572
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,573
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,574
@1,307,572 (F)
The person who files the paperwork isn't necessarily the person who ended the marriage. It's an easy concept to grasp
The person who files the paperwork isn't necessarily the person who ended the marriage. It's an easy concept to grasp
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,575
@1,307,573 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Even if it wasn't documented, which it is and I gave one link to support that, how would it be "privileged"?
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You genuinely believe women are filing as the initiator of a divorce because that man didn't want to do the paperwork?
Even if it wasn't documented, which it is and I gave one link to support that, how would it be "privileged"?
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You genuinely believe women are filing as the initiator of a divorce because that man didn't want to do the paperwork?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,577
Trump has disavowed it. The people who wrote it are not affiliated with Trump or the Trump campaign.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,579
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,581
@1,307,577 (H)
lol he said he's never heard of it, then went on to cite things in it. Good thing we know he's not a liar.
lol he said he's never heard of it, then went on to cite things in it. Good thing we know he's not a liar.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,584
@1,307,575 (F)
Politics have always been gendered and your link doesn't change that. It's privilege to see everything that women have had to fight for politically, and declare that politics have just become gendered
Yes I do believe that men hate doing paperwork and that women are primarily the
doers of clerical work in the family
Politics have always been gendered and your link doesn't change that. It's privilege to see everything that women have had to fight for politically, and declare that politics have just become gendered
Yes I do believe that men hate doing paperwork and that women are primarily the
doers of clerical work in the family
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,590
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Politics have always been gendered and your link doesn't change that.
Ignoring a relative claim to pretend it's an absolute claim is just another form of a strawman.
Obviously gender has always played a role in politics, but the current gendering of political parties is new. You can ignore the link, but the data is there. This isn't a phenomena that has historical precedence.
> It's privilege to see everything that women have had to fight for politically, and declare that politics have just become gendered
That's not what privilege means, even if I am wrong in my claim.
> Yes I do believe that men hate doing paperwork and that women are primarily the
> doers of clerical work in the family
If the wife wanted to keep things together, and the relationship looked like it was over anyway, she could just make him do it himself.
Your using mental gymnastics to imply a statistic actually means the opposite of what it clearly shows.
> Politics have always been gendered and your link doesn't change that.
Ignoring a relative claim to pretend it's an absolute claim is just another form of a strawman.
Obviously gender has always played a role in politics, but the current gendering of political parties is new. You can ignore the link, but the data is there. This isn't a phenomena that has historical precedence.
> It's privilege to see everything that women have had to fight for politically, and declare that politics have just become gendered
That's not what privilege means, even if I am wrong in my claim.
> Yes I do believe that men hate doing paperwork and that women are primarily the
> doers of clerical work in the family
If the wife wanted to keep things together, and the relationship looked like it was over anyway, she could just make him do it himself.
Your using mental gymnastics to imply a statistic actually means the opposite of what it clearly shows.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,611
"Project 2025" is a dumb conspiracy theory that people are freaking out about only because the old story of "Trump will start a nuclear war" wouldn't work again.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,612
@previous (I)
His press secretary is in ads for the Heritage Project to train people in government administration. They set up a bootcamp because replacing that many people is not something you can do overnight.
There's also other ads funded from Trump's superpac where they call it "Trump's Project 2025".
His press secretary is in ads for the Heritage Project to train people in government administration. They set up a bootcamp because replacing that many people is not something you can do overnight.
There's also other ads funded from Trump's superpac where they call it "Trump's Project 2025".
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,613
@previous (F)
Oh no le evil Project 2025 will le delete all of our freedoms and turn us into a le dictatorship! Yikes!
Oh no le evil Project 2025 will le delete all of our freedoms and turn us into a le dictatorship! Yikes!
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,615
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,661
Can someone shoot this guy and Biden too?